Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. If the gentleman will yield, I will. I am reluctant to do it, but I would.

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

Mr. STEARNS. Let me just complete my presentation, then. I will be glad to withdraw it as long as I get the confirmation that there will be a GAO study before these moneys are issued.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of delight and an honor for me to have my pastor, Dr. Ed Johnson, provide the opening prayer for the House of Representatives this morning. We were privileged today to hear his brief words of inspiration and guidance. Dr. Johnson is the Senior Pastor of the First Baptist Church of Ocala, FL, my hometown. This is a thriving church, and one of the largest in Marion County. My wife and I attend with our family, and we enjoy the warm and welcoming atmosphere. Pastor Johnson has been with the First Baptist Church for 22 years, where he and his wife Hilda remain active in helping throughout our community. Before arriving in Ocala, Dr. Johnson served in churches in Texas, Tennessee and West Virginia. While attending to the needs of his flock, Pastor Johnson has served as president of the Florida Baptist Convention, chairman of the Florida Baptist State Board of Missions and the chairman of the Board of Trustees of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Although this is a distinguished record of service, more importantly, he is a respected man of the Lord. I appreciate this opportunity to share Pastor Johnson's wisdom with my colleagues this morning, and I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to taking him to the White House for the picnic.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not need a lot of time. This is pretty simple, this amendment. It is basically an amendment to help our local law enforcement community. Mr. Chairman, it basically transfers $10 million from the Legal Services Corporation and gives it instead to the Justice Assistance Grant, or JAG, program. I would like to thank the chairman for funding this critical program, especially in light that the administration's budget proposed a zero funding. So he is to be commended for funding this program, and I need to compliment him on that matter. But in my district I have heard from law enforcement officials and across the State of Florida about how much this JAG funding helps them fight crime, and to protect and serve the citizens within their jurisdiction. The JAG program is set to receive about $348 million in funding under this bill. It is my hope that an additional, just simply an additional $10 million will help increase the numerous and substantial benefits under this program. The Legal Services Corporation would still receive $321 million, which I and many of my colleagues would agree is still a reasonable amount of money to provide for legal services to the poor. In addition to this Federal subsidy, there are thousands of attorneys across the country who provide thousands of hours and hundreds of millions of dollars in service pro bono for these people. I would be remiss, however, if I did not point out to my colleagues that the Legal Services Corporation has been providing free legal services to quasi-legal immigrants, despite the fact that we passed a restriction in 1996 that barred local legal service groups from using Federal money for these activities. This $10 million reduction in Legal Services Corporation funding would bring it more in line, of course, with the President's request, certainly in spirit. Mr. Chairman, this is not an anti-legal service amendment, but merely a modest, a simple, modest, amendment to further help our local law enforcement combat drugs and fight crime. So I am not asking the Legal Services to justify its existence. I am just saying let us make a modest attempt here to send a message how important it is to keep the JAG program, and I urge my colleagues to support their local law enforcement and to support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman is saying. Legal Services has been political at times. The gentleman points out cases where they have been. I think it is a commendation to the gentleman, in light of the fact of how they politicize things, he is still here arguing for a complete budget. I am asking for a 2.7 percent reduction, on behalf of the communities.

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I heard the argument of my distinguished colleague from West Virginia. He is arguing that a 2 percent, 2\1/2\, 2.8 percent cut in the Legal Services Corporation is bad, is terrible. Put that in perspective. They are getting $321 million. We are just saying take $10 million out of that and give it to the Justice Assistance Grant program, which provides grants to States. And what do these grants do? They help the local law enforcement so that they can fight crime, fight drugs, and in the end they will not need Legal Services. So my point, Mr. Chairman, is if we cannot cut the Legal Services by 2.8 percent symbolically and give it to a program like the Justice Assistance Grant, which is going to help these people so they do not need Legal Services, they do not need the government-run legal program, because they will be free of crime, then I think we are making a mistake. So this is a very simple amendment with great symbolic reference here that one as a Member can say, I believe in my local community, I want to fight crime, I want to give grants to the States so that they can do it so that in the end they do not need these legal services. And good golly, if we cannot cut the Legal Services Corporation by about 2.8 percent, then really, Mr. Chairman, we are really not interested in trying to even look at fiscal responsibility, much less symbolic responsibility for helping our local police sheriffs in all of our congressional districts and all the counties throughout this country. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to consider this amendment. It is both symbolism and plus it helps the local police force. And, goodness gracious, the Legal Services Corporation is going to get roughly 2.7 percent less. I think that is a small amount considering the administration decided to zero out this program. It is only by the grace of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) that this program is back in place. So I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and be on the right side of the angels. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, last December we created an independent panel to simply come up with ways to make the United Nations more transparent and more effective. Today it is being reported that the panel's work is done, and their 174-page report will soon be made available to all of us. I am very interested to see what this bipartisan panel has to say about changing and reforming the United Nations. I understand from this report that its recommendations perhaps do not go far enough. It does criticize the U.N. for being too bureaucratic, but it hardly lays the blame where I think we all know it belongs, of course, to the Secretary General Kofi Annan. It squarely should be on his shoulders. Here is what has occurred at the U.N. under Mr. Annan's watch: We have had genocide in the Sudan; countries such as Cuba, Libya, and China are on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights; kicking the United States off the U.N.'s Narcotic Trafficking Commission; claims of sexual harassment in the United Nations; an attempt to impose global gun control. The U.N. even thought about sending observers over here to assess and evaluate our election process here in the United States. It is noted also that our Supreme Court Justices are using a U.N. treaty to justify abolishing capital punishment for minors. And, of course, there is the infamous Oil For Food Program. This is a scandal. It is a program which has resulted in over $20 billion being stolen from those who need it in Iraq and which enriched the totalitarian regime of Saddam Hussein. And most recently, U.N. peacekeeping soldiers in the Congo have been discovered soliciting sex from local girls, some as young as 12 years old, in exchange for money and food. Mr. Speaker, too many times the United Nations has gone against American values. I happen to believe that the American people should not be required to pay for this organization unless there is a huge amount of reform and change. We are the biggest donor to the United Nations, contributing 22 percent of the regular operating budget and nearly 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget. How many American taxpayer dollars went to Saddam Hussein or are paying for immoral U.N. peacekeepers? Now more than ever we need to reassess our involvement with this troubled organization. This week we will debate two measures that have to do with the United Nations. First, we will be debating the Science, State, Justice and Commerce appropriations bill in which we propose to pay the United Nations over $400 million in our annual dues. I plan on speaking on this and perhaps introducing an amendment to make sure that none of these funds go to pay for new headquarters that Kofi Annan desires. This headquarters is estimated to cost $1.2 billion. I have previously introduced legislation to move the United Nations headquarters out of New York City and out of the United States altogether. I still believe, in the aftermath of all of these scandals and all of these corruptions and all of this anti-Americanism, and this massive waste of U.S. taxpayer dollars, that Turtle Bay is no longer an appropriate place for the United Nations. There are many other cities in Europe that perhaps could have the headquarters, such as Paris, France; Geneva, Switzerland; or Bonn, Germany that would be perfect hosts for the United Nations. We should give these countries the opportunity to have the United Nations. I just hope they do not plan on collecting for parking tickets from the diplomats who do not pay. Later this week we will also consider the Hyde proposal to enact serious and substantive reform at the United Nations. This bill appears to provide real reform with teeth, and I look forward to debating and discussing this measure. Last, Mr. Speaker, in other U.N. reform related news, hopefully this week John Bolton may finally get his up or down vote in the Senate. The President's choice to be Ambassador to the United Nations is the right man at the right time to shake up the U.N. establishment and provide real reform to the institution before it becomes even more obsolete and outdated. It is critically important that we enact these serious and substantive reforms, both for America and the rest of the world. As John Bolton once said, ``American leadership is critical to the success of the United Nations, an effective U.N., one that is true to the original intent of its charter's framers.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, recent reports paint an unfair picture of the United States Air Force Academy. It has been characterized as a place where religious intolerance is the norm. As someone who has spent considerable time with Air Force personnel and cadets, I know that the academy has always been a place that has indeed taught religious tolerance. After discovering perceptions of religious bias during a survey in 2004, the academy made considerable efforts to address issues of religious intolerance and has implemented a proactive plan to address this very issue. The academy leadership instituted a new training program for all cadets, staff, and faculty to address the diversity of the Air Force and the need for each person to respect others, regardless of their beliefs or faith. Like any other university, cases of perceived religious intolerance do occur. But any attempt to brand the academy as a place where intolerance is accepted is just plain false. I applaud the United States Air Force for taking the proper steps to investigate and correct any problems regarding allegations of religious intolerance.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

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

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 50 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge all of my colleagues to support this very simple amendment to the Defense authorization bill. This amendment does two very important things. First, it expresses the sense of Congress that any college or any university that denies equal access or discriminates against ROTC programs or military recruiters should be denied certain Federal taxpayer support, especially funding for many military and defense programs. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, it requires the Secretary of Defense to issue a report to Congress on those colleges and universities that are denying equal access to military recruiters and these ROTC programs. In 1996, Congress enacted a provision of law that became known as the Solomon Amendment. Representative Solomon, as you remember, was a colleague from New York who was chairman of the Committee on Rules. This provision provided for the Secretary of Defense to deny Federal funding to colleges and universities if they prohibited or prevented ROTC or military recruitment on campuses. Mr. Chairman, a number of universities and colleges today are denying equal access to military recruiters. For example, at Yale University students who wish to participate in the ROTC program must drive to the University of Connecticut in Storrs at least once a week. That is like you and me driving down to Richmond once a week while attending a university here in Washington, D.C. This trip could take up to an hour and a half each way. Perhaps worse, Yale accepts ROTC dollars, but refuses to grant credit for ROTC courses; so if you are an ROTC scholarship and taking courses at Yale and attending at Storrs, the Air Force, the Army and the Navy will pay for your courses at Yale; but, again, Yale says you have to go to Storrs and denies access to the ROTC program right there at Yale. While students at Harvard can participate in ROTC programs at nearby MIT, ROTC courses may be taken only on a noncredit basis. This banishment of ROTC led Harvard President Lawrence Summers to say, ``We need to be careful about adopting any policy on campus of nonsupport for those involved in defending this country. We should be proud that we have in our midst students who will make the commitment to the ROTC.'' This is why it is so important for Congress to make a strong statement in support of full and equal access to military recruiters on campus and for the ROTC. Therefore, it is vital to national security that we improve the ability of students to simply participate in ROTC programs and ensure that colleges and universities provide military recruiters entry to campuses and simple access to students that is at least equal in quality and scope to that provided by any other employer in America. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleagues, I come from north central Florida, and we have a lot of beautiful Indian-sounding names like Ocala, Okhumpka, Micanopy, Oklawaha. Just for a moment, let us say I walked down anywhere from Jacksonville through these wonderful small towns and I walked up to somebody on the street and I said, Do you think we should allow the Department of Defense medical facilities to be turned into abortion clinics? Now, if I asked that to anyone in north central Florida, I bet you almost 99 percent of the people would say, Why are we turning our military medical hospitals into abortion clinics? That is why here on the House floor we have voted time and time again and overwhelmingly defeated it. In fact, going back to 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 right on up to currently we have defeated this amendment. It will be defeated on the House floor too. So I really find this debate one of persuasion on this side who wants to turn medical facilities or medical military hospitals into abortion clinics. I think, for many of us, that is just wrong, and that is why I am against this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. With the United States engaged in a global war on terrorism, it is more important than ever before for the Armed Forces to recruit high- quality, well-qualified, and well-trained personnel. This amendment ensures in a larger sense that this Congress is on record saying we support them and we think the universities and colleges in this country should also support them by giving access. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 810, which I believe promotes human embryonic stem cell research at taxpayers' expense. Now, we have already spent $60 million. The gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) says, no, it is not $60 million; it is $25 million. But we have spent a lot of money, and I think $60 million is the right number. The gentlewoman says no government taxpayers; money will be used. Once a human stem cell is destroyed, who pays for the research thereafter? The U.S. Government does. The taxpayers do. I remind my colleagues that despite all this money, embryonic stem cell research has not resulted in any documented success whatsoever as compared to the astounding success of adult stem cells. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) pointed out he could not even find any success. He had to go to some obscure manuals publications to find notice of even the experiments. I also notice that there is no CBO estimate on this legislation H.R. 810. How much will this bill cost? We do not know. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. Nearly 4 years ago, in August 2001, President Bush announced his Executive order limiting Federal funding to studies on existing cell lines. Mr. Speaker, the debate we are having today is about slippery-slope fears come tragically true. But the slope can get far more steep from here. Just last week, it was reported that scientists in South Korea created scores of cloned human embryos that they then destroyed to produce 11 stem cell lines. The age of cloning is upon us. Also recently in the news is the creation of man-animal hybrids, or chimeras, using animal sperm and human eggs, or human sperm and animal eggs. The apocalyptic creations are the inevitable result of what happens when Man and government believes it can foster good medical ends from ethically dubious means. It is bad enough that our government allows embryonic stem cell research, or that we have not yet outlawed cloning. The least that we can do is prevent the further spending of taxpayer dollars on these ill-advised experiments. Mr. Speaker, had either, or both, of the respective stem cell research bills appearing before us for debate and been ruled amendable, I had intended to offer an amendment regarding another alternative to embryonic stem cell research: stem cells from teeth. Another promising field of stem cell research comes from our very teeth: stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth, SHED, aka ``baby'' teeth. Last week a constituent of mine, Marc W. Heft, DMD, PhD, Professor and Interim Chair, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial and Diagnostic Sciences of the College of Dentistry at the University of Florida, pointed this out to me. The intramural program of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, IDCR, of the National Institutes of Health, NIH, has been a leader in this exciting line of research. On April 21, 2003, NIH scientists reported that for the first time, ``baby'' teeth, the temporary teeth children begin losing around their sixth birthday, contain a rich supply of stem cells in their dental pulp. The scientists said that ``this unexpected discovery could have important implications because the stem cells remain alive inside the tooth for a short time after it falls out of a child's mouth, suggesting the cells could be readily harvested for research. According to the scientists, who published their findings online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the stem cells are unique compared to many ``adult'' stem cells in the body. They are long lived, grow rapidly in culture, and, with careful prompting in the laboratory, have the potential to induce the formation of specialized dentin, bone, and neuronal cells. If followup studies extend these initial findings, the scientists speculate they may have identified an important and easily accessible source of stem cells that possibly could be manipulated to repair damaged teeth, induce the regeneration of bone, and treat neural injury or disease. ``Doctors have successfully harvested stem cells from umbilical cord blood for years,'' said Dr. Songtao Shi, a scientist at NIH's National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, NIDCR, and the senior author on the paper. ``Our finding is similar in some ways, in that the stem cells in the tooth are likely latent remnants of an early developmental process.'' This article is titled, ``SHED: Stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth,'' and the authors are Masako Muira, Stan Gronthos, Mingrui Zhao, Bai Lu, Larry W. Fisher, Pamela Gehron Robey, and Songtao Shi. In addition to the studies of stem cells from dental pulps of deciduous, ``baby'' teeth, there are ongoing studies of stem cells from the periodontium, the region where teeth connect to bone. July 8, 2004, again, NIH scientists also say these cells have ``tremendous potential'' to regenerate the periodontal ligament, a common target of advanced gum--periodontal--disease. The enthusiasm is based on followup studies, in which the researchers implanted the human adult stem cells into rodents and found most of them had differentiated into a mixture of periodontal ligament--including the specific fiber bundles that attach tooth to bone--and the mineralized tissue called cementum that covers the roots of our teeth. While most of this work is coming out of the intramural program of NIDCR, Dr. Heft shared with me that two involved extramural scientists are Dr. Mary MacDougall, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at San Antonio--also President of the American Association for Dental Research--and Dr. Paul Krebsbach, University of Michigan. And so, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we continue to foster existing, promising, stem cell research that is regenerative, not destructive.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, since 1994 China has pegged its currency, the yuan, to the United States dollar. Many economists contend that for the first several years of this peg, the fixed value was likely close to market value, but in the past few years, economic conditions have changed, such that the yuan would likely have appreciated, like virtually every other currency, if its exchange rates were determined by simple market forces. This policy constitutes a form of currency manipulation and is intended to give China an unfair trade advantage. Also, it is contributing to the loss of United States manufacturing jobs. China's currency is significantly undervalued vis-a-vis the United States dollar. Some experts contend that it is undervalued by as much as 40 percent, making Chinese exports to the United States cheaper and U.S. exports to China more expensive than they would be if market forces determined the exchange rates. Furthermore, the undervalued currency has contributed to the large U.S. trade deficit with China. It has hurt United States production and employment in several U.S. manufacturing sectors, such as textiles and apparel and furniture, that are forced to compete domestically and internationally against artificially low-cost goods from China. If the yuan is undervalued against the dollar, imported Chinese goods are cheaper than they would be if the yuan were market-driven. This lowers prices for United States consumers and diminishes inflationary pressures, but in turn, lower priced goods from China hurt U.S. industries that compete with those products, diminishing their production and eventually their employment. In addition, an undervalued yuan makes U.S. exports to China more expensive, thus diminishing the level of U.S. exports to China and job opportunities for U.S. workers in those particular sectors. Pegging the yuan to the dollar has large implications for the United States-China trade. When a fixed exchange rate causes the yuan to be less expensive than it would be if it were floating, it causes Chinese exports to the United States to be relatively inexpensive and U.S. exports to China to be relatively expensive. As a result, U.S. exports and the production of U.S. goods and services that compete with Chinese imports fall in the short run. Many of the affected firms are in the manufacturing sector. This causes the U.S. trade deficit to soar, to rise, and reduces aggregate demand in the short run. Mr. Speaker, in 2004, China became the United States' second largest supplier of imports. A large share of China's exports to the United States are labor-intensive consumer goods such as toys and games, textiles and apparel, shoes, and consumer electronics. Because the manufacturing of these products have, over the past several years, shifted overseas, many of these exports do not compete directly with the United States domestic producers. However, there are a number of small- and medium-sized firms, including makers of machine tools, hardware, plastics, furniture, and tool and die that are concerned over the growing competitive challenge posed by China. An undervalued Chinese currency contributes to a reduction in the output of these industries. In addition, the low value of the yuan is forcing other East Asian economies to keep the value of their currencies low vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar in order to compete with Chinese products, to the detriment of U.S. exporters and U.S. domestic industries competing against foreign imports. Furthermore, while China is still a developing country, it has been able to accumulate a massive foreign exchange reserve, approximately $660 billion at the end of March, and thus, it has the resources to maintain the stability of its currency if it were fully convertible. Appreciating the yuan would greatly benefit China by lowering the cost of imports for Chinese consumers and producers who have used imported parts and machinery. Finally, China's accumulation of large amounts of foreign exchange reserves in order to maintain the currency peg could be better spent on investment in infrastructure and development of poor regions in their country. Recently, the Treasury Department issued a strongly worded report warning China over its pegging its currency to the dollar. The report called the Chinese currency peg highly distortionary, but the report stops short of designating China as manipulating its currency for a trade advantage. This designation would have triggered formal negotiations between the Bush administration and Chinese officials that potentially could end this peg. The administration has taken the right steps in taking a harder line against China. While I welcome the tough language in the Treasury Department report regarding China, Mr. Speaker, the time has come for China to act, which will result in freer, fairer trade for both countries.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 149, honoring the 57th anniversary of Israel's independence and thank the gentleman from South Carolina for introducing this resolution. From the ashes of the Holocaust, Israel rose to become a shining example of democracy and liberty in a neighborhood otherwise dominated by totalitarian and dictatorially regimes. The United States and Israel have had a special relationship since modem Israel's founding in 1948. The U.S. was the first country to recognize Israel, only 11 minutes after it was officially created. Since then, the two countries have developed a rock-solid friendship based on shared values and the fundamental principles of freedom and equality. A strong U.S.-Israel relationship is in the best interest of both countries. Israel stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the U.S. in countering the greatest threats to American interests in the region. When terrorists strike U.S. targets in the region or elsewhere in the world, Israel does not duck for cover but stands by the U.S. Additionally, no other country in the region supports the American position at the United Nations as consistently as Israel. Israel's 57th anniversary is a great day for not only Israel but for freedom loving people all around the world.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), my distinguished chairman of the full committee, for yielding me this time. This is a very important bill. We have passed this bill once before, so it is clear the House is going to pass this. The question is, we have got to appeal to the Senate to pass this thing and move forward. During the hearings we had on this bill, there were lots of witnesses that talked about this spyware Internet-based technology that can be used to defraud Americans today. So this bill is very important. We need to move it, and we need to move the Senate to move it. That is what we need to do. This bill describes a broad array of activity, including keystroke logging, which tracks all of a computer user's keystrokes, they are recorded and then sent to a third party; homepage hijacking, in which spyware can take control of a computer and hijack the user's homepage to a commercial site or even to a pornographic site; and phishing, in which spyware directs a computer user with false messages purporting to be from some reputable merchant to basically steal the credit card, steal the credit card numbers and other financial information from a user. In all of these cases, Mr. Speaker, spyware is downloaded without the knowledge and without the consent of the user. It is just not another cyber nuisance. It is a major Internet plague that threatens the privacy of the American consumer, and of course the very integrity of the Internet marketplace, on which we are relying more and more. I continue to meet people who have had their Web pages hijacked, their browsers corrupted, in some cases, their children exposed to inappropriate material from these dangerous programs hidden in their family computers. Mr. Speaker, the Spy Act will bring control back to the consumer and give the on-line computer experience a positive message. It will preserve confidence in the Internet and its related technologies that make the lives of the consumer better and more convenient, more productive, and, of course, more secure. The Spy Act strikes a right balance between preserving legitimate and benign uses of this technology, while still, at the same time, protecting unwitting consumers from the harm caused when it is misused and, of course, designed for nefarious purposes. The Spy Act prohibits keystroke logging, hijacking, and phishing. I mentioned that. It also provides a well-crafted opt-in for consumers before personal information is collected or prior to collection of Web history information. We in the Committee on Energy and Commerce think that is extremely important to have an opt-in for consumers. The legislation specifies that monitoring software should be easily disabled and requires companies that deliver ads to simply identify themselves. Further and more importantly, it gives the Federal Trade Commission the power to severely sanction violators with significant monetary penalties. In short, Mr. Speaker, this legislation creates a uniform Federal regulatory regime that will provide clear and consistent regulation in this area. At the bottom, the elimination of spyware and the preservation of privacy for the consumer are critical goals if the Internet is to remain safe and reliable and credible. As I mentioned earlier, the House passed the bill H.R. 2929 by a vote of 399 to 1. This year this legislation was passed unanimously out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 43 to zero. I expect the same strong showing this afternoon. So, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 29, the Spy Act, has been a great exercise, as mentioned by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), ranking member, of our bipartisan leadership. Leadership that has been focused on achieving equitable results, that is good for the consumer, good for business, and good for America. With that in mind, I would like to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, particularly the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), whose leadership provided this bill, for their consistent and, of course, their longstanding leadership in this area. I would also like to acknowledge the superb bipartisanship of my staff working with the staff of the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). And, of course, I would also like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the full committee, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) for his support. So, all in all, Mr. Speaker, we have a great bill. We need to move the Senate forward. Our bill will make America greater, and I urge support for the Spy Act of 2005.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on May 8, 2005, we will mark the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II. So I rise today to honor the men and women that did their duty in this war to comfort the families that lost loved ones. World War II was truly a world war conflict, spread across the globe, and it is estimated that some 50 million people died as a result. The impact of the war was felt everywhere. Men and woman from every walk of life were encouraged to do their bit for the war effort, and they responded magnificently. It is hard to imagine the relief and joy that those who had lived through the war experienced when at last the war finally ended. Veterans remember ripping the blackout curtains from their windows, turning on their lights, and sharing with their family, friends and neighbors or complete strangers their joy at hearing the news that the war was over. However, we should remember that for many, the end of the war came over a period of months. For those who were serving in the Far East and their loved ones, the war continued long after the victory celebrations that are etched in our popular memory. World War II extracted a terrible toll, most brutally in terms of the dreadful human cost in dead, injured and of course disabled. Year after year of sacrifice and uncertainty, of making do and going without, left its mark on each and every Nation. But it also helped forge an attitude of never again. The images we see of people celebrating the end of the war are people shaking off their recent past and looking forward to a better peaceful future. As we look back on these images, we might stop to reflect upon not only the debt that we owe them, but to consider too the responsibility for the future that we have inherited. As we look towards the future we look towards democracy. President Bush's trip to Europe, in particular the Soviet Union, exemplified his strong push towards his foreign policy agenda of spreading democracy. As we look towards the future today, President Bush also looked towards the past in remembrance of World War II. He connected the struggles against Nazi and Communist tyranny in the part of the world to his own campaign to bring democracy to the Middle East. In an effort to encourage President Putin to acknowledge past national mistakes he said, ``In regard to our occupation of the Middle East, we will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability. We have learned our lesson. No one's life is expendable. In the long run our security and our true stability depends upon the freedom of others.'' It is a remarkable statement that the President issued. It is this freedom, the freedom and benefits of a democratic Nation that President Bush is trying to encourage people to reflect on. His scheduled stop in Latvia was a way of easing his participation into Monday's anniversary celebration in Moscow's Red Square. But, of course, a trip like this reopened old wounds between Moscow and the Baltic States, which of course were absorbed into the Soviet Union in 1940 after the secret Molotov-Ribbentrop deal between Hitler and Joseph Stalin in 1939. The agreement provided for Soviet occupation of Estonia, Latvia, part of Finland and later Lithuania in return for Nazi Germany's control over most of Poland. As President Bush looked back on the history of the Soviet Union, he tried to compare the United States' past mistakes to that of the Soviet Union. President Bush noted that lengthy and difficult journey for us here in the United States for democracy, with our own civil war that we struggled through. As we look to the future, it is essential to remember the past and the mistakes we made as a Nation, and other Nations should do the same. World War II embodies what certain mistakes can result in. Sixty years ago, millions of Europeans were suffering from homelessness or having been released from captivity or expelled as part of an act of vengeance. So thousands of Americans and American families were left with a gapping hole, as they had lost loved ones in the battles during World War II. It is today that we make a stand and seek to liberalize other nations and encourage freedom and democracy throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, I would like to praise President Bush for his statements that were made in Europe this week and again honor the lives of millions of soldiers that fought for the end of the war, World War II.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Emergency Wartime Supplemental, especially the provision that would postpone reducing the number of Navy aircraft carriers from 12 to 11. Our nation is at war against global terrorism and reducing the number of aircraft carriers would be a huge blow to our nation's defense at this very critical time. Since the end of the Cold War, carriers have been kept very busy and have proven their value in numerous operations. In this era of uncertain U.S. access to overseas air bases, the value of carriers as sovereign U.S. bases that can operate in international waters, free from political constraints, is particularly significant. During the past half century, the carrier force has never dropped below 12 ships, illustrating the enduring need for a force of at least that many ships. After experimenting with an ``11 + 1'' carrier force in FY1995-FY2000, DOD returned to a force of 12 fully active carriers, suggesting that DOD was dissatisfied with a force of less than 12 fully active carriers. This provision in the Supplemental would effectively delay the decommissioning of the USS Kennedy until 6 months after the Quadrennial Defense Review is released. The Kennedy is based at the Mayport Naval Station near Jacksonville, Florida. Aside from concerns of this move striking a blow to national security, the carrier's retirement would mean an estimated loss of $300 million a year to the local economy. Furthermore, if the Kennedy were retired, all of the Atlantic Fleet's carriers would be, for some time at least, home ported in a single location. This, of course, would not be in the best interest of national security. Decommissioning the Kennedy before the QDR is complete could prove to be a very costly and ill-timed decision. The QDR may conclude that a fleet of 12 aircraft carriers is essential to our nation, thus necessitating that the USS Kennedy be operational. In a time of war, it is unwise to retire an aircraft carrier without knowing whether or not it will be needed. Mr. Speaker, I urge members of congress to carefully examine the effects that retiring the Kennedy and reducing the number of carriers would not only have on our nation, but the world at large. Please join me in supporting the Supplemental and the provision that keeps the number of carriers in the Navy's fleet contained therein.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate both the University of Florida's Men's and Women's Tennis teams on claiming the South Eastern Conference's Tournament Titles. The second-seeded and fifth-ranked University of Florida men's tennis team won the SEC tournament for the third time in school history, as the Gators defeated fifth-seeded and 26th ranked Tennessee on Sunday, April 24, 2005 at the Dan Magill Tennis Complex in Athens, GA. With the victory, the Men's team moved to 20-5 on the year and earned the SEC's automatic invitation to the NCAA Championships marking their 15th consecutive trip. Likewise, the University of Florida women's tennis team staged an unbelievable comeback rallying to win its 4th consecutive and 14th overall SEC Tournament title with a 4-2 victory over third-ranked Kentucky, Sunday afternoon at the Alabama Tennis Stadium. I congratulate both of Florida's Men's and Women's tennis teams on their SEC tournament title and wish them much luck as they head into the NCAA Tournament!