Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today I want to talk about a very serious issue that is currently under review by the Bush administration. Included in his decision process is a question, should the Federal Government fund human embryonic stem cell research. This is clearly a very emotional issue with strong views on both sides. Viewpoints from groups as disparate as patient advocates and religious groups have weighed in. This is virtually a tug of war with neither side willing to concede. As a strong supporter of biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health, I unquestionably recognized the call for the onward march towards understanding treatments and cures for many debilitating conditions that have been plaguing mankind for as long as we can remember. However, I also can see the morally troubling question behind embryonic stem cell research. Is it justifiable to purposefully end one life even if it results in the salvation of millions of others? While religious viewpoints can certainly play a role in this debate, let us put that aside for the moment and approach this subject from a purely historical scientific perspective. Throughout history, scientific research has produced substantial social benefits. It has also posed some disturbing ethical questions. Indeed, public attention was first drawn to questions about reported abuses of human subjects in horrifying biomedical experiments during World War II. 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. This code became the prototype of many later codes with the intention of assuring that research involving human subjects would be carried out in an ethical manner. It became a foundation of much international and United States law surrounding clinical research. Since 1975, embryos in the woman at this stage, at this same stage of development, about a week old, have been seen by the Federal Government as ``human subjects'' to be protected from harmful research. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and the American people should realize since an embryo is a human subject, embryonic stem cell research without a doubt violates many of the tenets of the Nuremberg Code and U.S. law. First, it says, ``The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.'' Of course, the embryo from whom a well-meaning scientist would extract cells would have no capacity to give its consent and exercise its free choice. Further, the code states that any experiments 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, it is unnecessary to perform cell extraction from embryos that will result in their death. Even the Clinton National Bioethics Advisory Commission said that embryo destructive research should go forward only ``if no less morally problematic alternatives are available for the research.'' They did not say to go forward with embryonic and adult stem cell research so we can see what works better. They did not say the alternatives had to work better than embryo destructive research. The only criteria that they gave is if there was a less morally problematic alternative to embryo destroying research, then using embryos would not be justifiable. This is from the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, September 1999, this quote, ``In our judgment, the derivation of stem cells from embryos remaining following infertility treatments is justifiable only if no less morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing the research . . . The claim that there are alternatives to using stem cells derived from embryos is not, at the present time, supported scientifically.'' There is an ethical alternative, and Federal money should not be spent on destroying human embryos. Finally the code insists that ``no experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur . . . even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.'' Without a doubt the embryo, of course, dies. These are but a few doctrines of the Nuremberg Code which I ask you to consider while the Nation and the President grapples with this very serious decision. Embryonic stem cell research treats an embryo as a clump of tissue with less protection than a laboratory rat. There are promising alternative sources of stem cells with which to perform promising medical research. We must not allow Federal dollars to fund this destructive and needless practice.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight a study released yesterday by the Kaiser Family Foundation indicating that few parents use the V-chip to block their children from viewing sex and violence on television. Mr. Speaker, Congress included a provision in the Telecom Act of 1996 that television sets 13 inches or larger sold after January 1, 2000, must be equipped with a V-chip to screen out objectionable programming. Well, yesterday's study finds that 40 percent of American parents now own a TV equipped with a V-chip. However, despite high levels of concern about children's exposure to TV sex and violence, just 17 percent of these parents who own a V-chip, or 7 percent of all parents, are using it to block programs with sexual or violent content. Some of my colleagues are quick to rely on government as a panacea for all of our problems. Yesterday's report reveals that the long arm of government regulation is no substitute for good parenting.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today along with my distinguished colleague from Georgia, I rise to introduce a resolution that would designate this October as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease awareness month. This resolution will address the unmet need of raising the level of national awareness of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, or COPD--a debilitating disease that affects an estimated 32 million Americans, is currently the nation's fourth leading cause of death, but yet little is known about it. In 1998 COPD was responsible for approximately 107,000 deaths and 668,362 hospitalizations. Furthermore, its devastating effects drain the U.S. economy of an estimated $30.4 billion each year. COPD is an umbrella term used to describe the airflow obstruction associated mainly with emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Emphysema-- which affects three million Americans causes irreversible lung damage by weakening and breaking the air sacs within the lungs. An additional nine million Americans suffer from chronic bronchitis, an inflammatory disease that begins in the smaller airways of the lung and gradually advances to the larger airways. Both conditions decrease the lungs' ability to take in oxygen and remove carbon dioxide. Long-term smoking--the most common cause of COPD--is responsible for 80-90 percent of all cases, while other risk factors include heredity, second-hand smoke, air pollution, and a history of frequent childhood respiratory infections. Common symptoms of COPD include shortness of breath, chronic coughing, chest tightness, and increased effort to breathe. Mr. Speaker, I have focused on respiratory health care issues for many years, and I receive numerous letters from my constituents back in Florida, who live with progressive chronic respiratory illnesses, asking me to raise their voices on Capitol Hill. COPD is devastating and is not receiving the appropriate amount of attention. In 1999, COPD was the fourth leading cause of death in Florida, and the most current estimates from the National Health Lung and Blood Institute show COPD incident rates to be on the rise--in fact, while incident rates of all other leading causes of death in America are decreasing, COPD is increasing. By 2020, the Center for Disease Control believes COPD will be the third leading cause of death in the United States. Unfortunately, there is no cure for this progressive and irreversible disease. But, if patients receive early diagnosis, there are treatment plans available to provide symptom relief and slow the progression of COPD. 16 million Americans have been diagnosed with COPD, and an equal number suffer from the disease but have yet to be diagnosed. It is likely that we all know somebody with COPD--whether we live with it personally, or have a family member, friend or staff member with COPD. Designating the month of October as COPD awareness month is an opportunity for us all to familiarize ourselves with COPD so that we can attempt to alleviate the suffering and hopefully reduce the death rate associated with COPD. Please support this much-needed resolution.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, opponents of ANWR often hold up a picture of big, grimy, old oil rigs; and they ask this question: Do we want one of these on our precious wildlife refuges? Of course not, but that is the wrong question. The question should be: Can modern technology allow us to drill in the Arctic with absolutely no impact on the wildlife or plant life there? The answer is a resounding yes. Cutting-edge technology, like horizontal drilling, allows us to reach oil 4 miles away from a surface location. Thirty years ago, it took a 65-acre drill site to slant drill only 3 square miles. Today, a 16-acre drill site can now drill 50 square miles of subsurface. That means that today we can drill 15 times further on a drill site one-fifth the size of what we used when we started developing oil in the Arctic. We no longer build gravel roads in for oil development there. Instead, companies build ice roads that melt away with spring, leaving no hint that they were ever there. Let us use this amazing technology to help stabilize gasoline prices and make this country more self- reliant.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, we are in our busiest legislative session in July; and it is important to go back and consider all of the accomplishments we have had in the last 6 months. All of us have worked alongside with the President in tackling some very tough issues, and I think it is important that we remind everybody of the important victories that I think are a great benefit to the American people. When thinking about the first 180 days of President Bush's service to our Nation, there are many accomplishments across a broad spectrum, both national and international issues, that I think are clearly evident; and I wish to bring to my colleagues' attention. From education and the environment, to health care and national security, the President has taken an active stance in promoting an agenda that has received both public and bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, let me be specific here. For example, the President's budget, with bipartisan support, funds essential priorities, pays down a historic level of debt in this country, while, of course, simultaneously providing tax relief to every taxpayer in every tax bracket. The President inherited a faltering economy. He signed into law the largest tax cut in 20 years. This was important because it provided a needed boost while simultaneously proposing measures to increase trade and stabilizing energy prices. President Bush's efforts to expand the quality of health care for all Americans has led to the largest increase in medical research funding, the development of 1,200 new community health care centers for rural and low-income Americans, as well as immediate assistance to seniors in the form of a prescription drug discount card that will reduce their bills by 10 to 15 percent or more. While working to improve health care for American seniors, the President has also taken action to increase access for disabled Americans for better housing, transportation, greater employment opportunities, and overall access to community life. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, his appointment of a bipartisan commission to improve Social Security reveals his deep concern for working Americans and the effect Social Security will have for them long after retirement. While working to protect the interests of American citizens at home, the President has also worked diligently in order to protect American interests throughout our global community. The $8 billion increase of defense spending that we passed will improve the quality of life for all men and women who have committed their lives to military service. President Bush's commitment to those in the armed services was no more clearly seen than in his efforts to ensure the safe and expedient return of the U.S. crew that was detained in China. That was no small feat, a diplomatic coup; and I think this is a great success that we, as a Nation, can be proud of. His efforts have also led to the development of a comprehensive review of all areas of the military while also carrying out a successful missile defense test. President Bush's agenda also focuses on strengthening the ties with the global community. His travels to Europe reflect his efforts to promote key foreign policy tenets that aim to assist developing nations in fighting poverty and improving global health care while also promoting an international awareness for environmental conservation. These can be clearly seen in his efforts for partnership with the African nations on issues ranging from the fight against HIV/AIDS to the greater development of international trade. Mr. Speaker, his commitment to the international treaty that will reduce the worldwide use of 12 dangerous chemicals exemplifies his concern for the global environment. The President's foreign policy efforts also reflect a sincere commitment to strengthening the young independent democracies of Eastern Europe. Moreover, as the first President to give a radio address in Spanish, the President has also worked to strengthen the alliance of the North American nations through active participation during the Summit of the Americas. President Bush has successfully strived to replace Washington culture of gridlock with several notable bipartisan accomplishments on very tough issues, ranging from economy to education to defense spending. Mr. Speaker, I believe his first 180 days have revealed to us an active and committed Presidential agenda that spans both domestic and international concerns while also protecting the interests of America and expanding freedom, trade, prosperity, and hope. I wish to congratulate the President this afternoon.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, let me address two points. I do not know if my colleague from Massachusetts is still in the Chamber, but this Charitable Choice exists in Federal programs already. In addition, the House has provided passage of Charitable Choice in child support, the Home Ownership Act, Fathers Count Act of 11/10/99, and also the Juvenile Justice bill. So we have four cases where Charitable Choice is already in place. So for folks to come on the House floor and say vote against the rule because this is not fair, this is a great constitutional question, that is not true. However, President Clinton already signed into law four of these Charitable Choice pieces of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I am here because contained in the base bill, I have a bill that was incorporated, and I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) for giving consideration to my bill, which repeals the excise tax on the net investment income for private foundations. I would also like to thank my colleagues who have cosponsored this legislation. Though, of course, full repeal of the 2 percent excise tax on private foundations would have been preferable, I want to thank my friends on the Committee on Ways and Means for eliminating the two-tier system and simplifying the tax to a flat 1 percent. The tax was originally enacted in 1969 as a way to offset the cost of government audit of these charitable organizations. In 1990, the excise tax raised $204 million, and they conducted 1,200 audits of private foundations. Then in 1999, the excise tax raised $500 million, and the IRS only did roughly about 200 audits. So private foundations generally must make annual distributions for charitable purposes equal to roughly 5 percent of their fair market value of the foundation's endowment assets. The excise tax acts as a credit in reducing this requirement. So I am glad my bill is part of the base bill. It is a tax cut. I want to again remind my colleagues to vote for the rule. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank Chairman Thomas, along with Congressman Watts, for giving consideration to my bill H.R. 804--a bill to repeal the excise tax on the net investment income for private foundations. I would also like to thank my colleagues who have cosponsored this legislation. Though, of course, full repeal of the 2 percent excise tax on private foundations would have been preferable, I want to thank my friends on the Ways and Means Committee for eliminating the two-tiered system and simplifying the tax to a flat 1 percent. The tax was originally enacted in the Tax Reform Act of 1969 as a way to offset the cost of government audits of these organizations. In 1990, the excise tax raised $204 million and the IRS conducted 1,200 audits of private foundations. In 1999, the last year for which figures are available, the excise tax raised $499.6 million with the IRS conducting 191 audits. Private foundations generally must make annual distributions for charitable purposes equal to roughly 5 percent of the fair market value of the foundation's endowment assets. The excise tax paid acts as a credit in reducing the 5 percent requirement. By reducing the excise tax, we are placing needed money into the hands of our nation's charities. I thank Chairman Thomas and Congressman Watts for their leadership and support. Across this country, faith-based charitable organizations have brought healing to broken lives and suffering communities by providing emergency services, drug treatment, after school programs, as well as many other vital services. However, too often the Federal Government has valued process over performance and not welcomed faith-based charities as partners in fighting social ills. To address this bias Congress has repeatedly supported a program called Charitable Choice. This idea is not revolutionary. It has been adopted four separate times by bipartisan majorities and was signed into law by President Clinton each time, the first being the landmark welfare reform legislation in 1996. Charitable Choice is bipartisan, consensus law that expands options for needy Americans while safeguarding the character of faith-based charities and protects the rights of beneficiaries. In fact, it already exists in Federal law and applies to three domestic programs. It enjoys broad support because it is not a special fund for religious charities; it simply makes faith-based groups eligible to compete for Federal dollars. Charitable Choice corrects this prejudice that discriminates against charities on the sole basis of their belief system. This program because it is grounded in the Constitution, requires nondiscrimination. It includes all people of goodwill--whether Methodists, Muslim, Mormon, or good people of no faith at all. It preserves the first amendment because it insists on a separation between programs operating on the Federal dollar and those operating on the private dollar. Faith-based organizations may make federal programs available by advocating values but not engaging in religious worship. The question then becomes, why would any faith-based group want to participate with these limitations. The answer is that the funding is always going to be there and therefore will we continue to discriminate or will we open the process and ferret out discrimination. Charitable Choice is about funding affective public services, not religious worship. It explicitly states that no direct funds ``may be expended for sectarian worship, instruction or proselytization.'' While securing this separation, it also allows ``conversion-centered'' groups to participate via vouchers. This is nothing new in Federal law. Since 1990, low-income parents have used vouchers to enroll their children in thoroughly religious child-care services. This voucher option is critical for beneficiaries because when helping needy Americans one size does not fit all. Charitable Choice offers assistance in both the form of vouchers (to recipients) and grants (to organizations) to fund civic assistance programs. This variety expands service to needy Americans because it allows them to participate in a program that suits them without respect to religion. The President established the office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives, which is the first of its kind, to correct this glaring discreptency. The purpose of this office is to devise a constitutional means by which religious organizations are brought to the table and allowed to compete for Federal moneys regardless of their belief system. This is consistent with the President's objective to unleash private money for public good. It establishes charitable giving incentives for taxpayers to increase the level of money given directly to public service organizations. Charitable Choice allows faith-based and secular civic organizations to compete on the basis of the same criteria. Charitable Choice asks the question, ``What can you do?'' rather than ``Who are you?'' It holds both the religious and secular civic organizations to the same standard: Results. It is our responsibility to expand the range of care for people in crisis and Charitable Choice is an innovative way of achieving that goal. It is a way to empower that which is small and holistic. American's deserve a variety of alternatives; the goal is not to favor one group or belief system over another but to simply level the playing field such that any effective social service is made eligible for Federal moneys already designated for public services. It doesn't favor any religious organization; it only ends some of the burdens that often impede them. Surely this is something that every American can support.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I think all of us should reflect a little bit and realize that four bills were signed by President Clinton that had charitable choice in them and they passed overwhelmingly. I suspect that a lot of people that are debating this voted for those bills, because they passed 345 to whatever was left. Proponents of the idea to substitute their own bill always talk about our bill violates the first amendment, and this is a very relevant question. It demands some serious consideration. Those who support the idea that they want to put in another bill because ours violates the first amendment do so because they believe in the first amendment, but we all do. The Constitution provides, ``Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' But this charge is twofold. The first amendment provides that the government cannot establish one religion or a religion over a nonreligion. But it also, I say to my colleagues, provides that the government shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. This is a very important point and the purpose of our bill. With some constitutional concerns in mind, we must make certain to allow members of organizations seeking to take part in government programs designed to meet basic human needs and ensure that capable and qualified organizations not be discriminated against on the basis of their religious views. So charitable choice makes clear that existing Federal law providing for the Federal provision of social services should not be read to exclude. One cannot exclude faith-based organizations solely on the basis of their beliefs. So I would conclude, Mr. Speaker, to point out that what we are trying to do is exercise freedom of religion, and that is what charitable choice does.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleagues from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, for not offering his amendment prohibiting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from expending any funds to modify its media cross ownership and multiple ownership rules. Had such an amendment been offered, I would have opposed it. As Vice-Chairman of the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee, I am concerned anytime this body considers telecommunications policy without properly allowing the committee of jurisdiction and experise-- the House Energy and Commerce Committee--from deliberating on the ramifications of such a policy change. Quite simply, there is a reason who this body does not legislate on appropriations vehicles. And as such, telecommunication issues and should be left up to the committee overseeing telecommunications policy. In fact, the House Energy & Commerce Committee has not been given the opportunity to analyze the ramifications of such an amendment, and the Committee certainly has not had the opportunity to hold a hearing on this amendment--a hearing in which Members would learn from testimony of experts. Mr. Chairman, by law the FCC is required to analyze its rules. Congress, in passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996, specifically requires the FCC to review all of its broadcast ownership rules every two years to ensure they continue to serve the public interest. The head of the FCC, Chairman Powell, has stated that he plans to examine rules and policies relating to media cross-ownership and multiple ownership. This provision prevents the FCC from making any modifications to the current rules, even if the FCC concludes that it is in the public interest to further tighten, and not relax, media ownership rules. As such, we must allow the FCC to do its job without interference from Congress. Furthermore, some the FCC's current rules on broadcast ownership are being currently challenged in court. Under the Obey Amendment, if the Court vacates the rules and remands the case to the Commission, the FCC will be unable to act pursuant to the Court's order because the expert agency would be blocked from doing its job. And what do Members of this body have to fear by allowing the FCC to do its job and review its rules to determine if they serve their intended purpose? Most agree that in today's day and age, many such rules are antiquated, irrational, and inconsistent with the public interest, thereby doing more harm than good when it comes to competition. This, being the reason why the Commission is required to examine its rules, would be prohibited if this amendment is accepted. The rules my friend from Wisconsin fears would be changed were developed in the 1940s and 1950s. America has come a long way since the era when we had to let the old black-and-white TV sets warm up. Scanning the landscape today, one easily sees there are now 9 national broadcast networks, hundreds of cable stations serving nearly 70 million households, 17 million home satellite subscribers, and these trends don't even reflect the millions of people who surf the Web for their news and commentary. The author of this amendment may also know that in the summer of 1999, the FCC relaxed some of its broadcast ownership rules. And not surprisingly, consumers, competition, and Democracy were not harmed in any way. Had his amendment been accepted back then, none of those changes would have been allowed. I would argue that the FCC should continue to relax more of its ownership rules. Like I did in the last Congress, I recently introduced legislation to broadly deregulate the restrictive ownership limitations imposed by the FCC on the television broadcast industry. My legislation increases the national ownership cap from 35 percent to 45 percent, a reasonable response to the shifting needs of viewers and the industry. Furthermore, the FCC's current rules of owning two stations in the same market (duopoly) and definition of what constitutes a voice defies logic and is unjustified. My legislation adds some sense by defining cable as an independent voice. Additionally, it also repeals the FCC's rules that restrict a newspaper from owning a local television station within the same market. Such a repeal will result in a realization of efficiencies from consolidated operation, greater financial stability, and an enhanced ability to provide news and informational gathering. Some of my colleagues may have seen last week's USA TODAY article entitled ``Media's big fish watch FCC review ownership cap.'' Mr. Obey intended to offer this amendment in order to reflect his belief that concentrated media ownership is ``one of the biggest threats to our form of democracy--the other being the way our campaigns are financed.'' Well Mr. Chairman, this body has devoted quite a while to properly debating how our campaigns are financed. Do we not, at a minimum, owe the same amount of deliberation to such a big threat? I thank Mr. Obey for withdrawing his amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman give me an example where in his mind the authors of this substitute give a specific example where the first amendment would be in conflict with physical desecration of the flag?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise against the substitute offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). We have seen this debate before where our side has proposed the flag constitutional amendment and we have seen your side always provide a substitute. Generally, your substitute has been a method to give you the ability to vote for it and still go back to your constituents and say that you believe that the physical desecration of the flag of the United States is bad. That is what your amendment is, quite simply. Because if you were really sincere about this debate, you would not have this sentence in your substitute amendment: ``Not inconsistent with the first article of amendment to this Constitution.'' I am sure that my colleagues would be willing to explain why they would have that in if, in fact, they felt that the Congress should have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. But the fact that you put that in with a contingency would show that you do not really have your heart in this debate. This is really, in my opinion, just the opportunity for those who are in swing districts to have the opportunity to vote for something and vote against ours. When we look at what we have offered in the original flag constitutional amendment, H.J.Res. 36, we are simply saying that our flag is not just a piece of cloth, we are saying it is something much more. To desecrate it is to desecrate the memory of thousands of Americans who have sacrificed their lives to keep that banner flying intact. So it is to desecrate everything this country stands for. I would remind the Members who do not support our original amendment and support the substitute that we also note in our laws we protect our money from desecration, destruction. So if that is true for our money, why is that not true for the flag? Obviously there is a debate on this all the time and we cannot get complete support on this, but I think in this case that we can talk and talk and talk about first amendment rights and everything but clearly that your amendment is just really subterfuge to try to protect Members who want to have it both ways. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens claims that the act of flag burning has nothing to do with disagreeable ideas, but rather involves conduct that diminishes the value of an important national asset. The act of flag burning is meant to provoke and arouse and not to reason. Flag burning is simply an act of cultural and patriotic destruction. The American people revere the flag of the United States as a unique symbol of our Nation, representing our commonly held belief in liberty and justice. Regardless of our ethnic, racial or religious diversity, the flag represent oneness as a people. The American flag has inspired men and women to accomplish courageous deeds that won our independence, made our Nation great and, of course, advanced our values throughout the world which the rest of the country is adopting. Mr. Speaker, I say we should defeat this substitute.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, we in the House will be marking up an energy policy this week, and part of this policy will include hydropower. Hydropower provides a clean and safe source of energy. Hydropower is the fourth largest source of total generation, making it an important part of America's energy supply mix. In addition to providing sustainable power at a low cost, hydropower production has significant environmental benefits. Hydropower production has no emissions. Every kilowatt of power that is produced from hydropower reduces the need to burn oil and coal to produce the same amount of energy. I am pleased that the Republican energy package will include elements to assure that we maximize the potential of our existing hydropower facilities. While we work to implement policies and strategies to conserve energy, we must also work to increase energy supply to keep pace with growing demand. Mr. Speaker, I believe that maximizing the benefits of our hydropower resources is an important part of meeting that challenge.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today Californians are experiencing rolling blackouts, rising energy costs and out-of-control gasoline prices. I fear that this will happen in the other States if we are not careful. The solution to our current energy crisis is simple, choice and competition, not more regulation and price controls like the discharge petition that the Democrats are talking about. Governor Davis, with the support of environmentalists and government control advocates, raised barriers and actively sought to prohibit the construction of new power plants. Now the Democrats in Washington want to make the Gray Davis approach to energy the national approach to our energy here in Washington. Mr. Speaker, it is clear what the results will be if they achieve their goal. What is happening in California will happen in the rest of the country. Blackouts will roll from California all of the way to the eastern seaboard. From family to farmer, all Americans will be affected. We do not want this to happen. We need to have choice and competition. Let there not be a reoccurrence. Let us take the right approach to energy, and work to increase production, reduce regulation and encourage conservation.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, one of my goals since first being elected to serve in Congress has been to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government and many of its programs. While we have been successful in identifying and reducing wasteful spending, there is still too much unnecessary spending that needs to be eliminated. This came out in a report by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs entitled Government at the Brink that outlines the urgent Federal Government management problems facing the Bush administration. They cited four core problems that exist: One, work force management; two, financial management information; three, technology management; and, four, overlap and duplication. Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee was the chairman of this committee when this report was compiled. I want to share with my colleagues what his committee found. A chief source of the information was based on reports issued by the General Accounting Office, the GAO, and agency inspectors general, or the IGs. Now, my colleagues might ask, just how much money are we talking about. Well, according to GAO, we are talking about at least $35 billion a year, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. The GAO reported that the Medicare program wastes $12 billion every year on improper payments. According to the GAO, 10 percent of total health care costs are lost to wasteful spending. What came to light about the misappropriation of our tax dollars is downright alarming. In order to cut out waste in Medicare claims, the Health Care Financing Administration decided that new computer software should be developed to create one mammoth computerized method to review bills. Ultimately, what the American taxpayers got after 4 years was a bill for $80 million. An official at this agency had this explanation: He said that the money was used in effect as a painful learning experience. We learned about this in 1997. The Medicare program is not the only offender. Let us take a look at the Department of Education. This government agency failed its last three financial audits. The government auditors identified accounting discrepancies totaling up to $6 billion in Federal education aid that was embezzled, lost, used for real estate purchases, luxury car items, rent, and so forth. If we intend to increase the funding to the Department of Education, then we need to put in strong accounting practices. Unfortunately, it is not difficult to find all sorts of examples of waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government. The Medicare program and the Department of Education have a long history of wasteful spending. However, the Department of Interior does not know what has happened to over $3 billion it holds in trust for the American Indians. Or what about what is referred to as the ``big dig'' up in Boston, Massachusetts? Boston's central artery has cost tremendous amounts of dollars. It has increased about 525 percent, from $2.6 billion to the current estimate of $14 billion. We have serious problems that are cited in the Thompson report that need to be addressed if we are to solve mismanagement of valuable resources. The most compelling of these is work force management. Many agencies lack the right employees with the right skills to do the job. The report also stated that the Clinton administration's downsizing of government hardly made a dent in the true size of government. What it did do was create a brain drain that cost the government many of its most experienced and valuable employees. The end result is that the Federal Government wound up doing the same old thing in the same old way, but with less experienced workers. Financial management. How can the government operate efficiently when agencies do not know how much money they have, how much they spend, or how much their programs cost. Information technology management. This is a critical item because we want our government computer systems not to be vulnerable to terrorist attacks, either domestically or internationally. The GAO has designed computer security, a governmentwide program, but it has problems. The last area of concern is overlap and duplication. For instance, the Federal Government has seven different agencies administering four different programs aimed at job training. Eight different agencies operate 50 different programs to assist the homeless. Nine agencies operate 27 teen pregnancy programs. Seventy different agencies gather and analyze statistical data. Seventeen departments and agencies operate 515 research and development laboratories. Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the areas where duplication and overlap waste our tax dollars. We must restrain government spending, but I realize that, just as President Reagan said, government programs once launched never disappear. Actually, a government agency is the nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see here on this Earth.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. By unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, I request 10 minutes apiece.

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I conclude by just saying this is not about cutting the NEA. This is continuing the level of funding and moving the money that we increased to energy conservation, a priority between energy conservation and increasing the NEA.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 25 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which would basically do something very simple. As many of my colleagues know, this morning we passed an increase for the National Endowment for the Arts by another, I believe it was $10 million. All my amendment does is quite simple, is reduce that $10 million back to level funding. So it is not a cut. So a lot of people who come on the floor who will be voting for my amendment should realize this is not about cutting the National Endowment for the Arts. This is basically keeping level funding for this program and, in fact, taking the $10 million which was added on to this program and using it for the Department of Energy; more specifically, for energy conservation for grant programs to help across this Nation for people who need increased amount of energy and in a larger sense to help low-income people in weatherization of their homes. So I ask my colleagues to consider the priority of the two, increasing $10 million for the National Endowment for the Arts or increasing the Department of Energy's energy conservation program. Now, this debate used to be about reducing or, as that side would say, cutting the NEA; but this is not a debate about that. So I want to take that off the table, and I hope that side will realize that the debate and focus has changed. Mr. Ivey, who is head of the department of National Endowment for the Arts, has made a great effort to change the image of the National Endowment for the Arts, and I applaud him for his efforts. I think at this point he has been successful so that our debate today is more about should we increase that program at the expense of energy conservation. Now let me just take my colleagues on a little, small journey on what we could do with this money. Items funded under this program include research and development projects that develop new and improved existing technologies; Federal energy management; low-income weatherization assistance; and State energy program grants. Through these projects and research, we can continue to sustain future economic growth while at the same time, Mr. Chairman, increasing America's awareness of new energy efficiency. In my home State of Florida we expect to need about 10,000 to 15,000 megawatts of new generation to keep pace with demand. Florida is one of the foremost populous States, increasing by over 20 percent last year since 1990 in population. In addition, we are the sixth highest in energy consumption. The need for energy conservation is clear. We need to focus funds where the need is. We are not in a position where we can say we are not in a crisis, because we are. We could have rolling blackouts across this country. Arts is important, I know it is, but energy is also important. So surely, Mr. Chairman, the money provided for energy conservation under this amendment will serve the taxpayers, I believe, in a much more satisfactory manner. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. I ask my colleague, is there any way we can get more time than that?

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, Edmund Burke, who was a distinguished politician in England, said it best when he said that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. So, Mr. Speaker, let us not be idle this afternoon. The size of Sudan's population is about 35 million people. This event has been going on, off and on, since 1955. This is something that we should take quite seriously and try to come to grips with in this House to do something constructively. The humanitarian crisis in southern Sudan is considered one of the worst in decades. Efforts at national, regional and international levels to bring peace and stability to the region have so far been unsuccessful, and outbreaks of fighting and mass population displacements continue to occur. This vicious operation against citizens has resulted, as mentioned before, in the loss of 2 million souls and left 4 million homeless. These statistics fall in this House, but they are so meaningful. The 14-year recent civil war has also brought drought and raids that have been backed by the government. They back these militias. They have disrupted the distribution of food aid and obstructed assessments of need in severely affected areas. In short, we are not able to discern the exact need. We only know as we stand on the House floor today that it is great. The Sudan Peace Act does several things that attempt to address the many complicated issues that are facing the people of Sudan. First of all, the reporting requirement included in this bill would serve as a deterrent to foreign companies raising money in United States markets for oil development activities in Sudan, activities which undoubtedly have an effect on human rights and religious freedom. The thriving oil industry in Sudan, according to the International Monetary Fund, has allowed the Sudanese government to double its military budget. Some believe that because of the prosperity of the oil export, the National Islamic Front, NIF, which is the controlling governmental authority, is not interested in negotiating seriously to end this war. More importantly, it condemns the war being waged by the NIF government in Khartoum. The NIF views itself as the protector of Islam in Sudan. Any political dissent is seen as being anti-Islam and any action against religious opposition is understood as justified in what the NIF believes is a holy war. According to a March 2001 report by the congressionally established U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, quote, the government of Sudan continues to commit egregious human rights abuses, including widespread bombing of civilian and humanitarian targets, abduction and enslavement by government-sponsored militias, manipulation of humanitarian assistance as a weapon of war and severe restrictions on religious freedom. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not the total solution to the humanitarian crisis in Sudan, but, rather, in a small way, it is a contribution to a larger effort which we should embark on here in Congress, an effort that will bring a long-term commitment to a suffering people whom we do not know but whose human freedom we take seriously today.