Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, just prior to the Memorial Day recess, in introduced legislation to establish a bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. The goal of the Commission would be to find commonsense solutions to reforming and strengthening our Medicare system. It would be patterned after the Pepper Commission that was developed to preserve Social Security. My colleagues, you should have received a ``Dear Colleague'' letter outlining this bill. The Commission would submit to Congress a report that would contain its findings and recommendations regarding patterns of spending under the Medicare Program, long-term solvency of the Hospital Trust Fund, need to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, and administration of the current program. I believe we can all work together in a bipartisan manner. We can then preserve, protect, and strengthen the Medicare system to ensure that our seniors will have access to this program well into the 21st century.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support of the Kasich amendment. Mr. Chairman, on the issue of Medicare and Medicaid, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim we are going to cut, I want to read a quote: Today, Medicaid and Medicare are going up at three times the rate of inflation. We propose to let it go up at two times the rate of inflation. That is not a Medicare or Medicaid cut. We are going to have increases in Medicare and Medicaid, but a reduction in the rate of growth. I venture to say you might be surprised to learn that these words were spoken not by Republicans, but by the President last year when he was trying to sell his health care package to the American people. Thus far the debate on making changes to insure the solvency of Medicare has been less than statesmanlike. In fact, at times it has been just plain nasty and mean-spirited. We live in a high-technology country where words spoken by a major political figure can reach a wide audience. I think we should all pause and think before we make statements that are simply untrue and at times even outrageous. Those who are quick to criticize and condemn what we are trying to do to save Medicare and Medicaid should exercise a little caution. These is no need to let loose with inflammatory statements that could alarm the most vulnerable segments of the population in our country, namely the elderly, the infirmed, and women and children. It is wrong and think frankly ignoble to do so. I think it is a disgrace that some of my colleagues have likened what we are attempting to do to the actions of Hitler during the Holocaust. I find it repugnant that they would point an accusatory finger and insinuate that through the Contract With America we are waging a war on our children. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't remember hearing this type of rhetoric last year when the First Lady said ``We feel confident--that we can reduce the rate of increase in Medicare without undermining quality for Medicare recipients.'' What a difference a year makes. Now, administration officials are singing a different tune. Recently, Secretary Shalala said: ``Our argument is that if you're slowing down growth here, and that's below what's happening in terms of costs out there, it's a real cut.'' So, when the president proposed slowing down the rate of growth in Medicare and Medicaid it wasn't a cut, but now that our budget contains a similar proposal, it is a cut. It is ironic that the administration is now saying that Republicans don't care about the poor and needy because we want to reform Medicare and Medicaid. When the administration was proposing similar changes would they have accepted the label mean-spirited? Regardless of whether there is a balanced budget, there is an undeniable, urgent need to make certain reforms to avert the Medicare trust fund's looming bankruptcy. Let's put our differences aside and work in a bipartisan manner to solve the problems of how to save the Medicare Program and how to reform Medicaid so that it delivers the necessary care in a more cost-effective manner. I believe we in Committee and here in Congress to achieve this goal.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, let me just say as one Member who speaks in this well to the Member who just spoke, the Democrats have bankrupted Medicare for 30 years. It is now the Republicans' responsibility and obligation to preserve, protect, and improve the Medicare system, which we intend to do. Mr. Speaker, I want to give you a quote and ask who said this quote: Today Medicaid and Medicare are going up at three times the rate of inflation. We propose to let it go up at two times the rate of inflation. That is not a Medicare or Medicaid cut. We are going to have to have increases in Medicare and Medicaid, but a reduction in the rate of growth. Who said that? President Clinton said that last year. Let me give you a quote from Mrs. Clinton: We feel confident * * * that we can reduce the rate of increase in Medicare without undermining quality for Medicare recipients. That is Mrs. Clinton. That is what she said. So when the President or Mrs. Clinton proposed slowing down the rate of growth in Medicare and Medicaid, it was not a cut. But now that the Republicans offer our budget which contains a similar proposal, the Democrats are now saying it is a cut. My friends, let us put aside our differences and work in a bipartisan manner to solve the problems of how to save the Medicare program.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for this rule. I want to say one thing. Every term I have been here in Congress I have been trying to repeal the Gephardt rule which was put in in 1976, that says we can go ahead and increase the debt around here without a vote. I see in this rule, the gentleman has taken the courageous step to go forward and say ``no, sir, we are going to have to vote on increasing the debt.'' I commend the gentleman for that. I think all the Members in Congress should recognize that we have changed history in this matter. I would like to see the same action in the following years, as well as Congress in the future.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the Phelps School from Malvern, PA. The students at that school, the senior class is here today, and I want to recognize them. The Phelps School whose motto is ``dedication to the individual boy,'' strives to meet the needs and develop the strengths of each of its students. The teachers and faculty take great pride in empowering young men to improve themselves. The school fosters the growth of each student, academically, socially, and personally. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it builds character, something sorely needed in America today. The Phelps School is a small institution where every young man feels special, like a member of a family. The Phelps School exemplifies a good education today in America. Students come to the school as boys and leave as young men, ready to further their education. I take great pride today in welcoming the Phelps School and the senior class. I wish them all the best as they begin their journey towards the rest of their lives. I know they are well prepared and ready for the world, as all the school's graduates have been for almost 50 years. My hat is off to the director, Mr. Phelps, and all the seniors.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to introduce a bipartisan bill to reduce the restrictions on ownership of broadcasting stations and other media of mass communication. Congressman Ralph Hall from Texas, along with a number of my esteemed Republican colleagues support this bill which repeals antiquated rules and regulations and brings broadcasting up to date with technology. The bill states that the FCC is not to prescribe or enforce any regulations concerning cross ownership. The only rules that the FCC can make address national caps and local ownership combinations. The video marketplace has undergone significant changes. Today, most Americans have access not only to many cable, or own a home satellite receiver. With telephone company entry into the video marketplace, American consumers will have additional options from which to choose their programming. Despite all these advances in technology broadcasting should remain a vital component in the information age. Broadcast television occupies a unique position in the world of telecommunications. Broadcasting is not only the only technology available to 100 percent of American households, the content it provides is free. The only cost is for a receiver. The bill does the following: First, states that the FCC shall not prescribe or enforce rules limiting crossownership of mediums of mass communications; second, increases the aggregate national audience reach from 25 to 35 percent upon enactment. One year later allows the cap to increase to 50 percent. The bill contains a built-in safeguard; within 2 years of enactment of the bill, the FCC is to commission a study to ensure competition in the marketplace; third, the bill allows certain station ownership combinations in a market: UHF/UHF; UHF/VHF and if the Commission determines that it will not harm competition and will not harm the preservation of a diversity of voices in the local market, VHF/VHF combinations; fourth, the bill also repeals all radio ownership restrictions. I might add that this bill will be presented as an amendment to the communications act of 1995, which has the full support of Chairman Bliley and Chairman Fields and as previously mentioned, it is bipartisan.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to advise and introduce to the Members that we had a telecommunications press conference today offered through the Committee on Commerce a new deregulatory bill which will allow mass communications to change dramatically, and I had the honor to offer as an amendment to this bill new broadcast ownership changes to allow many new forms of ownership for video broadcasting. It is bipartisan bill. Basically it reduces restrictions on ownership of broadcasting stations and other media mass communications. As I mentioned, it repeals antiquated rules and regulations and brings broadcasting up to date with technology. The bill states that the FCC does not provide or enforce any regulations concerning cross ownership. The details of this will be in a statement that I will put in the extension of my remarks today.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to give my full support for the Communications Act of 1995 which the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance introduced today with bipartisan support. I commend Chairman Bliley and Chairman Fields for the outstanding work they did on this much-needed legislation. I would also like to thank the staffs of both the subcommittee and full committee for their efforts in getting this legislation drafted and wish to commend them for the open and fair manner in which they achieved writing this groundbreaking legislation. This bill provides sweeping reforms in the communications industry and gives consumers a greater choice of services. This legislation will provide lower prices and higher quality. Clearly, the consumers will be the winners. The antiquated Communications Act of 1934 needs to be updated to ensure that the American telecommunications industries will be able to compete in this high-technology information age in which we are living. This legislation encourages competition and deregulation, thereby opening up future market opportunities for those who wish to compete in all telecommunications services. Comprehensive reform of this industry is long overdue and I am proud to cosponsor this bill which will achieve that goal.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. If the gentleman would yield for just about 15 or 30 seconds.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I came down just to say this is the 25th day of captivity for David Daliberti and William Barloon. I just want to mention this. But before I say my piece here, I do want to let the gentlemen from California know how much I admire him. Frankly, I think you bring to the presidential debate something that is needed and that is a social conservativism that you have displayed. As you know, you and I voted many, many times in very difficult votes. I think you are going to bring to the presidential debate items like prayer in school, which a lot of candidates will not talk about but that you have the courage to do. So I commend you for what you are doing; and I certainly, as you know, admire you. But I wanted to point out to the Speaker that today marks the 25th day of captivity for 2 Americans held prisoner in Iraq. Their incarceration began on the 13th of March. They were tried and unfairly convicted on the 25th. The two men were sentenced to 8 years in prison simply because they made a wrong turn. Mr. Speaker, we must continue to hold the two Americans in our minds and hearts. Twenty-five days is too long for any innocent American to be held in captivity, so I ask all Americans to recognize that this is the 25th day of their captivity.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 660, the Housing for Older Persons Act. I wish to thank my good friend and colleague the gentleman from Florida, Clay Shaw, for his work on this issue. His efforts on behalf of the seniors of this country are commendable. I also want to recognize the chairman of the full committee, Chairman Hyde, and the chairman of the subcommittee, another Florida colleague, Chairman Canady, both of whom have been instrumental in the fight for fairness for seniors. The Fair Housing Act of 1988 created a burdensome and intrusive regulation regarding seniors-only housing. The significant facilities and services language has caused far too many problems for the seniors of our country. As you all know, I have worked on this issue since I came to Congress 7 years ago. In 1992, I amended section 919 of the Housing and Community Development Act, requiring that HUD simplify and clarify the exemption language. This year HUD finally published the new rule. The rule does simplify the requirements and ease the burden on housing communities, but does not alter the questionable and confusing facilities and services language. In other words, seniors still face a legal hurdle for doing nothing more than trying to freely live in their own communities. It has become clear that a full repeal of the questionable regulations is the best solution to this problem. Only by removing the ambiguous language regarding significant facilities and services can we truly protect the rights of seniors. If we pass this bill, there will finally be a clear and concise test, by which seniors only housing facilities can know whether they qualify for the exemption. Housing discrimination should not be tolerated by our society, and it certainly should be encouraged by legislation. But, the Fair Housing Act does just that: instead of making it easier for seniors to live in their own communities it has created a legal pitfall that assumes seniors are guilty until proven innocent. The act has actually discouraged seniors from exercising their right to live where they want. The Fair Housing Act has been anything but fair. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 660. This legislation will provide the fairness and accommodation our Nation's seniors deserve. No longer will they be treated as second-class citizens; no longer will they be punished simply for their age. Finally they will enjoy the fairness promised to them in the Fair Housing Act. Finally they will regain the right to live in peace. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 660.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking Senator Harkin, who sponsored a similar resolution in the Senate last week, as well as the chairman of the International Relations Committee, my good friend and distinguished colleague from New York, Ben Gilman; I want to thank his committee staff, and the majority leader's office for their very prompt attention to this matter. Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are considering today is important to let the world know that the United States House of Representatives unequivocally expresses disapproval for the nation of Iraq for wrongfully imprisoning two American citizens, David Daliberti and William Barloon. The resolution urges the immediate release of these two Americans and calls on the President to take all appropriate actions to secure their safe exit from Iraq. Moreover, the resolution makes perfectly clear that Iraq has absolutely nothing to gain and much to lose by continuing to hold these two men. For 21 days now David Daliberti and William Barloon have languished behind bars in an Iraqi prison for what Iraqi authorities allege was an illegal crossing of their border. On March 13, on their way to visit a friend at a U.N. post along the Kuwait-Iraq border, the two men strayed into an area they say contained U.N. markings, but which the Iraqis claim was on their soil. On March 25, after what was reportedly a quick trial in which the only representation the Americans had was an attorney appointed by the Iraqi Government, the two men were sentenced to 8 years in prison--8 years in prison for taking a wrong turn. My colleagues, their trial and harsh sentence are wrong. David Daliberti and William Barloon are innocent United States citizens who were taken against their will and now are being held in an Iraqi prison living off a weak diet of rice. Iraq's actions are indefensible on any grounds, but especially so in this case since the facts show so clearly that the men are completely innocent. We must go on record condemning this injustice and calling on the White House to take every conceivable measure to secure the release of these men. To bring my colleagues up to date on this case, the latest news out of Iraq gives us hope that these Americans can expect an early release. The news is contradictory and confusing. On Saturday, a representative from the Iraqi Parliament's foreign-relations department hinted that the two men could be released in the coming few days--an encouraging sign. But yesterday the Iraqi Defense Ministry's newspaper said the Americans are no different from Mexicans trying to enter the United States illegally, an absurd charge that makes us wonder what the Iraqis are up to. But yesterday also saw Iraq extend to 1 month from the usual 2 weeks the amount of time the two men have to appeal their sentence, which Iraqi law experts interpret as a positive sign. These crossed signals do nothing to help Iraq's position and only torment the families of Daliberti and Barloon, who simply want to see their loved ones returned to them as soon a possible. Surely Iraq knows that holding these men serves no purpose whatsoever. Just last week the head of the Iraqi Parliament admitted as much when he said, and I quote, ``We don't think that we are going to facilitate the question of the sanctions through detaining these two Americans.'' While continuing to hold these men does nothing to benefit Iraq, releasing them would. Iraq is already alienated from the community of civilized nations. Releasing Daliberti and Barloon can only improve their standing in the eyes of the world. Let me repeat as Secretary of State Warren Christopher said yesterday, releasing these men ``would be a good thing for the international reputation of Iraq. It would be an adverse thing to hold them.'' Lest anyone has any doubt as to the innocence of Daliberti and Barloon, let me assure you that every fact in this case indicates they were nothing more than what they claim to be--innocent victims who made a wrong turn. But it was not even a wrong turn due to their own error. As the two men were headed to the U.N. compound to visit a friend, the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait observer mission positioned along the border misdirected them, as even they admit. What happened next, according to Daliberti and Barloon, is that they found themselves driving past two unmanned Kuwaiti checkpoints into an area posted with U.N. markings. It was at this point they were apprehended by the Iraqis and whisked away. Iraqi suggestions that these men were in any way spies or saboteurs are ludicrous. At the trial of the men in Baghdad, even their Iraqi- appointed attorney said they were carrying no weapons, no maps, no cameras, no compasses--nothing, in other words, that could indicate these men were anything other than victims of an unfortunate mistake. And according to the Polish diplomat who attended the trial as a representative of the United States, even the judge in the case seemed sympathetic to the plight of Daliberti and Barloon. But Iraqi law on such matters is ironclad and says any crossing whatsoever of their border must be punished, in this case with an 8-year sentence. As it stands now, Daliberti and Barloon have begun to appeal their sentence with the assistance of an Iraqi lawyer--the same lawyer who has helped other Westerners appeal their sentences for crossing Iraq's border. Unfortunately, that lawyer has never successfully overturned the verdict in such a case, which has led some to suggest that only a pardon from Saddam Hussein himself can effect their release. My colleagues, the families of Daliberti and Barloon need to know that we are with them, that we support them during this trying time. It is the least we can do to stand up and condemn Iraq for this outrageous action and demand that these two citizens be released immediately. I know that Kathy Daliberti, with whom I have spoken, is on an emotional roller-coaster ride as she follows this situation. Let us let her know that her Government is doing everything within its power to secure the prompt release of her husband and to bring him safely home. Those of you who have been following this story know that Kathy Daliberti has even set up a home page on the Internet so people from around the country can express their support. I encourage my colleagues to send her a message letting her know that she is not alone, that her Government does care. last Friday they assured me that everything is being done that can be done to secure the release of these two men. As you know, we have no diplomatic relations with Iraq. But Polish diplomats, who have an Embassy in Iraq, are working tirelessly on behalf of the United States in this matter. We were all encouraged last week when the head of the Polish Embassy visited with Daliberti and Barloon and said they appeared to be in good health. In the meantime, we as the elected Representatives of the American people need to unite and speak with one voice in condemnation of Iraq. We need to express our sympathy and support for the families of Daliberti and Barloon. And we need to urge the administration to do everything within its power to bring these men safely home. I know all of my colleagues will support House Resolution 120 as an expression of our commitment to the safety of all of our citizens, whether at home or abroad.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, today the House of Representatives can make history. I want to compliment my colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], for all the hard work he has done. Today, after years of delay and obstruction and partisan politics, we will vote on term limits on the floor of this Chamber for an amendment that is truly the best one of the four. Today we will finally have that chance. I ask all my colleagues to come forward and vote for the McCollum amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McCollum amendment. Today the House of Representatives will make history. Today, after years of delay, obstruction, and partisan politics, we will vote on term limits on the floor of this chamber for the first time ever. Today we will finally have the chance to prove to the American people that their elected representatives truly place the interests of the Nation above their own. As we all know, the American people have consistently voiced strong support for a constitutional amendment limiting the terms of their elected leaders. Recent polls indicate that support now approaches 80 percent and encompasses every demographic group in the country. If it is our job as legislators to represent the will of the American people, this amendment is a way to do that more than almost any other. Twenty-two States have already approved term limits, with an average level of support of 66 percent. All across the Nation, whenever voters have had the opportunity to impose term limits, they have done so. This broad-based support shows the American people understand what our Founding Fathers believed: that rotation in office is essential to preserve a truly representative government, indeed, to preserve a citizen legislature. We must bring to an end the career politician. We must bring to an end a system that looks to most Americans like oligarchy--rule by the few for the few--that has come to define business as usual in Washington. There is no better way, and perhaps no other way, to do this than with term limits. Today, the House has a chance to make a change that will give the American people the kind of government they not only demand, but deserve. It would be ironic, not to mention offensive, to vote against the one change the people back home endorse more strongly than almost any other. In my State of Florida, the voters have already sent a resounding message to the politicians by voting in overwhelming numbers for term limits. Obviously, not all the Members of this body share the same opinion about term limits, which explains why we have four alternative versions of the bill before us today. We can vote for whatever bill we like best. But the crucial vote is not on which of the four versions you like best, it is on final passage. Support whichever substitute you want, but band together for the American people and vote for final passage. Remember the people back home and cast the vote you know will be best for them. My colleagues, vote for final passage of House Joint Resolution 2--vote for term limits.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to protest the treatment of David Daliberti and his fellow American, William Barloon, by the nation of Iraq. After accidentally straying across the Iraqi border, these two men were tried in a questionable court and sentenced to a prison term that lends new meaning to the phrase ``cruel and unusual punishment.'' Mr. Daliberti and Mr. Barloon are private United States citizens employed by an American company doing business in Kuwait. On their way to visit friends with the U.N. peacekeeping force patrolling the border, they were misdirected by the U.N. Iraq-Kuwait observer mission and found themselves in Iraqi territory. As even their Iraqi court- appointed attorney said at their trial, they were carrying no weapons, no cameras, no maps, no compasses--nothing that could indicate these men were anything other than innocent victims of an unintentional mistake. And, according to the Polish diplomat who attended the trial on behalf of the United States, even the judge in the case was sympathetic to their plight. Nevertheless, Iraqi law is Iraqi law and the men were sentenced to 8 years. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to see these men used as political pawns. If the statement yesterday by the Iraqi Parliament leader is truthful, it is a good sign when he said, and I quote, ``we don't think that we are going to facilitate the question of the sanctions through detaining these two Americans.'' As Mr. Daliberti and Mr. Barloon languish in an Iraqi prison, I urge the White House, State Department and foreign diplomats working on our behalf to spare no effort in securing their release at the earliest possible date. I also recommend that the Clinton administration dispatch a high-level delegation to Iraq to negotiate for the release of these men. And although I am fully aware that we have no diplomatic relations with Iraq, I call upon the Iraqi authorities to do the right and humane thing and release these American citizens today. The trial of these two men was wrong, their sentence was unfair, and their release is imperative. The wives and families of these men, especially Kathy Daliberti with whom I've already spoken to express my support--are counting on their Government to employ whatever means necessary to bring them safely home.

Mr. STEARNS

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, for this amendment to pass, it is going to require conservative Democrats to help out with the Members on this side of the aisle. The question is can we cut a Federal Government program by 9 percent, realizing that within $167 million, $26 million is for Federal administration. Surely we can cut the money within this program when it only adds up to 9 percent. So the Members on both sides of the aisle, I appeal to their fiscal responsibility and sanity, let us cut this bill.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, a point of information: Do I have the opportunity to close the debate?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] who has worked on this amendment.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the opportunity to have this amendment finally. We have been waiting quite some time for it. I want to recognize the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] for all the hard work he has done on this amendment and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] who has also been instrumental in getting this amendment on the floor. I also want to recognize the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] who is the ranking member of the Interior Subcommittee. He and I have talked about this. He and I are good friends. We approach this particular amendment from different perspectives. Mr. Chairman, many members have heard this discussion on the NEA ad infinitum. We could talk about it for hours. I know the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] has plenty of people on his side as I do on my side who feel strongly about this subject. But I can summarize this debate very quickly for all of us, because we do not have much time. First the NEA is about $167 million in expenditure. We have cut within the rescission bill $5 million. This amendment simply asks for an additional $10 million. That means a total of $15 million would be cut from the NEA budget, less than 10 percent, approximately only 9 percent total. My colleagues, remember, this has to go to the conference committee. Traditionally, historically, when it goes to the conference committee, they cut it even further down. So I say to my friends here in the House, let's make at least a modicum of a cut, 9 percent total, so if it goes to conference and it comes back, we will not be left like we did last year with a 2.5 percent reduction after we labored for hours on the House floor to get just a mere 5 percent. At this point, I say to Members, this can be summarized, this is simply a 9-percent cut on a $167 million project that under anybody's opinion we can cut that much if we intend to reduce the deficit. I know the people on that side feel very strongly about this, and I respect that, but I am approaching this from a fiscal responsibility stand point and I urge the people on that side not to use hyperbole on this debate. We have heard this time and time again. This is simply a 9-percent cut. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 23.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to table the motion.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, could we have the allocation of the time based upon the Chair's stipulation at this point?