Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it seems that one of the continuing objections to the upcoming legislation that is dealing with aviation security is the whole question of the federalization of the employee workforce at the airport. I rise today in opposition to total airport workforce federalization, and I am here to convince my colleagues of the same. Mr. Speaker, in general, foreign governments provide an average of 10 to 15 percent of security personnel, while the private sector provides the remaining security personnel. I would like to share my experience in coming up here on United Airlines. It was Monday afternoon and I had advanced through the ticket counter and the x-ray machine where both my carry-on and myself was inspected. The flight attendant and another employee of United Airlines politely detained me. It seems that a pair of trimming scissors which I carry in a small manicure kit had been detected with the metal detector. They asked, of course, permission to open up my bag, which I gave them, and they asked me also to turn on my laptop computer. They proceeded to investigate my person, in the form of hand metal detection and a pat-down, and finally they permitted me to board but, of course, not before confiscating my trimming scissors. Throughout the few minutes that it took, the two employees were resolute, thorough and professional. I understand on Wednesday, October 3, a bipartisan group of members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met with top security officials at El-Al, Israel's state airline. This airline is widely considered to be the most secure in the world, and any of my colleagues who have flown it can probably attest to that fact. These experts emphasized that when they find a screener to be negligent, that individual is relieved of his or her job immediately. They will simply not stand for any incompetent employee to remain in place. In a proven example of public-private partnership, the Ben Gurion Airport Authority in Tel Aviv conducts training, establishes standards, and manages the overall effort, while a private company conducts the pre-board screening and other security functions. Furthermore, in Europe, following a spate of terrorism, events that occurred in the 1970s and the 1980s, the aviation system exchanged their previously nationalized workforce to a private sector approach and workforce. In these European airports these privately contracted screeners are highly trained, paid, and retained. We can glean advice from these precedents: London Heathrow and Gatwick, Belfast, Rome, Athens, and Paris, and the aforementioned Tel Aviv. Now, I know Federal employees can do the job. I have great respect for them. In fact, I am one myself. My father was an employee of the Federal Government for 35 years. The case, Mr. Speaker, is not against government employees, but for the private-public arrangement. It is a better model from all of the experience of other airports, and we should learn from them. The solution also comes from the Transportation Secretary, Norman Mineta's aviation workforce proposal, which would combine the best of both the private and public sector worlds. It would institute Federal Government control and oversight, while retaining the flexibility and accountability inherent in the private sector. It would take steps to promote the function of baggage screening to a higher level of professionalism. Specifically, the administration's proposal would implement practices of more stringent hiring, training, and better pay and benefits. Moreover, screeners would work in conjunction with law enforcement officers, including both local airport police and Federal marshals. Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the answer to the real problem of security at our airports. Based upon a tradition of what works at other airports, I believe a private-public arrangement is the best solution. I hope my colleagues will support this approach. Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record at this time a sheet distributed by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, entitled ``Fact vs. Fiction: The Truth About Airline Security.'' It further summarizes the arguments for a public- private arrangement for effective airline security and has the statistics that bear out the argument that I have made. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Fact vs. Fiction: The Truth About Airline Security Dear colleague: Let me provide you with the truth relating to effective airline security screening. Fiction: We must create a new 27,000 Federal employee bureaucracy to model European success. Fact: Most airports in Europe provide security through a coordinated effort of public sector oversight and supervision of private screening contractors. In general, foreign governments provide an average of 10 to 15 percent of security personnel, while the private sector provides the remaining 85-90 percent of security personnel. Amsterdam: 2,000 private; 200-250 law enforcement. Brussels: 700 private; 40 law enforcement. Paris-Charles DeGaulle: 500-600 private; 100 police. Paris-Orly: 350-400 private; 50 police. Lyons: 150 private; 30 police. Nice: 150-250 private, 20-30 police. Frankfurt: 350 private; 500 federal, with plans to increase private participation. Geneva: 250 contract, 250 government. Stockholm: 200 private; 40 law enforcement. Norway Oslo; 150 private; 20 law enforcement. Helsinki: 150 contract; 20 law enforcement. Berlin: 450 private; 60 law enforcement. London Heathrow: 3,000 private contractors for screening; hundreds doing guard and perimeter security for the private British Airports authority; and 20 federal law enforcement. London Gatwick: 1,500 private contractors doing screening; hundreds doing guard and perimeter security for private British airports Authority; and 11 federal law enforcement. Sincerely, John L. Mica, Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation.

Mr. STEARNS

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

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. Basically it tries to help the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that relates to biological disease and chemical threats to the civilian population and it essentially takes about 3 percent from the Public Broadcasting Corporation and moves it over to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Just this last week, our headline news has had two frightening what- ifs, particularly in Florida. Three individuals have come in contact with a manufactured form of anthrax. Of course, one person lost his life. Americans, of course, felt this, as a collective body, sort of a shiver upon hearing about this news. Early this week, we saw the case in the D.C. Metro where somebody sprayed the crowd, unsuspecting crowd. It turns out that about 35 people on the train, they had to evacuate. This whole process of what could happen if anthrax is used in our country in a large population is a great concern. And so I think the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should have sufficient funds to study this. I do not believe the CDC has had sufficient funds, and so this is a very small amount, about 3 percent, from the Public Broadcasting Corporation. We take from them and give to CDC, particularly for biological disease and chemical threat prevention studies. I think it is a modest amount. Mr. Chairman, on this debate can I control the balance of my time?

Mr. STEARNS. Let me conclude by saying that perhaps all of you saw recently in the newspaper that the FCC now has allowed the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to advertise as a means of getting more revenues to their budget. Surely if PBS is going to use tax dollars to support itself, a small amount could be contributed to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, because really public broadcasting has now asked the FCC if we can start to advertise to get revenue, much like private corporations. So the Public Broadcasting System is out there doing the same thing that the private corporations are going to do. The FCC is going to allow it, they are going to be able to advertise to collect revenue, and these revenues will go to help support the Public Broadcasting System, and I think this is good. I think the Public Broadcasting System should have a certain amount of revenues from advertising. However, I do not think they need to continue to be on the public dole, that the government has to support them with taxpayer-supported money. So I think this is a small effort to say we need to help the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and, more importantly, have them take this money and use it to study things like the proliferation of anthrax and to prepare this Nation for some of the pitfalls that might occur because of that. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Stearns amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, the recent terrorist acts against our Nation have scared and angered us. Many have been directly affected by this tragedy and some have lost loved ones, and some are experiencing job displacement and others just need someone to talk to. There is help for those affected by this misfortune. There are forms of aid available to them and their families and friends in this difficult time. I wanted to ensure our citizens that they have knowledge and access to these helpful programs. If folks are out of work because of the attack, they are eligible for disaster unemployment assistance including access to health insurance. It is possible for states to receive funding from the Department of Labor if a large amount of their citizens have experienced job loss. If employment has been terminated due to a downsizing in the company resulting from these events, there are employment services that will assist in finding a new job. Madam Speaker, looking to our neighbors and offering help at times such as these is what makes America and our citizens resilient. Our land may have been damaged, but our strength is indestructible.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I am delighted to be here. I thought I would select this side of the aisle just to show what a bipartisan effort the gentleman created through his leadership on this very strategic and important trip that we took to Moscow and, of course, the outskirts of Rome to meet with the exiled king of Afghanistan, and then back into Turkey. I think, as has been expressed by my other colleagues, Turkey has a key role to play here; and we can learn much from what Turkey has done to combat terrorism. More specifically, in the last 20 years, Turkey has had 30,000 people killed by terrorist acts. Certainly this is a menace in the country, but they have put together an entire program to combat terrorism. And we were briefed by the general staff of the Turkish army on what they had done to protect themselves and their country, and they made broad recommendations for the United States and all countries around this globe of ours to put into place what is necessary if we expect to control terrorism. Turkey, as my colleagues know, is a land between Europe and Asia and is protected by the straits between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Turkey is quite simply one of the most important countries in the region. It is interesting to note that some of their neighbors are the most hostile, aggressive people: Syria, Iraq, Iran. Prior to that, of course, they were close to Russia, with Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. So it is a very difficult, tough neighborhood, and Turkey occupies a strategic position and is of utmost importance to us. In fact, Incirlik is an Air Force Base we have there; and through the kindness and support of the Turkish government, we have our military planes there, which has a radius which covers all these countries. So it is extremely important to have the friendship of Turkey. I thought I would put into the record some of the recommendations they have suggested for us, and I hope President Bush will take note of some of these recommendations. President Bush has done an outstanding job of bringing together consensus. The Prime Minister of England today, Tony Blair, gave an outstanding speech, putting in perspective some of the things that we have to cope with as a free democracy, a civilized country, when we deal with terrorists. The terrorist attacks of September 11 has shown that we need international consensus. There are four things that the Turkish government has recommended. First of all, believe it or not, there is not a common definition of what terrorism is throughout the world. Each country seems to have a little different definition for it. If we cannot define what it is, it is going to be hard to go after it. So the first thing we have to do is to define what terrorism is. And the second thing the Turkey generals suggested is international law related to terrorism, specifically oriented to reciprocity, so that if we are trying to get a terrorist returned to the country where the crime occurred, there will be the ability to do so. The third thing they said was to establish an international organization that would actually struggle day to day and work out strategic and tactical efforts to defeat terrorism. Today we have not established either in the European Union or in NATO or any community that encompasses all the countries and international organizations. The last thing they say we should do is to publicize a list of active terrorist organizations and where they are. I think a lot of Americans would be extremely surprised to find that a lot of the cells of these terrorists organizations are in the free democracies. There are a lot of countries that we think they would try to extricate these cell organization, but indeed they are there. They are being harbored there, and perhaps some of these democratic countries do not know it. But in many cases if these terrorist organizations were listed and were discussed and publicized throughout the free world, the countries that are interested in democracy and freedom, they would try to make greater efforts to rid themselves of this menace. I would conclude by also saying that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Weldon) did an excellent job. My colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who came into Congress with me in 1988 did an exceptional job also. The gentleman from California, when he was able to set up some of these appointments and because of his long experience dealing with Turkey and also dealing with Afghanistan, and, in fact, having been over there many times on his own participating, he understood a lot about the nuances of this whole situation. It is nice to have his support. I hope all my colleagues will read some of the recommendations of our report. I hope tonight the gentleman from Pennsylvania will go through and perhaps touch on some of them. Considering the fact that Turkey has lost so much because of the embargo on Iraq, we might consider forgiveness of Turkey's IMF debt. That is something the gentleman might want to touch on. It will probably be anathema to many Members of Congress; but if you put into perspective some of the sacrifices that Turkey has made, I think there might be some way to help them, because their economy is starting to falter; and we do not need to have that country under that kind of economic stress when we are trying to deal with the terrorists in that area. Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying it was an exceptional trip. I think we have made a difference. Every Member of Congress comes here for one reason and one reason only: he or she wants to make a difference, as small as that might be. Tonight, with this trip I think we just did that. I wanted to praise the chairman and I look forward to working with him on other issues.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, maybe a forbearance or some type of policy, as you point out, where they are strategically located, and to give us an Air Force Base at that particular site, at Incirlik, and to allow us to have this full freedom with our Air Force is absolutely crucial to that area to protect it. As I pointed out earlier, their neighbors are hostile and aggressive and their economy is faltering. A lot of the problems they are having is perhaps because of their loyalty to the United States. I think in times of crisis like this, where you have opportunity and danger, it is probably very important to consider how to help them so that their economy is strong and they can continue to support us without any kind of reservation. So some type of forbearance should be thought of by us here in Congress.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in the events that have followed the tragic attack on our Nation, we have seen a flurry of activity in both responding to the attack, and attempting to uncover the network, financing, and planning behind the attack. Though I believe our law enforcement and intelligence agencies understand and are closing the apparent gaps that may have aided the terrorist's ability to launch the attack on September 11, there is a recent piece in the September 21 edition of Washington Times that gave me pause. The Inside the Beltway column titled ``Signs in Cyberspace'' alleged that indications of the impending attack might have existed in certain registered domain names, recently expired, on the Internet. Some of the domain names quoted in the article were: worldtradetowerattack.com; nycterroriststrike.com; pearlharborinmanhattan.com; and terroristattack2001. It is indeed chilling that no one appears to have taken notice until it was too late. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that our federal agencies, along with Congress, continue to take a hard look at where our intelligence system failed and make the difficult and necessary decisions.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I have come here to speak in the debate portion on behalf of the Weldon amendment that is going to be voted on sooon. I think the point that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) is making when he offers this, is that if we have in place the words that allow them to use private funds within the D.C. appropriations but not Federal funds, I am not sure that money, being fungible, won't turn out to be Federal funds also. Federal and private funds will be mixed. I do not think we can be sure that by not adopting the Weldon amendment that we will have in place a bill that, up until the last 9 years, has essentially not allowed domestic partnerships. So I think by not adopting the Weldon amendment we are changing historically what the House has agreed to overwhelmingly in the past. In fact, we have had several recent votes on this and I think just to remind Members, on June 30, 1993, 8 years ago, 251 to 177, rollcall No. 313, the Istook amendment for the full funding ban was passed. Then on November 1, 1995, it was 249 to 172, rollcall No. 759, the Hostettler amendment when the ban was sustained. So the House has spoken on this. I hope the Weldon amendment will be adopted again. When the Members come to the House floor to vote on the Weldon amendment, I want them to realize that if they do not adopt it, then Federal and private money is fungible and that Federal and private will be mixed. That is the real issue. I do not think we have to go into what the will of the House has been year after year on this matter. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) in 1992 when we were in the minority, when the Democrats controlled Congress, offered an amendment to recommit the D.C. appropriation bill and force them to put the funding ban on D.C. domestic partners. This goes back to 1992. The motion of the gentleman passed 235 to 173. That was rollcall No. 420. The ban was ultimately signed into law. So my colleagues, if Members come on the floor and vote against the Weldon amendment, they are voting against the tradition and history of this House that has overwhelmingly supported time and time again, going back to 1992, what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) is doing today. So I think the argument is clear. I support the Weldon amendment.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, let me explain to Members, a domestic partner means a person with whom an individual maintains a committed relationship. And a committed relationship means a familial relationship, not recognized by the United States in terms of marriage; it is just a committed relationship. The idea is the mutual caring and the sharing of a mutual residence. But commitments change. What happens if that person says yes, I am living with this person and I want health care; but he or she does not report that he or she has left this person. How will the Federal Government develop all of the regulations that are required to get competent jurisdiction in civil suits to recover damages if this person does not show that he or she has a committed relationship. Why is the Federal Government getting involved in deciding what is a committed relationship? They should get married and be recognized as married, and it should be a heterosexual marriage.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I wish to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), my good friend, for incorporating my amendments as part of the manager's amendment in this defense authorization bill. My first amendment concerns the deteriorating state of the Lafayette- Escadrille Memorial. It is basically a sense of the Congress resolution. This memorial honors all U.S. aviators who flew for France in World War I. I laid a wreath at the memorial on June 17 with 40 of my colleagues in attendance to commemorate the 85th anniversary of the squadron's formation. Seven Americans originally formed the squadron. When the escadrille transferred to the U.S. command in 1918, 265 American volunteers had served in the French air service with 180 of those having flown combat missions. In all, the escadrille flew 3,000 combat sorties, amassing nearly 200 victories. In fact, the escadrille became the birth of the United States Air Force. A joint French/American committee was organized at the end of World War I to locate a final resting place for those Americans who died there. With land donated by the French Government, the Lafayette- Escadrille Memorial was dedicated on July 4, 1928. It is essentially an American cemetery with 68 Americans who gave their lives interred in the memorial. Sadly, this memorial is in desperate need of repair. The structure sits in a meadow with a high water table. Heavy rains flood the tomb, exacerbated by the poor functioning drains and water leaking through the terrace behind the memorial. Structural repairs are needed for the crypt and the overall foundation and double glass is needed to protect the remarkable stained glass windows. The Lafayette-Escadrille Memorial Foundation was endowed originally with a $1.5 million trust fund for its maintenance, but that has been exhausted. The French Government has pledged funds and has begun working in earnest to repair this memorial. I want to point out that the foundation is an American not-for-profit and is subject to IRS regulations governing not-for-profit activities. Madam Chairman, our men and women in uniform, present and future and past, we hold those who served in the highest regard; and they should be remembered. I have received letters from descendents of members of the Lafayette-Escadrille offering their support, and I have received calls from persons only wanting to see the memorial restored. Our men and women in uniform deserve the best this Nation can give them. Such action should not stop at their deaths. The second amendment that I offer and is part of the en bloc amendment highlights the need for the Department of Defense to realign its focus on using energy efficient technologies. I feel that the Department of Defense should take into account the recommendations contained in the report by the Defense Science Board entitled ``More Capable War-Fighting Through Reduced Fuel Burden.'' The report states: ``Military fuel consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities make the Department of Defense the single largest consumer of petroleum in America, perhaps in the world. Naval forces depend each day on millions of gallons of fuel to operate around the globe. The Air Force spends approximately 85 percent of its fuel budget to deliver, by airborne tankers, just 6 percent of its annual jet fuel usage.'' It is without a doubt that fuel cost is directly associated with military readiness. By no means, however, should the DOD sacrifice performance requirements to save a few gallons of fuel. Obviously, including energy efficiency as a requirement under DOD's procurement process and investing in new improvements through its S&T community is a significant step in the direction of curtailing energy consumption in a responsible manner, while maintaining the performance and overall military capability. The DSB report states ``that the largest element of the total fuel cost in DOD is the cost of delivery.'' Improving on daily use of fuel for both combat and support units could reduce the logistics need while allowing units to deploy and remain in the field for a longer sustained period of time. Undoubtedly, a component in the war against terrorism will be the use of lighter, more mobile forces. So, it is imperative that we improve our logistics capability and reduce the ``logistics tail.'' As the DSB report notes, ``efficiency is a strong component of agility.'' So I again want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), for allowing me to incorporate these into the manager's amendment; and I urge the adoption of the manager's amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in strong support of this resolution. All American's have been reminded that freedom comes at a price. The citizens of the United States have fought to sustain one's right to remain free, engaging in major conflicts from our birth during the Revolutionary War, to the War of 1812, the Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War I and II, Korea, Vietnam, and finally the gulf war. Each conflict cost precious lives, but those men and women gave their lives so that future generations would continue to live under the blanket of freedom. We all feel the tremendous loss of life--loved ones, friends, colleagues--and our prayers are steadfast with the victims, their families, and those brave souls who are risking their lives at this very moment in search and rescue operations. My colleagues, we are about to vote on a course of action that again pits hope against terror--and--freedom against oppression. Our enemies will never know freedom, because they are imprisoned by hate--and for that--they have already lost. As we stand united behind our President and with our fellow Americans, I offer the following reflection: After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japanese Admiral Yamamoto lamented that his country's action had ``awakened a sleeping giant.'' My colleagues, that giant has awakened again. For the Lord is my light and my salvation--whom shall I fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life--of whom shall I be afraid? When evil men advance against me to devour my flesh, when my enemies and my foes attack me, they will stumble and fall.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the bloodiest attack in American history occurred yesterday, September 11, 2001, a date which will live in infamy. Life in America as we know it will change. Let us, as Members of Congress, and more importantly as Americans, resolve to help these families who lost loved ones in this cowardly attack and provide the necessary resources to both the people in New York and Washington, D.C. to aid in the recovery and assist these families. The attacks yesterday remind us of the shock and horror experienced in Pearl Harbor. We must and will work to ensure that this barbarism never occurs again. So, my colleagues, we won World War I, II, and the Cold War, but now we must prevail in what is called the ``Gray War.'' The ``Gray War'' is a war against the faceless spector of terrorism. We will prevail here also.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the bloodiest attack in America history occurred yesterday September 11, 2001--a date which will live in infamy. Life in America, as we know it, will change. Let us as Members of Congress, and more importantly, as Americans resolve to help those families who lost loved ones in the cowardly attacks, and provide the necessary resources to both New York and Washington, DC to aid in the recovery and assist these families. We will work to identify those responsible for these acts of savagery and bring them to justice. We will also, as the President has mentioned, hold those groups or states that harbor these cowards responsible for what has occurred. The attacks yesterday remind us of the shock and horror experienced at Pearl Harbor. We must--and will--work to ensure that this kind of barbarism will never occur again. So my colleagues it is clear that the U.S. is at war like December 7, 1941 but a new kind of war. The U.S. won WWI, WWII and the cold war. But now we must prevail in what could be called the gray war. We will prevail here also.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as the smoke clears from the skies over New York City, Arlington, Virginia, and western Pennsylvania, we in Congress should not forget that we are a free society. Sweet freedom. We cannot abandon our ideals or wrap ourselves in a cocoon or isolate ourself from a world because of this senseless destruction. The resolution this evening condemns in the strongest possible terms the terrorists who tried to disrupt our country and to kill our innocent citizens. Our government cannot permit its citizens to be attacked with impunity. We as elected officials have a responsibility to protect them just as we have protected them throughout the history of this grand Republic. All of us have watched in horror the amount of destruction that has occurred. We commend the heroic action of the rescue workers, volunteers, State and local officials who responded to these tragic events with courage, determination, and skill. Our prayers are made for those whose families who suffered and lost their loved ones. Mr. Speaker, we need to send a message to those engaged in terror that we will fight and not fold. We need to stand up to them. Our struggle will not be won in a day or a month or culminate with a single victory. Victory will require us to display courage, faith, unity and determination to carry on for an indefinite time in the face of this new gray war with faceless terrorists who are on a holy war to destroy the United States. Towards that end, Mr. Speaker, I fully support House Joint Resolution 61 and look forward to supporting the President and other agencies of government as they seek to find the guilty parties.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I was with Floyd on his last trip. We flew into Paris to go to the Lafayette Escadrille Memorial, a memorial to recognize 60 Americans in World War I who fought with the French against the Germans. These 60 individuals were killed in France, and they were memorialized at the Lafayette Escadrille, a large memorial. Congressman Spence led the delegation, and I gave a speech on their behalf, and he was a strong participant. I will cherish that trip because that was the last time I spent any time with Floyd. I think, as pointed out by other speakers, he was a gentleman in the real sense of the word, but he also had a spirit, a spirit of survival, a spiritual makeup that one felt he was in tune with the Lord, and that he continually reminded all of us to appreciate each and every day. I will miss him when he used to come up on the House floor and say hello. He would always have that kind of expression, and when asked how he was doing, he would respond, I am here and I am very thankful. When we talk about a person's life, if Members can talk about him with a certain sense of joy, I think that is a positive thing, and I think we are here tonight to say in many ways he brought joy to our lives with his spirit. I am speaking tonight about his accomplishments, but also about his spirit. Mr. Speaker, I served 10 years on the Committee on Veterans Affairs with him, and in addition to the active military personnel, he was very interested in the retired military, particularly veterans. He was very religious in his attending of subcommittee assignments. I was impressed that he, as chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, would still have time to come to our Committee on Veterans Affairs, and his participation was very active and commendable considering how much he had on his plate. Mr. Speaker, I think it should be pointed out that many of us did not see him in his prime athletic years when he was a great athlete. We saw him here with the various replacements he had with his lungs, his kidney, but we did not have the opportunity to see him when he was a strong athlete. He was a leader, a naval officer, and when Members look at the spectrum of his career, it was magnificent and impressive; and when one tops that with his love for the country, it was a perfect package, and I close on that note.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the name of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2037.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, while traveling in Iowa recently, the minority leader said, in reference to the very, very large tax cut in 1993 that raised income taxes, gasoline taxes, and taxes on Social Security benefits, he said, I will do it again. He went on to say that the biggest tax increase in U.S. history was the right thing to do. My colleagues, the message is clear, Republicans giveth and Democrats taketh away. Americans are just now receiving their tax refund checks, and Democrats are already trying to yank it back so they can spend more here on wasteful programs in Washington, D.C. It is not terribly surprising that Democrats want to raise taxes, but one would think that they would let the American people get the check first. An enormous tax increase would be the wrong thing, the worst thing for our fragile economy at this time. Mr. Speaker, now it appears the minority leader is back-peddling from the statement he made earlier. We need to find ways to get money back to the people, not to the Federal Government.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 308 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have vote ``aye.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make the American people aware of truth about exploring the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There is a great misconception perpetuated by the opponents of the President's energy plan, that exploring in ANWR will have an extensive detrimental effect on the wildlife in Alaska. Nothing could be further from the truth. The proposed area is here in this map. Can anybody find the red dot? This is Alaska. This is the State of Texas. This is the State of South Carolina. That little red dot in there is ANWR. The land in question is 3.13 square miles. Now, that is a tiny area. It is so small that we can hardly even see it here in the House on this graph. What is more, this 3 square miles is not the ecological wonderland that the opposition has made it out to be. It is a frozen desert with few signs of life. Mr. Speaker, it is time that the American people cast aside the fabrication of environmental radicalism and explore ANWR's energy resources.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, during the Nuremberg war crime trials, the Nuremberg Code was drafted as a set of standards for judging physicians and scientists who had conducted biomedical experiments on concentration camp prisoners. I bring this to my colleagues' attention because part of the code, I think, is applicable to our debate today. The code states that any experiment should yield results that are ``unprocurable by other methods or means of study.'' Because stem cells can be obtained from other tissues and fluids of adult subjects without harm, perhaps it is unnecessary to perform cell extraction from embryos that would result in their death. This would be an argument, I think, that would support the Weldon bill; and so I reluctantly, because the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) is making a very good and strong case, I oppose his amendment. In a recent editorial, Ann Coulter talked about the great demand on the House floor for solving all problems using aborted fetuses. Remember that discussion? We have had that discussion here. And they claimed that we had to have experiments on aborted fetuses because they were crucial to potential cures for Parkinson's disease. Remember that? Well, The New York Times ran a story about a year later about experiments where they actually described the results of those experiments on Parkinson patients. Not only was there no positive effect, but about 15 percent of the patients had nightmarish side effects. The unfortunate patients writhed and twisted, jerked their heads, flung their arms around, and in the words of one scientist, ``They chew constantly, their fingers go up and down, their wrists flex and distend,'' and the scientists could not turn them off. So I just bring that example that we have been on the floor talking about how much we need to take aborted fetuses and study them to bring about all these panaceas and cures which never came about. Again, this debate comes down to one about life. A human embryo is life, and to quote Ann Coulter from an article that appeared in a local paper in my district ``So what great advance are we to expect from experimentation on human embryos? They don't know. It's just a theory. But they definitely need to slaughter the unborn.'' In other words cloning research creates life--then systematically slaughters that life in the effort to find something of which we are unsure that exists. My colleagues, the Weldon bill does not oppose science and research, rather, it opposes what Ms. Coulter termed as ``harvest and slaughter.'' I urge you to ponder the consequences--oppose the substitute--and vote for the Weldon bill. In doing so, you are preventing the reduction of human life down to a simple process of planting and harvesting. Mr. Speaker, I provide the entire article I referred to above for the Record. Research Is Newest `Cure-All' Craze I've nearly died waiting, but it can finally be said: The feminists were right about one thing. Some portion of pro- life men would be pro-choice if they were capable of getting pregnant. They are the ones who think life begins at conception unless Grandma has Alzheimer's and scientists allege that stem-cell research on human embryos might possibly yield a cure. It's either a life or it's not a life, and it's not much of an argument to say the embryo is going to die anyway. What kind of principle is that? Prisoners on death row are going to die anyway, the homeless are going to die anyway, prisoners in Nazi death camps were going to die anyway. Why not start disemboweling prisoners for these elusive ``cures''? The last great advance for human experimentation in this country was the federal government's acquiescence to the scientific community's demands for money to experiment on aborted fetuses. Denouncing the ``Christian right'' for opposing the needs of science, Anthony Lewis of the New York Times claimed the experiments were ``crucial to potential cures for Parkinson's disease.'' Almost exactly a year later, the Times ran a front-page story describing the results of those experiments on Parkinson's patients: Not only was there no positive effect, but about 15 percent of the patients had nightmarsh side effects. The unfortunate patients ``writhe and twist, jerk their heads, fling their arms about.'' In the words of one scientist: ``They chew constantly, their fingers go up and down, their wrists flex and distend.'' And the scientists couldn't ``turn it off.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as we begin debate this week on a comprehensive energy package, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues a recently released report by the Defense Science Board entitled, ``More Capable Warfighting Through Reduced Fuel Burden.'' The bill we bring on the House floor will talk about lots of conservation measures, but we should also look to the Federal Government, which has a large use of energy. The bill we will be considering is an omnibus energy bill, H.R. 4, Securing America's Energy Future Act, and provides, among other things, incentives for the efficient use of energy and investments in new energy efficient technologies. The Federal Government is beholden under this legislation to take the lead in reducing energy consumption. If they are asking the American people to reduce energy consumption, obviously the Federal Government should do so, too, and to realign its focus on using energy efficient technologies. The report released by the Defense Science Board highlights the need for the Department of Defense to also realign its focus on using energy efficient technologies, too. This was quoted in the report: ``Military fuel consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities makes the Department of Defense the single largest consumer of petroleum in America, perhaps in the world.'' The United States has deployed its forces more times during the entire Cold War period. As a result, our fuel requirements have also risen. The report goes on to quote that ``the Naval force depends each day on million of gallons of fuel to operate around the globe. The Air Force. . .spends approximately 85 percent of its fuel budget to deliver, by airborne tankers, just 6 percent off its annual jet fuel usage.'' Mr. Speaker, it is without a doubt that fuel cost is directly associated with our military readiness. As we struggle with Congress' current budget allocations to provide the military with the funds needed to elevate our readiness levels, provide for pay increases, health care and housing, we would be remiss if we did not examine ways for the Department of Defense to increase its attention on energy efficiency. By no means, however, should the Department of Defense sacrifice performance requirements just to save a few gallons of fuel. I doubt that any Member would propose such action. However, the DSB report recommends including energy efficiency as a requirement under DOD's procurement process and investing in new improvements through the science and technology community. It is a significant step in the direction of curtailing energy consumption in a responsible manner while maintaining the performance in overall military capability. The report also notes that the Department of Defense Joint Vision 2010 and 2020 ``explicitly recognize that improving platform and system level fuel efficiency improves agility, while concurrently reducing deployment times and support/logistic requirements.'' All of us must remember the buildup of our forces between Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Most would agree that never would an adversary allow such a cushion for the U.S. to position itself for battle. The DSB report states, ``The largest element of the total fuel cost in DOD is the cost of delivery.'' So naturally, improving on the daily use of fuel for both combat and support units could reduce the logistics need while allowing units to deploy and remain in the field for a sustained period of time. Though H.R. 4 allows for Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, to acquire specific Energy Star products, I believe we should extend the focus to weapons platforms and logistic requirements. As we move to lighter, more mobile forces, it is imperative that we improve our logistics capability and reduce the logistics tail. Finally, the report notes that ``efficiency is a strong component of agility.'' I hope my colleagues will keep this in mind as we continue debate on energy policy and as it applies to all aspects of this country, including our Federal Government and the Department of Defense.