Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago next month, a new periodical entered the marketplace and American history. That publication was National Review, its founder and editor was 29- year-old William F. Buckley. From the beginning, Buckley's magazine stood ``athwart history, yelling `Stop,' at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.'' And for five decades, it has bravely and effectively espoused conservative values and ideas, with both humor and intelligence. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the inaugural Publisher's Statement of November 19, 1955, for the Record. It is no surprise that since its inception, we've witnessed Republican victories in eight of eleven Presidential elections, the revolutionary Republican Class of 1994, America's victory in the Cold War, and widespread acceptance of conservative positions like economic freedom, limited government, individual responsibility and traditional values. Obviously, Bill Buckley and National Review did much more than stand athwart history--they helped shape it. America and the world are the better for it. There is no more influential and popular opinion journal in the United States than National Review, with 155,000 paid subscribers and a readership of over 310,000. The Internet version of National Review, NRO, is just as popular and well written. It is well known that Ronald Reagan--who was a Democrat in 1955-- started to read National Review when it first came out, and it played a significant role in his personal and political development. This publication has influenced at least two generations of young conservatives, and will assuredly have a positive impact on many more lives in the future. No doubt there are young men and women here on the Hill, and all across America, who are reading National Review, perhaps for the very first time, and whose lives will be transformed. In addition to the 50th anniversary of National Review, William F. Buckley will also soon be celebrating his 80th birthday. Buckley, who served in the U.S. Army, worked for the CIA, and graduated from Yale, has had a very busy and productive life. In addition to editing National Review up until last year, he has written 47 books, including 18 novels, some 900 editorials or other articles in National Review, 350 articles in other periodicals, more than 4,000 newspaper columns, and for 34 years he hosted the tremendous talk-show ``Firing Line,'' where he had over 1,400 televised debates with people ranging from Muhammed Ali to Margaret Thatcher to Noam Chomsky to Mother Theresa. He famously ran for Mayor of New York City in 1965 as the Conservative Party candidate. Although he predicted be would receive only one vote, Buckley in fact won 13 percent, and to this day his race is considered one of the City's most rollicking and interesting campaigns ever. Buckley counted as his friends conservative and intellectual giants such as Russell Kirk, Whittaker Chambers, L. Brent Bozell and Claire Luce Booth. The conservative movement he helped nurture and flourish gave us Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan. Mr. Speaker, it was Buckley's younger brother Reid, I believe, who best summed up the philosophy that guided William F. Buckley and his life's work. He noted that: ``We learned from our parents to prefer the good man to the brilliant man. It is a sacred humanity in people we respect. Our compassion is earned in the quality of the human condition. People are surprised to realize that we, princelings of Dame Fortune, as they feel us to be, tread the same hard interior landscape. And it may be this that comes through, that fascinates, because we do not presume, `Come, let us lead you,' but, instead, petition, `Come, our philosophy is your way, the human way, and it is you who will and must lead yourselves. . .' '' I offer a most sincere ``happy birthday'' to Bill Buckley, and ``thank you'' for his wonderful creation, and I congratulate the family at National Review for 50 years of fine work, with hopefully many more yet to come. [From National Review, January 03, 2005} Standing Athwart History, Yelling Stop (By William F. Buckley, Jr.) There is, we like to think, solid reason for rejoicing. Prodigious efforts, by many people, are responsible for National Review. But since it will be the policy of this magazine to reject the hypodermic approach to world affairs, we may as well start out at once, and admit that the joy is not unconfined. Let's face it: Unlike Vienna, it seems altogether possible that did National Review not exist, no one would have invented it. The launching of a conservative weekly journal of opinion in a country widely assumed to be a bastion of conservatism at first glance looks like a work of supererogation, rather like publishing a royalist weekly within the walls of Buckingham Palace. It is not that, of course; if National Review is superfluous, it is so for very different reasons: It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it. National Review is out of place, in the sense that the United Nations and the League of Women Voters and the New York Times and Henry Steele Commager are in place. It is out of place because, in its maturity, literate America rejected conservatism in favor of radical social experimentation. Instead of covetously consolidating its premises, the United States seems tormented by its tradition of fixed postulates having to do with the meaning of existence, with the relationship of the state to the individual, of the individual to his neighbor, so clearly enunciated in the enabling documents of our Republic. ``I happen to prefer champagne to ditchwater,'' said the benign old wrecker of the ordered society, Oliver Wendell Holmes, ``but there is no reason to suppose that the cosmos does.'' We have come around to Mr. Holmes' view, so much that we feel gentlemanly doubts when asserting the superiority of capitalism to socialism, of republicanism to centralism, of champagne to ditchwater--of anything to anything. (How curious that one of the doubts one is not permitted is whether, at the margin, Mr. Holmes was a useful citizen!) The inroads that relativism has made on the American soul are not so easily evident. One must recently have lived on or close to a college campus to have a vivid intimation of what has happened. It is there that we see how a number of energetic social innovators, plugging their grand designs, succeeded over the years in capturing the liberal intellectual imagination. And since ideas rule the world, the ideologues, having won over the intellectual class, simply walked in and started to run things. Run just about everything. There never was an age of conformity quite like this one, or a camaraderie quite like the Liberals'. Drop a little itching powder in Jimmy Wechsler's bath and before he has scratched himself for the third time, Arthur Schlesinger will have denounced you in a dozen books and speeches, Archibald MacLeish will have written ten heroic cantos about our age of terror. Harper's will have published them, and everyone in sight will have been nominated for a Freedom Award. Conservatives in this country--at least those who have not made their peace with the New Deal, and there is a serious question of whether there are others--are non-licensed nonconformists; and this is a dangerous business in a Liberal world, as every editor of this magazine can readily show by pointing to his scars. Radical conservatives in this country have an interesting time of it, for when they are not being suppressed or mutilated by Liberals, they are being ignored or humiliated by a great many of those of the well-fed Right, whose ignorance and amorality of never been exaggerated for the same reason that one cannot exaggerate infinity. There are, thank Heaven, the exceptions. There are those of generous impulse and a sincere desire to encourage a responsible dissent from the Liberal orthodoxy. And there are those who recognize that when all is said and done, the market place depends for a license to operate freely on the men who issue licenses--on the politicians. They recognize, therefore, that efficient getting and spending is itself impossible except in an atmosphere that encourages efficient getting and spending. And back of all political institutions there are moral and philosophical concepts, implicit or defined. Our political economy and our high-energy industry run on large, general principles, on ideas--not by day-to-day guess work, expedients and improvisations. Ideas have to go into exchange to become or remain operative; and the medium of such exchange is the printed word. A vigorous and incorruptible journal of conservative opinion is--dare we say it?--as necessary to better living as Chemistry. We begin publishing, then, with a considerable stock of experience with the irresponsible Right, and a despair of the intransigence of the Liberals, who run this country; and all this in a world dominated by the jubilant single-mindedness of the practicing Communist, with his inside track to History. All this would not appear to augur well for National Review. Yet we start with a considerable--and considered-- optimism. After all, we crashed through. More than one hundred and twenty investors made this magazine possible, and over 50 men and women of small means invested less than one thousand dollars apiece in it. Two men and one woman, all three with overwhelming personal and public commitments, worked round the clock to make publication possible. A score of professional writers pledged their devoted attention to its needs, and hundreds of thoughtful men and women gave evidence that the appearance of such a journal as we have in mind would profoundly affect their lives. Our own views, as expressed in a memorandum drafted a year ago, and directed to our investors, are set forth in an adjacent column. We have nothing to offer but the best that is in us. That, a thousand Liberals who read this sentiment will say with relief, is clearly not enough! It isn't enough. But it is at this point that we steal the march. For we offer, besides ourselves, a position that has not grown old under the weight of a gigantic, parasitic bureaucracy, a position untempered by the doctoral dissertations of a generation of Ph.D's in social architecture, unattenuated by a thousand vulgar promises to a thousand different pressure groups uncorroded by a cynical contempt for human freedom. And that, ladies and gentlemen, leaves us just about the hottest thing in town.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, let me say to all my colleagues that are concerned about this bill, within the bill is a gas price gouging prevention portion, the ``Gas Price Gouging Prevention Act,'' my amendment that was approved in Committee. Included in the manager's amendment, it will for the first time direct the Federal Trade Commission to define price gouging and prosecute it as an unfair and deceptive trade practice. It will direct Federal Trade Commission expertise and resources in addition to existing State anti-gouging laws on eliminating retail and wholesale price gouging in a designated disaster area as well as any extended problem in the areas around the country, as determined by the President and the Secretary of Energy. Penalties include fines up to $11,000 for violation in addition to equitable remedies, like returning ill-gotten profits. The amendment prohibits price gouging in the market for crude oil, home heating oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel. This has been extended. It is difficult to define price gouging. For the first time in this country, we are going to define it. We are going to prosecute it, and we are going to give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to do just that. The amendment provides for the exclusive enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission of the provisions as a violation of a rule defining an unfair deceptive act or practice under the FTC Act. As I mentioned earlier, there are stiff penalties involved. The bill is triggered for 30 days in the affected area, not just 1 or 2 weeks, but 30 days and beyond if the President of the United States, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, deems it to be appropriate. When the President declares a major disaster, and only for those major disasters that the Secretary has determined could significantly affect production, distribution or supply, then it is extended, it is enforced. As mentioned earlier, it includes not just crude oil, home heating oil, and gasoline and diesel fuel. I urge my colleagues to look carefully at this bill. If you are going to vote against this bill, you are going to vote against a provision that establishes for the first time price gouging that is defined and prosecuted on a Federal level. I urge all my colleagues to support the bill. The amendment prohibits price gouging in the market for crude oil, home heating oil, gasoline and diesel fuel. It is difficult to define ``price gouging.'' The existing State statutes in this area have vastly different definitions and interpretations. Therefore, the amendment directs the FTC to define price gouging within 6 months of enactment consistent with the requirements for declaring unfair acts or practices in Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC's authority to define ``price gouging'' is tempered by the traditional unfairness principles under Section 5(n) of the FTC Act. Under this section, to be ``unfair'' a practice must: cause or be likely to cause substantial injury to consumers; not be reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves; and not be outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. The amendment provides for the exclusive enforcement by the FTC of the provision as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the FTC Act. The amendment provides for civil penalties of up to $11,000 per violation. The bill is triggered for 30 days in the affected areas--and beyond if the President, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, deems it to be appropriate--when the President declares a major disaster, and only for those major disasters that the Secretary has determined could significantly affect production, distribution, or supply. The President may extend the prohibition for such additional 30-day periods as he or she determines necessary. In addition, the issue of price gouging must be addressed. Unfortunately, the tremendous goodwill of the American people in helping their fellow citizens on the devastated gulf coast was marred by some now infamous instances of gasoline price gouging. Experts say the rapid rise in gasoline and diesel fuel prices nationwide following these natural disasters primarily resulted from a supply crisis. Yet, there were some specific gasoline price increases that the average American, and maybe even the experts, knows are gouging. Certain market situations, particularly those involving natural disasters like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, require aggressive and targeted Federal prosecution of gasoline price gouging. My amendment, the ``Gas Price Gouging Prevention Act,'' which is included in the Manager's amendment, will for the first time direct the Federal Trade Commission to define price gouging and prosecute it as an unfair and deceptive trade practice. The ``Gas Gouging Prevention Act'' will direct FTC expertise and resources, in addition to existing state anti-gouging laws, on eliminating retail and wholesale price gouging in a designated disaster area, as well as any extended problem areas around the country as determined by the President and Secretary of Energy. Penalties include fines of up to $11,000 per violation, in addition to equitable remedies like returning ill-gotten profits. It's time to flush out the gougers and protect consumers with a new Federal weapon to prosecute gasoline price gouging. I thank my colleagues, especially Mr. Walden, for their help in making the amendment even better and I urge that we pass ``Gas Price Gouging Prevention Act'' included in H.R. 3893, the ``Gasoline for America's Security Act.'' In closing, this legislation will go a long way to better protect the U.S. oil markets, as well as all consumers who depend on them. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for the time, and I come to the floor to speak against the Stupak substitute. I would tell all my colleagues in the energy markup in the full committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) did offer his amendment. It was defeated. I offered an amendment that was dealing with price gouging, and I won by only one vote. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) did an able job of pointing out some of the things in my amendment that he felt were weak. So the chairman and I and others on the committee went back, and we incorporated a lot of what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) brought up in the debate. We included it in this manager's amendment. So there is really no reason to vote for the Stupak substitute because much of what we have in the manager's amendment is already included. As a Member on this side of the aisle, I wanted to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for his help so that we are able to include in the manager's amendment some of his points, and I think we made a stronger bill. I would say to those Members on both sides of the aisle, there is really no reason to support the Stupak amendment because lots of what he is talking about dealing with price gouging, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, we have included in the manager's amendment. There are some other things I would like to point out dealing with the Stupak amendment. It does not provide consumer protection against price gouging in the crude oil or home heating oil market. The manager's amendment that I mentioned earlier offers these important consumer protections. The Stupak amendment caps damages at $3 million per day, while the manager's amendment allows for $11,000 per violation with no cap on the amount of damages that can be assessed. I think that is an important difference, and I think we should realize that is why the manager's amendment is better. The Stupak amendment has a market manipulation provision that is current law. The manager's amendment does not include this provision because the Federal Trade Commission has authority under current antitrust law to enforce against market manipulation. The Stupak amendment includes petroleum distillates that are subject to price-gouging violations. Unfortunately, petroleum distillates, which are used in so many products that are sold to consumer product companies, such as cosmetics, could be subject to price gouging under this amendment. That is our interpretation. My colleagues might not agree with it, but that is an area we are concerned about. If we have price gouging, it could affect such things as cosmetics. Overall, I think the point I am trying to make is, we incorporate a lot of the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Stupak) concerns in our manager's amendment. It made our bill stronger. We thank him for what he did. In the end, I think my colleagues should realize we should vote against the Stupak substitute. I agree we should have legislation to prevent people from lining their own pockets by taking advantage of others in a time of crisis. However, I cannot support the manner in which Mr. Stupak's amendment addresses the problem. The Stupak amendment will create serious problems for consumers at a time of disaster. There is no mechanism to allow prices to reflect the changes in the market dynamic following a disaster other than cost. The Stupak amendment defines price gouging violations with very subjective terms, such as ``unconscionable'' and ``grossly exceeds'', that will prove unworkable for the FTC. Instead, the FTC possesses a history of determining what is unfair under the FTC Act and we should rely upon their expertise to define price gouging. Because the amendment only accounts for price increases related to costs increases and does not include other factors--such as fear or panic--it will artificially restrain prices that lead to shortages in gasoline at the time consumers in a disaster area most need access to gasoline. This is because the amendment does not adequately allow for actual or anticipated changes in supply to be reflected in price. The Stupak amendment includes ``petroleum distillates'' that are subject to price-gouging violations. Unfortunately, petroleum distillates are used in so many products that selling distillates to consumer products companies, such as cosmetics, could be subject to price gouging under this amendment. While it does provide supply and demand considerations as a mitigating factor, it does so only for dollar costs actually incurred by the seller. It does not allow the FTC to consider countervailing benefits to consumers, namely that an increase in price can discourage hording by the first consumers to arrive at the gas station, leaving no gas for those who arrive later. The amendment is not adequately tied to a time of disaster. It gives the President authority to declare an emergency for any disruption of gasoline distribution or any significant pricing anomalies in the market. If exercised, this would interfere with supply and demand and lead to shortages for extended periods of time. The Stupak amendment caps damages at $3 million per day while the Manager's Amendment allows for $11,000 per violation, with no cap on the amount of damages that can be assessed. The Stupak amendment has a market manipulation provision that is current law. The Manager's Amendment does not include this provision because the FTC has authority under current antitrust law to enforce against market manipulation. The Stupak amendment does not provide consumer protection against price gouging in the crude oil or home heating oil markets. The Manager's Amendment offers these important consumer protections.

Mr. STEARNS

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Individuals with Disabilities Act and the 1998 Head Start Act simply required Head Start programs to reach out to families who have children with disabilities. Including children with disabilities in Head Start programs can be a rewarding experience for all involved: children, parents, and of course Head Start employees. But the linchpin for success with inclusion is proper training of employees to care for the children's unique needs. However, the underlying legislation I think perhaps can be strengthened in this area. My amendment would simply do that. How? Include families who have one or more children with disabilities in the list of training course subjects the Secretary is directed to provide for Head Start training employees so they can cope with that. I know firsthand, personally, both the victories and pitfalls of families who have dealt with children with learning disabilities. I know the worry and concern parents feel when they entrust the most precious being in their lives to the care of a stranger. Head Start personnel need to be trained, my colleagues, to mitigate these many concerns, and of course to provide meaningful guidance when a family faces a new challenge. So families with children with disabilities need support. Proper training of Head Start employees will enable them to anticipate possible challenges, evaluate the current difficulties that they may or may not have, and will educate the employees in current strategies and resources which are available to parents. For parents' piece of mind, it is imperative that those individuals caring for their children are simply equipped to handle any situation that may arise in that classroom. If not convinced, they will not send their child to the Head Start program, which would deprive the child from needed preparation for school. Now, for Head Start teachers, training will equip them with the necessary tools, of course, to be successful. Many human resources studies show the most common cause for dissatisfaction with a job is when employees feel ill equipped to meet the goals that are expected of them. Now this dissatisfaction is compounded for educational professionals, because when they fail to meet their goals, they feel they have failed the child. With proper training, teachers will feel empowered. They will have greater understanding of the underlying issues causing difficulty for that child and will be armed with a strategy to help them so they can ultimately succeed. Training can make that experience teaching children with disabilities a positive one instead of a negative one. Now, there was a teacher who did not feel properly trained, for example, to teach a child with disabilities. When required to include a student with disabilities in her classroom, she then received the necessary training to do it. As a result, and this is a good clear example, this is what she said. ``Ronnie is truly my most favorite student and my greatest accomplishment.'' Now that is a learning disability student. Bear with me here. ``Thanks to him, I cannot wait to get to school every morning to see what he has learned today. Thanks to him I feel proud to be a teacher again. On November 3, 2001, I never thought anything good could come out from having him in my class. Little did I know that he would be a great blessing for which I will always be thankful.'' Our children deserve effective teachers. Children with a disability generally do not respond well to change. We all know that. School is an enormous change that needs to be adequately prepared for. When starting school, they enter that simple, unknown world that scares them. Many of the expectations are new. Directions from the teachers do not make sense. They feel out of control themselves and they feel sort of helpless. Teachers can ease that child's anxiety, see when they are feeling overwhelmed, and simply provide support, and, more importantly, guidance. They are also able to give children specific strategies to handle these feelings, their feelings on their own, so that they in turn will feel more in control. By attending Head Start programs staffed with trained professionals, children will experience less stress, be more comfortable with their peers, accustom themselves with the behavioral expectations of classrooms, and learn strategies to deal with the inevitable distractions that are in a school setting. These are vital skills for them to learn at any time. And by learning them before beginning school, they will be better focused, more and better equipped to learn. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Provide Head Start employees with the training they need to support families and children with disabilities. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, an important event is soon approaching for a wonderful American lady, my mother-in-law, Alice Moore. She is celebrating her 85th birthday. Alice Stewart Sampson Moore was born on September 28, 1920, in Yonkers, New York. Her parents, William and Matilda, gave her a good Christian upbringing in the Episcopal Church. She turned her interest and learning into a career teaching education in Yonkers, New York. She is a proud mother of 11, and a great grandmother of even more. Although no longer working, Alice continues to serve in her community, volunteering at an elementary school and at the hospital in Englewood, Florida. Last year she suffered through the hurricanes that devastated parts of Florida, and her house did not escape damage. However, drawing on her Irish spirit, she cheerfully dealt with those setbacks and got back to pursuits. For many men, a mother-in-law is an intimidating figure. Although a stern taskmaster, Alice speaks her mind and she is a delightful person. Her smile lights up the room. She reminds me of Barbara Bush. She is a giving person with a warm disposition and serving heart. That is why I call her a thousand points of light times two. Mr. Speaker, in recognizing her accomplishments in education and as a volunteer, perhaps I should note another important accomplishment, being the mother of my wife, Joan Betty Moore Stearns. I am eternally indebted to you, Alice, and I wish you all the best. Happy birthday.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Holocaust survivor and freedom advocate Simon Wiesenthal. An extraordinary man of courage, he believed there can be no freedom without justice. Dedicating his life to this pursuit, he was responsible for finding and bringing to trial over 1,100 Nazi war criminals. A survivor of several different concentration camps through the course of World War II, he was finally liberated May 5, 1945. Sadly, most of his family had perished in the camps, over 89 persons. However, he cherished their memories and was strengthened with purpose. In an interview years later he said, ``I want to be their mouthpiece. I want to keep their memory alive, to make sure the dead live on in that memory.'' Simon Wiesenthal is a legendary example of what a person with a vision and a will can do. They can change the world.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, there is progress in New Orleans. The Port of New Orleans received its first shipment, and more people are back in the area for brief visits to assess the damage to their homes. In areas that were not flooded or the flood waters have begun to recede, citizens and crews began the clean-up process. The Governor's office reported that 16 of the region's 25 wastewater treatment plants are now operational. And the New Orleans airport reopened for cargo planes just last week. Although service will be extremely limited, the airport reopened to commercial traffic this week. In the wake of such a crippling disaster, we are already seeing promising indicators of recovery for the city of New Orleans. Our thoughts and prayers are still with the people of the Gulf region, and we in Congress will continue to work to ensure that New Orleans and the Gulf Coast continue to move towards a full recovery.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, we have all seen the horrors left in the wake of Hurricane Katrina over the past week. Yet, in the midst of this chaos and destruction, the American people, once again, demonstrated their compassion for those left with nothing. The American people and people from all over the world have opened not only their wallets, but also their homes, cities and schools. This compassion has not been limited to Americans alone. Over 70 countries have offered their assistance as well. Now, a great deal of criticism has been leveled against the Federal Government's response, and much of it may be deserved. But there is also a level of criticism due to local and State governments, too. Allowing New Orleans to turn into something out of the Wild West where anarchy reins is inexcusable, and all levels of government need to see what was done wrong. In the meantime, we must work together to ensure that the necessary resources are available.

Mr. STEARNS

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), my distinguished colleague, the former chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. And like his father, the gentleman is as tough as nails, also with a gentle heart. And I think most of our people on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs where he served with distinction as chairman will agree with that. I am very pleased this afternoon to bring my resolution to the floor commemorating the 60th anniversary of V-J Day and the end of World War II in the Pacific. I thank sincerely the two Chairs of the committees of jurisdiction for their consideration. First of all, the House Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), who himself fought for victory in Japan as mentioned by my colleague from Kentucky, and the chair of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). Like my father, Chairman Hunter's father, Robert Hunter, served in World War II. On August 15, 1945, Emperor Hirohito of Japan, in a radio address to his countrymen, announced the unconditional surrender of Japan's military forces. So, frankly, World War II officially came to a close with the signing of the surrender documents on September 2, 1945, aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay. Throughout the Pacific Theatre, the men and women of the United States Armed Forces fought bravely and suffered brutally. My own father, United States Navy Captain Clifford Robert Stearns, participated in the landing on the island of Iwo Jima. During the battle, a bullet passed close by his temple, striking the bulwark of the ship behind him. He recovered the bullet, brought it home to my mother and I. And while I could never name each of my constituents who fought, I have been honored by many such stories, just like my dad's. I wanted, in this World War II anniversary year, to focus attention once more on what we call V-J Day. For years, following World War II, both V-E Day, victory in Europe, May 8, and V-J Day were commonly printed on calendars. But that is not so anymore. And sometimes when I talk to veterans of the Pacific Theatre, they will say, you know, Cliff, we have seen movies like ``Saving Private Ryan'' and ``Band of Brothers,'' and while we take nothing away from the triumph of our brothers in the European theaters, we would like to see our story told also. And I do think this summer we see a renewed interest in just this. From the movie ``The Great Raid,'' to dances, a parade, a V-J 60th speech by the President, to fireworks last Friday night, September 2, on the National Mall, the veterans of the Pacific are getting their due. When exactly is V-J Day, some will ask me. Some refer to it as the day that the Emperor announced the surrender, which is August 15. This is when many of our World War II allies formally recognized August 15 as V-J Day, namely, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia. In Australia, as a matter of fact, they are particularly adamant about naming August 15 V-J and not V-P, for victory in the Pacific, as some do, because the Australians in the West fought just as strongly in the Indian Ocean. Some Asian islands, such as China and Korea, recognize August 15 as Liberation Day. Also since the surrender announcement fell on August 14 in American time zones, you may see this date commemorated as V-J Day here. And finally, it may refer to the date of the formal surrender which was September 2, as I mentioned earlier, in 1945. I would like to take us back to August 14, 1945. When this news was made public over radios, America experienced a moment mixed with both relief and jubilation. This is the very essence of V-J Day, a collective sense of ease and an express ebullience of excitement. We had endured many years of worry, of rationing, planting victory gardens, buying war bonds, air raid drills and civil defense patrol, blackouts even on our own soil. But on V-J Day this ended. America was thrown open for the Nation's single largest tailgate party, and we were all there rooting for the same team. In this jubilation, there was no difference between enlisted, officers or civilians. Americans danced in the streets, honked horns, blared radios. Americans poured into village parks, busy city squares in the streets. Libations flowed. Everywhere the noise was deafening. Even before the surrender, when it appeared imminent, there was some interesting preparation. In my State of Florida, on August 10, 1945, Governor Millard F. Caldwell issued a proclamation calling for Floridians to maintain the ``solemnity and dignity of the occasion'' by avoiding ``boisterous conduct,'' and to facilitate this, that ``all liquor package stores, bars and tap rooms and places dispensing alcoholic beverages remain closed during that period.'' Now, I do not imagine that he achieved his objective here. I do not think the decorum was what he thought it would be, but everybody was excited with jubilation. Of course, the image most recognizable to Americans and the world is of the Life Magazine cover of a joyous kissing sailor and nurse which photographer Alfred Eisenstadt froze for all time. In an interview last month, the nurse, now a grandmother, Edith Cullen Shain, recalled the pandemonium on August 14, 1945, when people grabbed anyone and hugged and kissed each other. Mr. Speaker, I close with the testament that understanding and alliances can arise out of former cataclysms. Today, Japan stands with us as a true and enduring friend, fellow economic world leader and a force for a stable and prosperous Asia. I believe it is important to bring this resolution to the floor to commemorate that. As the events of World War II pass further and further into history, the deeds of so many must not fade in our memories. The veterans in the Pacific theater brought peace and liberation to millions and millions of people. And as Americans rejoiced on V-J Day 1945, we will continue to salute those veterans for many, many more years to come. I am pleased that the House is bringing up my resolution Commemorating the 60th anniversary of V-J Day and the end of World War II in the Pacific. I want to thank the two Chairs of the Committees of jurisdiction for their consideration. First, of the House Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois, the Honorable Henry Hyde, who himself fought for Victor in Japan by piloting a landing craft in the Lingayen Gulf. And next, the Chair of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California, the Honorable Duncan Hunter. Like mine, Chairman Hunter's father, Robert Hunter, served in WWII. On August 15, 1945, Emperor Hirohito of Japan, in a radio address to his countrymen, conceded defeat and announced the unconditional surrender of Japan's military forces. World War II officially came to a close with the signing of the surrender documents on September 2, 1945, aboard the U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay. Thus ended this devastating war. Throughout the Pacific Theater, the men and women of the United States Armed Services fought bravely, and suffered brutally. My own father, USN Captain Clifford Robert Stearns participated in the landings on the island of Iwo Jima. During the battle, a bullet passed close by his temple striking the bulwark of the ship behind him. He recovered the bullet and brought it to my mother and me. And, while I could never in a million years name every one of my constituents and neighbors who fought in this theater, I have had the honor of hearing so many stories: 1. Writing last Friday for the Gainesville Sun on V-J Day, Bob Gasche of Gainesville was a Marine who saw combat in the Pacific. And from my hometown of Ocala, 2. James C. Phillips, while we were interviewing him for the Library of Congress' Veterans History Project, quietly described his harrowing experience as a Kamikaze survivor of the USS Luce; 3. Dewey Roberson joined the Army Air Corps and went from New Guinea to the Philippines to Okinawa, dodging bombs every step of the way; 4. Nolie Deas was in the 517th Army Battalion in the South Pacific who invaded the Philippines in June 1945; 5. Leonard Orr served in the 509th Composite Group in the Air Force; and 6. Tommy Needham served in the Naval Reserve in post-war Japan. All of these gentlemen, and many women, brought us to Victory in Japan. But I did not author this legislation to rehash the horrific, but brave, tales of Pacific battles; this has been done so much before. Instead, I wanted, in this World War II anniversary year, to focus attention once more, as we did 60 years ago, on what we called V-J Day. For years following World War II, both V-E Day (Victory in Europe, May 8) and V-J Day (Victory over Japan, Aug. 14), were commonly printed on calendars. But that's not so anymore, and I think this is a little sad. And sometimes, when I talk to veterans of the Pacific Theater they'll say, ``You know Cliff, we see movies like `Saving Private Ryan', and `Band of Brothers'. And while we take nothing away from the tremendous triumph of our brothers in the European theater, we sure would like our story told, too.'' And, I do think this summer we are seeing a renewed interest. For example, the movie ``The Great Raid'', about the successful rescue of over 500 Americans from a Japanese POW camp by the 6th Army Rangers Battalion and Filipino guerrillas was released. In my hometown, Ocala, Florida, the Yankee Air Force Inc. had a V-J Day dance on August 6 at the American Legion Post 58. More, the History Channel hosted and aired a commemoration on the USS Intrepid in New York City on V-J Day, on August 14th. Also Sunday the 14th, Moosup, Connecticut held a parade, believed to be the only V-J Day parade still held in the eastern United States. Meanwhile, the President commemorated the 60th Anniversary of V-J Day Naval Air Station North Island San Diego, California. And still, last Friday night September 2 on the National Mall, the National Park Service put on a fireworks display. So, I think you, Pacific Theater veterans, are getting your due this summer and it is essential and proper that we as a grateful nation honor you. When I talked about my V-J Day resolution, I encountered questions about when, exactly is it? Some refer to it as the day that the Emperor announced the surrender: August 15th. This is when Many of our World War II allies formally recognize August 15th as ``V-J Day'', namely the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia. In Australia, as a matter of fact, they are particularly adamant about naming August 15th V-J, and not V-P for Victory in the Pacific, as some do, because the Australians in the West fought just as strongly in the Indian Ocean. Relatedly, some Asian lands, such as China and Korea, recognize August 15 as Liberation Day. Also in the U.S., since the surrender announcement fell on August 14th in American time zones, you may see this date commemorated to as V-J Day. Finally, it may refer to the date of the formal surrender, September 2, 1945. I would like to take us back to August 14, 1945, to the battlefront, and to the homefront. When this news was made public over radios, Americans experienced a moment mixed of both relief and jubilation. This is the very essence of V-J Day--a collective exhalation of ease, and expressive ebullience. We had endured years of worry, of rationing, planting Victory Gardens and canning, buying war bonds. Even school children bought many war stamps and pasted them in special books. When the books were filled, the students traded them in for a war bond. We had air raid drills and civil defense patrolled blackouts on our own soil. Civil defense wardens saw to it that people obeyed the rules. According to a North Carolina history museum, one Wilmington, North Carolina department store clerk was even arrested, convicted, and fined ``for smoking a lighted cigarette upon the streets after having been warned by a person in authority to extinguish it.'' We studied printed plane silhouettes to learn the shape of enemy aircraft. Ration coupons for sugar, meat, fabric, and gasoline were a way of life, as was carpooling to preserve rubber and gasoline for troops. Housewives poured off cooking fat to be salvaged for munitions. But on V-J Day, this was over in an instant. America was thrown open for the Nation's single largest tailgate party, and we were all rooting for the same team. In the joyous celebration, there was no difference between enlisted or officer or civilian, Americans danced in the streets, honked horns, blared radios. Americans poured into village parks, busy city squares and the streets. Libations flowed and everywhere, the noise was deafening. Even days before the surrender, when it appeared eminent, there was some interesting preparation. In my State of Florida, on August 10, 1945, Governor Millard F. Caldwell issued a proclamation calling for Floridians to maintain the ``solemnity and dignity of the occasion'' by avoiding ``boisterous conduct,'' and to facilitate this, that ``all liquor package stores, bars and tap rooms and places dispensing alcoholic beverages, remain closed during that period''. I do not imagine that he achieved the abstemious decorum he sought, but it all went well. (I would like to enter this into the Record.) Of course, the image most recognizable to Americans, and the world, is of the Life magazine cover of a joyous, kissing sailor and nurse, which photographer Alfred Eisenstadt froze for all time. In an interview last month, Edith Cullen Shain recalled the pandemonium on August 14, 1945, the day of victory for the Allied Forces over Japan, when people grabbed anyone and hugged and kissed each other. ``I let him kiss me because he had been in war and he fought for me,'' Shain said of the sailor. ``I only wish now I had had a conversation with him or asked his name. I just got lost in the moment,'' said Shain, now an 87-year-old great-grandmother from Santa Monica, California. And never missing the opportunity to point out a Floridian, I share that Elizabeth Harris of Tampa is the lady in the photo peeking over the sailor's shoulder. Also, two Floridians had their own V-J Day kiss. Betty and Dominick Bruno, 79 and 86 today living in Lakeland, never met but conducted a wartime correspondence. They finally met in person in Charlotte, North Carolina four years later, and kissed in the V-J Day bedlam in the streets, and have become local celebrities in Charlotte where they are featured in newspaper stories every decade on the anniversary of V-J Day. I would like to close with a testament that understandings and alliances can arise out of former cataclysm, today Japan stands with us as a true and enduring friend, fellow economic world leader, and force for a stable and prosperous Asia. Thank you, again, for bringing this Resolution to the Floor. As the events of World War II pass further into history, the deeds of so many must not fade in our memories. The veterans in the Pacific Theater brought peace and liberation to millions, and as Americans rejoiced on V-J Day 1945, we will continue to salute you for many years to come. [From: Division of Elections, Proclamations and Executive Orders, 1845- 1995, Series S 13] V-J Day Proclamation, 1945 The United States entered the Second World War in December 1941, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. For the next fours years Americans participated in what was arguably the greatest national endeavor in our nation's history. World War II had an enormous impact on the state of Florida. More than 250,000 Floridians served in the Army, Navy, Marines, or Coast Guard and almost 4,700 gave their lives. About 170 military training bases of various sizes were established in the state; while shipyards at Tampa, Jacksonville, Panama City, and Pensacola turned out Liberty Ships and landing craft; and Florida farmers helped feed both Allied soldiers and civilians. Spessard L. Holland served as Florida's governor for most of World War II, but Millard F. Caldwell had been elected the state's twenty-ninth governor in late 1944. He presided over the victory celebrations that erupted across the state in May 1945 upon the defeat of Nazi Germany, and again in August 1945, when victory over Japan was proclaimed. On August 10, when it became obvious that Japan was on the verge of surrender, Governor Caldwell issued a proclamation calling for Floridians to maintain the ``solemnity and dignity of the occasion'' by avoiding ``boisterous conduct.'' He urged all establishments that dispensed alcohol to close for twenty-four hours following the announcement of the surrender. Nevertheless, when news reached the state a few days later of Japan's acceptance of surrender terms, joyous pandemonium ensued. ``News of the Japanese capitulation last night hit Tallahassee,'' reported a newspaper, ``with the force of Uncle Sam's new atomic bomb and was the signal for everybody to unloose that pent-up feeling and start what old- timers view as the most wild, I spontaneous and enthusiastic celebration ever witnessed in the Capital City.'' A text version of the V-J Day proclamation is included below the graphic image. Proclamation State of Florida Executive Department Tallahassee WHEREAS, the announcement of victory against Japan and the final end of the destructive world-wide conflict, in which we have been engaged since 1941, will be received by the people of Florida, of the United States of America, and of the entire civilized world, with gratitude and thanksgiving that we have been spared further damage and sorrow, and WHEREAS, the solemnity and dignity of this occasion should not be marred by any boisterous conduct on the part of the thoughtless or by any tragic incident that can be avoided, NOW, THEREFORE, I, Millard F. Caldwell, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Governor of the State of Florida, proclaim V-J DAY in Florida as the twenty-four hours next succeeding announcement of the surrender of Japan upon the proclamation by the President of the United States that hostilities are at an end, and urge that all liquor package stores, bars and tap rooms and other places dispensing alcoholic beverages, remain closed during that period; I also call upon the Sheriffs, their deputies and other law enforcement officers throughout the State to cooperate in making V-J Day orderly, dignified and law-abiding in accordance with the spirit and intent of this proclamation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the Great Seal of the State of Florida at Tallahassee, the Capital, this the 10th day of August, A.D. 1945. Millard F. Caldwell, Governor. Attest: R. A. Gray, Secretary of State.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and I would like to engage the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) in a colloquy. First of all, we want to thank the gentleman for his willingness to work with the entire Florida delegation to reach an agreement that will allow the States to increase control of their waters. Included in H.R. 6 is a provision ordering an inventory and analysis of oil and natural gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf. Many are concerned that this inventory is merely a precursor to drilling off Florida's coast against the wishes of the Governor and our two U.S. Senators and the Florida delegation. Currently, there is a moratorium against drilling in this area, over here, until 2012, and these areas called the stovepipe and bulge, here and here to 2007. The top of the stovepipe is about 16 miles off the coast of Pensacola, home to a large amount of military operations. Mr. Speaker, can we have the chairman's assurance that he will continue to work with the Florida delegation to find a solution that encourages and ensures that drilling or exploration will not occur in the areas off the Florida coast against the wishes of the State?

Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would say the importance of this is it be a long-term solution for the State of Florida instead of having to go to reiteration every 2 years dealing with this moratorium. As you know, we worked almost 3 hours in the night trying to come up with a solution. We have a workable plan that we discussed with the chairman, and we very much appreciate the chairman's support, interest, and help.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the full committee for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) for his help here. I rise, obviously, in support of the Coble-Schiff-Forbes amendment and in favor of the underlying bill. This amendment I think is important to update and improve our seaport security, which obviously is very crucial to protecting America. It also includes three provisions from my bill, H.R. 785, the cargo theft bill; and it is an issue that I have been concerned about for over 2 years, so I am very pleased that it is part of the bill. Probably the most important thing with this amendment that we are talking about this evening that it accomplishes is that it requires that cargo theft reports be reflected as a separate category in the Uniform Crime Reporting System, or the UCR, the data collection system that is used by the FBI today, currently, no such category exists in the UCR, which results in ambiguous data and an inability to track and monitor trends. So I am very pleased that the Committee on the Judiciary incorporated that provision and also raised criminal penalties for cargo theft, which is included in this bill. As it now stands, Mr. Chairman, punishment for cargo theft is a relative slap on the wrist. Throw in the fact that cargo thieves are tough to catch, and what we have here is a low-risk, high-reward crime that easily entices potential criminals. The sentencing enhancement proposed in this amendment will go a long way in making a career in cargo theft less attractive. So the authors of this amendment are to be commended. Last, this amendment includes a provision requiring the Attorney General to mandate the reporting of cargo thefts and to create a database containing this information, which will provide a valuable source of information and will allow States and local law enforcement officials to coordinate reports of cargo theft. This information could then be used to help fight this theft in everyday law enforcement. Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense cargo theft provision, along with efforts to strengthen our seaport security, vitally effective tools in our war on terrorism. I want to thank my colleagues, particularly my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), for their help. I rise today in support of the Coble/Schiff/Forbes amendment, and in favor of the underlying bill. This amendment proposes to update and improve our seaport security, which is a crucial element to protecting America. It also includes three critical provisions from my bill H.R. 785 regarding cargo theft, an issue that I have been concerned about for some time now. Cargo theft is a problem that has plagued our country for some 30 years, but continues unabated today. It is a problem that travels our highways, threatens our interstate commerce and undermines our homeland security. It is a problem that affects our entire country, costs tens of billions of dollars each year, and demands a Federal response. There is no doubt that stopping cargo theft and smuggling is a national security issue. We know that terrorists can make a lot of money stealing and selling cargo, not to mention the fact that terrorists have a proven record of using trucks to either smuggle weapons of mass destruction or as an instrument of delivery. Many of the industries involved in delivering cargo: trucking, shipping, and businesses--are genuinely concerned about how security gaps expose cargo to terrorism. Law enforcement has the same concerns. These groups support this legislation. That's why the three particular provisions in this amendment relating to cargo theft are so important. Probably the most important thing this amendment accomplishes is that it requires that cargo theft reports be reflected as a separate category in the Uniform Crime Reporting System, or the UCR, the data collection system that is used by the FBI today. Currently, no such category exists in the UCR, resulting in ambiguous data and the inability to track and monitor trends. I am also pleased that the provision raising criminal penalties for cargo theft is included in this bill. As it now stands, Mr. Chairman, punishment for cargo theft is a relative slap on the wrist. Throw in the fact that cargo thieves are tough to catch, and what we have here is a low-risk, high-reward crime that easily entices potential criminals. The sentencing enhancements proposed in this amendment will go a long way in making a career in cargo theft less attractive. And last, this amendment includes a provision requiring the Attorney General to mandate the reporting of cargo thefts, and to create a database containing this information. This database will provide a valuable source of information that would allow State and local law enforcement officials to coordinate reports of cargo theft. This information could then be used to help fight this theft in everyday law enforcement. These common-sense cargo theft provisions, along with the efforts to strengthen our seaport security, will be vital and effective tools in our war on terror. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for including this language, and I urge this House to pass this amendment and the underlying bill.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as the conference between the House and Senate on the energy bill gets underway, it is long past due for Congress to pass a comprehensive energy bill. U.S. economic prosperity is closely tied to the availability of a reliable and affordable supply of energy. As the economy grows, so will the demand for energy. According to the Energy Information Agency, the United States, by the year 2025, is expected to need 44 percent more petroleum, 38 percent more natural gas, 43 percent more coal, 54 percent more electricity, and 54 percent more renewable energy. Record increases in the prices at the pump and in overall energy cost underscore the long-term need to enact a comprehensive national energy strategy. So, Mr. Speaker, the time is now to do so.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 347, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment Offered by Mr. Rangel

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, last week, on this Floor I saluted the Supreme Court for a ruling that made citizens more free. Also, yesterday we passed H. Res. 312, Recognizing National Homeownership. However, the Supreme Court I lauded was not ours, but the Canadian Supreme Court, for freeing the sale of health insurance. And in fact, USA homeownership may not be so liberating. Last Thursday, our Supreme Court backed that local governments can co-opt private property, and give it to another private entity, for economic development. This is under the power of eminent domain, and is an expansive setback to property rights advocates and all homedwellers. The Fifth Amendment to our Constitution allows the government to take private property with ``just compensation''. Historically, it's been interpreted only for ``public use'': a highway, military base or other such infrastructure. Increasingly, and confirmed by Kelo v. New London, the Federal courts have said that private property could be taken for ``public benefit,'' including tax revenues and job creation. Revitalization for the neighborhood trumps individual ``homeownership''. Former bustling, now depressed New London, CT seeks to develop a private, commercial enterprise. They must compensate, but two homeowners don't want to budge. Susette Kelo has extensively remodeled her waterfront-view home. Wilhelmina Dery was born in her house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life. You ask, why worry, how often? According to Institute for Justice, the public interest law firm litigating for the homeowners, nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years. Of the majority (Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy), Justice Kennedy provided the dimmest hope, that states are free to pass additional protections. Fortunately for citizens of Connecticut, Governor M. Jodi Rell is urging careful review, and possibly legislative solution in Hartford. Florida is one of eight states that forbids the use of eminent domain when the purpose is not to eliminate blight. This does not reassure. A dismayed constituent cried that this decision has turned us into serfs who no longer own the land, we just inhabit it at the whim of the government. The Supreme Court's justices are appointed by our elected President and confirmed by our U.S. Senators, and affirm to uphold the U.S. Constitution, under which we think we are living. The Gainesville Sun polled ``How do you feel about the Supreme Court ruling giving local governments power to seize private property to generate tax revenue?'' Huge mistake, said 363 to 31. Similarly, the Marion Pulse of the Ocala Star Banner polled that 98.2 percent of its readers disavowed the ruling. Justice O'Connor (joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas) impassioned: ``The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz- Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. . . . . Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. . . . As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.'' What did the Founders say? Thomas Jefferson wrote that ``Charged with the care of the general interest of the Nation, and among these with the preservation of their lands from intrusion, I exercised, on their behalf, a right given by nature to all men, individual or associated, that of rescuing their own property wrongfully taken'' (to W. C. C. Claiborne, 1810). Yes, the less-connected and the feebler have more to fear. Justice Thomas reminded that urban renewal has historically resulted in displacement of minorities, the elderly and the poor. This is why civil rights-promoting groups such as the NAACP and AARP filed friendly briefs. Non-profits and religious organizations also worry--they don't generate taxes. So, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty were Amicus supporting petitioners. When I took this job I vowed to uphold the Constitution. I will work with my colleagues, the Institute for Justice, the NAACP, the American Farm Bureau, AARP, Cato Institute, the National Association of Homebuilders, Reason Foundation and other property rights advocates, to take back the Fifth amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the gentleman from California's amendment. The public, whether shoppers, investors, or Medicare beneficiaries, should be confident that their personal information is secure, and it is obvious from recently revealed breaches that more must be done to protect consumer data. As Chairman of the Commerce, Trade & Consumer Protection Subcommittee, I have held many hearings on data breaches and consumer data security and showed broad support for a comprehensive federal notification requirement to consumers for these security breaches. According to the Federal Trade Commission, 27.3 million Americans have been victims of identity theft in the last five years, and the Social Security Number is one of the primary tools. Private health insurers do not rely on the SS No., and neither should our Nation's health provider for seniors and the disabled. A non- identifying, random, set of characters can be generated that would be less meaningful to an individual's entire financial . . . The GAO is well-published on the risk of using SS Nos., and the facility with which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) could assign an alternate number. I support the gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just briefly thank him for making part of his en bloc amendment and also the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his consideration providing $2 million to the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program, the HVRP, and $500,000 to the National Veterans Employment and Training Services Institute. These particular moneys that he has made part of his en bloc amendment are very much appreciated. This was part of my amendment that I had which, unfortunately, I did not get to the House floor; but through both the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Ohio, they have made this part of the en bloc amendment and I want to thank them very much for it. se 000 Mr. Chairman, my amendment I intended to offer yesterday would reduce $10 million of proposed funding from Corporation For National And Community Service's (CNCS) AmeriCorps grants, and increase two worthwhile, veterans programs in the Department of Labor. First, my amendment would transfer $9,000,000 to the Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program (HVRP). This well-regarded program assists finding homeless veterans a meaningful place in the workforce. HVRP funds are awarded competitively to grant-seekers ranging from State and local agencies, commercial entities, and non-profits including community-and faith-based organizations. Uniquely, since its inception, HVRP has featured an outreach effort using veterans who themselves have experienced homelessness. Formerly homeless veterans engage in counseling, peer coaching, and follow-up services. The program coordinates with various veterans' services programs and organizations, such as the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program and Local Veterans' Employment Representatives stationed in the local employment service offices of the State Workforce Agencies. Many veterans groups also are eligible, such as the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, and Veterans of Foreign Wars. Next my amendment would transfer $1,000,000 to the National Veterans' Employment and Training Services Institute (NVTI). NVTI provides training to the employees who ultimately work with veterans seeking employment and training. Like the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program, most of these Training Institute dollars (about 70 percent) flow directly to States. Impressively, while the Appropriators have funded the program at the President's request and FY05 amount ($1.9 million), the NVTI does such an efficient job that they forecast with the nearly 50 percent increase my amendment would deliver, they could increase their throughput nearly \2/3\, processing many more veterans through (again, mostly via employees in your State). Since 1986, NVTI has developed and enhanced the professional skills of veterans' employment and training service providers nationwide. It is administered by the University of Colorado at Denver with training conducted in Denver, Colorado and at selected regional sites in the U.S. To date 50,000+ veterans' employment and training professionals have attended NVTI training. In addition to the basic employment and training professional-skills course, training is offered in veterans' benefits, transition assistance, case management, marketing and accessing the media, and management of veterans' services. NVTI also offers courses in veterans' reemployment rights case investigation and grants management, to address the training needs of the U.S. Department of Labor Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) staff. As an unexpected benefit, CBO has scored my amendment to be Budget Authority-neutral, but to save $1,000,000 in FY06 outlays. Now, 1 million dollars sounds like chump change up here to us, but to Americans voting back home, and to the veterans who are on the streets and in despair, it would pay for quite a lot. And AmeriCorps, I point out, is receiving over a quarter of a billion dollars, so I think the program could spare a mere $10 million. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment about priorities. AmeriCorps pays people handsomely for pseudo-volunteerism: $4,725 for a year of full- time service; ``a modest living allowance'', ``limited health benefits, may qualify for child care assistance, and may get your relocation expenses covered''. This is not community service, this is a job. Further, AmeriCorps has a history of accountability problems. Just two years ago, they had severe overcommitments of their funding, which Congress admonished. And this year, the Committee's report has language ``directing the Inspector General to levy sanctions in accordance with standard Inspector General audit resolution procedures, which include, but are not limited to, debarment of any grantee found to be in violation of AmeriCorps' program requirements, including using grant or program funds to lobby the Congress''. I can assure you they most certainly do lobby the Congress, because my amendment has been on the (negative) receiving end of this. One other point that the Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee has shared: AmeriCorps competes with Armed Services recruiting. It shouldn't, the program on which it was modeled didn't: according to AmeriCorps' website, it is based upon ``Franklin D. Roosevelt's vision of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) in 1933--a program created by President Roosevelt to provide relief for the unemployed during the Great Depression and to implement conservation projects. Over 3 million young men served until the program disbanded eight years later, when the United States entered World War II.'' Sir, America has relied on the contributions of selfless volunteers for centuries, and the generosity of Americans will endure without a Federal program. In contrast, veterans are our Federal responsibility, and these two worthwhile programs provide needed help. administrative provisions The Committee recommendation includes a number of administrative provisions carried previous years: (1) Language regarding qualified student loans eligible for education awards; (2) language regarding the availability of funds for the placement of volunteers with disabilities; (3) language directing the Inspector General to levy sanctions in accordance with standard Inspector General audit resolution procedures, which include, but are not limited to, debarment of any grantee found to be in violation of AmeriCorps' program requirements, including using grant or program funds to lobby the Congress; (4) language which requires the Corporation to ensure that significant changes to program requirements or policy are made only through public notice and comment rulemaking; and

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, listening to it in my office earlier, it was claimed that veterans oppose this amendment. And I was a little startled by that statement. And the veterans groups supposedly are called the Veterans for Common Sense, and Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights. These veterans groups were cited as being against this amendment. Now, frankly, I have never heard of these groups. I am sure most of you have not heard of those groups. I am not saying they are not legitimate groups or they do not have well-meaning members. But I would contend that the vast majority of American veterans do indeed support the proposed amendment. And I cite the support of groups such as the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, whose membership combined is well over 5 million veterans. All this proposed amendment does is protect traditional American values and jurisprudence. Before and after the ratification of the first amendment, the States prohibited the physical desecration of the American flag. Then, over the next 200 years, everyone understood that any prohibition of physically desecrating the American flag was allowable under Federal, State and common law, and understood to be consistent with free speech. Civil libertarian jurists, such as Chief Justice Earl Warren, Justice Hugo Black, and Justice Abe Fortas wrote that the States and Federal Government have the power to protect the American flag. So it was the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson in 1989, and U.S. v. Eichman in 1990, that overturned two centuries of traditional and commonly accepted legal practice. Thanks to these, what I believe are dubious decisions, we are forced to act with this constitutional amendment. This amendment does not really restrict freedom of expression, because no idea or viewpoints would be suppressed. Anyone can still freely say that they hate America and everything for which it stands, they just cannot burn a flag to prove their point. There are so many exceptions to free speech: Child pornography, cross burning, libel, fighting words. We are merely looking at a very extremely narrow exception to prevent the desecration of the symbol that represents so many wonderful things to so many people at home and around the world. Mr. Speaker, I would finally point out to my colleagues that it is against Federal law to burn U.S. currency or willfully destroy U.S. mailboxes; yet we cannot protect the American flag? Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have a constitutional justification for this amendment. We also have the support of all 50 States and 80 percent of the American people. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to praise the admirable actions of First Coast Energy Shell Corporation, a Jacksonville-based company from my congressional district. During the third annual Tribute to Heroes campaign, First Coast Energy Shell has pledged to raise $75,000 for the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund. This fund provides military families whose loved ones have been killed or wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan with financial and emotional support. Beginning on Memorial Day and continuing through the Fourth of July, First Coast Energy Shell will donate a portion of all gasoline sales to this fund. I share in First Coast Energy's belief that ``the military is an important part of our community'' and that we should all actively support and honor those heroes who have sacrificed so much for our country. I am proud to represent such patriotic and generous constituents and strongly urge my fellow Members to visit www.fallenheroesfund.org to learn more about this very good campaign.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I do.