Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask or I want to respond to the gentlewoman from Michigan when she said it is the law of the land. I want to read to her what the Supreme Court of the United States has said, that Government can distinguish between abortion and, quote, other medical procedures. In upholding the Hyde amendment the Court said, quote, abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hoyer amendment. I wish colleagues will listen carefully to this. It gets a little complicated. Basically, if we do not speak up against this, the Hoyer amendment is going to delete two paragraphs within the bill, which will allow abortion on demand. The Federal Government pays a portion of the Federal employee benefits program; the premium that we all pay, the Government pays a portion of it. Nine million Federal Government employees, their dependents and retirees are covered under this plan. Should the American taxpayers have an interest in the health care coverage of Federal employees? Absolutely. You bet. Most Americans, even if they can accept the idea of abortions, do not want to pay for them. Asking anyone to subsidize abortions is offensive enough; asking the American taxpayers, whose hard-earned labor pays for the Government employees' salary to underwrite elective abortions is just plain wrong. I ask all of my colleagues, regardless of what position you are on this, we cannot strike those two paragraphs, because then we will have abortion on demand in the employee's Federal benefit health program.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] was here Friday night saying, ``Let us bring the Stearns amendment forward,'' so I appreciate the gentleman advertising the Stearns amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think many of my colleagues know what this is about. This is about a reduction to the National Endowment for the Arts. I rise today to offer this amendment to H.R. 1977. It cuts an additional $10 million from the fiscal year appropriations for 1996 for the NEA. I want to recognize, of course, my colleague on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. [[Page H 7033]] Yates]. Both he and I have discussed this in the past for a number of years, and I have great respect for him and great respect for his opinion. But I think the time has come now to bring this debate forward to a higher level. I know that people on both sides of the aisle have different opinions on this, but I think we are now at a point of not only fiscal responsibility, but we are talking about good stewardship. So as I said before, I have offered reductions to the NEA funding for many years and I believe that at this time, in this time of fiscal crisis, we must put each and every Federal program under the microscope. And so my colleagues bear with me, let us take a good look at this program. Is this program vital to our Nation's well-being or could it be reduced and phased out? H.R. 1977, as reported, reduces funding for the NEA 39 percent from the fiscal year 1995 levels of $167 million; a small but timed step in the right direction. My amendment would cut closer to what I believe the majority want; reduce, saving further, saving the taxpayers $77 million. In addition, my amendment moves us one step closer to full and total phaseout of the NEA. This is the first of a 2-year phaseout. Under my amendment, the NEA would be eliminated during this, the 104th Congress. Unlike the agreement reached and outlined in the rule, my amendment would not guarantee the NEA a fiscal year 1997 funding level of $99 million. It would give the NEA only those funds necessary for the agency to close its door with all deliberate speed. The amendment also, as I mentioned earlier, strikes a strong blow for fiscal responsibility. I think, my colleagues, we must demonstrate tonight that we are serious about reducing spending and only fund those projects that are absolutely necessary. Ask yourself this question: Does the NEA defend Americans against invasion? Does it protect Americans from crime? Does it shield them from economic hardship? In other words, does it do these things that are important for the Federal Government to do for its citizens? Simply put, the NEA has not proved itself necessary of this Federal funding. In a world where every American family now owes $80,000 of the national debt, every penny counts and in this type of world, we must look at the NEA. Many of my colleagues might say to themselves, ``Well, the NEA has done a lot of good projects.'' But, Mr. Chairman, over the years there has been a great deal of controversy from this agency. This agency continues to have controversy. This very summer, the NEA has been embroiled in controversy surrounding its support, but financially and philosophically, of Highways, a Los Angeles Performing Arts Center. Mr. Chairman, I am sure most people in the House do not know what Highways, a Los Angeles performing arts center, does. As reported in the newspaper, the center received $15,000 this year from the NEA. I have here a brochure, if people in the House would like to look at this brochure. It has all the lurid details and the photographs that will help my colleagues understand that there has not been good stewardship. My colleagues will notice in the left-hand corner of the brochure, there is the good seal of approval from the National Endowment for the Arts. I think most of my colleagues would realize that this brochure, which talks about the performing arts schedule out at Santa Monica, is not the kind of literature the taxpayers should be supporting. This is sexually explicit homosexual art material and it is entitled, and I am reading right off the brochure, ``Ecco Lesbo--Ecco Homo,'' series of plays. Apparently, the chief purpose of this festival is to provoke conservatives and religious Americans with their presentation. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to go into all the details, but for some of my colleagues I just want to take one moment to read what one of the scheduled performances on July 2, in fact from June 28 to July 2, they are talking about pain, regret, self-pity, doom, and quote, ``Sex With Newt Gingrich's Mother.'' I bring that forward not because it is inflammatory--which it is--but to point out this is just a small sample of the things that are in this brochure. These are performances that are occurring in July and August: The Funny Gay Males in July 5 through 9, and it just goes on and on with things that I think are just too lurid to talk about, even on a Monday night. Mr. Chairman, we could say to ourselves, ``Where is Jane Alexander? Let us talk to her about this. She is the chairwoman of the NEA.'' Well, she has written a letter to all my colleagues. She argued that NEA paid only for general administrative support to the Highways Arts Center and none of the money went to the performing artists. Furthermore, she goes on to say ``Federal funding is simply a reflection of the community they are attempting to serve with our help.'' But the majority of taxpayers do not agree. She actually defends this lurid junk by claiming that such performances are an exemplification of Los Angeles. I do not think this is. I think my colleagues from Los Angeles should be offended. I know I am. There is no argument here. By giving Highways one taxpayer dollar, the Government and its Federal arts agency implicitly supports the Highways Arts Center. They put the NEA sealer on this flyer, so we have to endorse it. After all, we wrote the check. My colleagues, it is wrong and there are no two ways about it. Mr. Chairman, I would like to stop at this moment to allow the other side an opportunity, before I continue. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important vote. The agreement that was reached on the rule is self-actuating. It was done in the middle of the night. Now, however, we have the opportunity to put this vote on the House floor, an up or down, on taking this program and eliminating it in 2 years. [[Page H 7036]] It is accountable to the public? No, I do not think it is. This kind of literature that the NEA is supporting is wrong. The NEA betrayed the people who made its existence possible. Would you get reelected tomorrow if you betrayed the public trust? No. Sure, you have done a lot of good things. But if you continue to betray the public trust day in and day out, year in and year out, you are not going to get reelected. NEA should not be reelected. This is an important vote. You will have to vote up or down. It is for a 2-year phaseout. My colleagues, we deserve this vote, and I appreciate the leadership giving it to me. Can you really say the NEA has exercised good stewardship of your public money? Send a message to this organization. Make this agency know they are not being responsible. Vote for decency, morality, and stewardship, and vote ``yes'' on the Sterns amendment to the NEA. It cuts a further 10 percent. That is all. It phases the NEA down in 2 years.

Mr. STEARNS. These are all rhetorical questions. You can use your time. You worked as hard as you could to represent a 2 percent cut as the maximum the NEA could take, The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] said 1 percent was all he could accept. By golly, now, we are taking 39 percent. I am asked for another 10 percent tonight, another 10-percent cut. I ask people on this side to realize there has got to be some stewardship when the chairwoman of the NEA says it is all right to give money to this.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks]. The gentleman from Washington will remember our debate in prior times. He will remember that I tried to cut the NEA by 5 percent, and his side said we could not cut it 5 percent, we could only cut it 1 percent. We had a vote on that. Then we went up to 2 percent and the 2.5. But I would say, in all deference to the gentleman, you have to admit now you are saying that you are not necessarily supporting, but you acknowledge a 40 percent cut is something you are not arguing against. You are not here saying restore more money to the NEA.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. The gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] should realize that a poll done by the Los Angeles Times in the early part of this year showed 69 percent of Americans felt the NEA should be reduced drastically. A poll done by CNN in June said 54 percent said it should be eliminated. Let me just tell the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams], and I ask him the question rhetorically, he does not have to answer it, in this grant that went to Highways on July 24 they are going to show a performance of ``Boys Are Us, the next installment in our continuing series of hot summer nights with hot fags.'' Now, on August 14, there is going to be ``dyke night, our series of hot nights with hot dykes. Mr. Chairman, this has the seal of approval of the NEA. This is a rhetorical question. There is the seal of the NEA. There has got to be public stewardship here somewhere down the line. I say to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams], in all deference to him, the American people do not believe we cannot eliminate this program.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague. I also am sorry that you were not able to offer the amendment because I think it is an important amendment. People in rural counties like Lake Country in Florida which is part of my congressional district often use this assistance to make the necessary improvements that keep homes livable while reducing the portion of their budget which they must also spend on utilities. Without such assistance, the homes can become too expensive to maintain and often become uninhabitable. I want to congratulate my colleagues. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will realize this is an important amendment and that we can have an opportunity to debate on it and vote on it up or down in the near future.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, last night, NBC News did an expose on AmeriCorps that proved what a lot of us have suspected for some time-- the program is way over budget and wasting taxpayers' money at a phenomenal rate. AmeriCorps may have worthy goals, but is has lousy execution. According to a report by the General Accounting Office, the Clinton administration projected AmeriCorps to cost $6.43 per hour for each so- called volunteer. The actual cost: $15.65 per hour. Annually, the program was supposed to cost no more than $18,000 per participant. The final tab: $27,000 per participant. Mr. Speaker, these are large sums of money. Most of the citizens in my district, who work full-time jobs to support their whole families, don't earn this kind of money. Why does it cost $27,000 to support just one AmeriCorps participant? On Monday night, the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee cut all funding for President Clinton's so-called national service program. Well, Mr. Speaker, the answer is that it won't anymore. I applaud my colleagues on the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee for stopping this new entitlement program.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference budget report. There is a new breeze coming across this land. The tax and spend policies of the Democrats is over and the ``balance the budget and reduce the burden first'' policy is in place. No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity. Who knew that better than President Kennedy, the leader of your party. Mr. Speaker, the House-passed budget delineates the boldest, most ambitious fiscal blueprint this body has seen in decades. I assure you our plan will turn our country around, propelling America into the next century, once again as the world's strongest and most prosperous nation. My colleagues, I urge you and implore you to pass this budget. If you look at this chart, you will see there is indeed a path, not 432 years, as mentioned by the opposition, the loyal opposition, but, indeed, we do balance the budget. My colleagues, many of our Nation's governors, including Governors Whitman, Weld, Engler, and Thompson have included tax breaks as integral components of their State economic growth plan as well as President Kennedy. There is no good reason to accept the premise, they said in a letter to the Committee on the Budget, ``that current taxes are set at exactly the right level. We think taxes are too high. it is no coincidence, Mr. Speaker, that the citizens of Governor Whitman's state of New Jersey are among the wealthiest in the nation. We must follow through with our tax cut. Do not listen to the rhetoric that taxes are only for the rich. They benefit all Americans, all working Americans. We must decrease their burden. In the end, we must keep our promise to America. When we do so, let us not expect the American people to thank us. For all we have done, it is really nothing more than simply returning to them what is rightfully theirs. Mr. Speaker, the 1980's should have taught us all a very valuable lesson. The 1981 Reagan tax cut sparked the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. If there were any skeptics about the power of tax cuts to boost economic growth before the 1980's, they certainly were silenced by the Reagan revolution's sterling success. This is not mere ideological grandstanding, Mr. Chairman, this is fact. All Americans--even those in the lowest income brackets--experienced real and dramatic growth while Reagan was president. It is unfortunate, but these lessons went unlearned by the Bush and Clinton administrations. Their capitulation to demands by Democratic- controlled Congresses that Federal spending and taxes increase produced significant economic difficulties, including a prolonged recession and income stagnation. Amazingly, under the Clinton administration, incomes decreased while the economy grew. Tax-and-spend policies simply do not work. On the contrary, it is only by reducing taxes that we can spur economic growth and increase American wages. No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity. Kennedy knew it, Reagan knew it, and this House knows it: tax cuts work. Mr. Chairman, the House-passed budget delineates the boldest, most ambitious fiscal blueprint that this body has seen in decades. I assure you, our plan would turn our country around, propelling America into the next century once again as the world's strongest and most prosperous Nation. My colleagues, I urge you, I implore you: this plan and adopt the House-passed tax cuts without--I repeat, without--conditions. The Senate plan throws the baby out with the bath water. It is premised on the notion that we have a deficit not because the Government spends too much, but because the American people are taxed too little. I couldn't disagree more. The tax burden on the American people is too high. In 1948, the average family in America paid 3 percent of its income to the Federal Government. Today that same family is forced to pay 25 percent. My colleagues, the Speaker has called tax cuts the crown jewel of the Contract With America, but they are more than the crown jewel, they are the whole tiara. My colleagues, we must understand that tax cuts and deficit reduction are not an either/or proposition. We can do both, and we should do both. Despite the protests of those who embrace a static view of the economy, tax cuts will not only spur the economy forward, they will yield the Treasury additional revenue as well. Many of our Nation's governors, including Governors Whitman, Weld, Engler, and Thompson, have included tax breaks as integral components of their State economic-growth plans. As they wrote in a recent letter [[Page H 6577]] to Congress, ``There is no good reason to accept the premise that current taxes are set at exactly the right level. We think * * * taxes are too high.'' It is no coincidence, Mr. Chairman, that the citizens of Governor Whitman's State of New Jersey are among the wealthiest in the Nation. Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues have argued eloquently today that now is not the time for tax cuts, that we cannot afford them. My colleagues, the fact is we cannot afford not to cut taxes. Now is no time for cold feet. We must follow through with our tax cuts. We must decrease the tax burden on families. We must keep our promise to the American people. And when we do so, let us not expect the people to thank us, for we will have done nothing great; we will have simply returned to them what is rightfully theirs.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, we can split hairs and we can talk about this, but we have a unique opportunity to pass this amendment and thereby give the people what they want. Let's see if it will work out.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman admit, though, that if we went out to the American public and asked them would they like to protect the flag and would they expect the States to ratify this, the majority of Americans would say yes? In fact, the polls show that 80 percent of the Americans agree.

Mr. STEARNS. Will the gentleman allow me one sentence?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, at 10 o'clock this morning on the floor of this House I had the distinct privilege to lead this body in reciting the pledge of allegiance. If I may, I would like to recite just the opening line again for the benefit of any of my colleagues who weren't here at that time. It states, quite simply: ``I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.'' Allegiance, my colleagues. Allegiance to the flag. Now, some of my colleagues here today may think you can burn the flag, spit on the flag, or otherwise desecrate the flag all while still professing allegiance to it. I disagree. Desecrating the flag is the antithesis of allegiance. It is instead the height of contempt--contempt not only for our sacred symbol, but contempt for the nation it proudly represents. Let us be clear on what this debate is about today. This is certainly a debate about the first amendment. For 213 years of our Nation's history, from the founding until just 6 short years ago, the highest court of the land found nothing wrong with laws that protect the flag from desecration. But in 1989 five Supreme Court justices decided to overturn all legal precedent and declare flag-burning a constitutionally protected form of speech. I have no problem standing up here today and saying emphatically that those five justices were wrong. The Texas versus Johnson decision was yet another case of judicial overreaching by activist judges not content to interpret the law, but feeling the need to re-write it as well. The other thing this debate is about today is the ability of the majority of the American people to determine the laws under which they will live. The fact is, up to 80 percent of Americans are firmly on record supporting a constitutional amendment that protects the American flag from desecration. Who are we, the members of the people's House, to deny the people what they have asked for? How can we have credibility with the American people if we claim to love and honor the flag, as so many of my colleagues have done here today, yet refuse to take the simple step necessary to protect from desecration? Do my colleagues need more evidence that passing this amendment expresses the will of the American people? Fully 48 States--48 States-- already have anti-flag-desecration laws on the books that would be protected by this amendment. My colleagues, if Congress passes this amendment, we will all be amazed at the speed with which virtually every State votes to ratify it. Why is that we allow a law on the books that makes it a Federal crime to burn a dollar bill, but recoil from a law protecting the flag? Is the dollar bill a greater symbol of freedom than the American flag? Why do we outlaw vandalism against the mailbox sitting out here on the corner, yet permit acts of unspeakable violence against the banner under which so many of our sons have died for freedom? Mr. Speaker, the flag of the United States is more than the sum of it parts. It is more than a bolt of cloth arranged into a pattern of stripes and stars, it is the very symbol of liberty itself. From Valley Forge to Vietnam, on every battlefield where American values have been attacked and American lives sacrificed, the flag of the United States has been the shining, indomitable, eternal spirit of American liberty. As Justice Felix Frankfurter has said, ``We live by symbols.'' Symbols may be abstract, but for the patriotic men and women across this land they are certainly more real that contorted arguments of those refuse to give the flag the protection it deserves. Burning the flag offends me, it offends the vast majority of the American people, and it offends the memory of those who gave their lives to uphold the values the flag represents. I urge all my colleagues to lend their strong support to this amendment today.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Menendez amendment. The President has not acted and time is short. Let me be brief: The last thing we need is a Chernobyl in the Caribbean. Cuba is a mere stone's throw from the shores of my home State of Florida. If, God forbid, the inconceivable happens, it is certain Americans would suffer the devastating effects of nuclear exposure. We do not want this on our conscience. It is amazing that even as the news reports show that Russia's Chernobyl plant is now leaking deadly radiation, that same substandard Russian technology is being used to build a nuclear plant in our backyard. Completion of this plant would constitute a real and permanent threat to the health and safety of our country. The Menendez amendment needs to be passed. It is imperative that we take the proper steps to ensure that this type of security and safety threat is not brought to fruition. Mr. Chairman, it is wrong that we give any money to Russia. It is horrendous that we should even consider giving money to Russia for the purpose of building of a nuclear power plant in Cuba. Simply put, Mr. Chairman, we cannot let this happen. We cannot let this happen. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Menendez amendment and to oppose any weakening amendments.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the city of Ocala, FL. This past weekend it won the prestigious title of All-American City from the National Civic League. Competing against 30 other communities from across the Nation. Ocala- Marion County was one of 10 towns to earn recognition for its ability to creatively overcome problems and bring its citizens together. In a time when civic pride and strong community spirit are on the wane, it is refreshing to see a city like my hometown travel a different course, one where the residents still embrace the duties and reap the rewards of citizenship. This city is worthy of this honor. Ocala-Marion County is a town experiencing rapid growth while at the same time preserving those values--thrift, industry, faith, and patriotism--that keep America strong. This Nation could do far worse, and could hardly do better, than to make Ocala a model for communities everywhere. Mr. Speaker, I want to wish Ocala-Marion County continued good fortune, and I encourage the citizens and all its elected officials to wear their new title of All-American City with pride. Truly, they have earned it.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill and would like to thank Chairman Packard and the members of his committee for the effort they put forth in order to bring this bill to the floor and for allowing me to speak on its behalf. I am, however, disappointed that the Rules Committee did not choose to make my own amendment in order. Mr. Chairman, the amendment would have stopped the automatic pay raises for Members of Congress until the Federal Government is once again running under a balanced budget. While passage of this bill will demonstrate to the American people that we are willing to reform our own house, until we make the necessary step to change the law regarding our own salaries, the people we represent will continue to see a Congress that cuts funding for the programs they care about while it continues to raise its own pay. We must return, Mr. Chairman, to the ideals set forth in the 27th amendment to our own Constitution which prohibits pay raises from going into effect until an election has passed. The American people recognize that if your salary went up, you got a raise. They also know that by trying to avoid direct votes on these raises, some Members are trying to hide them and to avoid the spirit of the 27th amendment if not the letter of the law. While we currently vote on our salaries, we have to vote not to raise them in a special bill. With my amendment we would no longer need to take special action to stop raises from going into effect. If the budget was not balanced, Members would get no such raise. We can still take the necessary step. Join me in supporting H.R. 1133 which I have sponsored and which will put this freeze in place. Help us to restore the bonds of trust between our constituents and their reacted representatives. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work of Chairman Solomon and the Rules Committee as well as the work of Chairman Packard and the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee and compliment them on their fine work. And I understand that congressional salaries are not a line item in this bill and that my amendment was therefore difficult to include. Yet without my amendment, it will prove difficult to restore the faith of the American people in their elected officials. Again, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and hope that it will take us a step closer to reforming this great institution in which it has been my honor to serve.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today I will introduce legislation to ensure that Congress maintains its proper role in the realm of foreign relations with the Communist Dictator Castro. In conjunction with similar legislation proposed by our Florida Senator Mack in the other Chamber, this bill will require that the President notify congressional leadership prior to any meetings with the Castro regime and that a timely report be made to the leadership with the results of any such negotiations. With a situation as delicate as negotiations with one of the last Communist regimes left in the world, it is essential that Congress be kept aware of any attempts made by the administration to legitimize the Castro government. Mr. Speaker, while I recognize that it is the preprogative of the President to conduct foreign affairs, it is also the responsibility of the President to keep Congress informed of his actions so that we might respond accordingly. I am pleased that I am able to introduce this bill with bipartisan support and would especially like to thank my colleagues from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Diaz-Balart for their support. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in making sure that the United States does not rush into a closer relationship with a Communist dictatorship without the elected representatives of the people being properly informed.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1817, the Military Construction Appropriations Act. Allow me first to congratulate the chairwoman on her hard work. This bill is about quality of life for our members of the armed services. H.R. 1817 employs sage and sound reasoning. Everything contained in this bill was authorized, and is fully consistent with the House-passed budget resolution. But more importantly, this bill addresses the crisis of military facilities. The main concern of this legislation, as should be the case, is the quality of life for the men, women, and their families, who serve in the Armed Forces. This is not a pork bill. This is a necessary bill. The past decade of declining defense budgets have come at a steep cost. Readiness and morale have suffered drastically. H.R. 1817 addresses this concern--300,000 military families lack adequate housing. Nearly two-thirds of all on-base housing is substandard. It is important to note that a full 40 percent of all funds in this bill will go directly to family housing. In addition, this bill contains important and necessary funds for Camp Blanding, a National Guard installation in my district, as part of the funding for critical construction projects. These projects are required and necessary. They would be used to replace the waste water treatment system, which was built in the late 1930's. The existing system has already been in service for 15 years past its life expectancy. Furthermore, Camp Blanding has been issued a letter of noncompliance by the Department of Environmental Regulation for inadequate chlorine residuals. Their water exceeds the national secondary drinking water regulation's maximum contamination level for iron. Mr. Chairman, the amazing thing is that Camp Blanding is not an aberration, but typical of bases across the country. At the very least, our fighting forces need--they deserve--access to clean drinking water. The military value of such projects should be obvious. Camp Blanding's inadequate facilities must be upgraded to meet military and environmental standards. But more importantly, Camp Blanding's facilities must be upgraded because we owe it to our Nation's soldiers. They should not be forced to live in substandard and inadequate quarters. Mr. Chairman, we need to send a message to our forces that we care, that they are important to us. Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford not to pass this bill, for projects like Camp Blanding and all the other bases in similar positions. This legislation is necessary for the readiness and morale of our Nation's troops. We must pass this legislation to improve the quality of life for our soldiers. They deserve our respect; they have earned it. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It contains sound principles and strong medicine for an ailing and antiquated base structure. Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote on final passage.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to come down here to talk about the Republican budget, and specifically, the Republican plan to reduce taxes. I saw, Mr. Speaker, that the President came out with his own budget. As many of you know in the House, we have included tax cuts that amounted to $350 billion. It included a $500 tax credit for every child in America, plus it reduced capital gains. The Senate does not have these specific cuts, but they cut $170 billion if we balance the budget. However, I notice in the President's budget he included a middle-class tax cut. It includes 96 billion dollars' worth of cuts, including a $500 credit per child, and $10,000 college tuition credit for families earning less than $100,000. I think, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about reducing taxes, it looks like the President of the United States has come on board, too. I would like to just briefly, in this 10 minutes, set the record straight. We have heard for too long now the Republican budget contains a tax cut that hurts the poor and benefits the rich. How can I say this, Mr. Speaker. There is no truth to this claim. The Democrats argue that the Republican tax cut would benefit only the rich, when the fact is that the major component of our tax package, as I mentioned, is a $500 per child tax credit for families. Of the $189 billion in tax cuts we proposed over 5 years, $94 billion, or fully half, goes directly to families in the form of the $500 per child tax credit. Families receive other tax benefits, including expanded IRA's, repeal of the marriage penalty, and incentives for long-term care insurance. All told, families would receive $114 billion worth of tax relief under our plan. Democrats have argued and tried to argue that because of the $500 per child tax credit, it applies to families earning up to $200,000. It looks like the President here has $100,000. They go on to say this is somehow a tax cut for the rich, as though the children of high-income Americans are less deserving of tax relief than others. But even this argument is false, since according to the Joint Economic Committee, fully three-fourths of the $500 per child tax credit would go to families earning less than $75,000. For low-income Americans, the tax credit is even a better deal. Nearly 5 million Americans at the lowest income levels would no longer pay any taxes at all. So I am tired, and I think the American people should be tired, of the same old class warfare rhetoric that the Democrats continue to haul out every time we talk about tax cuts. The Democrats seem to believe the rich are the only people who have children, who got married, and that earning $75,000 makes you rich. The truth is the Republican tax package benefits all Americans. It is particularly beneficial to all families, but it also benefits groups, such as seniors. For starters, our package calls for the repeal of the 35-percent Social Security tax hike President Clinton rammed through in 1993. The Republican plan brings the rates on singles earning more than $34,000 and couples earning more than $44,000 back to 50 percent. We would also raise the earning limit on Social Security benefits. Instead of $11,280, seniors can earn up to $30,000 before Social Security taxes kick in. The total savings for our American seniors is $30 billion. That is important to make that point. Furthermore, the Republican tax package gives all Americans a 50- percent capital gains tax. According to a study released by the Joint Economic Committee, nearly 70 percent of those Americans who claim capital gains have incomes of less than $50,000. Republicans will ease the burden on overtaxed businesses, too. Our plan would save American businesses $21 billion over the next 5 years, money that will be reinvested and returned again and again to the consumer in lower prices and in higher working wages. Mr. Speaker, the Republican package will save Americans $189 billion over the next 5 years. That is $189 billion that all Americans would be able to share and spend and reinvest in America. The best thing about it is it is all paid for in the budget. We put a down payment on the savings when we passed the rescission bill. It is unfortunate the President vetoed it. We paid for the rest last week when we approved the Republican budget with the spending reductions. Of course, the Democrats will argue these spending reductions will affect only low-income Americans. Again, they are wrong. Our budget represents across the board spending reductions, reductions that would affect all Americans. It is just that those with their hands out, those who receive most for doing the least, will be affected more. This, Mr. Speaker, is simply a fact of life. It should be pointed out, though, that most of our savings were achieved through flexible freezes and not the elimination or reduction of very many programs. However, it is amazing. The Democrats portray the flexible freeze as a cut, despite the fact that spending actually continues to increase. It simply does not increase at the same budget- busting rates as have been proposed here for 40 years. The best example of this paradox is the Medicare debate. Clearly and emphatically, the Republican tax cuts have nothing to do with slowing Medicare spending increase. Medicare is funded by a payroll tax that goes into a separate trust fund. That trust fund will go bankrupt in the year 2002. That is what the trustees of the Medicare trust fund who have told us. The fact of the matter is, the Democrats know this, but insist on misrepresenting the tax cuts to hide the fact that they do not have a balanced budget here in the House. Now the President of the United States has come out with a balanced budget. I see in several of the papers today that some of the Democrat leaders in the House here are upset that the President put forth a balanced budget program, even though it is over 10 years. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, what the Republicans have done is then infused the economy with $189 million, cut needless and duplicative programs, eliminated wasteful spending, and salvaged America's future. Now the only strategy left for the Democrats is to misrepresent what we have done. However, Mr. Speaker, for 40 years they have had the opportunity to run this country, so I ask everybody to ask this question: Are we better off now, or are we better off when they took power? Forty years ago there was no national debt to speak of, and Americans paid only 3 percent of their income to the Federal Government. Today we have a $5 trillion national debt and the average American family pays a full 25 percent of its income to the Federal Government. Taxes at all levels of Government now consume 40 percent of the average family's income, more than they spend on food, clothing, and shelter combined. Mr. Speaker, we have suffered through 40 years of tax increases and 40 years of big government. Finally, Republicans have reversed a trend and set our country back on track. We have found a way to ensure a future for our children, we have found a way to let American taxpayers keep more of their own money, and we have found a way to remove the burden of bureaucratic spending from our government. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the loyal opposition to face the facts. They have left it up to the Republicans to balance the budget, to tackle the impending [[Page H6043]] Medicare insolvency, which is fine, because that is precisely what we intend to do for the sake of our children, our seniors, and the future of this great Nation.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the language offered by the gentleman [[Page H6002]] from California [Mr. Dornan], and strongly object to the language offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro]. I might point out to her and others that this identical vote occurred in the Committee on National Security on May 24, and the existing language was overwhelmingly accepted. Both Democrats and Republicans supported it, mostly Republicans supported it, except for three. In a showdown on the committee, the Dornan language was overwhelmingly supported. I think it should be supported on the House floor. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, abortion in a tax-supported hospital is the question, nothing else. Also, when we talk about the military, there is a propensity for a professional and ethical climate. We should not allow this amendment to win. Only a scant few military physicians want to perform abortions, so we should keep that in mind. Let us vote with the military today, and vote against the amendment of the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I, in the short time I have, cannot read and provide my complete statement, but there are portions of it I would like to present. Obviously I rise today in strong support of the National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation represents a major step toward revitalizing our Nation's armed forces which have been grievously weakened in recent years by the administration's defense cuts. This bill will at long last halt this dangerous decline in defense spending. Finally we have a chance to vote on a forward-looking defense authorization bill, one that concentrates on readiness, military capability, not just for today, but for tomorrow. Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do just briefly is talk about two programs, and I know this is going to be the most contentious issue on the House floor, and perhaps both sides of the aisle will have major contribution to this debate, but I rise in strong support for the committee's recommendation to include funding for the B-2 bomber program. I am a fiscal conservative. I am well aware that we are trying to balance the budget, and I have much admiration for the Committee on the Budget and what they are trying to do. As we are all aware, however, the Nation's long-range bomber force consists primarily of just two aircraft, the antiquated B-52 and the B- 1. Making the B-2 a necessary addition is important, but the B-2 is not only necessary, it is practical. Without question it is the most cost effective and common sense means of long-range force projection. Finally, funding the B-2 now makes sense. If we do not fund them this year, the production line will close and the cost of restarting it later will prove prohibitively costly. Let us not let this happen. The B-2 may well be the single most critical asset in our Nation's Air Force structure, and I urge my colleagues to accept the committee's language on the B-2 bomber. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation represents a major step toward revitalizing our Nation's Armed Forces, which have been grievously weakened in recent years by steep Clinton administration defense cuts. H.R. 1530 will, at long last, halt this dangerous decline in defense spending. Finally, we have a chance to vote on a forward-looking defense authorization bill, one that concentrates on readiness and military capability not just for today, but for tomorrow. The key components of this legislation bring much needed improvements to our Nation's Armed Forces. They include enhancing the quality of life for America's servicemen and women by raising their pay and rehabilitating their housing, thus preserving the standard of living needed for readiness and troop morale. They also include undertaking the long-overdue task of military modernization by providing for the development and deployment of national and theater missile defense systems. H.R. 1530 also addresses the role of America's military in the world, including our involvement in NATO and the United Nations. This bill would correct the gross funding inequities that have plagued our involvement in international peacekeeping missions. In addition, I strongly support the provisions of H.R. 1530 requiring the President to certify to Congress that vital American interests are at stake before ever placing U.S. troops under U.N. command. It is the least we can do for our troops to bring some common sense and accountability to our foreign operations. Furthermore, I wish to proclaim my strong support for the committee's recommendation to include funding for the B-2 Bomber Program. As we all are aware, the Nation's long-range bomber force consists primarily of just two aircraft: the antiquated B-52 and the B-1, making the B-2 a necessary addition. But the B-2 is not only necessary, it is practical. Without question it is the most cost-effective and common-sense means of long-range force projection. Financially, funding the B-2's now makes sense. If we don't fund them this year, the production line will close, and the cost of restarting it later will prove prohibitively costly. Let's not let this happen. The B-2 may well be the single most critical asset in our Nation's Air Force structure. I urge my colleagues to support the committee's language regarding the B-2 Program. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1530 makes sense. This legislation offers a sound approach to Defense funding. I commend the committee and the chairman of the committee for their work on this bill, which is fully deserving of our support. As such, I urge all my colleagues to vote for the committee bill and to oppose any weakening amendments.