Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in response to the last speaker, I hope she has a chance just to listen. I have here a letter from Governor Tommy Thompson who talks about this particular bill, and lauds the bill and says it is very important that Congress pass this bill. I hope the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) will take some time this afternoon and perhaps read what Governor Thompson says about this from her State. I would be glad, if the gentlewoman wants to, the gentlewoman can come up now, if she has an urgent need to read this letter. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) who is talking about bipartisanship, we have three times as many people who are going to vote for our bill than voted and supported the gentleman's bill that the gentleman called bipartisan last year dealing with managed care. I think when we talk about bipartisanship, at least we have three times the weight of power to say it is bipartisan than the gentleman did. Mr. Speaker, I rise obviously in support of H.R. 4680, the Medicare Prescription Act of 2000. Our plan is market based, this is the key, rather than relying upon a government-run program, like many of the Democrats have proposed time and time again. My colleagues might ask themselves, why is this so important, because we know that one of the overwhelming components of any plan that we offer that it must provide individuals with choice. Joshua Hammond wrote a great book on the seven cultural forces that define who we are as Americans, and the number one item is choice. Choice must be the centerpiece of anything we propose, and that is why as Republicans and some of the Democrats on that side who agree have joined us. Our bill fosters competition by empowering individuals with buying power, and it encourages consumers to spend health care dollars much more efficiently than the Democrat plan. Here is the key. It guarantees Medicare beneficiaries Nationwide that they would have access to at least two competing prescription drug plans. Let me repeat that, not just one, it is choice, but two competing prescription drug plans. To ensure that rural areas are not underserved, the plan must also offer local pharmacy access, insuring that drugs would be available for seniors in rural areas and not just through the mail. Recently in the press, the human genome project has been all over the front pages. It has now completed its work. The medications that will come on the market in the future as a result of the scientific breakthroughs that will occur because of the genome project will be prodigious, those will be available to Medicare with the passage of this bill. The real question my colleagues and our seniors should think about, here is what they are faced with. Who do they trust? That is the key question. Who do they trust with their prescription drug plan? Do they want to make their own choices and control the money that they spend, or do they want the government, the United States Government-run plan that leaves them without any say so on what works best for them?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, last month the May 15 edition of Newsweek ran an article regarding Kosovo and the damage assessment data that was gathered by NATO and the United States Air Force. While some of the accusations in the article raised concerns on both sides of the issue, I believe, Mr. Speaker, it misses the point, and, that is, the outstanding job accomplished by our men and women of the United States Air Force. What many fail to realize is that the Air Force was practically engaged in a major theater war. Thirty-eight thousand sorties were flown during the 78-day operation with two aircraft lost to enemy fire. At the beginning of Operation Allied Force, the average number of sorties flown per day was 200. That number increased to 1,000 by the end of that conflict. Furthermore, the United States expended over 23,315 munitions with the United States Air Force accounting for 91 percent of that amount. That in itself, Mr. Speaker, is a logistics success story. Over 20,000 Air Force personnel were deployed in Operation Allied Force. The operation also included 13 percent of Air Force fighter aircraft, 16 percent of bombers and 28 percent of tanker aircraft. At the same time, United States Air Force equipment and personnel were deployed to Northern Watch in Iraq, Southwest Asia, Central and South America, and various Pacific operations. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have over 260,000 military personnel in over 100 countries. Our military has been deployed more times during this administration than the entire Cold War period. I am concerned that the Newsweek article chose not to highlight the major effort in which the United States Air Force engaged over those 78 days, but the outstanding performance continued after hostilities ceased as Air Force officials delved into an in-depth analysis of the warfare data. This article in Newsweek dated May 15, this year, attempts to persuade the reader that NATO, the Pentagon and United States Air Force officials purposely misstated the number of tanks, artillery and armored personnel carriers destroyed in Operation Allied Force. However, the author based his assertions on a so-called suppressed report. In reality, his information was likely provided by way of an initial ground survey conducted by NATO itself. This initial survey documented actual on-site findings of damaged or destroyed equipment. But let me emphasize a point here. This survey was conducted after 78 days of aerial combat operations where the battlefield, of course, can drastically change from day to day. Furthermore, it is common practice for any army to remove as much as possible of its equipment and damage from the battlefield as soon as possible. Let me emphasize that this data project was conducted by NATO itself, with the support of the United States Air Force. Obviously since the Air Force conducted most of the offensive operations, its involvement was crucial to gathering accurate data. The project was also designed as an assessment of weapons targeting, their impact and effectiveness, and, of course, not just counting armor damage. The data released by NATO was the result of a thorough methodology composed of ground survey, mission reports, cockpit videos, satellite and other imagery and, of course, intelligence reports. This data also had to factor in decoy use, multiple strikes on a target, and, of course, unconfirmed strikes. As a result, the data released was in fact more conservative than initial battle damage assessments. That is precisely the point of this in-depth analysis, to get an accurate picture of what happened so you can learn and adapt for future conflicts. The Newsweek article does raise a few questions, but if one looks at the entire picture of this operation, that person will see the Herculean effort shouldered by the United States Air Force. In the end, the Serbs retreated. The Air Force mission was accomplished, which, of course, is the real message for all Americans, that the Air Force did its job and did it well. We can be proud of these men and women and their commitment to serve their country and fight for a people whom they did not know. I commend the United States Air Force, and all the other armed services in support of Operation Allied Force.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. And, Mr. Chairman, I would say to my good friend that this is just intended to save money and to bring more fiscal responsibility. So there is no other motive here. I would also say to my friend that each of these bureaus here have their own press person. And when the commissioners send out their own press release, a certain person in that commissioner's office must be referred to as the press contact. These folks are in overload with personnel in the press department. I submit that we can take this office, which spends $1,100,000 and bring it down to $640,000.00 and still be better off. Because we do not need to be paying so many people $80,000. There are four of them making almost $80,000 a year. I suggest my colleague's my own press secretary is not making $80,000 a year, and I submit that this office does not need this much either.

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I will not be on the House floor next year if the gentleman votes for my amendment. Will the gentleman agree to that?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues that I have a very simple amendment, and I will not take the full amount of time for this. When we passed the Telecommunications Act in 1996, the whole idea of the act was to deregulate the telecommunications industry. At that time it was heralded as a great event. We had not deregulated the Telecommunications industry since 1934. So when we finally deregulated, all of us thought that this would possibly reduce government because of deregulation. Instead of reducing government, the FCC which monitors and overlooks the telecommunications revolution, expanded quite dramatically. And they obviously will claim they need additional staff, but I contend that with all these mergers and all of this ever-changing landscape, we have to ask do they need 2,000 full-time equivalent employees at the FCC? I believe that in some places they have the necessary employees, but one area I am particularly concerned about, is in the media relations department. Do they need almost 20 people to do media relations? To make press clips? To send out press releases and to sell the FCC? Mr. Chairman, this is a government agency. This is not The Washington Post. This is not the Lockheed-Martin Corporation. It is just an independent government agency, yet they have almost 20 people to do media relations. What is the need for an agency to be able to carry out a media campaign of public relations? This is in addition to the press operations the FCC bureau office employs already. That is right. The seven bureau offices have their own press contacts and the five Commissioners all have their own press contacts. So let us take a look at this chart. When we look at this chart and see all the difference departments in the FCC that make up this 2,000 employees agency and we relate that, each of the Commissioners have their own press contacts and each of the bureaus have their own person to deal with media. We have a right to ask. And then we come over to this box, the Office of Media Relations, which is over there, and we say to ourselves: What do they do and how big are they? Mr. Chairman, they are responsible for informing the press and the public about the FCC's actions, facilitating public participation, issuing news releases, public notices and other information material. That sounds pretty good. There are 17 people in that office. Now, I would like if I could to take this chart down and show what makes up that media relations department. First of all the American taxpayer is paying four people an average salary of $77,349, another four people at $98,743, and one person is making almost $131,000 a year. So if you look back up here and see 17 of these different persons that make up this media relations, we will understand that the composite group of these 17 people are making a great deal of money. In fact, the total of the salaries in this office alone is over $1,100,000. I suggest if one is a media person on the Hill, they could probably apply to the FCC and make a lot more money than they are making in their present job, frantically working until midnight like tonight. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits the FCC from appropriating more than $640,000, instead of $1,100,000, for the Office of Media Relations. I need to remind the Chairman of the FCC that employees of the Commission are public servants. This office and others throughout the FCC are unelected and now are getting paid almost as much as Federal judges. In some cases they are paid more. The role of the agency is to implement and administer our Nation's telecommunications law, not to increase headlines.

Mr. STEARNS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I have issued a challenge to the gentleman.

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding to me. I would like to voice my concern over the state of Federal judicial compensation. I believe that judges' salaries are falling below the minimum levels that are needed, not only in the interests of fairness, but also to ensure the continued quality of the Federal judiciary. Over the past 8 years, Federal judges have experienced a 13 percent decline in the real value of their salaries. At the same time, their workload has remained at high levels. Salaries of Federal judges have not just lagged behind the inflation indices. As a result, judges' salaries no longer bear a reasonable relationship to that of the pool of lawyers from whom candidates for judgeships should be drawn. It has been widely reported that the first- year associates in law firms in metropolitan areas throughout the country are now earning $125,000 a year. It is therefore not surprising that even second- and third-year associates at most large law firms would have to take a pay cut, a pay cut to accept an appointment to the Federal bench. Public sector salaries may even be more relevant. The general counsel of the University of California receives a salary in excess of $250,000 annually, which is substantially greater than the pay of the Chief Justice of the United States. The district attorneys of Los Angeles, for example, are paid $185,000. All of these salaries far exceed the salary of the United States Supreme Court Justices and Associate Justices, which are currently less than $182,000 and $174,000, respectively. Additionally, a U.S. District Judge salary is currently only $141,300. Increasingly, judges are choosing not to make the financial sacrifice to remain on the Federal bench. As a result, our Federal judiciary is losing some of its most capable and dedicated men and women. Since January, 1993, 40 Article III judges, judges whose positions are delegated in Article III of the U.S. Constitution and serve lifetime appointments subject to Senate confirmation, have resigned or retired from the Federal bench. Many of these judges have retired to private practice. The departure of experienced, seasoned judges undermines the notion of lifetime service and weakens our judicial system. If the issue of adequate judicial salaries is not soon addressed, I believe there is a real risk that the quality of the Federal judiciary, a matter of great and justified pride, will be compromised. The President of the United States' salary goes up to $400,000 next year. Is it not about time the Supreme Court Justices's salaries go up, too?

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding to me. The gentleman has a very good memory. That was 10 years ago that I had that amendment.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would say that the gentleman remembers that like it was yesterday, because it did occur a decade ago. At that point the salaries that were provided the staff were going up quite substantially and was well above inflation. And since we have had the years go on for the last 10 years, we have provided inflationary increases for the staff.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce, along with my colleagues, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Deal, Mr. Ehrlich, and Mr. Rogan, legislation preventing the Federal Communications Commission from imposing spectrum caps on future Commercial and Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) auctions. Today, the commercial wireless industry is the most competitive sector of the U.S. telecommunications marketplace: 238 million Americans can now choose between 3 and 7 wireless providers; more than 87.9 million Americans can now choose from among 6 or more wireless providers; and 87.7 million Americans can choose among 5 wireless providers. In 1994, FCC adopted the cap to prohibit a single entity's attributable interests in the licenses of broadband PCS, cellular, and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) services from cumulatively exceeding more than 45 MHz of spectrum within the same geographic area. The cap was to ensure multiple providers would be able to obtain spectrum in each market and thus facilitate development of competitive markets for wireless services. Today, however, the current 45 MHz spectrum cap is beginning to impact innovation and competition in the wireless industry. The cap now works to limit competition by denying wireless providers access to open markets, thereby denying consumers the benefits that arise from additional competition, such as lower prices and innovative services. Furthermore, wireless providers have limited room for advanced services such as data on their networks and as they plan for Third Generation (3G) services, which will include enhanced voice, video, Internet and other broadband capabilities, the lack of spectrum threatens the ability to expand current systems and entice new customers. Additionally, continuation of the spectrum cap will result in the continued lag of U.S. companies behind Europe and Japan in the deployment of wireless 3G technologies. The legislation I am offering merely prevents the FCC from imposing the CMRS spectrum cap on spectrum auctioned after January 1, 2000. It does not repeal the current spectrum cap on CMRS spectrum, or lift the cap on spectrum that has already been auctioned. This legislation is a timely proposal to ensure that innovation and competition continue to drive the commercial wireless industry.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) was on the floor last year, and it was defeated soundly. I have here, Mr. Chairman, several letters, one from the Department of Veterans Affairs which I will make part of the Record, from Dr. Garthwaite, which indicates that we should not, should not, adopt the Hinchey amendment. Mr. Chairman, obviously I rise in opposition to this amendment. Basically it aims to dismantle what this House overwhelmingly approved. It was one of the most important reforms in the VA health care system. VERA is a system for distributing VA health care doctors equitably, to ensure that veterans have similar access to care, regardless, regardless of the region they live in. Before 1996, when Congress directed VA to establish this system, veterans experienced enormous disparity in access to care. Veterans who received all needed care from VA facilities in New York, for example, found after retiring to Florida the VA's doors were closed to them. This happened because a system for distributing funds did not take into account the demographic changes that occurred. According to the General Accounting Office, VA's former allocation system not only resulted in unequal access to care, it also encouraged inefficiency. GAO cited the need for a system like VERA. So my colleagues, the GAO has studied this carefully, and they have cited the need for such a system as VERA, which the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) would like to remove and dismantle. Price Waterhouse did an analysis of this as well. They validated the methodology that was used and indicated that it was sound. VERA recognizes that there is variability in labor costs and other factors from region to region and makes adjustments accordingly. It is fundamentally a fair system. Mr. Chairman, that is not just me speaking. Price Waterhouse has validated this system, and GAO cited the very legislation that we passed overwhelmingly in the House. So as I mentioned earlier, I have this letter from the VA's acting Under Secretary of Health who confirms that the VERA system is working and that the VA administration itself continues to support it, and I will include that for the Record at this time. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, June 19, 2000. Hon. Bob Stump, Chairman, Committee on Veterans Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to affirm the Veterans Health Administration's (VHA) continued support for the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) system. Implemented in April 1997, the VERA methodology remains an equitable model for distributing funds to the 22 networks. During the past two and a half years independent reviews by the General Accounting Office and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP have validated the VERA methodology as meeting the intent of Congress. In fact, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP concluded that VERA is ahead of other global health care funding system around the world. In addition to these external VERA assessments, since the beginning of VERA, the VHA has established internal workgroups, comprising clinical and administrative staff from both Headquarters and the Field, to provide input to the VHA Policy Board for VERA refinement and to evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of the VERA methodology. Ongoing improvements and refinements to VERA continue as issues arise. Refinements that have been identified for the FY 2001 allocation are listed below. Non-recurring Maintenance (NRM)--FY 2001 will complete the three-year phase-in of NRM being fully based on patient care workload and the cost of construction using the Boockh Index (a geographically-based, nationwide standard). Geographic Price Adjustment (labor index)--A change in the workload factor for computing the labor index that would weight Basic and Complex Care workload consistent with recent costs is under review. A recommendation was presented to the VHA Policy Board in May 2000 and was approved June 15, 2000. Research Support--A decision to again pass through research support funds directly to VA medical centers for FY 2001 will be reviewed by the VHA Policy Board in July 2000. A decision on these recommendations will be made subsequent to Policy Board discussion well ahead of the time to allocate FY 2001 funding. Care Across Networks--A Care Across Networks Workgroup studied the need for a transfer pricing system to cover veterans who receive care outside of their home networks (e.g., northeast networks would reimburse southern networks for the care provided to veterans who travel south in the winter). The group recommended implementation of a default pricing system based on Medicare rates, modification of the current billing system, and preauthorization to ensure that care provided is clinically appropriate. Because concerns were expressed about the adequacy of the infrastructure to handle transfer pricing and possible impediments imposed by preauthorization, VA tested the proposed transfer pricing system. The Workgroup considered several key issues: the impact on improving coordination of care; whether the level of effort to effect transfer pricing is worth the benefit; and the technical and software challenges to implement. A recommendation by the Workgroup not to go forward with transfer pricing in FY 2001 was approved in March 2000. VA will continue to use the existing pro-rated person (PRP) concept to ensure that care across networks is compensated. The default pricing system will be completed and made available to networks that are trying to understand care patterns as well as other issues. Additionally, VHA Headquarters has maintained a national reserve fund to assist networks that are experiencing fiscal difficulties. VHA has established a process whereby a network's request for additional funding is first reviewed by a team of VHA field-based managers. The VISN's request and the team's review are then presented to the VHA Policy Board, which in turn makes recommendations to the Under Secretary for Health. Once a final decision is made, the results are communicated to the requesting VISN. Enclosed is a chart with text to show that VERA is not moving all networks to an average expenditure per patient, but adjusts network allocations for differences in patient mix, labor costs, research and education support costs, equipment and non-recurring maintenance activities. Please note that all major VERA shifts in funding have been completed. Beginning with the FY 2001 VERA distribution to the networks, changes in VISN funding will depend on the following factors: The change in the Medical Care Appropriation from one year to the next, Each VISN's change in the number and mix of veterans provided care relative to the system-wide change in total veteran patient workload, and VERA refinements that may be made during the year. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on VERA. Sincerely, Thomas L. Garthwaite, M.D. Acting Under Secretary for Health. Enclosure. The chart that follows displays the average VERA price for each network, based on the preliminary FY 2001 VERA Allocation. (It should be noted that these are subject to change; workload data continues to undergo data validation, Specific Purpose funding continues to be reviewed, and final decisions about funding levels are dependent on the Congressional Appropriation.)

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, we have a similar debate on this amendment last year when the gentleman offered it. I urge the gentleman not to dismantle a system that is working for the veterans in this country. I also note that the VA maintains a reserve fund to handle the kind of problems that the gentleman has raised, and I am sure others will raise from the northeast. In fact, the New York/New Jersey Network received $60 million last year from that reserve fund that was set up just to handle problems that they are going to get on the floor and talk about. For those areas of the country that have legitimate funding problems, there is this safety mechanism with the reserve fund. We need not and should not, I say to my colleagues, take the extreme step that the gentleman proposes. Adopting the Hinchey amendment would hurt veterans all across this country. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, this is a very easy bill to understand. What the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) wants to do is have a government-based content bill; and what we want to do is continue the status quo. Now, there are five FCC commissioners who decided this ultimately in a 4-1 decision. On the commission there are five commissioners. Two are Republicans, and three are Democrats. They voted 4-1 in favor of what the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has tried to do. So, in this case, two Democrats on the commission who have all the information that is necessary and understand it much better than the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), perhaps better than anyone else here, voted with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). They felt the status quo and the precedent had been established and that they did not want to have government-based content. In my home State of Florida there are three stations, one out of Boca Raton, Ft. Pierce, and Jacksonville, 24-hour a day with religious broadcasting. More than 125 noncommercial television broadcasters would be forced to completely drop their programs. Under the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), it would be almost impossible for a broadcaster to walk this line created by his bill. In fact, we had a hearing. Ms. Tristani, who is one of the commissioners, was asked to actually tell us if she could determine what was educational and what was religious broadcasting. And she admitted she could not. In fact, I asked her during the hearing, would a TV show on collecting comic books or wrestling magazines be educational or not. She could not answer. Instructions on living with the Ten Commandments, is that religious or is that educational? Shows on collecting pet rocks. In all three cases, she had no idea whether that was educational or religious broadcasting. And that shows the confusion that people would have to culturally decide what is educational and what is religious broadcasting. Let me quote from Furchtgott-Roth, who is one of the commissioners. He said, ``The scariest moment, the most frightening moment, the most chilling moment'' in all of his tenure at the FCC is when his staff asked him if he wanted to review videotapes to make the decision whether it was educational or religious. And he went on to say, ``I will never support any move to have the Government in a position of deciding whether programming fits into any one pigeon hole or another.'' So if my colleagues want more FCC regulation, then vote for the Markey amendment. If they believe in restricting, changing the precedent changing the status quo, then they should vote for the Markey amendment. I believe, actually, the Markey amendment is unconstitutional because it allows the Federal Government to scrutinize and grade the content of religious broadcasting. It would insert the word ``educational'' in front of ``religious broadcasting,'' which would give the FCC discretion to determine whether religious broadcasting is, in fact, educational. I think it creates a loophole for allowing the FCC to continue to regulate unabashedly in this country and avoids the original intent of H.R. 4201. So I ask my colleagues to vote no for the Markey amendment and yes for the Tauzin bill and understand that when they are voting for the Tauzin bill, they are voting for the present status quo, the tradition which has existed in this country for so many years. Many of us believe the FCC should be reformed. We do not have an FCC with the computer industry. With all the information we have coming to Americans today, up to 250 channels through direct satellite broadcasting, wireless, the Internet, cable, and all the myriad of new innovations that are coming, do we need the FCC standing in the gap and saying to Americans this is what they will watch and this is what they will not watch? In fact, we probably should go back to the licensing of educational broadcasting stations and reform that because of the information that is available. So I urge no on the Markey amendment and yes on the Tauzin.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about with the Markey amendment is the FCC deciding what the educational religious intent of television broadcasting is. So I pose these questions for the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). Will the Christmas Mass at the Vatican be able to be broadcast under his amendment? Obviously it is religious. Under the gentleman's amendment, you would no longer see the Christmas Mass at the Vatican on non-commercial TV. What about the performance of the Messiah at the Washington National Cathedral here? Under the gentleman's amendment, no longer shall we see this. The National Day of Prayer here in Congress, which is televised, many of the non-commercial religious stations broadcast that. No longer. Opening prayer of House and Senate. You could stretch this on and on and on and on. Teaching the Ten Commandments. Under the Markey amendment, all of this would be gone, and that is why two-thirds of the Democrats who are on the commission voted to overturn their own ruling, because they realized what they did was wrong. What we have today is the FCC creating a category of politically correct, government-approved religious speech. Let me repeat that. The Markey amendment is creating a category of politically correct, government-approved religious speech. Interesting, as one commissioner said, ``If you believe what you are saying about religion, you cannot say it on the non-commercial television band; but if you don't believe what you are saying, then you can.'' That is the paradox that the Markey amendment is providing here. As I mentioned earlier, I think it is unconstitutional to let the FCC have this amount of power. Many of us think the FCC as an agency could be done away with. This whole idea of educational TV is being replaced through the Internet, through broadband, through wireless, through the cable. You get 250 channels through direct television. And here we are coming down on religious broadcasting that has been around since the start, the very start, of television broadcasting. We are totally changing this with this amendment. It has far-reaching implications. So I ask my colleagues, do they want to do away with religious broadcasting completely and strip all religious broadcasting from television? Then they should vote for the Markey amendment. If they believe that they want to do away with the broadcasting of the Christmas Mass at the Vatican, vote for the Markey amendment. If they believe that the performance of the Messiah at the Washington Cathedral is wrong and they do not want to see it on non-commercial television, then they should vote for his amendment. In fact, simply the instructions for proselytizing or talking about religion on television will become history under the Markey amendment. So I would close, Mr. Speaker, with these comments: The Markey amendment would create an educational religious purpose and play into the hands of those at the FCC that want to have the say over content of religious programming. Instead of providing clarity, which the Pickering amendment does, and protection from a hyperactive FCC, and I think Members on both sides of the aisle would agree that the FCC is hyperactive, instead of that, in reining in their power, we are giving them more power, and we are creating confusion for religious broadcasters and threatening their very existence.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, to use a ploy to say he (Mr. Tauzin) bears a guilt is incorrect. Remember, two-thirds of the Democrats and 100 percent of the Republicans already voted to overturn the decision. So if the gentleman wants to point guilt, then he should point it to the gentleman's side of the aisle--namely, Democrats where two-thirds of the Democrats of the FCC Commission supported what we are doing today. I point out in closing to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), if the Christmas mass is broadcast at Fort Pierce, Florida, at midnight on Christmas Eve, and then suddenly that station decides, it wants to also broadcast it on New Year's Eve, what happens? Suddenly the FCC is going to call them up and say, no, and using the gentleman's words, the FCC would say there is primarily not enough educational TV so we are going to have to stop you from broadcasting on New Year's Eve. Vote against the Markey amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just tell my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), when he grew up the NEA did not exist. It started in 1965. Second of all, most of the money goes to six major cities. There are almost 150 Congressional districts that get no money. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

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