Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, this week we again come to view one of the things Americans dread most, that is, tax day. It is a dreaded and feared day, a day on which taxpayers all across the country are concentrating and reflecting on America's frustrating and complex system of taxation. We in Congress should take time ourselves to reflect on our Nation's Tax Code and the problems it imposes upon the taxpayers of this country. April 15 serves as a stark reminder that my constituents, and, in fact, all Americans, have paid entirely too much in Federal taxes, more than food, clothing and shelter combined. The Federal tax burden is the highest since World War II. Also Americans are paying taxes at the same time they are trying to pay off personal debt. Yes, we seem to forget that Americans have a debt to pay down as well. They have mortgages, auto loans, credit card debt, and school loans. We have stated time and time again that Americans deserve tax relief; and with the assistance of President Bush, we have given them just that relief. We passed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, providing the economy a much-needed boost with the rebate check provided to all American taxpayers. In addition, the bill decreases the marginal tax rate, reduces the marriage penalty, and eliminates the death tax. It increases the child adoption credits and the child tax credit. We also passed the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act, providing for additional tax decreases. As a result of our efforts, Mr. Speaker, according to the Tax Foundation, the average taxpayer will work 2 days less this year to pay off their total tax bill. The so-called Tax Freedom Day, April 27, represents an identifiable mark for Americans to gauge their total tax burden. This serves as an example that we have made great strides reducing the Federal income tax burden on all American taxpayers. However, there remains much to be done. The Federal tax burden continues to make up two-thirds of the total tax burden. Individual income taxes and payroll taxes are the primary culprits. We also face, Mr. Speaker, hidden taxes such as sales and excise tax on beverages. In fact, we are still paying a Federal telephone tax instituted during the Spanish-American War. In addition, the taxpayer faces State and local taxes, which include property taxes, sales taxes and additional income taxes in most States. Wherever one turns, he can expect to pay a tax on something. Finally, the taxpayer faces a cost of complying with our Tax Code. According to the Tax Foundation, in 2002 individuals, businesses, and nonprofit organizations will spend an estimated 5.8 billion hours complying with the Federal income tax code with an estimated compliance cost of over $194 billion. This amounts to imposing a 20.4 cent tax compliance surcharge for every dollar the income tax system collects. We have kept our promise, Mr. Speaker, in working with the President to give Americans the tax relief they need. Later this week we will have the opportunity to make that relief permanent. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 unfortunately contained sunset provisions which would end the tax relief after 10 years. We will have the opportunity to correct this oversight and give Americans permanent tax relief. In conclusion, in this country there are seven traits that really define who we are as Americans, cultural traits. One of those traits is we like reform. We are willing to change things. We are just not satisfied with the status quo in this country. We are always trying to improve. Mr. Speaker, we are making progress. Let us continue to work harder and do more for the American taxpayers of this country.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the question I am addressing today concerns Federal policy on when life becomes worthy of recognition and protection. We will have a bill on the floor today, H.R. 2175, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act; and I am here to advocate its passage, which specifically addresses this policy. Lately, we can find stories in the news that point up some inconsistencies occurring when individuals, institutions, and policymakers define not just when life begins, but when it becomes worthy of protection. For example, last month the administration announced that a developing fetus should be eligible for the S-CHIP program of government-funded health insurance for low-income children. Then last week, surgeons performed delicate cardiac surgery on the grape-sized heart of a 23-week-old fetus. Finally, in other news, many pregnant widows of fallen husbands in the September 11 terrorist attack are receiving compensation for their yet unborn child. It seems the States of Virginia and New York recognize a fetus as a surviving dependent, while today in Congress, we debate the status of a baby who has already been delivered outside of his or her mother's womb. In all of these examples, in fact, the fetus is recognized as worthy of protection, while here we debate over protecting an already born baby. Obviously, this bill is necessary. These are living babies who must be protected. In the midst of all of this, there are some who advocate a policy we find questionable here in Congress. For example, consider Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. According to the Washington Times, in his 2000 book, ``Writings on an Ethical Life,'' he discusses how some societies consider it virtuous to kill handicapped newborns. Professor Singer writes, ``If we can put aside these emotionally moving but strictly irrelevant aspects of killing the baby, we can see that the grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants.'' This is disturbing language. More illustratively, in a Committee on the Judiciary July 20, 2000, hearing, we learned from registered nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker that the hospital at which these women worked, Advocate Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, has a written policy outlining procedures to perform when a child is unwanted. Christ Hospital calls it ``induced labor abortions.'' Now, according to the July 20, 2000, testimony of Nurse Stanek, physicians willfully, prematurely induce labor with the intention of delivering a not yet viable child; but if the baby is born alive, he or she is simply left to die. A nurse might take it to what they call a ``comfort room'' where it does die. According to Princeton University President Harold Shapiro's statement in the Princeton Weekly Bulletin on December 7, 1998, Professor Singer, in a letter of his own to the Wall Street Journal, notes that significant advances in medical technology require us to think in new ways about how we should make critical medical decisions about life and death. Professor Singer wrote that ``our increased medical powers mean that we can no longer run away from the question by pretending that we are `allowing nature to take its course.' In a modern intensive care unit, it is doctors, not nature, who make the decisions.'' However, I fail to see how this hospital can shrug it off, innocently claiming nature is taking its course by letting prematurely delivered infants die when it was a medical intervention of physicians that induced his or her birth. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2175, the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, firmly establishes that an infant who is completely expelled or extracted from his or her mother and who is alive is considered a person for purposes of Federal law. For those who exclaim this is an ``assault'' on Roe v. Wade, this bill does not touch Roe v. Wade, which clearly pertains to a fetus in the uterus, not a baby already expelled outside his or her mother. For those who say this legislation is not needed because many States already have these laws on the books, I point to Christ Advocate Hospital where this still is occurring, and to other hospitals and other people like Professor Singer who may continue to uphold this concept. As an original cosponsor of this bill, I ask that this Chamber swiftly pass this piece of legislation. I am dismayed that we need it; but protecting the legal status of a baby who is already born is the logical, humane course for America to take.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, our President often proudly uses a very enthusiastic phrase committing our Nation to better education for our young people, ``Let us leave no child behind,'' and rightly so. Children are the lifeblood of our Nation. But today, with all of the military commitments overseas, I propose another rallying cry, leave no veteran behind waiting to get a doctor's appointment. Just as we must look ahead and nurture our children, we must look back in gratitude and take care of our veterans who have fought for freedom and democracy. Besides, investing in care for veterans is looking ahead, for timely veterans' benefits can serve as a powerful incentive in steering young people towards armed services careers. Not a day goes by when I do not hear from a frustrated veteran who cannot get an appointment at a VA outpatient clinic or an inpatient VA bed. I suspect the same is true for most of my colleagues. For too long too few resources have been provided to the VA health care system, resulting in understaffed, underfunded facilities. Last week Salvatore Stanzione, Assistant Executive Director of the Disabled American Veterans in Florida, presented to me some very disturbing trends. In my district and other parts of Florida, a wait of a year to see a primary care physician, and up to 16 months to see a specialist, is not unusual. Last Wednesday, Commander-in-Chief James Goldsmith of the Veterans of Foreign Wars shared that there are 37,000 veterans waiting for medical appointments in Florida. Intolerably, veterans are kept waiting for the most routine appointments, like diabetes or high cholesterol monitoring. If managed on a timely basis, these conditions are more comfortable to the veteran and less expensive to the American taxpayer. Yesterday witnessed the bloodiest day of the Afghan War thus far. We mourn the nine American casualties of the downed Chinooks. In addition to those killed in battle, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reported that ``There have been a number of wounded.'' Thankfully, he relayed that ``close to half of those are already back in the battle, and of the remainder, relatively few have life-threatening wounds.'' Today we ask American sons and daughters to give their blood to advance liberty and to halt terrorism, but when tomorrow comes, we show our veterans a chair in the waiting room. Especially egregious is the long wait for those who served for a long period or sustained a service-connected disability. A Federal budget, just like that of a household or business, always faces difficult economic choices. But a household must first pay its creditors and buy grocery before it buys artwork and entertainment. This is the most basic necessity of obligation. Just like a household, America ought to first meet its obligations to those whom it owes in exchange for their service. To exacerbate matters, the government seems to shut the door on other options for health care accessibility. Alternatives have been proposed over the years on expanding VA health care options. We have debated Medicare subvention to little avail. This Thursday, the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services will again consider resource sharing between the two agencies. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from the First District of Florida (Mr. Jeff Miller) knows this fight. He has not one single inpatient bed in his district. His veterans have to go to Biloxi, Mississippi, for hospitalization. Meanwhile, he has DOD facilities with available beds. Coordinating arrangements so that his veterans could use these DOD beds would solve this problem. Mr. Speaker, we are a wartime Congress, and the Nation is in an era of renewed appreciation of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. Defense briefs top the headlines, and the box office movies feature current episodes on the wars in Somalia and in Vietnam. Let us embrace this mood and opportunity and commit this Congress to providing the attention and resources to the health care needs of those who have served. Yes, Mr. Speaker, let us leave no child behind; but, similarly, let us leave no veteran behind waiting for a medical appointment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, between 1970 and the year 2000, the number of children living in a single-parent home has jumped from 8.2 million to 19.2 million. That is almost a 150 percent increase. The effect of that change had a devastating consequence. Children living with a single mother are six times more likely to live in poverty than children living in a complete family. The median income of a single mother with kids is about $21,000. For a married couple with kids, it is about $63,000. Almost a third of single-parent families with kids live in poverty. Only 6 percent of families headed by married couples live in poverty. Mr. Speaker, it does not take a nuclear scientist to figure out that marriage is good for kids. But that is saying the cup is half full when it is really half empty. It is clear not being married is devastating to our children. Our welfare laws still penalize poor couples from getting married. Congress needs to change this and change it for good.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I stand here to support the rule. Obviously, I serve on the Committee on Commerce and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications. But I say to my colleagues, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has waited many, many months. This passed out of our subcommittee. It was controversial. There is one particular amendment that could have killed the bill. But it finally came out of our committee, and I think the time is now that we should bring it on the House floor and have a full debate. If it turns out this bill is defeated, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) will move on. But if the bill is passed, the Senate, under Mr. Hollings, is going to have to look at this bill carefully. Right now he is not doing that. But we cannot have this debate in America if we do not pass the rule. So I urge my colleagues to pass the rule. A lot of people have talked about the economy. This is a big-box economy. The NASDAQ has dropped dramatically, and part of it has been because the potential for broadband has not been met. If this in some small way moves the economy forward by giving high-speed Internet access service to Americans, then so be it. Right now cable has it. Perhaps we need competition for cable, and this would do it. So the lack of availability of high-speed connection has, I think, in fact slowed the growth in this economy and shunted off development. We can see a lot of new things happen if we can get broadband jump started, and I think Tauzin-Dingell is moving in that direction. However, there are several amendments that are going to be proposed, one in particular, the Buyer-Towns amendment, which I think is a good compromise. So I think we have an opportunity to amend this bill, and in the end I think my colleagues will realize it promotes competition, it promotes choice and innovation. That is why I support the rule and I look forward to the debate.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment being offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), and of course my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). I am an original co-sponsor of this legislation which strengthens the FCC's enforcement ability. As Congress and the FCC ensure the deregulatory progression of telecommunication sectors, proper enforcement mechanisms serve as necessary tools in protecting competition. Winners and losers should be picked by consumers and the marketplace, rather than outdated regulatory schemes. However, it is equally important to note that, absent regulation, meaningful enforcement must serve as one of key principals ensuring that competition and consumers are not harmed. Mr. Chairman, I have met with industry representatives who tell me the FCC's current cap of $1 million in penalties is insufficient to deter violation and oftentimes such fines are calculated into the cost of doing business. Furthermore, FCC Chairman Powell testified before the Committee on Energy and Commerce regarding the Commission's ability to deter violations through enforcement mechanisms. In fact, he testified, ``The enforcement tools made available to us are inadequate with billion dollar industries. Our fines are trivial. They are the cost of doing business for many of these companies.'' As a matter of fact, they just make it part of doing business. During this committee's consideration of H.R. 1542, the Broadband Deregulation Bill, the committee accepted one of my amendments creating specific and severe penalties totalling up to $10 million for failure to comply with the specific legislation. Furthermore, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and I offered an amendment enhancing the FCC enforcement authority under Title 5 of the Communications Act. While that amendment was not germane to H.R. 1542, many provisions of that legislation are now present in the amendment we are considering today. Mr. Chairman, let me state that this amendment bill is not intended to favor ILECs, CLECs or IXCs over one another. The provisions in this bill are intended to equally apply to all common carriers. The FCC and State PUCs have existing laws on the books intended to ensure competitive competition thrives. This legislation will make certain the commission has a big bat, enough to enforce those laws and regulations. With this legislation, we empower the FCC with enforcement powers, thus ensuring common carriers will think twice about failing to comply with this Nation's telecommunications laws. This amendment is centered upon Chairman Powell's recommendation enhancing the Commission's enforcement authority on common carriers. Specifically, this bill, as mentioned, enhances forfeiture penalties up to $1 million for each violation for each day of a continuing series of violations and up to $10 million for any continuing violation, and those fines are increased up to $20 million if a company violates a cease and desist order or is a repeat offender. Furthermore, as recommended by Chairman Powell, this legislation increases the statute of limitation for forfeiture against common carriers from one year to two. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, this amendment brings up to date the tools the FCC will have at its disposal to punish and deter bad behavior. The last time the law was changed was in 1989. Furthermore, this amendment ensures that fines and penalties by the FCC are more than just mere calculations as a line item on balance sheets for violating companies. So I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague. I rise in strong support of the Green-Burr amendment. Do my colleagues want to see what happens when we force the networks to subsidize the races for Members of Congress? Go to the June 10, 1998, article in The Hill magazine. They talked about the campaign in California. The campaign was such that the requests for political advertising were so overly demanding, the networks could not even comply. The TV stations in response to such high demands were forced to restrict local and State candidates besides those running for Governor from airing political ads. As a result, some TV stations even refused to take ads from campaigns other than the Governor or Federal candidates, infuriating candidates for other office, squeezing out all candidates for local races. Without this amendment, this bill will result in further socializing political campaigns. Furthermore, it epitomizes the law of unintended consequences, ultimately doing more harm than good in attempting to level the political playing field. So I urge the Green-Burr amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on campaign finance reform, legislation once again before this Chamber. I, like most of my colleagues, support some type of campaign reform. I know that reasonable and balanced reforms to our current campaign finance system is necessary. Unfortunately, the Democrat bill, the Shays-Meehan bill, does not strengthen or improve our campaign finance system as well as I think the Ney-Wynn bill does, which is a Republican alternative. In fact, I think the Democrat bill does more to harm than help both the political process and the Constitution by hurting the ability of political parties to increase citizen involvement and participation, unconstitutionally limits free speech, and tilts the playing field towards one party or another. For this reason, I applaud the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) in their bipartisan bill for their efforts at sensible reform for our current system. Proponents of the Shays-Meehan bill, which is support by the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), claim their legislation puts an end to soft money. That is false. None of the proposals before this body ban a complete ban of soft money. Even the most cursory of glances indicates there is no soft money ban in the Shays-Meehan campaign finance legislation. In reality, this bill bans the national parties from raising or spending soft money, but it does nothing to prevent unions, corporations, and other special interests from spending as much soft money as they want on election activity. As a result, corporations or unions are allowed to give tens of thousands of dollars to each State and local party committee. With over 3,000 counties in the United States, this means corporations and unions will still be permitted to inject millions of dollars of soft money into the political process. As such, the soft money debate amounts to nothing more than a shell game with dollars being shuffled and moved from one part of the table to another, and the American people losing out. Furthermore, the Democrat plan does not ban soft money advocacy, it only bans it on the eve of an election. Through such rulings as Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 and other cases, the Supreme Court has declared that the government may not regulate political commentaries ``to promote a candidate and his views.'' Since the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, strong majorities have supported protections for the expenditure of money for political communications. The first amendment cannot be sacrificed by government restrictions on issue ads and free speech. No matter how they are dressed up, such restrictions still involve government regulation of political speech. Mr. Speaker, the proposal to be offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), supported by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), is aimed at reforming our current system of laws, but does so in a manner that is rational, balanced, and, most importantly, constitutional. Their legislation bans the use of soft money by national parties for Federal election activities. It does not, however, impose new burdensome Federal laws and rules on State parties. It restores and enhances grassroots politics by allowing State and local parties to continue to assist State and local candidates with funds permissible under applicable State law. Most importantly, their proposal does not violate constitutional rights to free speech, nor destroy the ability to participate in the political process. So I support fair and balanced solutions to improving our campaign finance system. As such, I have voted accordingly and supported the Hutchinson-Allen bill, which was patterned after the Ney-Wynn bill when it was considered on the House floor in the last Congress. Unfortunately, it failed. Mr. Speaker, had the rules governing the amendment process not been limited for this upcoming debate, I would have also supported amendments to allow tax credits for up to $200 for individuals for Federal political contributions, thereby creating an incentive for persons of all financial means to participate in the political process. Additionally, I support allowing permanent resident aliens serving in the Armed Forces to make campaign contributions. And if we really want to clean up the current system, I support prohibiting labor organizations from fund-raising on Federal property through the use of payroll deductions. If advocates of misguided campaign finance reform are successful in passing this legislation, they will have done nothing to prevent future campaign abuses. Instead, they will be successful in eroding and handicapping Americans' right to free speech and the right to political expression. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Ney- Wynn bill.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, America faces a unique moment in history. Our Nation is at war, our homeland was attacked, and our economy is in recession. The President's budget meets the requirements of victory and the test of responsibility. The President's budget holds government accountable for results that address these priorities of the American people: Winning the war on terrorism, strengthening protections of our homeland, and revitalizing our economy and creating jobs. What his budget does is increase spending, nearly doubles homeland security spending, and provides immediate assistance to workers who have lost their jobs, while holding the growth in spending for programs outside of defense and homeland security to the cost of living. His budget provides significant funding increases for important priorities like health care, prescription drugs, education, the environment, agriculture and retirement security, and returns to budget surpluses within 2 to 3 years, if Congress adheres to the President's call for fiscal responsibility. Mr. Speaker, this budget is an important step forward to protect this country.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this morning to alert Members to a piece of legislation that I will introduce today, and I hope they will consider it. It is a bill that will be of benefit to health clinics all over this country. Many health clinics that wish to provide medical services to unprepared pregnant women are prohibited from doing so because of the lack of funds to purchase medical equipment. The mother is, therefore, forced to wander from one clinic to another in search of the services she so desperately needs. Enabling these health clinics to purchase ultrasound equipment would be a persuasive push in the direction of transitioning from a health clinic to a medical facility. Mr. Speaker, the advantages of ultrasound machines are many. It is fast and relatively cheap, costing as little as $50 per exam. Ultrasound exams are performed at about 10 to 14 weeks of the pregnancy and are considered the best way to gauge growth and anatomy before birth. Ultrasound can diagnose heart problems in this country in the unborn child, find neural tube defects, including spina bifida, and determine the position of the placenta. There is now even ultrasound equipment that can provide a three-dimensional image that can rotate 360 degrees to see all the sides of the baby. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I plan to introduce a bill today that will authorize Health and Human Services to establish grants for which nonprofit health clinics could apply and, if awarded, purchase needed ultrasound equipment. This legislation will ensure that doctors can provide critical information to mothers in their decision-making process regarding their pregnancies. Nothing in this bill makes ideology regarding abortion a condition of the grant. Whether a center offers abortion or abortion alternatives, the clinic is still eligible. In the fiery controversy over abortion in America, emotionally charged rhetoric clouds the issue and does damage to the efforts made on behalf of mother and child. No matter what one's conviction is concerning abortion, we can all agree that the mother deserves as much information as is available in making this solemn decision. Information is the best weapon in defusing the volatile discussion and returning us to our first concern, which is the health of the mother and the child. The ultrasound is a valuable tool in expanding the debate beyond traditional platitudes on both sides of the argument. Modern medicine has provided us with a window into the womb. These advances in technology empower women with as much information as possible regarding her pregnancy. The goal of this legislation is to provide women who find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy with the full scope of information such that they may make a fully informed decision. This bill is about the dissemination of information. This bill is about extending more free services to women and about making available this vital technology to the poor and, of course, to the rich. Mr. Speaker, there are times when people of good faith who differ on an issue can come together and find a place to agree. I believe this legislation brings us beyond the shrill arguments regarding abortion and makes a meaningful step forward, a meaningful effort to care for the mother and child and bring more information to the woman. I urge the Members to support my bill.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, the events of September 11 forever changed the world and the United States, and as President Bush declared, ``The resolve of our great Nation is being tested . . . but make no mistake . . . we will show the world that we will pass this test.'' Obviously, the President could not be more correct. Since then, the United States has decimated al Qaeda and bin Laden's network of terror; the Taliban no longer exist as a ruling form of government; and the war against terrorism is being waged against those who harbor terrorists. While America is making significant progress on many fronts in eradicating terrorism, the war cannot be won without the key component of securing our borders from those who wish to do us harm. Those who violate our Nation's immigration laws do more harm than good in furthering our country's values, and it is those people we must ensure that do not enter our country. Madam Speaker, a recent report by the United States Census Bureau reveals there are more than 8.7 million people now living in the United States illegally. About 40 to 50 percent of those violators are people who entered the United States legally but did not leave with the expiration of their visas. Out of the nearly 9 million illegal aliens now in the country, more than 90,000 are from Middle East Nations, including Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Many of those illegal aliens are from nations with close ties to terrorism and nations with al Qaeda presence. According to the INS records, 13 of the 19 hijackers entered the U.S. with valid visas. Three of the 13 remained in the country after their visas had expired. Two were expected to have entered on foreign student visas, and the INS has no information on the six remaining hijackers. As such, we can keep enacting legislation and of course we could spend more money around here, but efforts to counter terrorism will be futile unless we establish effective controls to secure our borders at the points of entry. Each year there are more than 300 million border crossings in the United States. These are just the legal crossings that are recorded. While there are 9,000 border control agents working to keep America secure on the U.S.-Mexican border, there are less than 500 agents tasked with securing our 4,000-mile border with Canada. To make matters even worse, out of the 128 ports on the northern border, only four of them are open around the clock. The remaining are not even manned, thereby allowing anyone with good or evil intentions to enter the United States without even so much as an inspection, not to mention even a question or a written record of their entry. As it now stands, our immigration system needs increased and tighter controls. Currently, our Nation has an unmonitored, nonimmigrant visa system in which 7.1 million tourists, business visitors, foreign students, and temporary workers arrive. To date, the INS does not have a reliable tracking system to determine how many of these visitors left the country when their visas expired. Furthermore, among the 7.1 million nonimmigrants, 500,000 foreign nationals enter the United States on foreign student visas. Hani Janjour, the person believed to have piloted American Airlines Flight 777 into the Pentagon, is believed to have entered the country with a foreign-student visa, but he never actually attended any classes. Madam Speaker, our unsecured borders, along with inadequate recordkeeping, have contributed to our inability to track terrorism in this country or to prevent them from entering in the first place. So as we start this second session of the 107th Congress, I call on my colleagues in both the House and the Senate to strengthen our border security, tighten our existing immigration laws, and to provide those fighting to end illegal immigration with the tools and resources necessary to defeat terrorism.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 507 and 509, I was inadvertently detained. I would have voted ``yes''. On rollcall No. 508, the motion to recommit, I would have voted ''no.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, recently the Federal Trade Commission released a study on the marketing practices of different sectors of the entertainment industry. The report finds movie and video game companies have made ``commendable'' progress since last year, placing limits on ads for violent games and movies in popular teen media and disclosing those ratings in its ads. Regrettably, however, the commission found that only the music industry continues to place no restrictions on what materials it can market to underaged children in magazines, on TV, radio and over the Internet. While the music industry labels its products, one of the FTC commissioners stated it correctly: ``I think it is hypocritical for the music industry to claim it is helping parents by placing a parental label on CDs, while at the same time undermining parents by aggressively marketing the same CD to children.'' When industry fails to institute meaningful self-regulation and act responsibly, I, both as a parent and a member of the community, believe government has an obligation.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today we come upon the 3-month anniversary of the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11. Numerous ceremonies will be conducted in remembrance of this day, reflecting upon the loss of life and the senseless attack against our freedom. What also deserves reflection, recognition, and honor is the response of those tasked to defend our country and right the terrible wrong that occurred 3 months ago.N O T I C E Effective January 1, 2002, the subscription price of the Congressional Record will be $422 per year or $211 for six months. Individual issues may be purchased for $5.00 per copy. The cost for the microfiche edition will remain $141 per year with single copies remaining $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based upon the cost of printing and distribution. Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer On September 14 the Congress authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force in retaliation for the attacks of September 11. That same day the President began a partial mobilization of our forces for homeland defense, later dubbed ``Operation Noble Eagle,'' with additional Guard and Reservists being called up over the next 2 months. Our response abroad became Operation Enduring Freedom. Upon the ruling Taliban's refusal to cooperate and hand over Osama bin Laden, our military sent a message, one that is being trumpeted by the administration today: if you provide aid and support to terrorists, you will find yourself on the wrong side of a very irate, heroic giant. On October 7, our aircraft and warships, along with assistance from our allies, began systematically to eliminate suspected terrorist camps, air defense assets, and command and control installations. These attacks continued almost daily, which included the use of Special Forces aircraft such as the AC-130 gunship, providing devastating air- to-ground fire against Taliban military units. Our Special Forces groups were on the ground early in October, assisting anti-Taliban fighters and calling in air strikes on frontline Taliban units. The dedication of our forces, the overwhelming firepower used, and the assistance of our allies has resulted in every major Taliban stronghold falling into the hands of the anti-Taliban forces. The Taliban lost the pivotal town of Mazar-I-Sharif, and the capital city of Kabul fell to Northern Alliance forces by mid-November. The last Taliban stronghold in the north, Kunduz, fell by the end of November. By December 7, despite Taliban promises to ``fight to the death,'' the last major Taliban stronghold fell and remaining Taliban forces fled the city. Our forces are now working with local fighters to root out the remaining Taliban and al Qaeda forces in the cave complexes in Tora Bora. This is an extraordinary achievement. The success of Operation Enduring Freedom has enabled the United States to begin reestablishing a diplomatic presence, 12 years absent in Afghanistan, with Marine forces securing the former American embassy in Kabul. During the Taliban's rule, only three countries legitimately recognized the government and have eventually severed their ties. Now, with Afghanistan under new leadership, several countries, including Britain, Russia, France, and India, are beginning the process of reestablishing diplomatic relations. As the President has stated, this campaign against terrorism will not be a war of ``instant gratification.'' Though our forces have succeeded in toppling the Taliban and ending its capability both as a military force and ruling authority, we are still engaged in action against remaining forces in the Afghan mountains. Further actions abroad to root out terrorism may well be necessary. Our military has performed admirably. Our professional forces continue to demonstrate that they are the best in the world. Sadly, as with any military action, we have suffered casualties. The success of our forces serves as a warning for those groups and governments that continue to harbor and support terrorism. The demise of the Taliban is an example of the resolve of the United States and the might of its cause. Terrorism and those that support it will no longer be allowed to flourish in this world. So, today at 8:46 a.m., the President led a memorial to grieve the deaths of more than 3,000 people in suicide hijackings. He vowed to ``right this huge wrong.'' Secretary Rumsfeld, speaking at the Pentagon ceremony said, ``We will remember until freedom triumphs over fear, over repression, and long beyond.'' Eighty countries around the world are also recognizing this tragedy and renewing commitments. Mr. Speaker, I too stand here to recognize these events and to also stand here to salute the men and women of our Armed Forces, both at home and abroad, in their extraordinary service and success to this country, to their families, and to our fellow citizens.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, this country is in a new era. We have not faced such times of trepidation since the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is well established that countries who trade, who are engaged in business with one another, are less inclined to fight, and more willing to cooperate among mutual beneficial matters. Ultimately, trade is about freedom and economic prosperity. And in some cases, prosperity has been the case for certain sectors of the American economy. Unfortunately, such has not been the case in my district in Florida. There are number of small farmers and businesses who were decimated by NAFTA and imports from Mexico. Promises made by our government were promises un-kept. The specific provisional relief promised to the tomato growers, for instance, was applied for after implementation of NAFTA, and subsequently these farmers were denied that relief. Under NAFTA, Florida exports in total agriculture products dropped from $6.1 million to 1.9 million between 1993 and 1996. Only in the year 2000, did exports climb above the 1993 level--but the damage was done. Earlier today, the House voted to reauthorize the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, a program designed to aid workers and firms who have been affected by the impact of foreign trade. This program alone serves as a reminder that not everyone in our country benefits from free trade . . . including small farmers and businesses in my district. Now I understand the need to engage in free trade and I support free trade. However, I also support fair trade. Additional provisions have been included in HR 3005 that allows for greater consultation among Congressional committees regarding import sensitive commodities. The language also recognizes the need to treat such products in a different manner during trade negotiations than other products. Though I am grateful for the attempt at addressing these issues, I believe it does not go far enough. Without adequate protection and enforcement of our trade laws, and the ability to provide sufficient relief for affected markets--such provisions are less than meaningful. I have had the opportunity to speak with the President regarding my concerns and those of my constituents. I understand the need to use Trade Promotion Authority as a tool in the war against terrorism and to address our faltering economy. We are at war. And for that reason these are special circumstances. The President needs to be supported and he can use this agreement to help America in its fight against terrorism. For this reason I am voting for Trade Promotion Authority.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in recognition of a Washington institution. In this city of lawmakers and policy, Sholl's Cafeteria has adopted a policy of its own: for over 70 years, the downtown landmark has never turned away a hungry soul. This cafeteria, this ``triumph of charity,'' has fed thousands with warm, free meals. In recent months, however, Sholl's has faced dire straits with the recent economic downturn. Declining tourism and rising rent have forced Sholl's Cafeteria to consider closing its doors to the thousands of devoted patrons who have frequented the famed eatery. With all that Scholl's Cafeteria has done for our community, it is time for us to give back and maintain what has become a 70-year tradition. With that said, Mr. Speaker, I submit to the Congressional Record a letter written by Sholl's Chairman Jim McGrath to the Washington Post on October 14, 2001. [From the Washington Post, Oct. 14, 2001] On the Edge of Extinction As the nation mobilizes to combat the insidious foe of terrorism, another drama of a far different kind and scope is playing itself out in downtown Washington--the struggle for survival of Sholl's Cafeteria. Despite heroic sacrifice and Herculean labors by many--most notably its beloved proprietors, George and Van Fleishell--absent a substantial financial remedy, Sholls will be forced to close its doors as soon as Oct. 31. The Sholl's story could easily get lost amid the tumult of our national preoccupation and suffering in the wake of Sept. 11, but that would be a profound shame, because the cafeteria's story has been one of special triumphs: of old- fashioned, all-American food, wonderfully prepared and wonderfully served; of humane pricing, so that nearly anyone can afford to eat there, of multiculturalism, with terrific employees, many there for generations, reflecting every spectrum of the human family; of kindness, with an atmosphere that welcomes everyone. It is a story of the triumph of charity--Sholl's has given away enough free food to feed an army 100 times over. During the past several years, however, Sholl's has suffered from the decline in downtown dining. Its tour-bus trade has eroded because of the weak economy. It has endured bus-unfriendly parking restrictions. It has had to deal with prolonged building renovation and reconstruction while paying a huge rent. It has been put through the economic wringer. Now another mobilization is needed to save this beloved institution. I am not alone in expressing those sentiments. They have been voiced by many, from the high and the mighty to the mighty humble. They have come from legions of senior citizens, bus loads of squealing kids and homeless people. On Aug. 10, 1999, for example, the World Bank wrote to the cafeteria's owner: ``You are correct characterize Sholl's as a charitable landmark. It would be a significant loss to our neighborhood if you were to close your doors, particularly for the large number of senior citizens, young kids, disabled and homeless people whom you serve.'' On July 8, 1998, U.S. Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia read into the Congressional Record, ``Patrons of Sholl's have described members of the Sholl family, who have owned and operated Sholl's over the last 70 years, as having the biggest hearts in Washington.'' On March 7, 1999, Mike Kirwan, the late, great apostle to the homeless, said, ``The stories I've heard from people on the streets, their quiet moments of dignity, respect, warmth and a full and nourishing meal at the hands of this wonderful cafeteria could fill a book of essays.'' Possibly, the one who said it best, though, was a child who, on arrival from Pennsylvania on a school bus, told a WTOP reporter. ``If it weren't for Sholl's Cafeteria, we couldn't afford to come to Washington.'' The hour is late, and the odds are long. Although some say the time for Sholl's has passed, I profoundly disagree, and I hope others do too. Long live Sholl's Cafeteria. Jim McGrath, Chairman of the Save Our Sholl's Cafeteria Committee.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, we heard the news that a Massachusetts biotechnology firm had turned a revolutionary scientific corner. Delicately transferring human DNA into a donated human female egg, they then artificially nurtured the egg into a 6-cell embryo. The embryo then went off about its business, dividing as if fertilized by a sperm, but stopped far short of maturing into a baby. Their objective in creating this being? To harvest its stem cells to be crafted into potential replacement tissues for patients suffering from various degenerative diseases. Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. positions the product of their research as ``only cellular life, not human life.'' Still, building a life, whether you call it a ``cellular life'' or a ``human life'' to serve as a discardable donor is not moral science. The House passed H.R. 2505, a human cloning prohibition in July, and I urge our colleagues in the Senate to expeditiously pass legislation banning such destructive research.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an American from Marion County, Florida who embodies the competitive spirit. ``Big Daddy'' Don Garlits is the undisputed king of World Championship Drag Racing. Just four months shy of his 70th birthday, Garlits broke the 300 mph speed barrier reaffirming his stature as the No. 1 driver in National Hot Rod Association history. He is a true testament to the indomitable American spirit, and with that said Mr. Speaker, I submit to the Congressional Record the highlights of ``Big Daddy'' Don Garlits' career as excerpted from the Daily Sun newspaper of November 12, 2001. Marion County Legend Voted Top Driver In NHRA's First 50 Years of Drag Racing After a successful career, most men who turn 69 usually take life a little easier, enjoying an occasional afternoon nap, a leisurely round of golf and maybe a cold beer on the lanai. But then most men wouldn't dream of strapping into an 8,000 horsepower missile and catapulting themselves down a narrow, quarter-mile strip of asphalt in less than five seconds. That's because most men are not racers, because racers really never retire. They just wait for the next opportunity to race. Just ask ``Big Daddy'' Don Garlits. Garlits, a native of Tampa who now resides in Marion County, is the undisputed king of drag racing. He's won 144 national races, 17 world championships and every major honor that exists in the sport. And he's not finished. In his backyard garage, Don built ``Swamp Rat One,'' the first in a series of 34 all black rail style racecars. ``Swamp Rat One remains today as my favorite race car of all time. It had 750 horsepower and cost me $1000 to build,'' Garlits said. He started racing the car in 1956 and a year later set his first world's record, pushing the car to a top speed of 176.40 mph in 8.79 seconds. In 1958, man and machine won their first national championship. In 1963, Garlits drove the second generation Swamp Rat to a win at the NHRA Winternationals in Pomona, California. This victory established Big Daddy as a major player in professional drag racing. With wife Pat and daughters Gay Lyn and Donna by his side, Garlits dominated the sport for nearly three decades, developing innovative technology, setting speed records and enduring several major crashes. In the early 1970's, Garlits once again made history. It wasn't another speed record, but rather the design of Swamp Rat 14, the world's first successful rear engined dragster. ``I think that's my legacy, I really do,'' Garlits explained. ``I had so much opposition, everybody was against it. I took the car to Long Beach and the promoter didn't want me to run it. He told me every rear-engined car that ever went down his track crashed and he didn't want Don Garlits getting killed at his race track.'' The car went on to carry Big Daddy to another major championship and the rear-engine concept became the standard of the Top Fuel category. Garlits achieved another of his personal goals in 1984, when he and his family opened the Museum of Drag Racing adjacent to his Marion County home. The sprawling complex on County Road 484 has grown to include an impressive display of nearly 17 race cars in addition to a collection of 70 classic and antique cars. The complex also includes a race garage where Garlits is painstakingly building the newest and fastest Swamp Rat. He will race in next February at the NHRA Winternationals in Pomona, the site of his first major win. ``At the moment of launch, the motor will deliver 8,000 horsepower--roughly a thousand horsepower per cylinder,'' Garlits explained. ``It's really amazing, considering Swamp Rat One needed all eight cylinders to produce 750 horsepower.'' He expects the new state-of-the-art top fuel dragster to reach speeds in excess of 330 miles per hour in about four and a half seconds. Despite the high speeds, Garlits feels this Swamp Rat is the safest ever built. ``The first few generations of cars were just big motors, seats and fuel tanks strapped onto a couple of chassis rails. They didn't have near the safety technology used in today's cars,'' he explained. Garlits believes new technology will continue to move forward and future race cars will be much faster and much safer than the current models. ``We are being limited by new rules, not by technology and I agree with that,'' he said. ``Most current drag strips are too short and too narrow to accommodate the kind of speeds that technology is capable of producing. We're just at the tip of the iceberg in terms of what is technologically possible.'' Like a scene out of one of the Back to the Future movies, a slight smile crossed Big Daddy's face as he talked about the future. Because he intends to be a part of it. That's how racers think.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in the days following the terrible tragedy that befell America on September 11, 2001, we have experienced a reaffirmation of the American Spirit in the heroic acts of some Americans and the self-less giving of others. Americans have opened their hearts to the families of the victims of the September 11th tragedy and heeded the calls for assisting those victims. Americans from all walks of life have to date contributed in excess of $1 billion to charities and other organizations supporting the victims of the tragedy. While the overwhelming majority of fund-raising efforts in response to the September 11th terrorist acts are legitimate, unfortunately, there have been a few fraudulent fundraising efforts capitalizing on this National tragedy. As unacceptable as it may be, the September 11th tragedy, as other tragic emergencies, have spun deceit and fraud perpetrated by unscrupulous persons manipulating the emotions of generous citizens so that they may fraudulently line their pockets. Scam artists often use the telephone and Internet to prey on emotions--for example, by being rude when asked for specific information or insinuating that people who decline to give are unpatriotic. By taking advantage of the moment and acting quickly, these criminals are often able to raise thousands of dollars before they are caught. And when they're caught, the FTC has tepid legal authority to make them pay for their offense. H.R. 2985, the American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act, introduced by Reps. Deal and Bass, takes measures to prevent scam artists from capitalizing on national tragedies and takes additional steps to penalize those practices. The bill takes the needed step of strengthening the Federal Trade Commission Act so the Commission can punish those unscrupulous scam artists. The bill gives the Commission the power, during times of presidentially-declared national emergency or natural disaster, to crack down hard on unfair or deceptive acts or practices that take advantage of the emergency or disaster. If the Commission acts to stop the fraud administratively, this bill doubles the civil penalties from $11,000 to $22,000 for each violation. Alternatively, if the Commission opts to go to federal district court for an injunction to stop the fraud, the bill gives the Commission the authority to demand civil penalties of $22,000 for each violation, a punitive power the FTC currently does not have at their disposal. The increased penalties are available for unfair or deceptive acts or practices committed within one year after the President terminates the emergency period under the National Emergencies Act or within one year of the disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Those are needed changes to the FTC Act. It is unfortunate that such changes were necessitated by the horrific events of September 11th. Yet, we must put all those engaged in fraud or contemplating fraudulent acts that take advantage of National tragedies on notice that they will pay and pay dearly for their unscrupulous acts. This bill shows that we will not tolerate the manipulation of Americans' goodwill at times of National tragedy. I wholeheartedly support the American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act and I strongly urge its passage.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection had a hearing where we listened to the new chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, Mr. Tim Muris, and we talked about a lot of issues that are under his control. On the previous day, we had a hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in which the chairman did an excellent job dealing with questions of the charities that have been created as a result of the September 11 catastrophe. The outpouring of support from Americans is truly magnanimous since this tragedy. But we have to be sure that the contributions that are made expressly for the purpose of aiding fellow Americans in the wake of these attacks are used for the right purpose. In my home State we had Hurricane Andrew, which was a major catastrophe, a calamity; and we had the same type of outpouring of contributions that were given to help the victims of that hurricane, and, likewise, since September 11 we have had the same thing occur here in this country. Americans regularly give to charities. A recent study in the Washington Times indicates that the average household gives about $1,600 or 3.2 percent of their income to charities. In addition, about $1 billion has been donated for relief efforts. The outpouring of donations since the attack provides further evidence of the desire and instinct of Americans to help their fellow man. That is a given. But, Mr. Speaker, the problem is a lot of these charities are keeping these monies, they are not distributing it, and there are roughly 50,000 people that are unemployed up in New York because of the September 11 calamity. And with the 5,000 people killed, there are roughly 7,000 children without parents. So we need these charities to step forward and to go ahead and distribute this money as quickly as possible. Earlier this year, and recognizing the vital roles of charity, especially charitable foundations, I introduced legislation to abolish an antiquated excise tax that not-for-profit foundations pay on their net investment income. I am hopeful my colleagues will support this and it will be part of the stimulus package, because if we do not have this antiquated excise tax on the not-for-profit foundations, they will have more money to distribute. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, Americans are very generous in their donations, and yet we hear stories of people saying they went to ground zero and went to the various charitable organizations and lo and behold they could not get money. A few did, but for the most part they got very little money. So I am here this afternoon to encourage the charities to distribute the money and realize that in the end the money that they collected is for those 50,000 people unemployed who cannot make mortgages and those roughly 7,000 children that are without fathers and mothers. Let me conclude by saying that the FTC, in the hearing we had today, indicated in testimony that their findings are that fraud cases are few and far between. So while there has been some talk about these charitable organizations as scam activities, from what the FTC chairman has seen, these frauds are few and far between. And I am heartened and pleased to hear the agency is aggressively monitoring and investigating any attempts of fraud within charities to take advantage of the September 11 occurrence. We need to highlight here in the House and the Senate how important it is that we show confidence in these charities, but at the same time the charities need to show and demonstrate that they are helping by distributing the money.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 431, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, President Bush signed into law the antiterrorism bill. This new law contains many provisions that will increase the ability of law enforcement, intelligence and other government agencies to combat terrorism. While this legislation is an important critical piece, although some may say controversial, in eradicating terrorism and ensuring the safety and prosperity of the American way of life to continue, the war, my colleagues, cannot be won without the key component of securing our borders from those who wish to cause us harm. The values and ideals of this Nation are built on the contribution and sacrifices of immigrants who journeyed across the oceans for a better way of life that could only be found in this land. As such, America has and always will serve as a beacon of hope for those in oppressed other lands. It is, after all, the diverse nature of our people that has made America such a great country. However, those who violate our Nation's immigration laws do more harm than good in furthering our country's values. And it is those people we must ensure that do not enter our country. Take, for example, what happened nearly 2 years ago when a lone U.S. Customs agent working at a remote border post in Northwest Washington foiled a terrorist attack on the Los Angeles Airport. An alert Customs Service inspector stopped and arrested Ahmed Ressam, a bin-Laden associate, in December of 1999 with a car load of bomb-making material before he was allowed to enter into Washington State from Canada. Unfortunately, our luck ran out with the tragic events of September 11. It now appears that some of the terrorists involved in September 11 may have entered the U.S. from Canada, much as Ahmed Ressam attempted when he was arrested. According to the INS records, 13 of the 19 hijackers entered the U.S. with valid visas. Three of the 13 remained in the country after their visas had expired. Two were expected to have entered on foreign student visas and the INS has no information on the six remaining hijackers. As such, we can keep enacting legislation and, of course, spend more money; but efforts to counter terrorism will be futile unless we establish effective controls to secure our boarders and points of entry. Each year there are more than 300 million border crossings in the United States. These are just the legal crossings that are recorded. While there are 9,000 border control agents working to keep America secure on the U.S.-Mexican border, there are less than 500 agents tasked with securing our 4,000-mile border with Canada. To make matters even worse, out of the 128 ports on the northern border, only 24 of them are open around the clock. The remaining are not even manned, thereby allowing anyone with good or evil intentions to enter into the United States without even so much as an inspection, not to mention even a question or a record of their entry. A recent report by the nonprofit organization, the Center on Immigration Studies, indicates that there are more than 8 million people now living in the U.S. illegally. About 40 to 50 percent of these violators are people who entered the United States legally, but did not leave with the expiration of their visas. As it now stands, our immigration system needs increased and tighter controls. Currently our Nation has an unmonitored, nonimmigrant visa system in which 7.1 million tourists, business visitors, foreign students, and temporary workers arrive. To date, the INS does not have a reliable tracking system to determine how many of these visitors left the country when their visas expired. Furthermore, among the 7.1 million nonimmigrants, 500,000 foreign nationals enter the United States on foreign student visas. Hani Hanjour, the person who was believed to have piloted the American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon is believed to have entered the country with a foreign student visa but never actually attended classes. Mr. Speaker, our unsecure borders, along with inadequate record- keeping, have contributed to our inability to track terrorism in our country, or to prevent them from entering in the first place. I am encouraged by legislation being drafted in the Senate which aims to strengthen our border security in the fight to counter terrorism. Additionally, I am pleased that President Bush announced that the White House wants to tighten immigration laws and requirements for student visas to deter would-be terrorists from entering this country. I urge my colleagues to make tightening our immigration laws and securing our borders a top priority in the war against terrorism.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I recently submitted to you a poem entitled Death of an Innocent. One of my constituents, Elisabeth Cercek from Ocala, FL, was nice enough to get this across my desk in hopes that it would bring awareness to the problem of drinking and driving. I wanted to correct my previous statement which named Elisabeth as the author. The writer of Death of an Innocent is unknown.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in light of the sobering events that took place on September 11, now more than ever, the young people of this country must remain vigilant, accountable for the actions taken in everyday life. One young American in particular realizes the importance of accountability and expresses these convictions in a poem she has written entitled, Death of an Innocent. Elisabeth Cercek of Ocala, FL, deposits the reader amid the chaos of a drunk driving accident. A young girl's life slowly ebbs away as the drunk driver can do nothing but ``stare.'' With violent realism, Elisabeth brings us into the sorrowful world that thousands of Americans face each year when their loved ones are taken from them by alcohol related accidents. I applaud Elisabeth's steadfast resolve in her fight against drunk driving, and with that Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Congressional Record her poem ``Death of an Innocent.'' Death of an Innocent I went to a party, Mom. I remembered what you said. You told me not to drink, Mom. So I drank soda instead. I really felt proud inside, Mom. The way you said I would. I didn't drink and drive, Mom. Even though the others said I should. I know I did the right thing, Mom. I know you are always right. Now the party is finally ending, Mom, As everyone is driving out of sight, As I got into my car, Mom, I knew I'd get home in one piece. Because of the way you raised me, So responsible and sweet. I started to drive away, Mom, But as I pulled out into the road, The other car didn't see me. Mom, And hit me like a load. As I lay there on the pavement, Mom. I hear the policeman say, ``The other guy is drunk,'' Mom. And now I'm the one who will pay. I'm lying here dying, Mom. I wish you'd get here soon. How could this happen to me, Mom? My life just burst like a balloon. There is blood all around me, Mom. And most of it is mine. I hear the medic say, Mom. I'll die in a short time. I just wanted to tell you, Mom. I swear I didn't drink, It was the others, Mom. The others didn't think. He was probably at the same party as I. The only difference is, he drank And I will die. Why do people drink, Mom? It can ruin your whole life. I'm feeling sharp pains now. Pains just like a knife. The guy who hit me is walking, Mom. And I don't think it's fair I'm lying here dying And all he can do is stare. Tell my brother not to cry, Mom. Tell Daddy to be brave. And when I go to heaven, Mom. Put ``Daddy's Girl'' on my grave. Someone should have told him, Mom. Not to drink and drive. If only they had told him, Mom. I would still be alive. My breath is getting shorter, Mom. I'm becoming very scared. Pleased don't cry for me, Mom When I needed you You were always there. I have one last question, Mom Before I say goodbye. I didn't drink and drive So why am I the one to die?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 395, 396 an 397, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on all three.