Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, maybe I could just have a colloquy with the gentlewoman on her amendment. Would my colleague not agree that the language dealing with negligent entrustment is not part of the bill, H.R. 1036?

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to support the actions of the world's greatest fighting force, the United States Armed Forces, which is currently about 360,000 men and women deployed overseas defending our freedom. Though the terrains may differ greatly, their overall objectives remain the same, Mr. Speaker. From the sweltering jungles of Colombia and South Korea to the barren moonscapes of Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. forces put life and limb in harm's way to maintain the security of our great country. War is a concept not easily understood, never black and white, its ramifications always permanent and, of course, severe. The fighting men and women of the United States know the consequences of war, yet continue to place upon their shoulders this great mantle of responsibility. Though victory in war always comes at a price, our efforts in the Iraqi theater have yielded great success. Our Armed Forces have liberated thousands of Iraqis and have begun the delivery of much needed humanitarian support. Saddam's regime seems to be on its knees, ready to collapse. In what has been a historic campaign, U.S. Marines, a sea-based service, have marched inland to Baghdad in what has been the deepest land penetration ever by its air-ground team of planes, helicopters, troops and tanks. American troops have Baghdad surrounded. We have demonstrated an ability to insert troops deep into the city and the 1st Brigade of the United States Army recently renamed Saddam International Airport to Baghdad International. The evil and torturous regime of Saddam Hussein and his Baath party cronies seems to be at its end, all due to the valiant efforts of coalition forces. Though support for this operation has been great and widespread, we as a body have been forced to face the politics of war. We have been faced with a task of funding this war and making sure that our troops are supplied with the best equipment in the world. This week we must pass the wartime supplemental conference report as soon as possible in order to keep our military machine safe and, of course, efficient. We must also continue to show the world that what we are doing is right and for the benefit of our global safety. We must uproot Saddam and show the world the atrocities that he has committed. So far, the terrorist links have been established, Mr. Speaker. Al Qaeda terrorists fought against coalition troops in southern Iraq. Foreign nationals--Egyptians, Jordanians, Saudis, Syrians, Yemenis--were captured Sunday and led U.S. soldiers to their training grounds at Salman Pak. And, most convincing, raids of the Ansar al-Islam camps in northern Iraq revealed extensive al Qaeda ties for this group believed to have extensive, high-ranking connections with the Iraqi regime. As initial reports concerning chemical weapons become more clear, we will learn the truth behind Saddam Hussein's lies. All we can do is pray that the maniacal leader will think of the people, the 4.5 million Iraqi citizens, before he considers unleashing all this chemical arsenal. Mr. Speaker, after Baghdad is secured and the Republican Guard is completely destroyed, we will be faced with the task of reconstructing Iraq. But as eyes turn toward the U.N., many will turn to the rich oil fields of Iraq and the many ways in which their countries think they can profit from our military's work. Countries that denounced our actions will look for ways to get their hands on some of this Iraqi oil. France and its allies claim the United Nations is the only body with the international legitimacy to administer Iraq. But, Mr. Speaker, is it? The United Nations failed miserably in its supervision of Kosovo, Bosnia and Somalia. Until Bush stepped in last year, it had completely dropped any attempt to get Iraq to disarm. The United Nations has never successfully fostered a democracy. This is not surprising since many if not most of its members are nondemocratic countries and a police state like Libya heads the U.N. human rights commission. There is at least one group of people among whom the United Nations has no legitimacy. That is the 24 million Iraqis who have suffered under more than two decades of Saddam Hussein's rule. Iraqis have seen U.N. inspectors come and go. They have seen U.N. officials rush to Baghdad to confer with Saddam with no easing of repression as a result. They have watched as U.N. resolutions, including those obligating Saddam to respect human rights, go not just unenforced but are not even cited in passing by the United Nations. Again my congratulations to our Armed Forces and to our President. God bless them both.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Objection.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I come here to the House floor and I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I understand my friend's concern, but I do not think we need to exacerbate the situation. Turkey has been with us so many times, as the gentleman from Arizona has pointed out. So many times Turkey has been with us, and would my colleagues hurt a friend because of this situation, after Turkey has now agreed, as reported in The New York Times, to increase its cooperation with the American military campaign in Iraq by permitting use of its territory for the overland supply of food, water, fuel, and other necessities to American armed forces operating in northern Iraq? Number two, Mr. Chairman, and another step that Colin Powell was successful in, Turkey has agreed to open their airfields to American military planes in distress or for the evacuation of American service personnel. Turkey has extended such help occasionally since the war began 2 weeks ago, but the new accord will make it more routine. Most importantly, my colleagues, in a separate but important part of the agreement, Secretary Powell said that the United States and Turkey would establish a monitoring group to watch northern Iraq to make sure no conditions arose that might compel Turkey to send its troops across the borders into Iraq. Turkey is a modern republic. It is a Muslim state. It is unique, as pointed out, in all the nations of the world. It is the only operating democracy in the Middle East. So it is essential that the United States realize and appreciate the burden, the special burden Turkey has, and the fact that they are the only Muslim member of NATO. Turkey remained steadfast with the United States and our allies through the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, NATO air strikes during the conflict in Kosovo, and in providing aid to Albanian refugees, as well as hosting Operation Northern Watch, which maintains the no-fly zone over northern Iraq. Turkey has been of enormous assistance in our global war on terrorism. And they should know. They have been fighting it for 30 years. Thirty thousand people have been killed by terrorists in Turkey. We have a vested interest in Turkey, and Turkey is sacrificing its well-being just by supporting a lot of our policies. Turkey will open its airfields, as I pointed out earlier, to the American military planes. Is this everything we have asked for from this ally? No. But I would like to point out that Turkey does support our efforts, unlike other so-called allies who have opposed us at every turn. So, Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an amendment that should be defeated. The administration, Secretary of State Colin Powell, is satisfied with Turkey's response and he is willing to go ahead with the foreign aid package, so why should we not? In the interest of maintaining good relationships with an ally, a solid ally, where solemn Muslim leadership is needed in this region, we should do this as well. So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I want to quote this morning from an article by Mona Charen, ``War and Psychology,'' in which she says: `` `War never solves anything.' So say dozens of callers to C-SPAN'' all day long ``and left-leaning radio programs.'' ``The answer to this argument, if you can call it an argument, could almost fit on a bumper sticker. Apart from securing American independence, ending slavery, and defeating Nazism and Communism, `war has never solved anything,' so the liberals say. ``Anti-war activists tell us that Iraq is a distraction from the more important war against global terrorism. This argument has been dealt a serious blow by the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.'' Frankly, Mr. Speaker, war does solve many things; but we have to win them, and this one we will win.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the House will soon mark up tax legislation, including the elimination of dividend double taxation. I propose we also provide tax relief for interest earned from savings in bank accounts. I have introduced the Simple Savings Tax Relief Act, H.R. 1163, which would help all savers, including those in lower-income levels who do not earn corporate dividends. Like dividend recipients, bank and credit union customers report interest as income to the IRS, increasing their tax burden. Let us not punish those who invest for a rainy day. Let us encourage them. In 1998, the Joint Economic Committee wrote that exemption of interest from taxation is a significant economic step we should take, and ``such a proposal would primarily benefit the low- and middle- income taxpayers.'' H.R. 1163 would permit a single filer to earn up to $200, $400 for a joint filer, in bank account interest tax-free. It is very simple: let us help those who are primarily low- and middle-income taxpayers today.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a problem that should be at the forefront of our agenda as we move into the 108th Congress. Our immigration system today needs improvement. Unfortunately, it took a tragedy to remind us about this. This country, of course, was based upon immigration. It was what has made us strong and all Americans recognize its importance. But this system needs improvement. We must continue to facilitate the entry of those men and women who make productive citizens, yet continue to filter those who are not eligible and those who could bring harm to our way of life. As a body, we recently moved the INS to the Department of Homeland Security, a measure that signals a return to our security. This administration has realized the fact that reorganization must take place before we can take steps to reform our immigration system. At no other time in our Nation's history have we faced more of a threat to our domestic security; but as we make strides towards improved security measures, I am deeply concerned that countries, even those who are considered allies, are lining up to compromise our work. Every day, Mr. Speaker, thousands of illegal immigrants stream across our sieve-like borders and into our country. Once they are inside, the grim reality stands that they are totally, totally untrackable. Yet our neighbor to the south does nothing to help us. But this is in no way shocking, seeing that remittances from Mexico's citizens, both legal and illegal, account for Mexico's third largest source of income. It amounts to over $10 billion a year. That is what is sent back by the Mexican immigrants. So it is no surprise that the Mexican Government is not helping us to secure our borders. One method I would bring to the attention of my colleagues has been found recently by Mexico in the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attacks. As we remember, we were going to have legislation on the floor dealing with Mexico that was tabled because our attention was focused on homeland security. So then the Mexican Government decided to change its strategy and they substituted a grass-roots approach that focused at the local level to seek small successes and build momentum for congressional action. Now, the linchpin for this new strategy was to be the matricula consular. Now, this is a word which means an official identity card which would be issued by the Mexican Government which it wants to be officially recognized by the United States. Now, unless we recognize this card, it goes nowhere; but they want us to recognize this card. This card would essentially allow illegal immigrants from Mexico the right to apply for a driver's license, Social Security card, and bank account. The U.S. Treasury Department has even gone so far as to promote its use. In a report to Congress, Treasury included a footnote that would go on to influence the language of the United States Patriot Act. The footnote says: ``Thus, the proposed regulations do not discourage bank acceptance of the matricula consular identity card that is being issued by the Mexican Government to immigrants.'' My colleagues, we can stop this by sponsoring H.R. 502. This bill requires that any ID cards must be verifiable by our government to obtain Federal public benefits. We do not have to recognize these identity cards from Mexico. The intent of the PATRIOT Act of 2000, which passed overwhelmingly by Congress, was to strengthen our homeland security. It addressed the issue of secure identification because the hijackers had obtained Social Security numbers and drivers licenses. Especially in this context, it is difficult to comprehend why Treasury went out of its way to give approval to an identity card being offered by a single foreign government whose contiguous border is a matter of acute concern to the United States and whose nationals represent the majority of illegals within the United States. As our troops risk their lives thousands of miles from home, it is disappointing that a country so dependent upon us would continue to compromise our security and openly denounce our foreign policy, that is, they are not supporting the war in Iraq. Despite the fact that the United States provides Mexico with 75 percent of their annual trade and is home to millions of migrants, President Fox of Mexico, a friend of President Bush, openly decries our military action. As the battle for our homeland security wages both here and in the deserts of the Middle East, we must find a way to better monitor the men and women who freely cross our borders every day. The matricula consular identity card would not help in this regard, Mr. Speaker. It is time we reevaluate our immigration system and ensure that our country will be better protected by those who would wish to do us harm.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, in an arrogant stunt, last summer, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, stating that it ``impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God,'' and places children in the ``untenable position of choosing between participating in an exercise with religious content or protesting.'' This is an obvious instance of political correctness taken to an absurd extreme. This court clearly shows that it is out of step with the will of the American people, the U.S. Congress, and traditional American values. Religious expression is the fundamental basis of our freedom in this country. At the earliest moment in this nation's history, the pilgrims signed The Mayflower Compact that declared that the voyage across the Atlantic was taken ``for the Glory of God'' and still today, the Ten Commandments are publicly displayed in the National Archives. In this Nation we have ``In God We Trust'' on our money, and each day the House of Representatives starts its day be reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. We will continue to do so despite the folly of the 9th Circuit Court.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, my Colleagues and Friends of Taiwan, I want to take a moment to place into the Record a traditional oral expression or toast to the long-standing relationship between the United States and Taiwan. The republic of China's Twin Oaks Estate here in Washington, D.C., has been home to nine Ambassadors, as well as a venue for receiving guests of the Republic of China's Representative in the United States. It is a symbol of the abiding friendship between our two nations. Over the last six decades, countless Americans and Chinese friends and Ambassadors have met with members of Congress at Twin Oaks. On the south side of this wonderful mansion stand one hundred plum trees. The plum blossom, the national flower of The Republic of China, can withstand below freezing temperatures. After enduring this type of physical duress during the winter, in early spring the dark pink plum blossom emerges and blooms, demonstrating a glorious vitality. And so it is with the relationship between Taiwan and the United States of America. No matter how challenging the problems are now or will be; our time-honored relationship will continue to blossom and display this type of resilience. In a larger sense, it will spring eternally regardless of geopolitical pressures. So Mr. Speaker, the enduring strength of the plum blossom at the Twin Oaks Estate symbolizes our lasting friendship, which has benefited both of our nations for six decades.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as we all heard from the President's speech last night, we are regrettably closer to engaging in military action to oust a murderous dictator, Saddam Hussein. At this time, we should focus our thoughts and prayers on the men and women standing in harm's way to liberate a country that has so often in history been a center of culture, innovation, and education. Our troops are young volunteers serving a country they love, and a foundation of freedom in which they deeply believe. They have many worries, as would any human being in this situation, but they know their jobs and the risks that accompany military service. As an American and a veteran, I have strong, heart-felt feelings and a sense of pride for these young soldiers and airmen willing to fight for a people they do not know and a cause that requires constant vigilance. It is these feelings I have for troops that led me and a number of my colleagues to openly question recent media interviews that subject these young troops to questions, which in my mind, have no business being posed days before possible military action. The initial coverage that brought me to the floor today aired on Peter Jennings ``World News Tonight,'' on Monday, March 10. The segment contained interviews with American troops on the Kuwaiti/Iraq border. Specifically, some of the questions focused on hypothetical situations regarding combat, enemy responses, and casualties. This morning, a USA Today article ran with the headline ``As War Looms, Young Soldiers Confront Fear . . . `Black Hawk Down' scenario among worries'' (Many of us remember ``Black Hawk Down'' was based on the operation to capture Somali warlord Adid. These interviews are asking questions regarding fratricide, combat deaths, chemical or biological weapons, ``personal demons,'' and ``bloody urban fighting.'' As many of us in the House are veterans, we know the sacrifices that come with service, including the loss of life. We have heard countless times, as have our troops, what threats may be encountered if we engage Iraq, and, what the risks entail. As such, our young troops do not need to be reminded of those possibilities by individuals who only seek to generate a story. Nor should the family and friends of loved ones serving in the Middle East be subjected to these stories that further exacerbate worries they may already have. Our men and women serving in these areas are professionals and they know the job they have to do, though it is obviously a job they would prefer to accomplish by other means than force (I would like to add that we in Congress and the President share that desire). Nonetheless, our troops and their commanders know they must focus on the tasks assigned and the mission objectives that must be completed. I believe that focus can be hindered when certain media personalities, who have no comprehensible idea of what it is like to be in the very situation our troops are facing, continue to dredge up these feelings purely for national coverage. Such coverage does not serve the home front well either. In Florida, we have activated more Guard and Reserve forces than any other state in the union. In my district, I have watched unit after unit depart for destinations unknown in support of Enduring Freedom. These are incredible individuals--as are their families. My thoughts and prayers go to them as well, for they too are sacrificing. Let me emphatically state for those that may disagree with my remarks that I do not advocate censorship. I do advocate common sense. I believe the media lacks a solid understanding of our military and its mission. Providing media access to our troops is necessary to assist in providing accurate information for the American public and to counter false propaganda from other resources seeking to undermine our objectives. Such access can provide a better understanding and appreciation for what our young people do every single day in service to our country. However, we must be mindful that reporting facts is quite different from generating an emotional story for ratings purposes. Today's media has a tremendous amount of access--much more so than during Desert Storm in 1991. With that access comes responsibility . . . responsibility to the troops, their families and the public. I ask that the media let our troops focus on the mission at hand, let them do their job and return safely home. Refrain from undermining that focus and the necessary morale . . . just because it might make a good story. Mr. Speaker, we face challenging times ahead. Our troops need our support, our thoughts, and our prayers. May God bless them and their families and return them home safe.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, recent media interviews, both print and television, have subjected our young troops to questions which in my mind have no business being posed days before possible military action. These interviews are asking questions regarding fratricide, combat deaths, chemical or biological weapons, ``personal demons,'' and ``bloody urban fighting.'' As many of us in the House are veterans, we know the sacrifices that come with service, including the loss of life. Our troops and their commanders know they must focus on the task assigned and the mission objective that must be completed. I believe that focus can be hindered when certain media personalities continue to dredge up these feelings purely for national coverage. We must be mindful that reporting facts is quite different from generating an emotional story for rating purposes. Today's media has a tremendous amount of access, much more so than they did in Desert Storm. There are 600 journalists embedded in our military operations. I ask that the media let our troops focus on the mission at hand and let them do their job and return home safely. Mr. Speaker, recent media interviews both print and television have subjected our young troops to questions, which in my mind, have no business being posed days before possible military action. These interviews are asking questions regarding fratricide, combat deaths, chemical or biological weapons, ``personal demons,'' and ``bloody urban fighting.'' As many of us in the House are veterans, we know the sacrifices that come with service, including the loss of life. Our troops and their commanders know they must focus on the tasks assigned and the mission objectives that must be completed. I believe that focus can be hindered when certain media personalities continue to dredge up these feelings purely for national coverage. Let me state that I do not advocate censorship. I do advocate common sense. Providing media access to our troops is necessary to assist in providing accurate information for the American public and to counter false propaganda from other sources seeking to undermine our objectives. However, we must be mindful that reporting facts is quite different from generating an emotional story for ratings purposes. Today's media has a tremendous amount of access--much more so than during Desert Storm in 1991. There are 600 journalists embedded in our military operations. With that access comes responsibility . . . responsibility to the troops, their families and the public. I ask that the media let our troops focus on the mission at hand, let them do their job and return safely home.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I am here to give a clear example from my home congressional district, a Dr. Joseph Hildner, a board-certified family-practice specialist in Belleview, Florida. He had a patient that was overweight and smoked too much. He never followed the doctor's advice, missed many appointments all the time, and failed to take blood pressure prescriptions. Suddenly the patient gets a heart attack, right? Then he sues because he was not cared for. The trial attorney simply identified anything that could have been done, declaring that no standard care was done for this patient by Dr. Hildner. Obviously, Dr. Hildner tried to settle this thing because the doctor felt that he would go through long litigation. As it turns out, the lawyer was suing well above the amount of money that the insurance company had for his patient. This is just an example. So what happens to Dr. Hildner? His premiums go from $30,000 to $70,000. How does he pay? How do the doctors in this country pay? They start to hustle through more patients and more patients. They practice what is called defensive medicine; they have all these tests, just simply to protect themselves. He admits he is hustling through all these patients like cattle. He cannot give them the attention they need. So now he is giving unnecessary tests. In the end, we need this bill. That is why I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 5. I rise as an original cosponsor of, and in support of H.R. 5. This bill would help curb some of explosive noneconomic damage awards in medical liability cases, and resultant soaring malpractice insurance rates that lawsuits have been spurring. Physicians in my home state of Florida, among other states, are already in a state of crisis, as evidenced by the ``walk-out'' earlier this year. Dr. W. Herman Sessions of the Family Practice Associates in Orange Park, FL, wrote to me recently that his practice is considering exiting. He wrote, I am telling my female patients to get their mammograms this year because I feel that we are not going to be having mammograms read in the state of Florida next year. A radiology friend told me that it was at the last minute that they were able to obtain insurance to read mammograms. He told me that he is not certain that when their policy expires in one year that they will be reading mammograms without some sort of resolution to the liability crisis. We have had difficulty recruiting physicians to our hospital because nobody wants to practice in the state of Florida with our liability problem. These physicians are surgeons and surgical subspecialists. Our local neurosurgeon obtained liability insurance on the very last day of the year and he is able to practice for the calendar year of 2003. I asked him what his plans are for 2004. He told me that he will either retire, do strictly office consultation and no surgery, or move to another state. And my constituent Johnny Beach from Bell, Florida, a young, married University of Florida senior worries about his wife's access to OB/ GYNs. Importantly, this legislation rightly does not cap economic damages, so that the tort system can continue to protect patients from malpractice as intended. I am pleased to cosponsor this bill, and urge its passage. Joseph Hildner, M.D., a board-certified Family Practice specialist in Belleview, FL, writes: ``We had a patient who is an obese smoker. Never followed our advice, missed many appointments, failed to fill blood pressure prescriptions. Patients suffered a heart attack, then sued for failure to arrange a stress test.'' The trial attorney simply identified anything that might have been done, declared that to be the ``standard of care'', threatened to sue for higher than the doctor's coverage limits, then settled for less. Even with a 90 percent chance of winning, a physician can't take the chance of going to trial and losing: the ``excess verdict'' would allow for seizure of his own personal assets. So the doctor settles. Actual negligence need not occur; an attorney only has to do is allege negligence. But citizens of Belleview lose. Dr. Hildner is known for excellent clinical outcomes at controlled costs. He says, I've always enjoyed the art of medicine in which I get to practice clinical judgment. As a primary care physician, I am a shepherd, getting those who need it expensive high tech care, and protecting those who don't from unnecessary interventions. I'm also known for taking time to listen and explain. I don't have my hand on the doorknob while a patient is trying to talk. Last year his insurance premium increased from $30,000 to $70,000. How does he pay? Now has to see more patients, and spend less time. ``I'm now having to talk patients into ``defensive medicine'' tests they don't need, just so I can protect myself. I am beginning to hustle my patients through like cattle, to see enough to pay the bills. So this friendly country doctor known for using clinical judgment, and providing efficient, cost-contained, appropriate care, and known for taking time, is now talking patients into unnecessary tests (which is running up costs), and hustling them through.'' Pass H.R. 5.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, America needs tax relief. The economy lost 308,000 jobs in February, one of the sharpest drops in recent memory. The unemployment rate now stands at 5.8 percent. While this is relatively low by historical standards, the unemployment rate was only 4 percent as recently as 2000. Now, the President's economic growth package, I believe, is urgently needed to increase the number of jobs created in the United States. Private sector economists have drawn the same conclusion. The jobs growth package could create millions of new jobs. For example, the Macroeconomic Advisers estimate that the package would lead to the creation of nearly 2 million jobs by the end of 2004. The Business Roundtable puts the figure at more than 3 million. So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we should pass the Bush tax relief plan now.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, this week is Cover the Uninsured Week where lawmakers, the media, and our constituents will consider how we can help provide health care coverage for some 35 million Americans. No doubt some will pronounce that the answer lies in a single payer, universal health care coverage program. I say there are better ways. Why? Let us look at countries that do have national health care in place and see its problems. Let me share with Members a story I read in a February 13 article in the New York Times about the growing lag on the Canadian health care system. According to this article, a Canadian government study shows that 4.3 million Canadians, 18 percent of those who saw a doctor in 2001, had a problem getting tests or surgery done in a timely fashion. Three million could not find a family physician. Canada spends $86 billion on the health care. Only the United States, Germany and Switzerland spend more as a proportion of economic output, but budget cuts since the early 1990s have impeded efforts to keep health care up to date. Waiting lines have also increased because an aging population is placing more demands on the system. A study by the Fraser Institute recently concluded that patients across Canada experience waiting times of 16.5 weeks between receiving a referral from a general practitioner and undergoing treatment in 2001-2002, a rate 77 percent longer than in 1993. Mr. Speaker, can Members imagine an insured American putting up with a wait for 4 months? As Members can imagine, those with the means to seek other options do not, due to what the Canadians call ``line jumping'' by the affluent and well-connected. While the goal of many who recommended socialized health care is egalitarian, equal health services for all, that is exactly what they get, an equally long wait for all. But if a Canadian has money, they just fly south to a private physician in the United States. My State of Florida is notoriously a haven for Canadian snowbirds to winter in and seek medical care. Last month I had members of various Canadian provincial governments visit me asking how they could work out an arrangement and fee schedule with physicians in Florida to provide services to them. And to point out another example of the erosion of egalitarian goal that national health care is supposed to provide, there is an ad for an up-scale maternity service in London's Portland Hospital. It points out women do not have to be famous to give birth there, they just need to have money. Deluxe private suites, champagne, and a beauty salon are just among some of the amenities. I thought all English women could receive quality, timely obstetrical care in their assigned hospital. But why then would the Duchess of York and supermodel Jerry Hall choose to have their babies outside the socialized system, because those who can afford to pay want choice, and we should provide nothing less for all Americans. To seek a legacy in his final years of office, Canada's Prime Minister Jean Chretien has agreed to spend $9 billion more over the next 3 years. Fortunately for Canadians, the system's shortfalls have opened the way for tentative but growing movements toward privately managed medical services. Let us resolve today to promote choice and opportunity for the uninsured to obtain the health care plan that works best for them. One of the major ways is to institute a tax parity into health insurance. The 90 percent of us who receive our health insurance through our employers are receiving a substantial tax benefit. We should extend this to those in the individual market also. When this Congress convened on January 7, I introduced my bill, H.R. 198, that would allow any tax filer to deduct 100 percent of the cost of their health insurance as well as nonreimbursed prescription drugs. Currently, only the self-employed can deduct 100 percent, but what about the unemployed or the retired? H.R. 198 would help them also. Likewise, many of my colleagues have introduced legislation to provide tax credits for Americans to use for purchasing health care. These are all ways we can help cover the uninsured and enable them to purchase the health insurance of their choice. Long Lines Mar Canada's Low-Cost Health Care (By Clifford Krauss) TORONTO. Feb. 11--During a routine self-examination last May, Shirley Magee found a lump on her breast. Within weeks she had it and some lymph modes removed. So far so good, until it came to the follow-up therapy. Mrs. Magee, a 55-year-old public school secretary, researched her condition on the Internet, and read that optimally, radiation treatment should begin two weeks after surgery. But the local provincial government clearinghouse that manages the waiting time for radiation therapy told her she had to wait until the end of September--nearly three months after her surgery--to begin treatment. ``I was supposed to feel lucky I got in so quickly,'' said Mrs. Magee, still viscerally annoyed though she has since successfully completed her radiation regime. ``It's a horrible feeling that something in your body is ticking that you have no control over. If I were a politician's wife I wouldn't have had to wait.'' Long heralded for giving all Canadians free health insurance and paying for almost all medical expenses, the health care system founded in the 1960's has long been the third rail all of Canadian politics; not to be touched by private hands, nor altered by Parliament. But growing complaints about long lines for diagnosis and surgery, as well as widespread line-jumping by the affluent, and connected, are eroding public confidence in Canada's national health care system and producing a leading issue for next year's national elections. A recent government study indicated that 4.3 million Canadian adults--or 18 percent of those who saw a doctor in 2001--reported they had difficulty seeing a doctor or getting a test or surgery done in a timely fashion. Three million Canadians are unable to find a family physician, according to several private studies, producing a situation all the more serious since it is the family doctor who refers patients to specialists and medical testing. ``The sky isn't falling, but things are not rosy,'' said Dr. Dana W. Hanson, president of the Canadian Medical Association. ``Nevertheless if things are not fixed, the sky may fall.'' Canada spends $86 billion a year on health care--only the United States, Germany and Switzerland spend more as a proportion of total economic output--but budget cutbacks since the early 1990's have impeded efforts to keep health care up to date. A recent report by the Senate's Standing Committee on Social Affairs. Science and Technology indicates that well over 30 percent of the country's medical imaging devices are obsolete. Overworked technology is one reason for the long lines; others include a shortage of nurses and inefficient management of hospital and other health care facilities, according to several studies. Waiting times have also increased because an aging population has put more demands on the system, while the current generation of doctors is working fewer hours than the last. Waiting can occur at every step of treatment. A study by the conservative Fraser Institute concluded that patients across Canada experienced average waiting times of 16.5 weeks between receiving a referral from a general practitioner and undergoing treatment in 2001-2002, a rate 77 percent longer than in 1993. The recent Senate report noted that waiting times for M.R.I., CT. and ultrasound scans grew by 40 percent since 1994. ``Waiting lists are the hornets' nests that are jeopardizing the system,'' said Dr. Tirone E. David, professor of surgery at the University of Toronto. He noted that Ontario residents needed to wait an average of two months to see a cardiologist unless it was an emergency, queries for angiograms took four to six weeks, and waiting times between initial examination and micro-valve repairs could take as long as six months. ``It wasn't that way 15 years ago,'' Dr. David added. ``It does not alter the ultimate outcome, but there's an anguish and uncertainty when a person feels their life is in a holding pattern for up to a year.'' Defenders of the Canadian system note that only patients waiting months for nonemergency care, like treatments for cataracts and hernias skew the waiting time statistics. And they argue that within life expectancy of 78 years, Canadians still enjoy one of the longest life expectancies in the world, slightly higher than the United States where 41 million people have no health insurance. Still recent polls show that while Canadians want to keep their national system they are worried about its future effectiveness. ``I don't think there's a lot of patience among the public for a lot more study,'' said Deputy Prime Minister John Manley in a recent interview noting that his own driver needed to wait a year for hip replacement surgery. ``There's not a lot of time to deal with it.'' In response to the growing concerns, Prime Minister Jean Chretien and the Senate conducted studies of the system, that concluded in recent months that shortages of doctors nurses and diagnostic equipment had caused at least some deterioration of care over the last 10 years. Seeking a legacy in his final year in office. Mr. Chretien agreed last week to spend over $9 billion more over the next three years on programs to improve diagnostic equipment, primary care, drug coverage and home care. But the provincial and territorial premiers say that isn't nearly enough to alleviate shortages of services, particularly in rural areas. The system's shortfalls have opened the way for tentative but growing moves toward privately managed medical services and user fee in return for quicker service. A hospital in Montreal has begun charging fees for some surgical procedures and renting operating rooms to patients for several hundred dollars an hour. A Vancouver hospital has begun selling full- body C.T. scans for $860. In an effort to reduce waiting lists, the provinces of Alberta, Nova Scotia and Ontario have established about 30 private M.R.I. and C.T. clinics, some of which offer nonemergency services to be paid for by private insurance. ``With the system cracking at the edges and waiting lists growing, people will eventually stay ``all right, let me pay, said Dr. Tom McGowan, president of Canadian Radiation Oncology Services, Canada's first for profit cancer radiation treatment center which has treated nearly 2,000 patients since it opened in Toronto two years ago. (Patients still pay nothing at the radiation clinic; Dr. McGowan is paid by the province and receives bonuses if he surpasses productivity targets.) The Ontario provincial government allowed Dr. McGowan to open his night clinic after it was forced to send 1,650 cancer patients to the United States for radiation treatments during a 25-month period in 2000 and 2001 because of waiting lists that were up to 16 weeks long. Dr. McGowan said the emergency, which cost the province $20 million in travel costs, was not rooted in a shortage of equipment nor staff but inefficient public management. Whatever the reasons his patients are quick to tell horror stories about their waits for diagnostic tests and treatments. ``Your worst fear is it is going to grow while you are waiting.'' said Pat McMeekin, a 53-year-old hospital clerical worker, recalling the two months she had to wait between a mammogram and the first of two biopsies confirming she had breast cancer last summer. ``When you have something you want to take care of it and be done with it.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, at few other times has national security been more important. In the 107th Congress, we enacted many pieces of legislation that sought to strengthen the weakness of our homeland security. That weakness was apparent on 9-11. Yet, Mr. Speaker, a lot remains. I rise today to address the security of our airline pilots and the fact that there seems to be serious differences in the scope of security that exist between different types of pilots, namely the cargo pilots. Tens of thousands of cargo pilots are not able to enjoy the same level of security that has been put into place for many of the pilots of our Nation's passenger airlines. Little attention has been given to thousands of cargo jets that dot American skies each day. Terrorists are going to look for the path of least resistance, much like water; and it is merely a matter of time before men realize that their chances for success are higher in the cargo wing of an airport, where security is significantly more relaxed. With the passage of the homeland security bill, passenger pilots were given the right to carry arms, but for some reason this same security measure has not been afforded to our Nation's cargo pilots. If compromised, some cargo jets could become significantly more dangerous than those of the planes used on September 11. With increased fuel payloads and oftentimes dangerous cargos in their hulls, the impact from one of these jets would be devastating. In recent months I have received several letters from cargo pilots in my district. These men and women are concerned that they are not getting the same attention as their passenger airline counterparts. Cargo pilots fly the skies alone without the protection of Federal sky marshals or the possible support of a flight crew or hundreds of passengers. These pilots are in dire need of a last-ditch defense that will protect the cockpit, their cargo, and potentially thousands of lives on the ground. The pilots of major cargo carriers, like UPS and Federal Express, are concerned and have voiced the fact that they no longer feel safe. Many of these jets weigh upwards of 800,000 pounds and carry over 50,000 gallons of fuel. The impact created by one of these planes would be unimaginable. I feel that the message has been sent to potential terrorists who realize this and that we need to do something to protect innocent lives. The FAA desires one level of security for all pilots, and I feel it necessary we should provide it for the cargo pilots. Political maneuvering by the cargo industry has shielded them from the level of security screening mandated for the passenger terminal. The entire burden for the security of the aircraft rests on two or three pilots who are in that cockpit. There is little cargo pilots can do to defend the aircraft against a terrorist attack. Stripping these men and women of the ability to carry firearms in the post 9-11 environment is not right. It is time that we address this obvious loophole in cargo security. In a maneuver that seemingly took place at the eleventh hour, the word ``passenger'' was inserted in the House bill's provision for arming pilots, and a similar change took place in the Senate version shortly thereafter. The effect of this single-word change is that it exempts all cargo carriers from the Federal mandate to arm pilots in a bill intended to enhance the pilot's ability to protect the airplane. I feel that this back-room deal defies the initial intent of the bill and the will of our Congress. This body voted overwhelmingly to mandate firearms for all airplane pilots, not just those in the passenger service. We displayed our bipartisan support for this mandate with votes of 310 to 113 in the House and 87 to 6 in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, it is time to fix this disparity and close the loophole once and for all so that all pilots in this country enjoy the same level of security.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, we talk here about abstinence. We have to look no further than Uganda for proof of the effectiveness of abstinence in the fight against HIV and AIDS. Riddled with HIV infections since the 1970s, Uganda took the first step. It found that through community education efforts, they could develop a strategy to prevent more HIV/AIDS patients; and in fact, a study done by Harvard University has proven that promotion of abstinence through billboards, radio programs, and school sex education curricula has resulted in a slow and steady drop in HIV infection rates, as well as new attitudes about conquering AIDS in Uganda. So we have proof positive from this study that abstinence works. When the program started in the late 1980s, the number of pregnant women infected with HIV was 21.2 percent. By 2001, the number had dropped dramatically to 6.2 percent. The Harvard study also reported Uganda adults are not having as much risky sex. Of women 15 and older, those reporting many sexual partners dropped from 18.4 percent in 1989 to 2.5 percent in the year 2000. The emphasis is on abstinence in Uganda's program. It is unique all through Africa. In other nations where HIV infections are high, such as Zimbabwe, condoms have been promoted as an answer to ending the AIDS crisis. But we cannot ignore, we just cannot ignore this study from Harvard or ignore the success of the abstinence program in Uganda. Mr. Chairman, the welfare reform package we consider today goes a long way in achieving our goal of empowering families, promoting independence through work and lifting millions of Americans out of poverty. One particular aspect that is of great encouragement to me is that this bill includes $50 million to provide for abstinence education. Educators, health workers, government officials, entertainment and news media outlets bombard children with the wrong messages. It is increasingly clear that unbridled sexual activity is hurting our youth: sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), AIDS, abortion, unintended pregnancy, fatherlessness, crime, welfare, violence and poverty are rampant social diseases. According to a survey by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, most Americans support abstinence for teens as a way of diffusing these damaging messages. We need look no further than Uganda for proof of the effectiveness of abstinence in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Riddled with HIV infections since the 1970s, Uganda has found miraculous success by using abstinence as its prevention strategy. A study done by Harvard University has proven that promotion of abstinence through billboards, radio programs and school sex education curricula has resulted in a slow and steady drop in HIV infection rates, as well as new attitudes about conquering AIDS in Uganda. When the program started in the late 1980s, the number of pregnant women infected with HIV was 21.2 percent. By 2001, the number was 6.2 percent. The Harvard study also reported Ugandan adults are not having as much risky sex: of women 15 and older, those reporting many sexual partners dropped from 18.4 percent in 1989 to 2.5 percent in 2000. The emphasis on abstinence in Uganda's program is unique. In other nations with high HIV infections, such as Zimbabwe and Botswana, condoms have been promoted as the answer to ending the AIDS crisis. In Botswana, 38 percent of pregnant women were HIV positive last year, contrasted with 6.2 percent of Ugandan women. We cannot ignore the success of abstinence programs in our country and throughout the world and for this reason we must explore this option. Sexual disease and the negative results from unwanted pregnancies cross physical borders, and are a recognizable concern for all nations and all people. This problem can only be addressed through the exploration of proven and effective methods of sexual education. It is time we give serious thought to the unique initiative of abstinence- based health education.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material in the bill.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 346) to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to increase civil penalties for violations involving certain proscribed acts or practices that exploit popular reaction to an emergency or major disaster declared by the President, and to authorize the Federal Trade Commission to seek civil penalties for such violations in actions brought under section 3 of that Act.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.