Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, this omnibus appropriations bill we consider on the floor today is not a typical Continuing Resolution, but changes funding levels and re-prioritizes projects from prior years. This CR is the longest in recent history. Most of them are 1-2 pages. This is 137 pages. Some of these changes are controversial as well as complicated, and I feel that the whole House would have benefited from a thorough appraisal of these proposals, a vigorous committee process, so that all Members would have been fully apprised of the nuances and we could pass a wellthought out, carefully crafted omnibus spending bill. However, I was pleased that the crafters of this bill saw fit to include funding levels for Veterans' Affairs that come close to what the House Republicans passed in the last Congress, and funding levels close to the Administration's request. However, they should be higher. I do lament that the priorities of the current leadership to continue funding ineffective and wasteful programs have limited the amount of available funds that could improve the quality of life for our brave veterans even more. For example, this bill does not eliminate 28 earmarks totaling $70 million, including the famed $50 million Rainforest in Iowa project. That $50 million could instead have been allocated to improving adaptive housing for disabled veterans. This bill also funds assistance to Independent States of the former Soviet Union at a level that is $11 million above the Administration's request. Had this bill been considered in Committees, we may have been able to determine that this $11 million excess may be better spent on rehabilitation programs for blind veterans. Finally, instead of allocating $316 million for ``Corporation for National and Community Service, Domestic Volunteer Service Programs,'' which includes funds to pay people to volunteer in the Americorps program. We could have used some of that money to increase the medical care for spinal cord injured veterans, or increasing benefits for survivors of service members who have sacrificed and given their lives in this Global War on Terror, defending the safety and freedom enjoyed by all of us back here in the States. This CR also breaks the Nation's obligation to provide soldiers and families adequate quality of life--affects the all volunteer force and unravels the Army's synchronized stationing and BRAC plan.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the House passed a bill to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate with drug companies on the prices of pharmaceuticals for the part D drug program, H.R. 4 was the bill. In my district, I have heard overwhelmingly good news about the existing part D program. For a striking example, there was a letter to the editor from one of my constituents on September 21, 2006 in the Gainesville Sun. Mrs. Vernell James wrote this letter. She and her husband, both in their seventies, married for 58 years, wrote, quote, ``Medicare part D has been a great experience for our family. Health insurance is important because it helps us stay well and live a quality life. My husband is on three different medications, so good health insurance is something we need. ``The Medicare Web site made it simple enough to choose a plan and sign up. Now that the November 15th deadline is approaching, seniors need to be thinking about which plan is best for them. We save nearly $250 a month because of Medicare part D on our medications, and we are looking forward to continuing savings next year.'' I have met this lady, and she impressed upon me how this benefit has given them healthy coverage, and more importantly, peace of mind. But don't take my word for it or the word of this lady; I found no more convincing arguments than what was recently in the two editorials in the Washington Post. One appeared November 2, 2006, and one the day after the bill, H.R. 4, passed, January 13, 2007. Because of the prominence of this newspaper to policymakers around this town, I would like to share these editorials with my colleagues. On what grounds does the Post disagree with the Democrat bill, H.R. 4, which involves price fixing? First, the same point that many of us may have heard on the House floor during the debate, but unfortunately not in committee because the bill failed to go through regular Democratic order. On comparing Medicare to VA, Veterans Affairs, the VA ``can do this because it is free to deny coverage for drugs whose makers refuse to provide discounts. Fully 3,000 of the 4,300 medicines covered by Medicare are unavailable under the veterans' program. Restricting the list of coverage drugs saves money, but it also reduces the quality of the benefit; 1.5 million veterans are sufficiently unhappy with the result that they opt to buy the more inclusive Medicare coverage.'' Well, they are not the same creatures at all, these two programs. I have the background to know, I have been a member of the Veterans Committee for 15 years; I served on the Health Subcommittee on this Veterans Committee. In fact, I chaired the VA Health Subcommittee in the past. Next: Why do this at all when the private insurance market is keeping premiums costs low for beneficiaries? As the Post went on to write, quote, ``the Congressional Budget Office estimated this week that savings from direct negotiations would be negligible, the average monthly premium has fallen since the program began a year ago. Private insurers can do this precisely because they are free to establish formularies, but market discipline ensures that these lists are not unappealing narrow. The insurers need to keep customers.'' Emphasis added. Further, the Post wrote, quote, ``The Democrats' stance is troubling because it suggests an excessively government-led view of health care reform. The better approach is to let each insurer offer its own version of the right balance to see whether it attracts customers, and then adapt flexibly.'' I have been extolling the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program as a model for over a decade. FEHBP works well precisely because the Office of Personnel Management administering it does not micromanage the program, does not set prices. It simply sets the terms of allowable plans, and then offers Federal and Legislative branch employees, including Members of Congress and the Executive Branch, the cafeteria of options, and they go forth and they choose what is best for them. On November 2, the Post echoed this endorsement of consumer freedom writing, ``Retirees have a choice of insurance plans with widely varying costs, and some are faced with decisions on how much to spend out of pocket. If they choose to pay top dollar for branded medicines, the incentive to invent new medicines will rise. If they prefer to save money, incentives for innovation will decline a bit. Either way, a balance will be struck that reflects broad social preferences.'' My colleagues, the Democrat bill, H.R. 4, that was passed, not through the democratic process here in Congress, but put on the floor without amendments, will not help the part D Medicare prescription drug program, it will hurt it. If you don't believe it, read these editorials of the Washington Post.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday tens of thousands of protesters protested on the National Mall the war on Iraq, and in particular, the 21,500 troop surge. These Americans exercised their first amendment right, and indeed, I am grateful to live in a Nation where we can protest government policies. However, my colleagues, I read in The Hill newspaper one troubling incident that arose. It says, 300 self-described anarchists spray-painted symbols and slogans on the west front steps of the United States Capitol building. More puzzling, the article says that helpless Capitol Police officers watched, reporting that they were ordered to avoid confronting the group. It seems U.S. Capitol Police Chief Phillip Morse defends that the graffiti was ``easily removed'' and, most significantly, the building was secure from the artists' entry. I am not sure I agree with such dismissiveness. Protected free speech does not include vandalism. I ask the Speaker to investigate. Peacefully assembling to protest is permissible, defacing public property is unacceptable and it should not happen again.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday there was a pro-life rally here in Washington, DC. In fact, the 22nd annual rally. I thought I would take a moment and talk about some of the innovations involved with ultrasound equipment which is very beneficial for women who are pregnant who wish to look at the fetus. Recently, my colleagues, National Geographic presented a 2-hour program charting the fetal development of several mammals with the use of new generation ultrasound imagery. Physicians created a stunning portrait of a mammal in utero, but just imagine the reaction of parents today when viewing a 3-D fetal snapshot of their unborn son or daughter smiling back at them. Professor Stuart Campbell, one of the world's leading experts in obstetrics, believes that ever improving imagery, particularly moving from 3-D to 4-D scanning, which are inching closer and closer to actually displaying real-time movements, represents the tip of the iceberg for fetal behavior study. As with these amazing images, ultrasound technology provides parents- to-be with a window into the womb which can result in a stronger parent-child bond, better prenatal treatment and also supply doctors with obviously an advanced understanding of fetal development and behavior. Today's ultrasound equipment is better than ever and the technology will improve even better over time. Such images allow physicians to readily identify critical health problems such as spina bifida, heart complications, neural tube defects, and genetic syndromes. Ultrasound imagery brings many benefits to women, their unborn children and, of course, to our health care system in general. Continued research, breakthrough developments, and preventative care could save millions of dollars. Public health advocates know that access to early, high-quality prenatal care is key to maternal and newborn health. Therefore, this prenatal care should include ultrasound equipment. Sonograms can diagnose serious complications that can be easily avoided if discovered early on during a pregnancy. Four-dimensional imaging shows objects in 3-D moving close to real time. Doctors have long known that fetuses move, but the physical behavior revealed by these scans is expanding upon their knowledge exponentially. The possibilities of improving the health of women and their unborn children are endless. Mr. Speaker, these advanced ultrasound images can give women an opportunity for better prenatal health and decrease risks during pregnancy not only for themselves but obviously for their unborn child. Unfortunately, there are a lot of women today that cannot afford access to this critical medical service. These underprivileged women do not have the option of safeguarding their health and prenatal well-being. Therefore, I have introduced the Informed Choice Act, H.R. 223. This legislation authorizes Health and Human Services to establish simple grants for not-for-profit and community-based health clinics to purchase ultrasound equipment. The centers that purchase these machines will be able to provide free examinations to women who are unable to obtain access to this critical care. That is, women that are poor. Each year, these pregnancy centers serve hundreds of thousands of women, ranging from girls barely in their teens to women in their mid to late thirties. Many of these women are among the poorest of the poor. For them, the free care that they receive is an essential lifeline. Access to ultrasound equipment is clearly one of the best things that this Congress can do to promote women's health and prenatal care. Women understand the importance of ultrasound equipment. A recent poll confirms this. In order to provide women in crisis pregnancies with sufficient prenatal care and the full scope of information about their pregnancy, I urge my colleagues today to cosponsor my legislation. It is clear that these women view ultrasounds as an essential resource, a resource for women who are faced with unplanned pregnancies struggling with that prime decision. Additionally, the Focus on the Family organization found that an overwhelming 84 percent of women surveyed decide against abortion after viewing an ultrasound of their unborn baby. Women have a right to know what is going on during their pregnancy. These ultrasound images, specifically with the 3-D and 4-D technology, depict fetuses beyond 24 weeks sucking their thumbs, sticking their tongues out and even making emotional faces. So again, my colleagues, I urge you to join me in protecting the health of women and their unborn children by cosponsoring the Informed Choice Act, H.R. 223. This bill is about giving vulnerable women the information they need about their pregnancy and making this critical technology available to all Americans.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, recently the Speaker has indicated that she intends to appoint a special task force, a select committee, to investigate global warming. The committee I serve on, Energy and Commerce, has jurisdiction on this matter and, in fact, we have had a hearing on this subject on July 27, 2006 in our oversight subcommittee. We investigated the so-called hockey stick effect. The hearing showed that there is a lot of information on global warming and that this is a very serious issue. But I question the need for another committee when the Energy and Commerce has full legislative power to continue to investigate and legislate. The committee the Speaker has designated will duplicate what is already in place with the longstanding expertise on the Energy and Commerce. In fact, as the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee recently said, ``We are just empowering a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs to go around and make speeches and make commitments that will be very difficult to honor.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, affordable and reliable energy is an important component of continued economic growth. It heats and cools our homes, facilitates the means of production, and fuels our transportation system. However, politics, not sound energy policy is driving the legislation before us today. The tax provisions targeted for repeal in H.R. 6 are designed to encourage new capital investment in U.S. energy projects, and they are fulfilling this goal. Their repeal will discourage new domestic oil and gas production and refinery capacity, threaten American jobs, and make it less economic to produce domestic energy resources--thereby increasing our dependence on imported crude oil and refined fuel products. A recent economic analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers confirms: ``Higher taxes on the U.S. activities of the oil and natural gas industry, as would result under H.R. 6, would be expected to reduce U.S. exploration, production, and refining activities and increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil. This outcome is in sharp contrast to long- term energy goals for a Nation less reliant on imported energy sources.'' These results run directly counter to sound energy policy goals and, by diminishing energy supplies, would strike a blow to U.S. energy consumers. Provisions in the bill affecting the deep water royalty relief program will set back the significant gains in oil and gas production that are attributable to the program and discourage new domestic production. This program has been one of the most successful policy stimulants for U.S. oil and natural gas exploration and production. It has contributed to a nearly 400 percent increase in natural gas production and more than 100 new discoveries. The real impact of actions taken in this bill will be felt by our Nation's manufacturers and every day consumers of energy. The higher energy taxes will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher gasoline and home energy prices. Similarly, heavy users of oil and natural gas, such as manufacturers and their customers, will feel the pinch of these higher prices and the effects of higher gas prices will ripple throughout the economy. This legislation would give an unfair competitive advantage to foreign energy firms by placing tax increases squarely on the shoulders of domestic energy producers. This will encourage domestic energy companies, which employ 1.8 million Americans to move those jobs overseas. America's energy future is too important to risk a rush to judgment, and H.R. 6 represents a significant step backward for our Nation's energy security. Imposing new costs, whether in the form of taxes or fees is contrary to the goal of providing stable and affordable energy supplies for American consumers. America's energy consumers deserve a sound energy policy that will not hit them with unnecessarily increased energy costs. This legislation is a poor substitute for a real energy policy. I urge my colleagues to reject this punitive energy legislation and to decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Jose Compean turned themselves in to begin serving their 11- and 12-year prison terms. Now, what was their crime? Shooting a habitual drug smuggler after he evaded law enforcement, attacked one of the agents and threateningly turned to the agent with what appeared to be a gun, and was fleeing back across the border. Now, how is this justice, Mr. Speaker? Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof even went to Mexico to find this drug dealer, brought him to America, paid for his medical treatment in an El Paso hospital with taxpayers' dollars and gave him immunity to testify against the agents. The unreasonable sentence of these agents undermines the morale and makes all of them question what they are doing, do they have the right to draw their firearm in the course of their duty. This is an outrage. I urge President Bush to review this draconian prison sentence.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my distinguished colleague from Florida. My colleagues, I also rise to praise the University of Florida, the Gators, for not only winning their second football national title but on their many off-the-field accomplishments as well. With their 41-14 victory over the Ohio State Buckeyes, as mentioned earlier, the Gators became the first Division I school to hold a national championship in men's basketball and football at the same time. Coming into this game, many of the experts did not give the Gators any chance of defeating the previously undefeated Buckeyes. However, once they took the field, the Gators were not intimidated. In fact, the Gators held their own and held Ohio State to only 82 yards of total offense, the fewest number of yards in BCS history. Notwithstanding this event, as my colleague on the other side mentioned, Ohio State had a very great season; and I congratulate and commend this wonderful football team and its coach and all its players for a very successful season. My colleagues, the Florida Gators are excellent representatives of both the university and I believe the great State of Florida in their tenacity, spirit, and their willingness to try to succeed. I take great pride in representing the University of Florida and congratulate Coach Urban Meyer and the entire university on this great accomplishment. The university's accomplishments extend beyond the field or on the courts in the sports arena. UF boasts a 91 percent graduation rate among its athletes, including all of its sports, making it only one of four programs in the National All-Sports Top 10 to achieve a graduation success rates that is above 90 percent. Furthermore, in 2002-2003, UF placed a record 193 student athletes on the SEC academic honor roll, marking six consecutive years UF placed 100 or more UF student athletes on the SEC Honor Roll. The University of Florida's accomplishments go well beyond athletics. It is ranked fifth among Kiplinger's Top 10 Public Colleges. UF's faculty are among the best and most decorated in the world, winning awards such as the Fields Medal, two Pulitzer Prizes, NASA's top award for research, and the Smithsonian Institution's conservation award. University of Florida is also the first university in the world to be designated a Certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary for its agriculture faculty's commitment to environmental and wildlife management. Enrolling almost 50,000 students annually, UF is home to 16 colleges and more than 150 research centers and institutes. During the 2005-2006 school year, UF was awarded $519 million in sponsored research. This research includes diverse areas such as health care and citrus production, including the world's largest citrus research center. My colleagues, one example of this innovative research is veterinarian Julie Levy, who is one of the worldwide leaders of research into a revolutionary, humane drug option for spraying and neutering cats and dogs. As it is now, the only way to permanently sterilized these animals is surgically. What if this process were as simple as a vaccine? Dr. Levy, at the University of Florida, is working on this research project today. On both the field and in the classroom, the students, faculty, and administration of the University of Florida are champions. I am honored that this world-class university is in my congressional district and I look forward to many great things in the future. As they say at the university, Go Gators!

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell, has been here in Congress the longest, he is the dean of the House of Representatives, and I am sure that he remembers under the Clinton administration when they attempted to expand the discounts for a segment of the population using this same approach you are doing with H.R. 4. In fact, this occurred in 2000 in a hearing on the Veterans Administration. I would like to take you through this, Mr. Dingell, and perhaps even be willing to let you reply to some of the questions I have for you. Because if you think you can repeal the law of economics, you can't, because in 1990, Congress gave Medicaid access to the low prices that are achieved by the Veterans Administration and the results were not good for our veterans. The drug manufacturers in turn reacted. What did they do? It ended up that the deep discounts that the veterans were getting were not provided. In some cases the VA saw the prices for the drugs for our veterans go up by 300 percent. That is why the American Legion has come out against this bill, H.R. 4. They feel it is going to impact veterans so significantly that the prices will go up, like they did in 1990, 300 percent. Advocates of this bill claim that negotiations will lower drug prices for Medicare part D beneficiaries. When I look at my congressional district, almost 80 percent of the seniors on Medicare are covered with drug coverage from Part D and they are all satusfield. So I again can't understand in light of the fact it is going to perhaps see cost- shifting to the veterans in this country like the American Legion thinks, why would you want to change something that is working so fabulously after all the extensive work that the seniors have done to comply and get involved? Various times during the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, proposals were made to expand the discount veterans enjoy to a wider population, just like you want to do today. One was a simple demonstration to add some Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, FEHBP, participants to the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Drug Pricing Program and later to extend the FSS to the Medicare population. Does this sound familiar to my colleagues? So back in 2000, July, the Clinton administration wanted to do precisely what we are doing today. The veterans had a hearing on this. Testimony was offered by the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration officials came out, and let me give you one of their quotes: This is from the honorable Edward Powell, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Financial Management, Department of Veterans Affairs. He said: ``VA is concerned about any significant cost impact to its program resulting from this pilot . . . '' I would just conclude that, Mr. Dingell, this has already been tried. It doesn't work. Veterans' Drug Prices Go Up With H.R. 4 Passage Advocates of H.R. 4 claim that negotiation will lower drug prices for Medicare Part D beneficiaries. This is bad legislation for several reasons. Of special concern to me is the harm it would do to veterans who rely on Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care for affordable medications. Various times during the Clinton administration, proposals were made to expand the discounts veterans enjoy to wider populations. One was a demonstration to add some Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) participants to the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Drug Pricing Program, and later, to extend the FSS to the Medicare population (sound familiar?). On the former, I chaired a hearing July 25, 2000. Testimony, and later analysis, revealed that expanding the discounts veterans get to OPM would have increased drug costs to veterans. Ultimately, the SAMBA demonstration was not carried through because of this objection. Here is some testimony from that hearing: ``. . . VA is concerned about any significant cost impact to its program resulting from the pilot . . .'' The Honorable Edward A. Powell, Jr., Assistant Secretary For Financial Management, Department Of Veterans Affairs. ``We are concerned that this pilot will increase the cost of pharmaceuticals purchased by the VA and will result in diminished health care for sick and disabled veterans.'' Richard A. Wannemacher, Jr., Assistant National Legislative Director For Medical Affairs, Disabled American Veterans. ``Perhaps it should go without saying, but I must call your attention to the fact that Congress already has spoken on the issue of expanded access to FSS pricing on several previous occasions. In fact, I am aware of at least four separate laws over the past 10 years enacted purely to correct the unintended adverse consequences on VA of changes in federal pharmaceutical pricing laws. In each of these cases. the unintended consequences were the result of a law passed by Congress to achieve some other purpose, and VA was an injured bystander.'' Robert B. Betz, Ph.D., Executive Director, Department of Veterans' Affairs Pharmaceutical Procurement initiative Adding Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan Participants to the Federal Supply Schedule Drug Pricing Program. Following my hearing, an August 2000 GAO report, Prescription Drugs: Expanding Access to Federal Prices Could Cause Other Changes, stated, ``Drug manufacturers could respond to a mandate that they extend federal prices to a larger share of purchasers by adjusting their prices to others. `` Still further, former VA Acting Secretary during the Clinton Administration, Hershel W. Gober, wrote in the Sept- Oct 2004 issue of DAV Magazine ``Similarly, in 1999, when attempts were made to extend the FSS pricing schedule to the Medicare population we estimated that extending discounted government prices for pharmaceuticals to the Medicare population would increase the VA's annual pharmaceutical costs by $500-600 million. Now, years later, the impact will be even greater on the already constrained VA budget if FSS special discount drug prices are extended to the Medicare population and states.'' Why are Democrats proposing this harm to veterans again, when Medicare Part D is working? Medicare beneficiaries are already receiving substantial drug discounts, through plan negotiation that works just as FEHBP works for federal and legislative employees, including Members of Congress. Do not increase costs for your veterans. Oppose H.R. 4. H.R. 4 will endanger the health, lives and budgets of veterans.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit will mean that under section 4, the Secretary's actions shall not result in drug price increases paid by veterans. This means, my colleagues, includes the Department of Veterans' Affairs or veterans themselves. Certainly what both distinguished chairmen have mentioned is clear. I think that all Members should understand that. I support the motion to recommit. H.R. 4 will most certainly increase VA drug prices. (1) This happened in 1990, Congress gave Medicaid access to VA, shooting up some VA drug prices 300 percent. (2) Next, when the Clinton Administration's Office of Personnel Management tried to expand VA's discounts to a group within FEHBP in 2000, Clinton's own VA balked, as did a witness from Disabled American Veterans. (3) Just recently former Clinton Administration VA Acting Secretary Hershel W. Gober, wrote in a 2004 issue of DAV Magazine that VA estimated in 1999 ``extending discounted government prices to Medicare would increase VA's annual drug costs by $500-$600 million''. Please don't turn your back on the brave men and women who defend our Nation. Support this motion to recommit in order to ensure that H.R. 4 will not adversely affect drug prices for veterans.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Venezuelan president invoked Fidel Castro as the premier socialist model which, in his theory, is the economic model for not only Venezuela but the entire world. Mr. Speaker, my observation about his speech is that it represents a defining illustration of the dichotomous philosophies of ownership and freedom that free markets versus state-owned markets present. For example, Chavez demonstrates this with his continued move to nationalize electrical and telecommunications companies. Here in Congress with the new majority, they are starting to hammer with this heavy hand of the Federal Government down on small businesses, pharmaceutical companies, energy companies, health insurance and telecommunications industries. I hope that we will carefully examine the consequences of these decisions before repeating the mistakes of socialism. State-owned enterprises are never the solution

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it is never, never, justifiable to deliberately end the life, especially when there are alternative sources of stem cells that do no harm. Proponents of embryonic stem cells state the greatest advantage is the pluripotency of these cells, cells with the amazing ability to grow into any type of cell in the human body. It is this unique adaptability that they claim makes embryonic stem cells more promising, more promising, than adult stem cell treatment of human diseases. But my colleagues, the truth, however, is that embryonic stem cells have not, have not, produced a single viable human treatment for any disease, whereas adult stem cells have produced numerous therapies that have been successfully administered. Treatments derived from adult stem cells have been successfully treating patients for years, with measurable improvement in their conditions, and that is the real story. Mr. Speaker, whether you believe that life begins at conception or not, the mere potential for human life needs to be protected--not destroyed. It is never justifiable to deliberately end a life especially when there are alternative sources of stem cells that do no harm. Proponents of embryonic stem cells state the greatest advantage is the ``pluripotency'' of these cells, cells with the amazing ability to grow into any type of cell in the human body. It is this unique adaptability that they claim makes embryonic stem cells more promising than adult stem cells for treatment of human diseases. The truth however, is that embryonic stem cells have not produced a single viable human treatment for any disease--whereas adult stem cells have produced numerous therapies that have been successfully administered. Treatments derived from adult stem cells have been successfully treating patients for years with measurable improvement in their conditions. Over 600 Americans were treated last year with umbilical cord blood transplants. After transplant these cord blood cells move deeply into the patients' bones and produce new blood and immune cells for the remainder of their lives. These cord cells literally give patients a new lease on life. For example, researchers at the Burnham Institute and the Rebecca and John Moores Cancer Centers in San Diego found that pancreatic cells could be altered into insulin producing stem cells, foreshadowing a possible cure for both type 1 and 2 diabetes. Recently, researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard University reported that stem cells drawn from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold the same promise as embryonic stem cells without causing harm to the mother or the fetus. These stem cells are able to differentiate into fully grown cells representing the three major kinds of tissue found in the human body. Researchers also discovered that amniotic stem cells do not form tumors, a problem that commonly plagues embryonic stem cells. The findings contained in this study point to a promising avenue of research that sidesteps the hurdles facing embryonic stem cell research. Moral objections to the destruction of embryos occurring when cells are harvested are avoided because no embryos are destroyed. The Washington Post recently stated, ``The new cells are adding credence to an emerging consensus among experts that the popular distinction between embryonic and adult stem cells is artificial.'' With more than 4 million U.S. births a year, it would not take long to collect the estimated 100,000 amniotic donations necessary to provide enough cells of sufficient genetic diversity to provide compatible tissue for virtually everyone in the United States. I also want to remind my colleagues that the current ban on embryonic research does not prevent private funding for embryonic stem cell research. Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates and Newport Beach bond trader Bill Gross are among several private donors who have provided millions of dollars toward embryonic stem cell research. In fact the Federal Government has spent over $161 million dollars on existing stem cell lines where the embryo had already been destroyed. The bill before us today advocates the further destruction of new life to expand human embryonic stem cell research. This research on NIH- approved embryonic stem cell lines accounts for 85 percent of all embryonic stem cell publications published. Adult stem cells have provided human treatments, have a lower rate of immune rejection in patients, and show less likelihood of tumor formation. We should aggressively pursue this avenue of research. In seeking new treatments for the ills of humanity, let us also strive to protect the future of humanity, We too must uphold the first tenet of the Hippocratic oath--``First do no harm.'' It is unnecesary and morally offensive to force all taxpayers to pay to expand embryonic stem cell research. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University of Florida Gators for their win Monday night to capture their second football national championship. With the Gators' 41-14 defeat of the Ohio State Buckeyes, they become the first Division I school to hold the national championship in men's basketball and football at the same time. Coming into this game, many of the so-called experts did not give the Gators any chance of defeating the previously undefeated Buckeyes. However, once they took the field, the Gators were not intimidated. In fact, the Gators held Ohio State to only 82 yards of total offense, the fewest number of yards in BCS history. The Florida Gators are an excellent example of both the university and the great State of Florida in their tenacity, spirit and, of course, their desire to succeed. I take great pride in representing the University of Florida and congratulate Coach Urban Meyer and the entire university on this great accomplishment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1, the ``Fully Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act,'' does not achieve what it advertises. In fact, in many cases, it inhibits our Nation's ability to secure our citizens against attack. This bill neglects to address many recommendations, including classified oversight of the Homeland Security Department, declassification of the intelligence budget, and a shift of paramilitary operations from the CIA to the Defense Department. There are other provisions inserted in this bill, that do not appear anywhere in the 9/11 Commission Report, including unionization of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees, 100 percent screening of cargo containers, and several foreign policy initiatives, some of which have already been passed into law. Incredibly, a provision in this bill would cede one of our Nation's most critical and effective national security initiatives to regulation by the United Nations. The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) is a 4-year-old program created and run by the United States to coordinate nonproliferation efforts by ourselves and our allies. This program's effectiveness was a key deterrent to Libya's nuclear program, and was directly responsible to uncovering the large Pakistani nuclear black market ring run by A.Q. Khan. Transferring this program to the United Nations would require participants in the program to seek the approval of these foreign governments prior to interdicting illicit WMD material, creating yet another hurdle that agencies would have to overcome prior to intercepting illegal WMD shipments. This program relies heavily on shared intelligence, which is the primary reason it must not be handed over to the UN Security Council. This would jeopardize the intelligence, routes, methods and sources used by U.S. and allied forces to prevent proliferation of WMDs by rogue regimes and terrorist organizations. Allowing members of the United Nations Security Council, which in the past has counted Syria and Pakistan as members, will compromise operations, cripple the program's effectiveness and endanger our citizens. In yet another disparity, the 9/11 Commission does not recommend 100 percent screening of cargo containers. However, the last Congress determined that greater security was a need, and therefore passed, with bipartisan support, the SAFE Ports Act. Under these expanded security measures, all cargo entering the country is assessed for risk long before it reaches our shores, and when designated as questionable, those shipments are thoroughly inspected. In fact, current best practices by the Customs and Border Patrol also includes random inspections both at dockside during loading and unloading, and of the trucks as they leave the port. This 100 percent mandate is also incredibly burdensome financially. House Democrats expect industry, and possibly foreign governments, to cover the costs of ensuring 100 percent cargo screening of containers entering the United States by air or sea. The airlines would be expected to pay for air cargo inspections; while foreign port terminal operators would be expected to pay for scanning U.S. bound sea cargo. The bill does not estimate how much this will cost, but DHS is already spending $60 million a year to scan sea cargo at six foreign ports. According to DHS, there are more than 700 I seaports that ship to the U.S., raising estimates of the costs of this program into the tens of billions. Funding for Homeland Security must be split to address a wide array of threats against the United States to minimize risk as best possible. To allocate funding on any program that has little likelihood of effectiveness is egregiously irresponsible. Container-screening technology is improving, but is not yet proficient enough to scan all of those containers in a useful, accurate, and speedy manner. That is why in the SAFE Ports Act, Congress included provisions to conduct feasibility studies of the 100% container-screening proposal and of emerging screening technology. The results of these studies have not even been reported, and yet the Democratic leadership insists on pushing through this incredibly ill advised mandate without the full information, without hearings and without mark-up sessions in committee. This illogical, ill-informed approach to our national security is being pursued with only one discernable purpose, political clout by achieving passage of the Democrats' ``100 hours agenda''. There is also the extraordinarily troubling provision that would grant collective bargaining rights to TSA employees. On the surface, this may seem reasonable, but it poses a clear danger to our national security. Granting unionization rights to TSA employees would allow them to strike when negotiating their contracts. Imagine a strike of TSA screeners at airports across the nation at Thanksgiving, or the during the Fourth of July holiday. It would be a nightmare--airport operations would cease or the security of our flights would be threatened from lack of adequate passenger and luggage screening. That is one reason why federal employees in positions impacting National Security were purposely excluded from collective bargaining rights when Congress passed the Labor-Management Relations Act in 1947, and affirmed again when the TSA was re-established under the Department of Homeland Security in 2002. DHS must have the flexibility to move and retrain employees at will in response to the changing nature of threats against the United States. Following last July's intelligence revelation that terrorists were plotting action against U.S. flights from the United Kingdom, one critical advantage that DHS cited was the ability to shift employees to respond to this new emerging threat. Should TSA employees unionize, DHS would no longer have this speed and flexibility, weakening our responses to terrorist threats. This bill is touted by democrats to implement many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, but not only does it not accomplish this, it fails to identify funding for the initiatives. In fact, only one provision in the entire bill contains a defined funding authorization: the checkpoint screening security fund, which would authorize $250 million for FY2008. Therefore, this legislation could end up only as an exercise in futility should appropriators not allocate funds for these programs. House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson conceded that he may have included more authorization levels had there been more time, ``But, in the spirit of `let's get it done,' we'll work it out.'' Ramming through legislation with the expectation that legitimate concerns and problems with legislation will be addressed at some later date is not the way to protect our citizens, and it is certainly a haphazard manner in which to pass laws. National security is not an issue that should hinge on ``rough drafts'' of proposals awaiting future refinement. If there is a need to reform our nationals security procedures, which I believe there is, it is imperative that we thoroughly consider these issues in Committee with hearings and legislation mark-up sessions. We must always consider national security issues with due deference and the humbling knowledge that every initiative we pass here in Washington will directly impact the security of our constituents at home.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased on this first day of the 110th Congress to introduce several pieces of legislation that I have been pursuing over the years, and for which I will continue to advocate these next 2 years. Ultrasound technology provides us with a fascinating ``womb with a view,'' allowing doctors to better treat their pregnant patients. But many underprivileged pregnant women cannot afford this important option. These women desperately need access to these free services to safeguard their health and prenatal well-being. That's why I am reintroducing the ``Informed Choice Act,'' which authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to community-based, non-profit health clinics that do not charge for their services, for the purchase of ultrasound equipment. The centers that receive these grants will be better able to offer free examinations--under medical supervision--to women who might otherwise have no access to such critical care. I respect our code of law and our society founded on religious freedom for all Americans. I believe the Ten Commandments are a concise set of values that represent the historic foundation of our nation's laws and our common view of what is right and wrong. Stories of murder, rape, drug abuse, and school violence dominate the media and reveal our society's need to be reminded of our moral compass. That is why I am reintroducing my legislation to have the Ten Commandments prominently posted in the Capitol building as a symbolic reminder of our heritage and the values we aspire to govern by. I am reintroducing my Right to Carry Reciprocity bill that would allow for a person to carry in all 50 states if he possesses a valid permit in his home state. I believe that a person's right to self- defense should not be limited to within a state line. Today, 46 states have laws permitting concealed carry of firearms, and 38 states, accounting for two-thirds of the U.S. population, have Right To Carry laws, which dramatically reduces their incidence of violent crimes. In fact, the FBI statistics show 9 of the 10 states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. It is important to note this bill would not create a federal licensing system, but merely requires states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. This bill has enjoyed bipartisan support in the past with 102 cosponsors, and I look forward to again working with my esteemed colleagues for its passage in the 110th Congress. I am also reintroducing two bills pushing further reforms to the United Nations. On March 15, 2006, the U.N. replaced the discredited Human Rights Commission with a new Human Rights Council. Unfortunately, the new Council looks set to fail just as miserably as its predecessor. While making superficial structural changes, no reforms were implemented. The new elected membership includes such human rights violators as China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. My legislation would require the Secretary of State to withhold from the U.S. contribution to our U.N. dues an amount equal to the U.S. percentage of the cost of the Council (approximately $500,000 a year). The U.S. should not support the U.N. Human Rights Council until it upholds the ideals of the U.N. Charter and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and its membership is made up of free and democratic nations. My other U.N. reform legislation deals with financial accounting for the renovation of the United Nations building in New York. There have been numerous reports of wasteful spending in this project, and my legislation would prevent U.S. federal funds from being used for this endeavor unless the President submits a report to Congress affirming the United Nations is abiding by internationally recognized best practices in contracting and resource management. I am excited to again introduce legislation to help all American savers. My legislation, the Simple Savings Tax Relief Act of 2007, simply eliminates the taxation of interest earned in savings accounts, such as passbook savings accounts or bank certificates of deposit. I think at least some of this interest should be tax-free, as we have been working towards other forms of non-earned income. This legislation would end a punitive tax, especially assist low and middle-income earners, and ultimately contribute toward the goal of encouraging individual responsibility and taking charge of one's own financial destiny. Because I believe that health care access for all begins with tax parity, I am pleased to again sponsor the Health Care Tax Deduction Act of 2007. This would allow deductions for amounts paid for health insurance premiums and unreimbursed prescription drugs. This would provide much needed relief to individuals struggling with the high cost of health insurance and prescription drugs through a tax deduction, and tax parity with those of us who have employer-provided tax-deductible health insurance. Expansively, this benefit extends to all IRS-defined health insurance premiums such as an HMO, PPO, a traditional indemnity plan, a new HSA, and also long-term care premiums. Right now, under the current tax code, in order to claim health care expenses individuals must file an itemized tax return. My bill would simplify and extend this tax preference for all filers. Because Members of Congress should put our money where our mouths are, I am pleased to reoffer my Deficit Accountability Act of 2007. It would prevent any automatic pay adjustment for Members of Congress in the year following a fiscal year in which there is a Federal budget deficit. It is needed to hold Members accountable for the Federal budget, and any resulting deficits. My last piece of legislation is one of inspiration, the Museum of Ideas Act of 2007. It would create a commission to develop a plan for establishing a Museum of Ideas. In our Nation's Capital, we are enriched with museums exhibiting arts, natural sciences, modes of transportation, musical instruments, tools of industry and production, live plants and live animals, and other such tangible artifacts of our universe, we lack a museum of the conceptual, of thoughts, concepts, and philosophies throughout the history of the world. I look forward to working with my colleagues on all these important pieces of business for the Nation.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate this chance to recognize a true hero, someone who put aside the natural reaction to remain safe and instead risked his life to save another. Wesley Autrey recently demonstrated heroism at the subway station at 137th Street and Broadway. Mr. Autrey was waiting with his two children on the subway platform when he saw a young man suffer a seizure and fall onto the tracks. Realizing that a train was approaching and with no chance of helping the young man off of the track, Mr. Autry jumped down onto the tracks and placed his body on top of the victim to protect him from the train. The train missed Mr. Autry by mere inches and both emerged unscathed. In a world plagued by terrorism, indifference, and selfishness, Mr. Autrey's action demonstrated a commitment to preserving life and showed that we still have heroes among us. I commend a real American hero, Wesley Autrey.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of working with some great men and women over my years in Congress, and I rise today to pay my respect to two of my colleagues who will be leaving at the end of this year: Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Jim Ryun. Anyone who has worked with J.D. Hayworth can readily testify that he is a charismatic man of many talents. His career in Congress has been highlighted by his leadership on immigration reform, advocacy for enhanced border security and prioritization of national security in these threatening times. In addition, he has received the ``Taxpayer Hero'' award from Citizens Against Government Waste 10 times, and was recently awarded the ``Lifetime Tax Fighter'' award from the National Tax Limitation Committee. He has also worked tirelessly for protection of children. His provisions for a centralized law enforcement database of child abusers strengthened the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which President Bush signed into law this July. These are some of the many distinctive achievements of J.D. Hayworth as a public official, but many may not know some of the unique characteristics he possesses as an individual. I got to know J.D. better when I went and campaigned for him. I met his wonderful family and enjoyed their warm hospitality during my times in Arizona. He is a loving family man with a great sense of humor. Many may not be aware of one of his unique talents. He has an uncanny ability to mimic the speech of other Members. His impersonation of Representative Howard Coble in particular is one of the best I have ever heard. I greatly respect J.D., will sorely miss him, and I hope he will consider returning to public office sometime in the near future. I would also like to take a moment to honor Representative Jim Ryun. He has greatly impressed me with his leadership--both in his public office and in his personal life. He has fervently worked for traditional family values, fiscal responsibility, immigration reform, and improving the lives of our men and women in uniform. For several years now, he worked to pass the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act, which protects service members from coercive tactics employed by some credit institutions. This legislation overwhelmingly passed the House and paved the way for its companion legislation to be signed into law this past September. I was also impressed and touched by his eloquence during the debate on the Respect for Fallen Heroes Act when he stated, ``Our service members embody the exact opposite of hate by sacrificing their lives so that we can keep ours. I pay tribute to them . . .'' It is this selflessness and integrity that has made it a pleasure to work with him. It is also an honor to know him as a friend. Jim is a committed family man. He and his wife Anne have worked as a ``dynamic duo'' to strengthen and promote family values through their work with the Statesmen Leaders Conference and the Congressional Wives' Club. He is most famously identified as the man who broke the 4-minute mile, an incredible feat of athleticism that many of us, myself included, wish we could replicate. But I would not identify him that way. Instead, I would identify him most readily with his faith, for that is how he lives his life. I have had the pleasure of attending many Bible studies with him here at the Capitol, and I have found the source of his strength of character stems from his deep faith in God. His love for God and his fellow man has inspired many of us, and led some to a deeper relationship with God themselves. I value the time I have had to work with Jim. I will miss his calming presence and insight in the 110th Congress, and I pray that God blesses him and his family in his future endeavors.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, Florida is a state like no other. Our distinct regions range from the white-sanded beaches of the panhandle to the pink-sanded, sophisticated boutiqued avenues of Miami, passing through the space coast, home to Kennedy Space Center, and, most exquisitely, through the beautiful, rolling horse country of Marion and Alachua counties. Our congressional delegation is no less diverse. We have our rock- solid fiscal conservatives, our steady moderates, and our progressive liberals. I am proud to be associated with them all. Tonight, I join my Sunshine State colleagues to bid a fond farewell to Clay Shaw, Mike Bilirakis, Jim Davis, and Katherine Harris. Each of them are unique seashells, sparkling on the beach that we call Florida. Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Davis and I have spent many years together on the Committee on Energy & Commerce. For countless hours, we have debated the Outer Continental Shelf, Medicaid, and telecommunications issues. There were never dull moments, but even as we disagreed, I think that the three of us asked a common question as we legislated: what is best for Floridians? In Mr. Bilirakis, further, one could ask for no more dedicated advocate for our Nation's veterans. He has introduced the fix for the unfair offset of concurrent receipt of veteran disability pay and military retirement pay for 20 years now. Happily, he must leave here with the satisfaction that Congress has made substantial progress in ending this century-old problem. Mr. Shaw's leadership in Medicare is peerless. Physicians around Florida and around the nation have him to thank for his tireless efforts on their reimbursement, as well as medical liability reform. I am honored that he asked me to carry the torch for his work on medical screenings for first responders. I shall not let him down. Mrs. Harris has served honorably as a brilliant stateswoman, both for Florida and for the United States. As Secretary of State for Florida, she represented and advanced our interests in trade, with diplomacy and aplomb. And, she is an accomplished horsewoman and solid booster and alumna of the University of Florida, with strong family ties. As an example of our unity, like other States with no income taxes, our delegation has lobbied hard for federal income tax fairness, via the deduction for state and local sales taxes. When I gathered the support of the Florida delegation for this deduction in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 in a letter in the summer of 2004, I am proud to say that I collected the signatures of 100 percent of our delegation, all 25 of our House Members, and our two Senators. One of our delegation, the Honorable Porter Goss, in fact had one foot out the door, to head the Central Intelligence Agency, but he still took a moment to sign our letter. I don't think any of the other non-income tax states, including the even larger delegation of Texas, secured 100 percent support. This solidarity just exemplifies who Floridians are. Representatives Bilirakis, Shaw, Harris, and Davis, fare thee well.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on November 16 of this year, America and the world lost not only a brilliant economist but a towering giant of an unbounded vision for freedom. Dr. Friedman was widely recognized worldwide for his economic explanations and philosophies of government and markets. Beyond pure economic analysis, Dr. Friedman promoted liberty and choices in all areas. I am honored to have the opportunity to commemorate his life with this resolution to honor him and have enjoyed collaborating with the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey. House Resolution 1089 outlines his academic, publishing, and prize- winning accomplishments. I will not relist them here. There is so much to say. Dr. Friedman's economic prescription advocated we steadily, constantly stabilize the growth of money supply, then more or less just stay out of the way, leaving the economy to the free creative choices of millions of productive individuals, households, and businesses, rather than one micromanaging government. Milton Friedman put individuals, not bureaucrats at best or despots at worst, in the driver's seat. Essentially we admire him for espousing that economic freedom is necessary for political freedom. And today few would argue that Friedman's ideas went from being seen as radical to now being fully accepted. Most successful countries rely on monetary policy as their chief stabilizing tool. Some shining examples are borne out in Eastern Europe nations that not so long ago dwelled under the Iron Curtain. I think a cartoon that was printed in the Christian Science Monitor in 1990 by Danziger sums it up pretty well. It says ``Statue of Milton Friedman is erected in Poland in place of Whathisname.'' And of course it depicts a collapsed Lenin on his face with a lady chortling ``Hah!'' at the broken statue while other Poles are pulling up a smiling, bespeckled Milton Friedman statue and they have crossed out ``Lenin'' and carved ``Uncle Miltie'' on the statue base. My colleagues, his crowning achievement was establishing with his wife the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation, based in Indianapolis, Indiana, for the purpose of promoting educational choice and reform for parents and their children. School choice continues to be passionately debated today; yet experiments from the District of Columbia to my own State of Florida, under Governor Jeb Bush's lead, demonstrate great promise in liberating educational opportunities for all. We have done this successfully for colleges since World War II with the Montgomery GI bill. So why should we deny school choice for kindergartners through senior high school students here in America? And, finally, my colleagues, I cannot end a tribute to Dr. Friedman without also honoring his wife of 68 years. Rose was his classmate, partner economist, fellow radical for freedom, and, I daresay, the love of his life. I know she and children David and Janet and their grandchildren mourn their beloved Milton but are at peace knowing they contributed to this great man who contributed just so much to the multitudes in this country. For me when I think of the values not only Milton Friedman and his wife promoted, I am moved by this paragraph from the Friedmans' memoirs, ``Two Lucky People.'' Mr. Speaker, this sentiment is bigger than partisan politics. It is more profound than the Washington interest group agenda. It marvelously illustrates optimism for what America could be. `` . . . So we close this book full of optimism for the future in the belief that those ideas will prevail and that our children and grandchildren will live in a country that continues to advance rapidly in material and biological well-being and gives its citizens ever wider freedom to follow their own values and tastes so long as they do not interfere with the ability of others to do the same.'' Milton Friedman, well done. Rest in peace.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University of Florida football team for their deserving selection to play for the national championship against Ohio State. The Gators had a tremendous season, going 12-1, playing one of the toughest schedules in the Nation, and beating Arkansas to win the SEC championship. The Florida Gators are excellent representatives of both the university and the great State of Florida in their tenacity, spirit, and desire to succeed. I take great pride in representing the University of Florida and congratulating Coach Urban Meyer and the entire university on this great accomplishment. I am so confident in a Gator victory that I challenge my colleague from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) to a friendly wager. In the unlikely event that Florida loses, I will provide her with a crate of Florida oranges. However, I look forward to collecting perhaps one of Ohio's great delicacies. Go Gators.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 519, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, Hugo Chavez, dictator of Venezuela, gave a speech at the United Nations last week in which he lambasted the United States and denigrated President Bush. Chavez is little more than a comical autocrat on an anti-American public relations tour, but it is interesting that the American public has channeled their wrath into their consumer purchasing, moving to boycott Citgo, the Venezuelan national gas company. Indeed, on Wednesday, 7-Eleven reacted to growing bad publicity by announcing it would not renew a 20-year contract with Citgo. That is about 2,100 gas stations off the books for Citgo. The rest will be targets of an angry American public's spontaneous boycott of Venezuelan oil. All of us are working here in Congress to promote America's oil independence. All of us should do what 7-Eleven is doing by boycotting Citgo gas stations.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, it has been more than 5 years since the terrorist attacks on September 11. In looking back, we have made great progress in uprooting the terrorists from their havens and liberating millions of people. We also have provided our law enforcement and intelligence agencies with new tools to combat these threats. Yet there is so much more to do. We are at war with terrorists, and we must protect our borders. If we cannot control our borders, how can we prevent those who would murder us from entering our Nation? Millions attempt to enter our Nation illegally every year. Many are apprehended. I commend our Border Patrol for their fine work under difficult situations; however, millions have crossed the border successfully in the past 5 years, and we do not know how many terrorists there are. Our borders are another battleground in the war on terror.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it has been more than five years since the terrorist attacks of September 11. In looking back, we have made great progress uprooting the terrorists from their havens and liberating millions of people. We also have provided our law enforcement and intelligence agencies with new tools to combat these threats. Yet, there is so much more to do. We are at war against terror and we must protect our borders. If we cannot control our borders, how can we prevent those who would murder us from entering our nation? Millions attempt to enter our nation illegally every year, and many are apprehended. I commend our border patrol for their fine work under difficult conditions. However, millions have crossed the border successfully in the past five years, and we do not know how many are terrorists. Our borders are another battlefront in the War on Terror.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, according to the State Department, international corruption costs American companies that play by the rules many billions of dollars in lost exports. Corruption impedes government efforts to deliver basic efforts to citizens, weakens confidence in democracy, and is often linked to international criminal activity. It causes rampant economic inefficiency, interferes with capital markets, and obviously contributes to poverty. Transparency International is a global not-for-profit organization dedicated to the fight against corruption. Transparency puts out annual reports on the state of corruption worldwide, trying to measure whether we are winning or losing that fight. This fight is a top priority for the U.S. Departments of State, Justice and Commerce. My colleagues, since 1979, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, has had a convention against corruption and continues to see it as a top global priority. All this reflects a growing international consensus that corruption is a problem that we must confront. That much is true. But working on anticorruption campaigns, all these entities treat the symptoms rather than the disease. The disease is oppression and lawlessness. The cure is freedom and the rule of law. The annual Index of Economic Freedom, compiled by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, provides a simple framework for understanding how open countries are to competition; the degree of state intervention in the economy, whether through taxation, spending or overregulation; and the strength and independence of a country's judiciary to enforce rules and protect private property. One of the indicators in the index is the size of a nation's ``informal,'' or black market economy, which helps to measure this corruption. Charting the relationship between economic freedom and the size of the informal economy as a percentage of GDP, the Heritage Foundation found a positive correlation between these two factors. They reported, ``as economic freedom vanishes, the informal economy takes a larger share of GDP. The size of the informal economy in economically unfree and repressed economies is almost three times the size of the informal economy in free economies, and almost double the size of the informal economy in mostly free economies.'' The Heritage calculations demonstrate the perverse effect of economic repression on the moral behavior of simple, ordinary people and the continuation of the cycle of poverty that entraps them. Access to credit in most developed countries is the key to a better standard of living. That access is incumbent upon proving income or property, for which you need a formal job and a legal title to that property. When it is difficult for people to invest in business, whether a corner grocery store or a major factory, formal jobs are hard to come by. Jobs can be more easily had in the informal economy, where small and medium entrepreneurs can negotiate salaries and benefits, and tie them to performance. In cases like this, the government bureaucracy encumbers legal businesses, encouraging employers and employees to operate in the shadows. Without a formal job, you can still get credit if you have titled property to offer as collateral. But while Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto has shown that most of the poorest people in the developing world own property, they face innumerable bureaucratic hurdles in order to actually title that property as their own. In Peru, he says, ``to obtain legal authorization to build a house on state-owned land took 6 years and 11 months. To obtain a legal title for that piece of land took 728 steps.'' Other countries are similarly ridiculous. In Egypt, it takes 77 steps in 31 government offices and anywhere from 6 to 14 years. In the Philippines, it takes 168 steps through 53 offices and anywhere from 13 to 25 years to get legal title to this property. An oppressive government system perpetuates the poverty of its citizens by making it impossible to claim their property rights and pursue legal employment. Equally important, the Heritage Foundation says that the resulting black market economy ``creates a culture of contempt for the law and fosters corruption and bribery in the public sector as a necessary means to navigate the bureaucracy.'' Mr. Speaker, when those folks, particularly international elites, take on corruption, they see it as just one more corporate scandal to be uncovered and think that will be that and we can fix it. One more capitalistic crime, they call it, that must be prosecuted. That is not it. That is not it at all. In reality, corruption indicates a simple lack of freedom and, more importantly, a consistent rule of law.