Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, the American artist John Sloan, this is what he said: ``It would be fine to have a ministry of fine arts. Then we would know where the enemy is.'' So, I mean, this is an American artist talking about the government taking over the arts program. Even artists today recognize that the government bureaucracy today cannot create art. As my colleagues know, when we put this in perspective, we are spending $10 billion in the private sector for art. Surely we have to question the value of this little program. But I will grant that the program is getting more support in Congress, and I accept that fact. So we have a modest cut of 2\1/2\ percent, and if the amendment earlier that all of my colleagues supported, i.e. increasing $10 million, goes forward, then this reduction will even be less. It will probably be about a 1 percent reduction in the NEA budget. So I say to my colleagues, and they have been kind enough to give me 2 additional minutes, that they have many on their side advocating more spending on the NEA. As my colleagues can see, I am pretty much defending the leak of more spending in the wall here with my thumb. So I am glad to have this additional 2 minutes. As my colleagues know, I think the NEA is a luxury. Let us face it, it is a luxury; and my colleagues want to continue this luxury, and I think at this point there is lots of us who say we can cut this program by 2\1/2\. If it is increased by $10 million, like my colleagues wanted to do earlier, then my amendment will eventually provide a cut of only 1 percent. Let's keep Congress on budget. So in honor of Tim Penny, who used to come on the House floor and try and cut 2\1/2\ percent, I think we should pass the Stearns amendment. I think the bottom line is simple. We need to eliminate excess. We need to trim all Federal programs across the board, because this surplus is not going to go on forever. I mean, the President is projecting surpluses for the next 10 to 15 years, but all of us know this is not going to happen. We have never seen a country go forward with its economy without any recession in 10 to 15 years. So ultimately this surplus is going to be gone, and we are going to have to start reducing Federal spending, I think this is one program, if we are serious about reducing government, I think this is a good place to start; and I thank my colleagues for the 2 additional minutes.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce the NEA funding by about $2 million, and, Mr. Chairman, this is about 2\1/2\ percent of the budget. And I noticed earlier that a lot of Members coming down to the well and my good colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), who indicated that we need to increase the funding. I think it is appropriate that I come forward also. So there are many of us do not think we need to increase the funding for NEA; and in fact over the years I have been in the House, the funding for the NEA has always been in question. There was a colleague of ours, Tim Penny from Minnesota. I think a lot of Members on that side will remember him, a Democrat who was an outstanding distinguished Member. He used to come on the House floor and always have an amendment to reduce funding of every appropriation bill by about 2\1/2\ percent. Sometimes it would be 5 percent. I think we remember that. Mr. Chairman, his thinking was to get the budget under control, we could take a modest reduction in every government program, and so the huge amount of savings that comes from across-the-board cut of 2\1/2\ percent or 5 percent is enormous. It is just this little small trim, modest amount, has a major impact on the budget. So I think this particular agency is obviously one of the agencies that I think that we could trim. So my amendment takes a very modest step in beginning a process of reduction; and of course, budget reduction requires discipline, and I think it is important that we look at the NEA. This is an agency that many of us question whether it should be in existence; but, as my colleagues know, the sentiment today, a lot of the pro NEA folks have won out, and when Congressman Sid Yates was here we used to debate, he and I, all the time. But it appears that a lot of sentiment is on my side to increase the funding for the NEA. I am still one of those who think that we can do a modest across-the-board cut of 2\1/2\ percent. I am not here to argue the merits of the NEA; we have had that discussion together with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and I and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). We have taken that question of merit of the NEA and pounded it into the ground, and I am not necessarily hoping that the folks are going to get up and argue the merits of the NEA. But I am here to say that I think even though we have a surplus, it would not hurt to have a little fiscal responsibility here; and so I think on this side of the aisle there are many people who say, yes, we can reduce the Federal agency, no matter what agency in question. We can reduce it by 2 percent or 2\1/2\ percent. The NEA is not necessarily an agency that is absolutely mandatory. It does not shield us from economic hardship. It is not there to defend us against invasions. It does not guarantee Medicare. It does not guarantee Social Security. It does none of the things that one would say, well, the government programs should do this. This is simply a program that provides government funding for the arts. But I say to my colleagues, the Federal Government currently supports over 200 programs for the arts and humanities. Let me just give my colleagues a couple of examples so when my colleagues think, well, the NEA is the only agency that does it, there is over 200 of these programs. These programs just sort of fan out like minnows: the Commission on Fine Arts, the JFK Center for the Performing Arts, the National Gallery of Arts, the Indian Arts and Crafts Board, just to name a few. So my colleagues here tonight get very sensitive about the NEA, but, I mean, there are over 200 of these programs. It is not the sole source of art funding in America i.e. the NEA. If we decrease the NEA funding, the art community is not going to fall apart. So I do not think we have to throw up our hands and say this is an emergency, a dire crisis. It only accounts for only less than 1 percent, 1 percent of the approximately $10 billion we spend in this country for art work, and there is going to be a new charitable revolution in America as a result of the stock market and the good economics times we have today. This revolution is going to come about because of private investment and not because of the United States Government. And that is why I am really puzzled to see this side of the aisle and a few Members on that side say we have got to increase the funding for the NEA. As my colleagues know, I would like to conclude by just putting this in perspective for some of my colleagues. Let us go back in history now to the framers of our Constitution in 1787. During the Constitutional Convention, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina offered a motion to authorize and ``establish seminaries for the promotion of literature and the arts and sciences.'' The motion was overwhelmingly defeated because the framers of our Constitution did not want the Federal Government to promote the arts with Federal funds. It did not want to tax Americans and say we are going to take your money, send it to Washington D.C. and then we are going to hand out all this money to the artists, the elite groups that the government thinks are the talented artists of the day. So from that point on, we never had the Federal Government involved with supporting the arts. We let the private sector do it. But around 1967, as my colleagues know, that all changed with President Lyndon Johnson. I am reminded of a remark by the noted American artist, John Sloan.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) reserving a point of order so that I could at least have an opportunity to present my amendment to my colleagues. This amendment is an enlightening new idea for us in this debate dealing with the NEA. I think my amendment would take a questionable, controversial program and place it in the hands of the States. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) indicated that the States are providing money, and somehow this dribbles on down to congressional districts. My amendment would simply say that 95 percent of the funding of the NEA would go directly to the States. We just block grant it, bingo, it would all go to the States. That way, we would ensure that the State of Florida, the State of Ohio, the State of California, the State of Wyoming, and all the States in the union would get funding proportional to the population of their State. So we would not have a Federal bureaucracy deciding where this money is going to go. As I mentioned earlier, 166 districts, including mine, never see this NEA funding. These are not my statistics. This information came from the Education and Labor Committee. I also point out to my colleagues, one in every three direct NEA dollars went to just six cities, only six cities: New York City, Baltimore, Boston, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, the District of Columbia, and of course San Francisco. That is nearly over $30 million of this roughly $99 million that is only going to six cities. It is not going to Ocala, Florida, Leesburg, Jacksonville, Paluka, and some of the cities in any district. In 1996, the number one recipient of NEA funding was the Metropolitan Opera of New York. The NEA is a government subsidy for many cultural elite groups. I suggest and I hope my colleagues will, maybe perhaps not this time, but at a later time, help me with this idea of block granting 95 percent of the funding of NEA to the States. We will leave about 5 percent up here just to have the U.S. government able to have an opportunity to direct the money to the States. In this way, the States would have freedom to distribute this money throughout their State, and we would not see this large amount of money going to six major cities. I also want to bring up something just lightly here, and I think we have talked about this before. There was an audit of the NEA. These audits occurred from 1991 to 1996 by the inspector general of the NEA. These are statistics that were provided during the hearing of the NEA at the Subcommittee on Education, and Labor. During this audit, they audited 79 percent of the projects, in 63 percent of the cases, the books did not even add up; 53 percent of the grant recipients failed to seek help from outside auditors; and 21 percent of the grants had absolutely, absolutely no accounting whatsoever. Those are not my figures. Those basically came from the inspector general at the NEA. Again, these figures would show that we have a Federal bureaucracy that does not have a good accounting on their own programs. So why do we not just block grant this whole program to the States? As a side note in 1951, a poll of the American Symphony League found that 91 percent of the members disapproved of Federal subsidies. As was pointed out, we both agree, it was not until the 1970s that this whole NEA agency came into being. So I suggest to my colleagues, did we not have good art before the 1960s in fact for 200 years of history of this Republic we had great artistic works. I am not going to give graphic examples from the NEA, which we would all disapprove of, that are antithetical to our cultural values, to the tradition of this country. We have had that debate. But I would suggest that the amendment that I have, by block granting, actually increases to the States more money for the arts program than the present situation. So if my colleagues supported my amendment, they would be actually supporting more money for the States. In fact, this amendment would increase by approximately 55 percent the money given to the States. We should not have the District of Columbia receiving enormous amounts of money relative to some of the other cities and States. The awards should all be proportional in terms of population. So I suggest to my colleagues that the debate on this amendment is for another day. Obviously, my colleagues have been kind enough to reserve a point of order so I can make my point, and I will not belabor the point out of courtesy to them. I suggest somewhere down the line that this body should block grant 95% of the NEA funds because more money will go to the States. It is a fairer way to do it and, in the end, it eliminates the Federal bureaucracy.

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, in his speech here he has indicated that the government should have the right to decide what cities it is going to put the art in, which indicates they are deciding, which means they are discriminating against people who are not getting the art. So would the gentleman allow the Federal Government to discriminate?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New York if he thinks the Federal Government should discriminate based on who they give their artwork to?

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

Mr. STEARNS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, what happens is that money is given to the State and then the State gives it to them, but it is not given from the Federal government to these agencies.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I commend Chairman Regula for the wonderful job that he has done in bringing this bill before us on the floor. Preparing an appropriation bills is a difficult task. I appreciate the work that has been done by each of the committee members and the committee staff. Today I have the opportunity to share with my colleagues information about one of America's most important historical incidents, but often forgotten. I will be withdrawing my amendment in hopes of working with Chairman Regula in conference to ensure that this land be studied to ensure its preservation in the future. I rise to offer the Fort King amendment to HR 2466. This amendment is of historical importance not only to Ocala, Florida, home to Fort King, but to the whole nation. This Fort played a direct role in the founding of Florida as a state. If you have travelled through Florida in the last ten years, it would be hard for you to imagine that the first settlers deemed most of Florida's interior as inaccessible. It is on this land that a little more than a hundred years ago a battle raged. Beneath the tropical landscape of palm trees and flowers lie the weapons of a forgotten war and the bones of forgotten men. Where broad highways now wrap the state with concrete, tenuous trails were once flattened by Indians' moccasins and soldiers' boots. The dark river waters that now sustain pleasure boats have known far longer the dugout of the Seminole and the log raft of the trooper. In parks where tourists now scatter trash, valiant men once fought and died. The Florida War was ``the longest, costliest and bloodiest Indian war in United States history'' spanning almost seven years and costing the government thirty million dollars. Before the end more then fifteen hundred soldiers were dead and all but three hundred of the surviving Indians traveled the Trail of Tears to far Oklahoma. This was a significant incident in our nation's history. On December 28, 1835, Fort King was the site of an outbreak of hostilities between the United States Government and the Seminole Indians. The Seminoles, were led in this attack by Chief Osceola. This attack began the Second Seminole War, which laster longer than any other United States armed conflict, except for the Vietnam War. Fort King and the surrounding area contain artifacts used in the attack and in the life of the Seminole Indians. This bill would help preserve Seminole history in Florida. This study would identify a means of preserving and developing Fort King. Preserving our past for our children and grandchildren is imperative. Fort King is a historical gem that should be accessible to all. I withdraw my amendment and look forward to working with the chairman in ensuring the success of this project.

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, statistics are clear, the education and labor provided those statistics that 166 congressional districts get no funding. So it is not something I made up. I think if the gentleman is talking about real democracy, then every Member of Congress should benefit from a government-funded program by taxpayers, and it is not happening. There is an elite group it goes to. It does not go to a lot of congressional districts. That is just a point.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) just left the Chamber. I wish he was here. He was quoting President Kennedy. I think this quote by President Kennedy is more appropriate. He stated his opposition to government involvement in the arts. Let me repeat that, President Kennedy, a Democrat president, voiced his opposition to the government's involvement in the arts with this quote: ``I do not believe public funds should support symphonies, orchestras, or opera companies, period.'' Now, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) talked about the increased attendance at all these different functions, arts festivals and operas and ballets. The NEA provides less than 1 percent of the overall amount that is spent in the arts, $10 billion in the private sector and under $100 million in the government. So surely all this attendance is not because of the NEA. It is because of the increased funding in the private sector. I would point out to my colleagues that before 1967 there was not an NEA, so for 200 years in this country we functioned without the government involved. Surely we had priceless artwork, we had activities available for our constituents without government funding. As I pointed out earlier, the Framers never intended that the government should get involved with supporting the arts. The last point I would make, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), 166 congressional districts get no money, and mine is included. So when the gentleman talks about fairness, the fairness is that the large cities get the money, but there are 166 congressional districts that get zero.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, this morning I am here to talk about the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act, which I will be introducing today. If this bill becomes law, it has the potential of saving thousands of lives each year. I am pleased to have this opportunity to work with the American Heart Association and the American Red Cross on this very important measure. Passage of this Act would go a long way towards making the goal of saving the lives of people who suffer sudden cardiac arrests possible. It would ensure that what the American Heart Association refers to as the ``cardiac chain of survival'' could go into effect. That first chain of survival is early access, call 911, early CPR, early defibrillation, which I will go into in a moment, and early access to advanced care. While defibrillation is the most effective mechanism to revive a heart that has stopped, it is also the least accessed tool we have available to treat victims suffering from heart attack. Perhaps it would be helpful for those of my colleagues listening who are not well versed in the subject if I just take a moment and walk them through what we mean when we use that term ``defibrillation.'' A large number of sudden cardiac arrests are due to an electrical malfunction of the heart called ventricular fibrillation, VF. So when VF occurs, the heart's electrical signals, which normally induce a coordinated heartbeat, suddenly become chaotic, and the heart's function as a pump abruptly stops. Unless this state is reversed, then death will occur within a few minutes. The only effective treatment for this condition is defibrillation, the electrical shock to the heart. My colleagues might be interested to know that more than 1,000 Americans each and every day suffer from cardiac arrest. Of those, more than 95 percent die. That is unacceptable in this country because we have the means, the very means at our disposal to change those statistics. That is why I have been committed to this cause. Studies show that 250 lives can be saved each and every day from cardiac arrests by using the automatic external defibrillation, which we will call AED. Those are the kinds of statistics that nobody can argue with. Let me show my colleagues on the next chart, did my colleagues know that for each minute of delay in returning the heart to its normal patterns of beating, it decreases the chance that that person will survive by 10 percent? No one knows when sudden cardiac arrest might occur. According to a recent study, the top five sites where cardiac arrest occurs are at airports, county jails, shopping malls, sports stadiums, and golf courses. I believe we would all take great comfort in knowing that those who rush to our side to resuscitate us have the most up-to-date equipment available and are trained to use it. The AEDs which are being produced today are easier to use and require minimal training to operate. They also are easier to maintain and cost less. This affords a wider range of emergency personnel to be trained and equipped. Some of my colleagues might ask, if a majority of the States have laws authorizing nonemergency medical technician first responders to use AEDs, why do we need to pass this legislation? Good question. This year's bill differs from previous versions I have offered, which primarily sought to encourage State action to promote public access to defibrillation. The States responded to this call, and many have passed regulation to promote training and access to AEDs. However, this bill, Mr. Speaker, directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop recommendations to public access of defibrillation programs in Federal buildings in order to improve survival rates of people who suffer cardiac arrest in Federal facilities. Federal buildings throughout America will be encouraged to serve as examples of rapid response to cardiac arrest emergencies through the implementation of public access to defibrilllation programs. The programs will include training security personnel and other expected users in the use of AEDs, notifying local emergency medical services of the placement of AEDs, and ensuring proper medical oversight and proper maintenance of the device. In addition, this year's bill seeks to fill in the gaps with respect to States that have not acted on AED legislation by extending good samaritan liability protection to people involved in the use of the AED. So, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the support of my colleagues. I hope that they will cosponsor this bill. It has been endorsed by the American Heart Association and the American Red Cross. I hope all of my colleagues will join me by cosponsoring the bill whose stated goal is to prevent thousands and thousands of people suffering from cardiac arrest from dying by making equipment and trained personnel available at the scene of the emergency.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, H.R. 10 would modernize America's financial service industry. Now, the big debate seems to be on the privacy protection. I think this bill contains very important, very start-of-the-debate important, issues for protecting the customers of the insurance industry, the banking industry and the securities industries. One of the most important provisions of this bill is this privacy information. Now, during consideration of this measure in the House Committee on Commerce, many of us know the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) offered an amendment on health information confidentiality, a lot of debate on it. We had a lot of debate on it. We talked about it, but all of us felt that this was just the start. If we did nothing, if we could not even get this debate started and we defeat this bill today, then we are going to have no privacy. So I think we should not let this small debate that we are having on privacy stall the entire bill, because in the end we can amend and we can work through HCFA and other places to create more privacy and perhaps more to everyone's liking. Think about it. If we allow a bank, an insurance company, to work together and the insurance company does a check on a person's health records, how does one know that those health records could not end up in a bank? Or perhaps the bank, when applying for a loan, would use some of the information from a person's health records? So that is why I think what we offered in the full committee was important. I was also able to have an amendment that offered the word genetic information to include in that privacy information. So I say to the Members on that side of the aisle, I think genetic information is something that also should be protected. Now, there are a lot of people that say we are going to stop the Secretary of Health and Human Services from issuing regulations on this issue as required under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that we passed in 1996. This language in this bill says nothing to stop the Secretary of HHS from issuing regulations on this matter. In fact, Madam Chairman, the cite reference in the bill, which is 264(c)(1), if we go to look at it, is the very language, the very language that gives authority to Health and Human Services to issue the regulations. So, Madam Chairman, I think we should all come together. We have looked at H.R. 10 until we are blue in the face. We have talked about this. We should not let this be defeated today, trying to talk about just the privacy. I think it is a first step, so I look forward to our continuing discussion on this, and we can go back after we have passed H.R. 10 to talk about medical records and confidentiality with a separate piece of legislation. So, in the meantime, I support the language we have in the bill today protecting all Americans, consumers, so that their information is not inappropriately shared.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania. I am also pleased to participate in this special order and support of doubling the NIH budget. Last year my colleagues will remember we were successful in our efforts to increase funding for the NIH. We all know how valuable the research being conducted by this institution is to our Nation's future, including its economic well- being. Advances in medical research to prevent, cure, or at least minimize the degree of financial devastation caused by such diseases is reason enough for us to fund this vital research project. As my colleagues know, I would like to speak from a little parochial point of view, from Florida's point of view. I know how many of my constituents know how important NIH is, and in fact in 1998 the Sixth Congressional District in Florida received $53 million in funding from NIH. I want to share with my colleagues the results of an unreleased poll that came through the Research America and Alliance for Discoveries in Health. This results, I think, which I am going to speak on are pretty much conclusive and support my colleague from Pennsylvania and what he is trying to do, and I commend him for his long term effort on this project to make the public aware how important NIH is and how important this research is. When I asked the people in the poll: Do we receive value for Federal dollars spent on medical research, 65 percent said we do get value for dollars spent. Fifteen percent responded they do not know, while 20 percent said we do not receive a value for dollars spent. When I asked: Do you support, and this is a basic thrust here, oppose a proposal to double total national spending on government sponsored medical research over 5 years, the results were very positive. In fact, I have a little graph here. From the spring of 1998 through the spring of 1999 the people who supported this doubling rose from 60 percent in the spring of 1998. In the summer of 1998 it went to 63 percent. In the spring of 1999 it went to 68 percent. So it is pretty conclusive when you talk to people in Florida how they feel about supporting or opposing a proposal to double national spending on government sponsored medical research. They overwhelmingly support it with 68 percent. When asked if Florida is a leader in medical research, the results are not quite so stellar. Thirty-six percent think Florida is a leader while 36 percent in Florida leads moderately. Seventeen percent said they do not even know, and 11 percent responded that they did not believe Florida was a leader. When I asked how important is it for Florida to be a leader in medical research, 93 percent responded that it is very, very important, and that is remarkable. I agree with my fellow Floridians, and that is why I am here tonight, and that is why I am a cosponsor and supporter of the resolution to double NIH funding. I also want to place in the Record an article by Wayne McCall who is a neighbor of mine. He is President of the National Alumni Association in which he talks all about this funding. So I would like to put this article into the Record: [From the Alumni Scope] We Can't Afford To Limit University Research Some in Florida feel that state university faculty should focus primarily on their role as teachers. They feel research is secondary--if not a complete waste of time. They argue that research, by its very nature, is successful only through inefficient and exorbitant expenditures of time, energy and money. Such a view is short sighted. Research is critical to the future of our country and the world. The majority of the world's technological and medical breakthroughs are founded on university-based research. New ideas link university scientists and scholars to businesses. Today's scientific break-through achieved through university research becomes tomorrow's miracle drug. Creative activities are an essential link in the university's mission of teaching, research and service. And, the University of Florida excels in research. In 1992, its faculty attracted more than $235 million in research contracts and grants. The College of Engineering, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences and College of Liberals Arts and Sciences won major portions, as did medical researchers in UF's Health Science Center. The health center's $57-million-per-year research program is a vital seedbed of discoveries that yields leads for improved diagnostic tests and treatments for disease. Research findings during 1992 and 1993, reported in many of the world's leading scientific journals, include potential advances for better health care for us all. For example, UF researchers have successfully restored limited limb movement in cats with spinal cord damage. A UF neuroscientist has found evidence that structural abnormalities in the brain region covering language comprehension may be linked to dyslexia. Florida scientists recently discovered a method to deliver hormones that govern communication between the brain and body cells through the blood-brain barrier to aid treatment of certain brain diseases, including Alzheimer's. Perhaps the most exciting development in the university's medical research mission is the new UF Brain Institute. An $18-million federal grant has been awarded and will be matched with other funds to construct a $58-million facility in which scientists will work to probe the mysteries of the brain. There are countless other examples of economic and consumer research, agricultural advances, discoveries in chemistry, psychology and engineering that help keep us more productive, healthier and safer. Historically, Florida has gotten more quality from its universities for less money than any other state in the country. But this accomplishment is in danger if Florida's legislative leaders continue their recent trend of failing to fund higher education adequately. Since 1989, UF alone has lost more than $50 million in state funding. By the time you read this, the 1993 legislative session may have ended, and that toll could be even higher. In a state with the fourth-largest population and the fifth-largest economy in the country, Florida's legislative leaders must protect what previous generations have built. University research is an important and worthwhile part of that investment. Wayne McCall, President, National Alumni Association. This article points out that the many success stories in the State of Florida in university based research, none is more important nor more exciting than development in the university's medical research mission than the Brain Institute that is at the University of Florida in which scientists will work to search out the entire mysteries of the brain. So, my colleague from Pennsylvania is doing yeoman service here in his effort to double the NIH budget, and, as he knows, I and others have been a long advocate, that the dollars we provide for research today will reap vast savings in the future, and I think that is a key to this whole solution. That is why I am also original cosponsor of the gentleman's biomedical research revitalization resolution of 1999, and I commend him for his efforts here, and I hope more of my colleagues will support him this year, in the 106th Congress. We can make an effort to accomplish this task.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I will soon be introducing an important pro-child bill, the Federal Adoption Service Act of 1999. This bill is offered as a companion bill in the House to the bill offered in the Senate by Senator Jesse Helms, S. 42. The Federal Adoption Service Act of 1999 corrects a serious omission from Title X services, adoption. Adoption has been called the ``loving option.'' It offers mothers who are using Title X services the choice of life. No woman, Mr. Speaker, should be given only partial choices by a clinic, especially a federally funded clinic. Every woman in America should know about the option of adoption. Let me repeat. Every woman in America should know about the option of adoption. Planned Parenthood clinics have been confronted time and time again on this floor because they seem to be promoting an abortion and contraceptive agenda. The very fact that this federally funded program does not offer adoption as a choice proves the contentiousness of this program, and that is why we need this bill. Women today are increasingly pro-life. A recent survey found that 53 percent of the females that responded thought abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. This figure is up from 45 percent in 1996. We must offer these women the option of sharing life. My bill would amend Title X of the Public Health Service Act to permit federally funded planning services to provide adoption services based on the needs of the community and the ability of a clinic to offer these services. Adoption is a wonderful solution for many loving parents unable to have children and for many expectant mothers who feel incapable of providing for their child. The Federal Government should be instrumental in helping make this option available for all mothers. Congress has repeatedly shown itself to be supportive of adoption. With tax credits and Adoption Opportunity grants, we have taken the stance that adoption is a wonderful option and one that should be made easier for all. Mr. Speaker, it is unimaginable that there has never been a specific adoption provision for federally funded family planning clinics. Congress has taken an active role in encouraging the adoption of foster children, yet it overlooked the needy Title X clinics. Recently, my home State of Florida took a bold step by creating a ``Choose Life'' license plate. This plate's proceeds will go to not- for-profit agencies supporting adoption. I am proud that the organization that promoted this plate and gathered the needed petition signatures is based in my home State in Ocala, Florida. I applaud the ``Choose Life'' organization for their hard work and dedication. Thanks to their efforts, adoption agencies in Florida will benefit. My bill will not force a mother to give up her child. Nor will this bill force family planning clinics to provide adoption services. Rather, it will state that Federal policy is to allow and encourage adoption as a choice for family planning. The Federal Adoption Service Act of 1999 is a rational solution offering women another option. I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this sensible proposal.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I am greatly encouraged to see this bill, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). H.R. 1802 helps our children in need to make a smooth transition from foster home to independence. The investment we make in these young adults will have long-term positive results. I have three children of my own. I cannot imagine just because they turn 18, it does not mean that a child is ready for independence. We in the Congress have a responsibility to equip foster children who stay in foster care until they are 18, so I think the gentlewoman's bill is excellent. By helping these young people to have a more successful transition to independent adulthood, we lessen the likelihood that they will drop out of school, become unemployed, turn to crime and/or, more importantly, face homelessness again. School completion, gainful and lawful employment and safe and stable housing should not be out of the reach to young people for whom the government has taken the responsibility to raise after their family is found unable to do so. We need to treat these children as we would treat our own, for indeed, my colleagues, these are our own. These children have been through some tough situations that most of us could never understand, and for us to close a door of assistance at 18, I think, is not correct. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and provide the necessary help to these needy young adults.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I would say to my colleague from Washington (Mr. McDermott) I do not think the doctors are ever going to run to the Democratic party because they do not want to have socialized medicine. Now when it comes to education, Mr. Speaker, Republicans and Democrats have different visions. We differ on our assumptions, and that leads to very different policy choices. Democrats start with the assumption that what ails public education is more money. We need much more money. Republicans do not agree. If money were the problem, and given that Congress has increased federal spending on education every single year since 1960, the schools would long ago have improved. However, both parties agree smaller class size, better teacher training, writing, wiring classrooms for the Internet; that will improve education. But here is the main point, my colleagues. What it needs is more accountability for the money that is already spent and discipline in the classroom. Democrats believe that competition is bad and that the public school monopolies are good. Republicans do not agree. Competition produces excellence and requires, Mr. Speaker, accountability. But we do have exactly the same goal: better schools for our children.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. Let us remind our colleagues what we are voting on a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States . Madam Speaker, last night I was at a documentary over at the National Air and Space Museum; perhaps many other Members also went. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) was there, and I believe Pete Peterson, a former member, was there. The documentary was a film that took oral history from the prisoners of war who were in Vietnam, particularly Hanoi Hilton, and they took these oral histories that were given to the Air Force Academy and made them into the film, and it traced the background of the cadets, their training, these young cadets in the academies to their capture by the North Vietnamese where they were finally put into prison and they were tortured. The whole depiction in this film would bring home the point that they had a sense of honor, and all of them together decided they would not go home unless the person who was most hurt went home first, and they would not go home unless ultimately, all of them went home at the same time, and they decided that when they returned to America, they would return with honor, and nothing less, nothing more. So they were there under very difficult situations, being tortured, and at this point in their lives they had no hope perhaps of even coming home, and many of them died. But the most poignant part of the whole film is when they were told they were going to be released. They put on their uniforms that the North Vietnamese gave them and they went out to the tarmac. Down came this large plane, a C-130, and it had a big American flag. As soon as they saw that American flag, the tears were in their eyes. Once they got on board the aircraft they were all given a uniform, the uniform of their rank. And they looked at the buttons and they saw the symbol of the United States. Again, they broke down and that forced all of them to cry. What I am saying to my colleagues today, would Members want to allow these prisoners of war to come home and to see our citizens desecrating the flag in front of these very noble individuals who spent their entire lives behind a door with no knob? In fact, near the end one of the prisoners said that to him, he feels so much gratefulness and thanksgiving now that he is back in the United States, and every morning when he gets up and he realizes the doorknob is on his side, that is another day of freedom. I urge support for this House Joint Resolution 33.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, the report of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board that criticized the state of security at the Department of Energy nuclear weapons laboratories and recommending certain structural reforms was released last week. This advisory board was chaired by former Senator Warren Rudman and includes detailees from the CIA, the FBI, and the Department of Defense. The report was titled, quote, Science at Its Best, Security at Its Worst. Even though the Clinton administration has tried time and time again to pass the buck on taking responsibility for the security failures and has attempted to place the blame on previous administrations, a current administration spokesman at the White House who was intimately involved in the preparation of the report said the current administration is more culpable than any since the Department of Energy was created in 1977. The Rudman report denounces the administration for ignoring the Republican-proposed reforms at the Energy Department when it took office in 1993. Here are some of the findings from the Rudman report: One, an Energy Department employee was dead 11 months before officials realized four documents with classified and restricted data were still assigned to him. It took 45 months to fix a broken doorknob that was stuck in an open position, allowing access to sensitive nuclear information. Energy Department officials took 35 months to write a work order to replace a lock at a weapons lab facility containing sensitive nuclear information. Ordering security for mislabeled software took 24 months. No one knows how many months passed before a security audit team discovered that the main telephone frame door at a weapons lab had been forced open and the lock destroyed. And lastly, correcting a mistake that allowed secure telephone cryptographic materials to go improperly safeguarded for 51 months. But most damaging of all is the following section of the Rudman report, and let me read it: ``Never have the members of the special investigative panel witnessed a bureaucratic culture so thoroughly saturated with cynicism and disregard for authority. Never before has this panel found such a cavalier attitude towards one of the most serious responsibilities in the Federal Government, control of the design information relating to nuclear weapons. Never before has the panel found an agency with a bureaucratic insolence to dispute, delay and resist implementation of a Presidential directive on security as DOE's bureaucracy tried to do on the President's Decision Directive No. 61 that was issued in February of 1998.'' This directive mandated new counterintelligence measures at the labs, but the Advisory Board found that implementation of this directive suffered from ``bureaucratic foot-dragging and even,'' Madam Speaker, recalcitrance'' by DOE and lab officials. The report further notes that, quote, ``DOE and the weapons laboratories have a deeply rooted culture of low regard for and at times hostility to security issues, which has continually frustrated the efforts of its internal and external critics,'' end quote. The Rudman report makes two specific recommendations. The first is that the DOE's ``weapon research and stockpile management function should be placed wholly within a new semiautonomous agency within the Department of Energy that has a clear mission, streamlined bureaucracy, drastically simplified lines of authority and accountability'' and the agency's Director would report directly to the Energy Secretary. The second alternative recommendation was to create a wholly independent agency to handle the previously mentioned functions, and its Director would report directly to the President. Unfortunately, I personally do not believe that a reorganization or a shake-up of the Department of Energy and how it handles nuclear secrets will be sufficient in destroying the pervasive antiestablishment culture that exists in the Department and at the weapons lab as detailed by the Rudman report. Instead, I agree with the conclusion of the Rudman report which states that the Department of Energy is, quote, ``incapable of reforming itself, bureaucratically and culturally, in a lasting way even under an activist Secretary,'' end quote. Therefore, Madam Speaker, the only way to protect our Nation's nuclear weapons is through the abolishment of the Department of Energy itself and placing all of its offices in other Federal agencies. I believe the management of our Nation's nuclear weapons and all classified related functions of the Department of Energy should be transferred to the Department of Defense. All other nonclassified functions should be transferred to a semi-independent agency within the Department of Commerce. The bureaucratic stranglehold that has become the Department of Energy has placed our Nation's security at risk, and the only way out of effectively ending this ineptitude is through the ending of the Department of Energy.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I do so because it is almost identical to my bill, H.R. 492, which would not only grant reciprocity for current retired law enforcement officers but also to law-abiding citizens who possess a valid right to carry a permit in their home State. My home State of Florida recognized that fact and in fact in 1987 Florida reformed its gun laws to allow gun-abiding citizens familiar with firearms to carry a concealed weapon. The results as far as homicide rate dropped from 37 percent above the national average to 3 percent below. Florida is not alone. Other States with concealed carrying laws have also seen a dramatic decrease in crime. I am a strong supporter of my colleague from California's and legislation, I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment. It has my full support. I hope my colleagues will pass this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment. I do so because it is almost identical to my bill H.R. 492 which would not only grant reciprocity for current and retired law enforcement officers, but also to law-abiding citizens who possess a valid ``right to carry'' permit in their home state. The right of self defense should not be limited to state boundaries. America is blessed with a professional and committed law enforcement community, but the reality is that we are largely on our own in protecting ourselves and our families. I don't believe that Americans should forfeit their safety because they happen to be on vacation or on a business trip. My home state of Florida recognized the fact that many citizens have no recourse but to deal immediately and directly with a criminal. In 1987, Florida reformed its gun laws to allow law-abiding citizens familiar with firearms to carry a concealed weapon. The results? Florida's homicide rate dropped from 37 percent above the national average to 3 percent below the national average. Florida is not alone; other states with concealed carry laws have also seen a dramatic decrease in crime. The legislation before us today has the end goal of protecting American citizens, and this amendment contributes to that goal. I would have been pleased to cosponsor this amendment, but was unaware of its introduction until earlier today. Nonetheless, the gentleman from California has my full support and I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I believe that a quote by Papa Dallas Stewart, a former slave, captures the essence of the bill that I have introduced today when he said, ``Promise me that you are going to tell all the children my story.'' As a child, Stewart had his eyes burned out when an overseer caught him studying the alphabet. He spent his life encouraging others to never forget about the horrors of slavery. He understood that we must share the painful past in order to protect our future. Today, I introduce the North American Slavery Memorial, which is patterned after the Holocaust Museum and pays tribute to those who suffered and perished under slavery in North America. This bill will ensure that future generations grasp the injustice that occurred in North America's past so that we may never repeat it. For the sake of Papa Stewart and countless others, we must never forget the past. I encourage my colleagues to join the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and myself in cosponsoring the North American Slavery Museum bill.