Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, tonight we vote on the final version of the Intelligence Reform bill. It's appropriate that we do so today, December 7th, Pearl Harbor Day. We hope that this legislation will help prevent future attacks on our homeland. I will vote for final passage, because this bill contains much needed reform of our intelligence community. But more can be done to protect America. This conference report is supposed to codify the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and insofar as intelligence is concerned, it does. But the 9/11 Commission's charter required it to create a full account of the circumstances of the 9/11 attacks and formulate recommendations for guarding against future terrorist threats. This includes immigration and asylum reform, border protection and identification security. The Commission's recommendations and staff report contained repeated and explicit references to immigration, border, asylum and identification problems of which the 9/11 hijackers took advantage and which need to be solved. I thought that the House version of the Commission's recommendations, H.R. 10, properly attempted to meet these goals. Yet here we are today, debating a conference report that contains hardly any of the strong Title III measures that were passed by the People's House. This is incredibly disappointing. While the final version of this legislation adds to our border security personnel, tightens up our visa application process, and sets up some identification standards, the fact remains that we need to do much more. We can have all the intelligence in the world, but if we can't protect our own borders or prevent terrorists from coming into our country, then we're just stupid. I support this bill because it reforms our intelligence, but also because the administration and leadership have promised to pursue additional reforms in immigration and border security. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Immigration Reform Caucus, I intend to make sure that these promises are kept. I also look forward to working as soon as possible in the 109th Congress on legislation dealing with serious immigration reform, improving our asylum laws, border control, and identification security. Now more than ever, our immigration policies have national security ramifications. I will not rest until we fix our laws to meet these challenges.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was rejected. So the motion to recommit was rejected.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Captain Ralph Gibson on his retirement. Captain Gibson concludes a distinguished career in the military with his final post as the Assistant Chief of Staff, Religious Ministries, Marine Corps Recruit Depot--Eastern Recruiting Region. This is a man that demonstrated the true meaning of service beyond one's self. Since his enlistment in the Army in 1967, Captain Gibson served not only his country, but God as well. Captain Gibson served in the Army and the Oklahoma National Guard until 1979. That year, having previously completed his studies at the Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, Gibson was commissioned as a Navy Chaplain. He continued to serve both God and country through the First Gulf War, earning numerous medals and commendations along the way. Undoubtedly, his service to the men and women of our armed forces provided the spiritual direction and comfort so desperately needed when these brave people are away from their families and loved ones. Captain Gibson will continue his service as pastor for a church in South Carolina. I am confident that the members of that church will greatly benefit just as our servicemen and women did under his guidance and leadership. I congratulate Captain Gibson on his retirement, thank him for his service, and wish him the best for the future.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution and support, of course, of the Boy Scouts of America. As mentioned, they have had 90 years of history here helping young men, young boys build character and train them in the responsibility of participating in citizenship. The Boy Scouts teach these boys and young men that there is a higher good, something outside of themselves within each of them they should strive to achieve. We have heard, for example, from the chairman of millions of American boys and young men who participate in the Boy Scouts, including Gerald Ford, Hank Aaron, Ross Perot, Jimmy Stewart, Neil Armstrong. They all have benefited tremendously from belonging to and participating in the Boy Scouts. As such, it is altogether fitting that we recognize the Scouts for all the public service and all the charitable work they have done over the years. But Congress also has a responsibility to defend the Boy Scouts from the relentless attacks on it from various government entities and interest groups. For example, the ACLU is suing to challenge the Federal Government's longstanding support for the Boy Scouts. Do my colleagues realize also the ACLU also currently sued for the right of a nudist camp for children to open? Recently, the Department of Defense has agreed to no longer officially sponsor the Scouts on military bases. Why? Because the Scouts' oath mentions God. This is not the first time the Boy Scouts have come under attack for their oath or their membership policies, even though the Supreme Court and the American people are on the side of the Boy Scouts. The ACLU has led the charge against the Scouts in States like Connecticut and cities like San Diego to defund this important organization, take away their campsites and treat them as though they are hate groups. This campaign against the Scouts is truly wrong. It is about time we do something about it. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and any other efforts to protect the Boy Scouts of America.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and also I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut who chairs the Subcommittee on Health for what an outstanding job he has done, having served as the chairman of that committee with the very, very good staff that he has. I think it is a credit to him what we are accomplishing. I think all of my colleagues know that Florida has one of the largest growing populations of veterans. So many of us in Florida have to be particularly sensitive. We need new facilities down there. That is why I am very supportive of H.R. 3936, the Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act. I especially appreciate that it incorporates provisions of H.R. 4768, the Facilities Management Act of 2004, of which I was an original cosponsor. I thank the chairman for including that in H.R. 3936. This will authorize projects which the CARES (Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services) Commission recommended to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. He based his recommendations last May upon that, and that is included in this bill. Mr. Speaker, under CARES, the VA reviewed all of its facilities systematically to consider where resources might be reallocated for optimal service to veterans. I think the veterans should realize that this was a systematic study. As more veterans have relocated to the Southeast over the years, it appears the VA has insufficient clinic room in the Southeast, particularly in my State of Florida. Accordingly, the majority of the leases which this legislation would authorize are facilities to be located in the South. The aim has been to match the assets with the veterans, and this bill does just that. Florida, as we know, has the second largest veterans population and the number one oldest. Obviously, I am pleased to see a lease for a regional health care facility in South Marion County, my home county, Summerfield, Florida. The plans are for this clinic to offer comprehensive services to veterans, including audiology, which is very important; ophthalmology; dermatology, particularly in Florida; minor surgery; and complete imaging services. It is going to be housed in a 75,000-square-foot building and provide more services and greater resources for the veterans than the existing VA outpatient clinics that we have throughout my congressional district. Even better, while this clinic is predicted to be opened in the summer of 2007, appropriations willing, the generous, resourceful people of north central Florida have indeed offered the VA the use of free space for an interim clinic, so that should expedite it. So our ever-increasing veterans population can see immediate relief for their long health-care waits in the winter when they come down will be decreased, and this more comprehensive specialty clinic which the act authorizes will be built and in the long run will help everybody. I am very enthusiastically supporting this bill. I want to thank both the Democrats and Republicans on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and particularly the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for their support.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, we recently read in the newspapers of the murder of a prominent filmmaker, a distant relative of Vincent van Gogh, in the Netherlands, or Holland. Holland has been a very open, tolerant society for many decades. However, many immigrants just simply refuse to assimilate into the Dutch culture, and this resulted in one-sixth of the population rejecting that culture, western civilization and its values, and after the recent barbaric act, Holland has now been forced to re-think its immigration policy, the relaxed way that they viewed this whole process of letting people into their country. I believe frankly, Madam Speaker, that there are lessons for us here in America in terms of helping to assimilate our immigrants into our culture here in the United States.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the Theta Tau Professional Engineering Fraternity was founded at the University of Minnesota in 1904 and is the largest, as well as the oldest, professional engineering fraternity. Theta Tau's purpose is to develop and maintain a high standard of professional interest among its members, and to unite them in a strong fraternal fellowship. Over the past one hundred years, Theta Tau has initiated 30,000 members into a lifetime of brotherhood and 83 have been inducted into the Theta Tau Alumni Hall of Fame for contributions to the Fraternity, and their profession. I am honored to be one of the brothers of Theta Tau Professional Engineering Fraternity. This year we are celebrating our Fraternity's Centennial Anniversary. I would like to congratulate all my brothers of the Theta Tau fraternity, and the fraternity itself for being truly, the Nation's oldest, and still foremost Fraternity for Engineers.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to help protect professional boxers throughout our country. I am introducing the ``United States Boxing Commission Act'' to create a Federal entity responsible for coordinating, implementing, and enforcing uniform standards for the sport of boxing. Currently, the states and tribal organizations regulate professional boxing. Although they have taken great effort to require minimum standards for the sport, uniform enforcement has been a problem. Congress has enacted legislation to address the sport of boxing twice in the past decade. In 1996, we enacted the Professional Boxing Safety Act. In 2000, we again addressed boxing reform and passed the Muhammad Ali Act. The idea of a Federal Boxing Commission was raised in previous Congresses and it was deemed unnecessary at that time. However, after carefully reviewing the effectiveness of the laws we passed, I am convinced it is now time for a Federal Commission for professional boxing. Despite our previous efforts, enforcement of the law remains an issue and the sport continues to face problems that cannot be addressed by the states. In fact, at a hearing I held in my subcommittee, a current state boxing commissioner testified that the states need the Federal government to be directly involved. I do not think lightly of creating a new Federal commission. I would typically be reluctant to introduce such a bill because I believe strongly in states' rights, and most of them do an excellent job in regulating boxing. However, the history and nature of the sport provide overwhelming evidence that it only takes one state to lower its standards--usually in the name of money--and undermine the integrity of the sport. More importantly, the safety of a boxer is supposed to be paramount and protected by the state authority. When a state lowers its standards or fails to follow the law, it jeopardizes every boxer's safety. This legislation is intended to implement changes that are within the Energy and Commerce Committee's jurisdiction and is therefore narrower than what is required to fully address the issues boxers face. It creates the United States Boxing Commission which will have the power and authority to set minimum standards for the states to follow. It will not replace the state regulation, but will work with the states to develop appropriate minimum standards and to ensure their rules and standards are enforced. As I indicated, I support additional reforms that are necessary to fully address the problems of the sport and protect boxers. While it is my preference to do more, because those reforms are not within the Committee's jurisdiction, I am committed to work with my House colleagues and the Senate to address those concerns and ensure they become Federal law as well.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today, along with many of my distinguished colleagues, to speak on the importance of Supplemental Disaster Relief. First, I want to thank the Florida delegation, President Bush and Governor Bush for their efforts. Florida, in itself, has experienced an unprecedented number of hurricanes that have ravished our state in the past months. The 6th District of Florida, which I represent, is located in the North Central region of the state and does not contain any coastline. However, it is important to realize how an entire state and outlying states can be affected by natural disasters. The 6th District of Florida is an example of such. All of the counties in my district, though all land-locked, were declared disaster areas by FEMA, by one hurricane or another. Farmers, businesses, schools and communities were halted in preparation of the hurricanes that were coming and were immobilized for days, and even weeks after the hurricanes hit. There are many different areas of a community that get affected by natural disasters and this supplemental package makes sure that all facets are getting the relief needed. In closing, I want to praise FEMA for doing an exceptional job responding and providing help to the citizens of Florida and praise Chairman Young for his efforts in seeking aid for such a worthy cause. I urge my colleagues to support the Supplemental Disaster Relief funding.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am proud also to author this bill, H.R. 2023, the Asthmatic Student Treatment and Health Management Act, ASTHMA, with my colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy). He and I have been working together on this for some time, and we are pleased it came to the House floor today. It has been a long haul. I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) for his early support and providing the leadership in this whole series of legislative initiatives. We introduced this bill, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) and I, in 2003 on Asthma Awareness Day. Frankly, I think it has been building momentum ever since. This bill provides incentives for States to guarantee students can carry and use prescribed asthma medication while they are at school. It is not a mandate, and, frankly incurs no new spending. The ``zero tolerance'' movement of the 1980s and 1990s had the unintended consequence of depriving students of immediate access to their prescribed medication. Often there is a signaling effect in the States or industry merely from the existence of Federal legislation, sort of a chilling effect. I think our bill elevated the conversation here in the United States in school boards and State legislatures. Because of this discussion, we now have 31 ``asthma-friendly'' States, such as my own State of Florida. Furthermore, of these 31, 19 extend their protection even further to anaphylaxis medication, like epinephrine auto-injectors. On Asthma Awareness Day, May 7, 2003, when we first started this, at that time there were only 20 States, and only nine with this extra protection. As mentioned earlier, over 6.3 million children under the age of 18 suffer from asthma, probably more than that when you realize a lot of people do not even admit to having asthma. It is the most common cause of missed school days, 14 million annually. It costs us tremendously in lost time, learning, lost productivity and earnings of parents, and medical expenses, including costly emergency room visits, not to mention the enormous amount of stress for people involved, the parents and children. September 22, 2003, a Newsweek magazine article cover story, as you will remember, said, ``Your Child's Health and Safety: The Latest on Allergies and Asthma.'' ``The Allergy Epidemic'' pointed out, ``We have conquered most childhood infections, but,'' and this is what is important, ``extreme reactions to everyday substances still pose a new threat.'' We read about David Adams of Georgia, whose acute allergic reaction to peanuts was stanched by a quick epinephrine injection, ``never sets foot outside his home without an emergency supply of epinephrine.'' This ``Fighting for Air'' article states, ``Asthma among children has more than doubled over the past 20 years,'' and at Chicago's Hughes Elementary School, ``at this school of 500 students, an astonishing one-third have asthma.'' Second grader Zeron Moody ``just wants to play without gasping'' for air. When asthma attacks, every minute counts. Sadly, there have been tragedies when a school child is prevented from swift access to his or her asthma medication. A student who must go to the nurse's office, even if there is a school nurse, to get his or her prescribed, life- saving medication, just may run out of time for the initial treatment that could save his or her life. There is a 2002 article in a magazine called Reason entitled ``Asthma Attack: When Zero Tolerance Collides with Children's Health.'' I just want to share the horror of a 1991 death of a New Orleans high school student, Catrina Lewis, who was simply delayed by security guards before being allowed to get to her inhaler from the office. When finally it did not help, she asked the school staff to call an ambulance. Instead, they spent a half-hour trying to call her mother first. Catrina's sister, another student, finally called 911, but unfortunately, tragically, the emergency help arrived too late. Catrina's death resulted in more than heartbreak, but a legal judgment against the principal, the counselor and school board. Obviously, in this case no one comes out the winner. Medical providers prescribe safe, legal treatment, along with instructions on how to self-administer to patients diagnosed with asthma and severe allergies. Along with parental support, it just makes good medical sense to allow a student to treat him or herself and avoid this possible tragedy in the classroom. I would like to remind young people with asthma in this country that throughout history there have been people we know or believe had asthma, but they still accomplished great things; not because they had asthma, but because they did not let it stop them from finding greatness, achievement. In the past 3 years, I have shared stories about President Theodore Roosevelt and the Italian composer, priest and musician, Antonio Vivaldi. In Congress, for Asthma Awareness Day we hosted famous athletes who currently have and suffer from asthma. But, frankly, they do not let it slow them down, and they still pursue their career: Jerome Bettis of the Pittsburgh Steelers, who just last Sunday scored two touchdowns, I say to my colleagues; and Jackie Joyner-Kersee, Olympic heptathlete, most of us do not know what that is, but that is an individual that competes in seven track and field events. I would also like to point out another sober but timely point that there may arise emergencies where a schoolchild with asthma simply, simply needs to have his or her vital medication close at hand and not locked in a desk drawer across the campus. We sadly just never know these days when a homeland security event might call for a lockdown at a school, for students to ``shelter in place.'' If this happens, that is why this bill is important. We want every child to have his or her lifesaving medication on their person and not in a shelter-in-place, in a lockdown position. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2023 is an important step for the health of school children, for parental rights, and for trust in the physician-patient-parent relationship and judgment. Again, I appreciate the support of my colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), and I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) for moving this bill, and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Bilirakis) for marking it up in the Subcommittee on Health. We made great progress. We need the Senate to follow through, and we need to pass this bill today, and I encourage its swift passage in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague also for mentioning Nancy Sanders, because I was going to save the best for last, Nancy Sanders, the director of Mothers of Asthmatics, Allergy and Asthma Network; without her energy and her time, we probably would not be here today. So in large measure, this is a case where government is acting, Congress is acting, but it is because of her and all her volunteers and supporters have made this a major objective and mission for their actions to try and bring to bear all of the resources of the private sector so that we in the government are aware of this problem. I know from some of the hearings that we have had, that both the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) and I have shared, and we have had many panels come out and speak, all of this was organized by Nancy Sanders. So it is to her credit this bill is on the floor today, because of her hard work. So I appreciate the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) bringing that to the attention of the floor, and I want to echo that, how important it is to have Nancy Sanders.

Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would just give a concluding remark. Not often when we come to the House floor do we have legislation that will save lives. I had this experience when I was working on the defibrillator bill, which the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is going to offer later on, which is another one of those bills that will actually save lives. And this is one that will save lives, not to mention the huge amount of stress that will be alleviated by parents' knowing that their children will have their medication with them at school.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support this legislation. I think it provides strong e-commerce protection, not through computer codes but rather through the U.S. legal code, for the American consumer and businesses large and small. And I would like to say at the very onset that we have support from the industry itself. Microsoft, Time Warner, Dell, Yahoo, eBay, the Business Software Alliance, Humana, EarthLink and several spyware companies themselves. The SPY ACT of 2004 takes dead aim at unwanted and sometimes malicious programs known as spyware that we all know can link and lurk in cyberspace. They corrupt and compromise computers and their networks and ultimately, Madam Speaker, they cost Americans and the economy major losses in time and money and productivity. The Federal Trade Commission loosely defines spyware as software ``that aids in gathering information about a person or organization without their knowledge and that may send such information to another entity without the consumer's consent or that assert control over a computer without the consumer's knowledge.'' The reality is that this deceptive and sometimes fraudulent activity, including the use of spyware, not only has the potential to damage consumer's confidence in e-commerce but also can be used to defraud consumers by stealing their personal financial information, quite literally, from underneath their noses. It is also alarming that estimates now show that these spyware programs have grown in number from about 2 million in August of 2003 to over 14 million today. The National Cybersecurity Alliance has estimated that over 90 percent of users had some form of adware or spyware on their computers, and frankly, most of them were totally unaware of it. Given the gravity of this threat and its rapid growth, I am proud to say that the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Republicans and Democrats alike, as mentioned by the ranking member, have worked together in a bipartisan fashion. Oftentimes, we are on the House floor, we will be here probably the next couple of days, not in a bipartisan fashion, but we are here today, and it is a credit to the leadership for bringing this bill before us. Obviously, I think great credit goes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) for her early leadership in this area and also working in a bipartisan method. I think a lot of credit goes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) for his early co-sponsorship. And I think our Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, which I chair, and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) is the ranking member, also as she pointed out, worked together. I would also like to tell my colleagues, this is another good effort of our staffs, both Democrat and Republican, working together. The hard work of industry also should be commended because, obviously, when this bill first got started and we had our hearings, there were a lot of people in the industry that had some reservations. We can only get through those reservations by having open-door communications with them and making the case of hard work with the staff and trying to get this free flow of communication, and I think in this case the staff is to be commended for making, as the chairman said, a good bill even better. As I mentioned to him, I have had many hearings dealing with privacy, and we have had a hearing on this. So H.R. 2929 would not only send a loud and clear message to those who would do harm to our computers but it also would add another layer of protection over the robust firewall and detection technology that the information technology industry is starting to provide consumers and businesses. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 2929, the SPY Act of 2000. It is time to put an end to spyware and keep Americans secure and confident in the e-commerce marketplace.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support and as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 250, recognizing public access defibrillation, or PAD, programs. My colleagues, years ago I had the opportunity and honor to work with the American Heart Association and we developed legislation addressing sudden cardiac arrest along with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps). This cooperation led to the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act. After years of work, the provisions from the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act were combined with other health care provisions in H.R. 2498, and finally enacted in 2000 as the Public Health Improvement Act. This law directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to simply develop guidelines for the placement of defibrillators in public buildings. It also directs Health and Human Services to consult with and counsel other Federal agencies where such devices are to be used. Now, a number of agencies have initiated the program, including Labor, HHS, Commerce, GSA, and IRS. These public access defibrillation programs, PADs, vary with occupancy of the building, building size and other characteristics. Since last winter, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and I have been working with the Architect of the Capitol and the Office of the Attending Physician to consider the implementation of a PAD program throughout the United States Capitol complex to help save lives for the people that visit our Capitol in and around this area. The hard-working staff, employees of the U.S. Congress, and the many visitors should be afforded the same protection as citizens employed by or visiting other Federal facilities implementing PAD programs. We are finding that the biggest area of discussion from building supervisors at both the executive branch and here in the Capitol is the ongoing maintenance of the AEDs and the program once they are in place. Now, thanks to our persistence, I am pleased to share that each Chamber's Legislative Branch Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005 has included $1 million in funding for installation and annual maintenance of hundreds and hundreds of defibrillators around the Capitol complex. This is good, good news, and I am very pleased to cosponsor the legislation of my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and I commend him for his active participation on this.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and this amendment. We did not seek this debate, but it was thrust upon us. A handful of judicial activists have sought to change the traditional definition of marriage through judicial decree. Supporters of same-sex marriage are vocal, tireless, and well-funded. They are eager to attack the traditional meaning of marriage through whatever court is willing to listen. They are determined to force this revolutionary and destructive view of marriage down the American people's throats. But there is hope for the millions of Americans who value the traditional definition of marriage. Their hope is the democratic process and this amendment. Supporters of same-sex marriage cannot win through the democratic process. Again and again, when the issue has been put forth in the court of public opinion, they have lost miserably. Mr. Speaker, this vote today is what our democracy is all about. The response of my constituents and Americans throughout the country has been overwhelming and impressive. The vast majority of Americans have risen to the defense of traditional marriage. Today, the voice of the American people will be heard.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Motion to Instruct Conferees on the FY05 National Defense Authorization Act. There are many reasons to oppose this Motion. First, the argument could certainly be made that ``hate crimes'' do not belong on a National Defense Authorization bill. This is incredibly important legislation, and it does not deserve to get bogged down over such a controversial and non-germane provision. I also oppose the notion of ``hate crimes'' in general, especially at the federal level. The fact of the matter is that a crime is a crime no matter what motivates it. If two men are brutally murdered, one for his race and the other for his money, are we telling the latter's family that their father's death, or their husband's death, or their son's death, is somehow worth less in the eyes of the law? I would also contend that the very concept of ``hate crimes'' is divisive and tends to Balkanize America. During the Civil Rights movement, black Americans strove to be treated the same as white Americans. Theirs was a noble cause. Yet ``hate crimes'' betray the cause of those who fought against segregation by emphasizing our differences, rather than our common concerns. I am also concerned that if we have laws which punish more severely offenders who are motivated by certain beliefs, it increases the risk that we will try to criminalize the actual beliefs themselves. There is no need for ``hate crime'' legislation. Federal ``hate crimes'' prosecute property crimes, assault and battery and murder against the special victims. Yet all of these underlying offenses are already illegal in all 50 states and they are already prosecuted by the states with great effectiveness. I am not aware of any of these types of offenses being inadequately investigated or negligently prosecuted. And let's face it: few criminals are likely to be deterred by an additional penalty for a crime that is already unlawful. Another reason why I oppose federal hate crimes in general and this Motion specifically is because the prosecution of crimes has largely always been an issue left to the states. The continued federalization of criminal law requires a tremendous expansion in the size and scope of Federal law enforcement, Federal prosecutors, and frankly, Federal power. For too long, Congress has used the Constitution's Commerce Clause to expand the Federal government's reach in what was traditionally the jurisdiction of the states. However, the U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down two federal statutes in U.S. v. Lopez (1995) and U.S. v. Morrison (2000) because they violated our traditional constitutional divisions of authority. I would not be surprised if the Court one day declared unconstitutional other far- reaching Federal crime measures, including Federal ``hate crimes.'' There is another constitutional problem with giving ``sexual orientation'' special treatment. Current characteristics which are classified as hate crimes under federal law include race, ethnicity, sex, national origin, religion, and disability. All of these characteristics--except religion--are what the Supreme Court has called ``immutable.'' That is, if a person is black, or a woman, or from Pakistan, or paralyzed from the waist down, it is not of their choice. It is beyond their control, they cannot change. Therefore, if their characteristic is immutable it cannot, for lack of a better description, be held against them. Now, good people can disagree about this issue, but the fact remains that homosexuality is not necessarily a trait with which someone is born. In other words, this type of ``sexual orientation'' is not immutable, but to a large degree it is chosen. The Supreme Court has certainly never considered ``sexual orientation'' to be an immutable characteristic. Why should we? Mr. Speaker, I believe that violent crimes against any American are despicable. They should be punished swiftly and severely, to the fullest extent of the law. But we should not give special treatment to certain victims, we should not penalize citizens for their beliefs, and we should not federalize ``hate crimes.'' I urge my colleagues to vote against this Motion.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of recent catastrophic events in Florida of four consecutive hurricanes, it would be easy to dwell on the thousands of tragic stories that have impacted almost all Floridians. Not only was power lost throughout millions of homes statewide, houses were leveled or left in shambles, and lives have been lost. It is certain that these dark stories overshadow our thoughts, but it is important to let people know that there are indeed uplifting stories, and to let people hear about those as well. When it became apparent that Hurricane Charley would wreak havoc across the State, many companies sprang into action to help in their unique ways: Proctor & Gamble provided items such as Bounty paper towels, Mr. Clean, Always hygiene products, Pringles potato chips, and Iams pet food. Tyson delivered more than 110,000 pounds of pre-cooked chicken, and two trailer loads of ice that had been donated by Wal- Mart. Pfizer, donated prescription drugs to compensate for closed pharmacies, and Bristol Myers Squibb donated 150 cases of infant formula, 50 cases of water, 500 cases of Excedrin, 5,000 pairs of socks, and seven different prescription medicines. General Mills donated over 20,000 cases of food including soup, cereal snack bars and vegetables. General Motors gave three Hummer H2s, equipped with OnStar Satellite communications. And this is just products: companies, including their employees personally, from Johnson & Johnson to Home Depot to Goldman Sachs have donated tens of thousands of dollars. Countless meals and snacks have been served for going on 6 weeks now, to hurricane-damaged counties in Florida, with thousands more available from Federal, local and private agencies. Emergency housing, clothing and other aid is also being provided. We have organizations set up for the purpose of collecting donations for the Florida Hurricane Relief Fund. One such organization consists of members of the Business Roundtable. After Hurricanes Charley and Frances steamrolled through Florida, Ivan followed in their paths. CIGNA Pharmacy Management announced soon after that its Florida members would be able to obtain refills on their prescriptions ahead of schedule. ``We know that one of the important steps our members need to take to prepare for a severe weather situation such as Hurricane Ivan is to be sure they have an adequate supply of any needed prescription drug on hand,'' said James Bryant, President of CIGNA Pharmacy Management. ``That's why we want to make it as easy as possible for members to get prescriptions filled in advance.'' CIGNA emphasized that members who are taking life-sustaining medications, or one that require regular administration, fill up on their prescriptions as soon as possible. And Floridians haven't just jumped in with tangible supplies and money, but with their own blood, sweat and tears. The Florida Hospital Association communicated efficiently and frequently on hospital updates. FHA also organized a rapidly deployable network of help from all hospitals throughout Florida to make sure that all areas have received invaluable medical and nursing manpower. it has not been uncommon that nurses, med techs, and doctors have sacrificially left their own damaged homes to go care for others. Finally, here is an excellent display of private-public collaboration and flexibility. Right before Hurricane Frances, the Florida Bankers Association, the U.S. Treasury, the U.S. Postal Service and the Social Security Administration sprang into action together. Social Security checks were scheduled to be either deposited into bank accounts electronically, or mailed out hard copy, on Friday, September 3, the day Frances was scheduled to touch down. Due to the imminent approach and anticipated disruption, the Treasury Department asked banks to make available a day early--September 2--electronic funds transfers (EFT) of the monthly checks that retirees and the disabled depend upon. And, the Post Office made every effort to deliver all checks, and where mail was undeliverable, set up areas for beneficiary pick up of checks. Talk about flexible and cooperative service, I even had one Post Office employee in my district go above and beyond and wait Thursday evening after closing for a worried family to pick up their check. Leland Adams of the Post Office in Bell made himself available for this family after hours, in case they decided to evacuate town before the P.O. would open in the morning of September 3rd. It is this spirit of cooperation, community-mindedness, corporate and public goodwill and personal fortitude that has gotten Floridians through the past 6 weeks. Mother Nature may slow Floridians down, but there's no stopping us. We will get through this.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, whoever is elected President will face the prospect of another terrorist attack. The question is: Will we have the right policies in place to best protect our country? George Bush has waged an aggressive war on terror by going on the offense. He has taken the fight to the terrorists rather than waiting to fight them in our cities and on our streets. On the other hand, his critics have demonstrated, I believe, a fundamental misunderstanding of the war on terror, saying that by going on the offense, America has caused the creation of more terrorists. The critics fail to articulate how they would deal with the gathering threat and, if we are attacked again, what would be their strong response. Mr. Speaker, as we wage the war on terror and determine which policy can best keep America safe, this is at the heart of our national debate and an important part of the choice that all Americans will have to make on November 2.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman, and I also thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health for his support and commend him for all his actions. I rise in support of this bill, H.R. 4768. I am also pleased, as the chairman mentioned, to be an original cosponsor of this bill, which authorized projects which have been well analyzed by the CARES Commission. I think we all know what this is, the Capital Asset Realignment For Enhancement Services. It has been recommended to Secretary Principi. Under CARES, the VA reviewed all of its facilities systematically, and I think that should be an assurance to all veterans, to consider where resources should be allocated for optimum services for the veterans, particularly as more veterans, as we know, relocate to the Southeast, particularly in Florida. It appears the VA has insufficient clinics down in the southeast portion, and so I am very pleased to see that they are looking at that. Accordingly, the majority of the leases which the legislation would authorize are in the South. The aim has been to match assets with the veterans, and this bill does just that. Florida, as we know, has the second largest veterans population and the number one in terms of age. Obviously, I am heartened to see a lease for a regional health care facility providing multiple specialties in South Marion County, Summerfield, Florida, in this legislation. The plans are for such a clinic to offer comprehensive services to veterans. These are comprehensive services you would not get in an outpatient clinic and they are complete. It also will have imaging service in its facility. It will be 75,000 square feet. It will provide more services and greater resources for veterans than existing outpatient VA clinics can currently provide. Even better, Mr. Chairman, while this clinic is predicted to be open in the summer of 2007, appropriations willing, the generous resourceful people up in north central Florida have offered the VA use of a free space for an interim clinic. We have had the participation of local businesses to help out. So our ever increasing veterans population can see immediate relief for their long health care wait as early as this winter, and then the more comprehensive specialty clinic which the act authorizes in the long run. So I have great enthusiasm for what we are doing. I am also proud to be the author of the millennium health care bill for veterans' long- term care, and I am pleased to help move this bill forward for outpatient care. Lastly, let me say to my colleagues, this Congress and this President have delivered real results for the veterans health care system. The total VA budget has increased almost 50 percent, 50 percent, in just 4 years, and the budget for veterans medical care has increased 40 percent in 4 years. So I say, a record number of veterans are receiving health care today, over 5 million, up 1.2 million from 4 years ago, and the number of veterans on medical waiting lists has dropped from over 300,000 in the year 2002 to just over 3,000 today. This is America. This is something we should be very proud of, and I think all the veterans should realize this. So all we need to do now to complete this great track record is continue the clinics and, of course, pass H.R. 4768.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, a country was looking for free, democratic elections. Yet, a violent insurgency controlled about one- third of the nation's territory. Insurgents mined roads to prevent transportation and potential voters had to dodge sniper fire just to vote. Yet people by the hundreds of thousands risked their lives to have the opportunity a chance to vote, a chance for freedom. For those that may not recognize this piece of history, the year is 1982, and the country is El Salvador, and 2 years later the people of that country had to risk the same peril to vote. This situation sounds familiar, does it not. I doubt many can forget the horrible atrocities committed during the Civil War in El Salvador that claimed over 75,000 lives. The insurgents in that day were no less ruthless than those at the interim government that Afghanistan and Iraq are facing. Violent efforts were increased before and on the day of election to prevent the people of El Salvador from choosing their destiny. The reason was simple. Elections, as pointed out in a recent New York Times article, ``suck the oxygen from a rebel army.'' Interim Prime Minister Allawi knows this as well as Afghanistan President Karzai. Prime Minister Allawi was on this floor last week and stated emphatically that despite the naysayers in the media, and the supporters of Senator Kerry, Iraq will have free elections next year. Yet, not a day goes by that some pundit or some strategist talks about conditions in Iraq and says that the country is not ready for elections. However, Madam Speaker, I think it would be worthwhile for those who say they are experts to listen to the Iraqi people. According to some Arab news media reports and Iraqi blogs, only a small portion of Iraq is under control of the insurgents. We are talking about a country that is roughly the size of California, and only a small portion remains vulnerable to the insurgencies. Allawi is right to move forward with the elections. Iraqis are beyond fed up with these terrorist acts and may surprise many with their resilience in the face of these attacks. Look at the Iraqi police and National Guard. Despite being persistent targets of these extremists, Iraqi citizens continue to risk their lives to sign up for the change to help bring peace to their nation. I think these so-called experts on elections in Iraq and Afghanistan are in for a rude awakening. Afghanistan's elections are set for October 9. Also, next month, Iraqis will begin registering to vote with election scheduled for January of next year. Will it be difficult? Most definitely. Will the insurgents try to disrupt this process? Yes. We have already seen that they will increase their attacks. But the fact is the insurgents are scared. They know that a legitimately elected leader can put an end to this illegitimate insurgency. An elected leader can offer his people peace, stability and prosperity. Insurgents can only offer hate, fear and death. An elected leader can undermine an insurgency by reaching out and addressing the perceived ills for which they are supposedly fighting for, or expose their motives as pure extremism. An elected leader can transform his country for the better. Madam Speaker, it will not happen overnight. It took years for El Salvador but it can happen. It is a task that the United States must continue to support without hesitation. Let me refer to two other examples. Violence and unrest were prevalent in Indonesia. Yet, recently, Indonesia conducted its direct presidential elections, orderly, peacefully, without disruption to voters' access. Finally, I think we can all remember the problems in Serbia with Milosovic and what happened with his military action. On June 13 and 27 of 2004 this year, Serbia held presidential elections which is a welcome change in the political direction of Serbia and its relationship with the international community. Remember what Prime Minister Tony Blair said when he addressed this body. Here is his quote which I think rings a very positive note: ``How hollow would the charges of American imperialism be when these failed countries are seen to be transformed from states of terror to nations of prosperity, from governments of dictatorship to examples of democracy, from sources of instability to beacons of calm.'' He went on to say, ``Why America? The only answer is because destiny put her in this place in history at this moment of time and the task is ours to do.'' We must take these words to heart and stand with a universal toughness. Democratic institutions continue to spread in the world. They are our true defense against the illegitimate attempts of Islamic fanatics to force their own distorted views of the world. [From the New York Times, Sept. 28, 2004] The Insurgency Buster (By David Brooks) Conditions were horrible when Salvadorans went to the polls on March 28, 1982. The country was in the midst of a civil war that would take 75,000 lives. An insurgent army controlled about a third of the nation's territory. Just before election day, the insurgents stepped up their terror campaign. They attacked the National Palace, staged highway assaults that cut the nation in two and blew up schools that were to be polling places. Yet voters came out in the hundreds of thousands. In some towns, they had to duck beneath sniper fire to get to the polls. In San Salvador, a bomb went off near a line of people waiting outside a polling station. The people scattered, then the line reformed. ``This nation may be falling apart,'' one voter told The Christian Science Monitor, ``but by voting we may help to hold it together.'' Conditions were scarcely better in 1984, when Salvadorans got to vote again. Nearly a fifth of the municipalities were not able to participate in the elections because they were under guerrilla control. The insurgents mined the roads to cut off bus service to 40 percent of the country. Twenty bombs were planted around the town of San Miguel. Once again, people voted with the sound of howitzers in the background. Yet these elections proved how resilient democracy is, how even in the most chaotic circumstances, meaningful elections can be held. They produced a National Assembly, and a president, Jose Napoleon Duarte. They gave the decent majority a chance to display their own courage and dignity. War, tyranny and occupation sap dignity, but voting restores it. The elections achieved something else: They undermined the insurgency. El Salvador wasn't transformed overnight. But with each succeeding election into the early '90s, the rebels on the left and the death squads on the right grew weaker, and finally peace was achieved, and the entire hemisphere felt the effects. I mention this case study because we are approaching election day in Afghanistan on Oct. 9. Six days later, voter registration begins in Iraq. Conditions in both places will be tense and chaotic. And in Washington, a mood of bogus tough-mindedness has swept the political class. As William Raspberry wrote yesterday in The Washington Post, ``the new consensus seems to be that bringing American-style democracy to Iraq is no longer an achievable goal.'' We should just settle for what John Kerry calls ``stability.'' We should be satisfied if some strongman comes in who can restore order. The people who make this argument pat themselves on the back for being hard-headed, but the fact is they are naive. They've got things exactly backward. The reason we should work for full democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is not just because it's noble, but because it's practical. It is easier to defeat an insurgency and restore order with elections than without. As we saw in El Salvador and as Iraqi insurgents understand, elections suck the oxygen from a rebel army. They refute the claim that violence is the best way to change things. Moreover, they produce democratic leaders who are much better equipped to win an insurgency war. It's hard to beat an illegitimate insurgency with an illegitimate dictatorship. Strongmen have to whip up ethnic nationalism to lure soldiers to their side. They end up inciting blood feuds and reaping the whirlwind. A democratically elected leader, on the other hand, can do what Duarte did. He can negotiate with rebels, invite them into the political process and co-opt any legitimate grievances. He can rally people on all sides of the political spectrum, who are united by their attachment to the democratic idea. In Iraq, he can exploit the insurgents' greatest weakness: they have no positive agenda. Of course the situation in El Salvador is not easily compared to the situations in Afghanistan or Iraq. On the other hand, over the past 30-odd years, democracy has spread at the rate of one and a half nations per year. It has spread among violence-racked nations and to 18 that are desperately poor. And it has spread not only because it inspires, but also because it works. It's simply astounding that in the United States, the home of the greatest and most effective democratic revolution, so many people have come to regard democracy as a luxury-brand vehicle, suited only for the culturally upscale, when it's really a sturdy truck, effective in conditions both rough and smooth.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the 30-second speech by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Amen to what he just said. Let me give a hypothetical example to the people on this side of the aisle who are predominately against this amendment. Let us say that it turned out that the Supreme Court wanted to take the words ``In God We Trust'' off the marble slab that stands on top of the flag in the Speaker's rostrum. At what point would you as a Member of Congress get up and say enough is enough for the Supreme Court to do this? I mean, at what point does your side have to be so upset to get involved to really exercise what the Constitution allows? It has been repeated many times under article III, section 2 of the Constitution, we in this body have the right, and some would say we have the duty, to limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts. I certainly would hope if they tried to strip ``In God We Trust'' off the Speaker's rostrum that they on that side of the aisle would stand up and say enough is enough and agree that we would allow Congress to exercise its prerogative under article III, section 2 of the Constitution. Also, I brought this up before, all of those on this side of the aisle know that Tom Daschle, the minority leader, inserted a provision in legislation to prohibit the courts from hearing cases about brush clearings in South Dakota. Point Of Order

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I did mention in my speech about a provision in legislation that was inserted; so I thought that was important. In July we passed the Marriage Protection Act, removing the Federal courts' jurisdiction from questions arising under the Defense of Marriage Act. Frankly, is marriage not more important than the forests that I mentioned previously that was inserted in legislation? So I am honored to support this bill and to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from further judicial interference. I will include my entire statement in the Record. Mr. Chairman, for decades, activist judges have been free to impose their own beliefs on the American people with impunity. We have had to endure egregious decisions about abortion, obscenity, school prayer and homosexual ``marriage,'' to name but a few issues. On each of these issues, the vast majority of the American people took the exact opposite position as the federal court. This was especially true when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional. But I am glad to note that Congress has recently been exercising its constitutional prerogative to limit the federal courts. Under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, we have the right-- some would say the duty--to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. It is not like it hasn't been done before. In the 1868 landmark case of Ex parte McCardle, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that Congress had the constitutional right to remove jurisdiction from the court in a pending case. More recently, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle inserted a provision in legislation to prohibit the courts from hearing cases about brush clearing in South Dakota. And in July, we passed the ``Marriage Protection Act,'' removing the federal court's jurisdiction from questions arising under the Defense of Marriage Act. Frankly, isn't marriage and the Pledge more important than forests? I am honored to support this bill and to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from further judicial interference. Mr. Chairman, for years the Federal Courts have been taking jurisdiction away from Congress. It is only proper that we exercise our constitutional right to limit their jurisdiction.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have been in the majority here in the House of Representatives for 10 years now, and a lot has changed. We have helped to free working families from the heavy tax burden, but we need to make our work permanent. We need to make a child tax credit, elimination of the marriage penalty tax and the elimination of the death tax permanent. Only the Republicans are committed to doing this. We have established a more optimistic welfare system that encourages self-sufficiency and has shortened the welfare lines. But there are still families on welfare who want to get off, so there is more work to be done. Only Republicans are committed to doing this. Since 1994, unemployment rates are lower. Median household income is higher. A greater percentage of Americans are graduating from college. Home ownership rates are higher. And the violent crime rate has decreased. Mr. Speaker, the numbers prove that American families are better off, much better off with Republicans making the laws.