Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield and let me reply to that?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me the time. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. These words were uttered some 200 years ago by George Washington. They are just as poignant today as they were then. The issue is one of national security. In other words, regardless of the rhetoric that we are going to hear, the truth of the matter is that America simply cannot afford this amendment. Here is why. Under current law, all core duties and no less than 60 percent of the annual depot maintenance workload must be performed by Federal employees. This amendment proposes elimination of this requirement so that more maintenance work can be contracted out to private firms. It sounds like a good idea. However, the 60-40 rule ensures that the Department of Defense has an in-house capability to maintain America's readiness, crucial in times of national emergency. Our security cannot depend on private companies subject to the whims of the market. This is an extremely important point, and a point that cannot be forgotten. Doing away with the 60-40 rule is a misguided proposal which could adversely affect the abilities of the Naval Aviation Depot in Jacksonville, the employer in my home district of 3,900 Floridians. I am opposed to this amendment not just because I am worried about local jobs, but as a veteran I am concerned about our national security. Mr. Chairman, here we are debating tonight an amendment offering a solution to a problem that does not exist. It sounds neat, sounds plausible, but it is wrong. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, well, here we go again. We have had this debate before and we had this amendment and we won overwhelmingly in the 104th Congress. This evening, this House is going to spend the greater part of the evening and perhaps all tomorrow talking about where are we going to spend billions and billions of dollars for defense. We will probably be covering over 50 amendments to the defense authorization bill. Some will adjust the levels up and down and will be having great debate. Mr. Chairman, the vote we take today should be made in an effort to provide our Nation with the best defense capabilities in the world. In fact, all but one vote will. What is that lone vote? Surprise, it is an abortion amendment. After overwhelmingly defeating this amendment in the 104th Congress and now putting this into law, we are faced again with this debate. I ask my colleagues tonight, does the abortion debate have any place in the authorization of billions of dollars for national defense? Of course not. Here is another question: Do they as taxpayers have any place funding facilities to provide abortions? Of course not. Abortion proponents argue that this is not an issue of taxpayer funding for abortion, that this amendment would require the woman to pay for her own abortion. Well, then, if taxpayers' dollars are not involved, where exactly would these procedures take place? If taxpayers are not involved, then this amendment would have no place in the defense authorization bill. Would it? The amendment to this bill exists because a part of what we are debating today is a funding level for the U.S. military medical facilities, precisely the place where the abortions must occur. Yes, taxpayers' dollars are very involved in this issue. Mr. Chairman, let us keep the contents of this bill dedicated to the subject at hand, to provide for a strong national defense in order to protect ourselves and our children. I oppose the Harman amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman will not allow me to pose a question to him?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I just wish to acknowledge the ongoing debate here between myself and the gentleman from Michigan. I would say to the gentleman that I think he is correct in the sense that the Supreme Court did not agree with the O'Brien case. They did not agree in this case, but we in Congress are now saying they should have agreed. The O'Brien case, United States versus O'Brien, was in 1968. Obviously, the gentleman and I both realize that men and women who are on the Supreme Court make different decisions in different periods of the American history; because we can go back and look at some of the decisions they made at the turn of the century, back in the 19th century, and today the gentleman and I would not agree. We would have unanimous opinion that we do not agree with those Supreme Court decisions. Likewise, I am sure, another 100 years from now, God bless this wonderful country still remains intact and we are all working for democracy, we will not agree. But in this case Congress has the final say-so. So all we are saying in this legislative debate today is what they said in 1968 was relevant and we think they should abide by it.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield me more time, in addition to a passing grade?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, and I say to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] that when I was on the floor earlier this morning he asked me several questions and suggested I bring back some Supreme Court cases talking about my speech, and I went back and skipped lunch to get all this information for him, so I am here to present it to him. The gentleman questioned the distinction I made between pure speech and expressive conduct. Indeed, I have been challenged; I think a couple of people asked me this question: Is there legal authority that supports such a distinction? And as I mentioned, I am pleased now this afternoon to provide the gentleman with that information. The leading Supreme Court case in this area was decided in 1968 in United States versus O'Brien. The Court upheld against a first amendment challenge the conviction of someone who burned his draft card. The Court sustained his conviction on the basis that there was indeed a constitutional difference between expressive conduct, such as burning one's draft card, maybe someone burning the flag, and pure speech in that it would be easier to uphold a statute that would regulate the former; that is, expressive conduct. In O'Brien, the Supreme Court held: We cannot accept the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled speech whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea. And I have cited the case number and the page and everything. The Court concluded that prohibiting the burning of a draft card was constitutional because it was ``an appropriately narrow means of protecting the government's substantial interests * * * and condemns only the independent, noncommunicative impact of conduct.'' So we cannot burn a draft card. We cannot burn a draft card. And we are just saying we cannot burn a flag. Let me finish. Mr. Speaker, this distinction has been accepted by a long line of Supreme Court cases, so this distinction has been accepted--now, the gentleman asked for additional Supreme Court cases, here we go--has been accepted by a long line of Supreme Court cases decided since O'Brien. Indeed, Texas versus Johnson; United States versus Eichmann. The Court applied the same test in those cases as they did in the O'Brien case. While the result they reach by a narrow margin was different than I myself would have reached, they did not question O'Brien's distinction between pure speech and expressive conduct. So I am glad that I could answer the question for the gentleman.

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman asked me a question. Can I pose a question to him?

Mr. STEARNS. We will be glad to come back here.

Mr. STEARNS. I could find another five Supreme Court decisions that would refute the gentleman's argument.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, there is also----

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is probably appropriate that I come to speak after my colleague on this side of the aisle spoke. He talks about amending the Bill of Rights, and that is not what we are doing here. He talks about protecting the first amendment. Let me point out to him that freedom of speech is not absolute. He might believe that freedom of speech is absolute, but it is not, it has never been. That is why we have on the books obscenity laws. We have on the books public decency laws. So when he talks about the freedom of speech being absolute, I do not agree with him. I would also like to say to him and to others that express his opinion, we have in this country 49 States, 11 more than the 38 needed for ratification, that have called on Congress to submit a constitutional amendment protecting the American flag against physical desecration. We would be clearly lacking in our representation of the American people if we in this body deny it. So those Members of Congress that come from those 49 States where they have asked for ratification, it is on their conscience if they vote against this. Mr. Speaker, when I think about this issue I am reminded of Theodore Roosevelt when he once said, ``There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.'' I feel that desecration of this flag is a dishonor to over 1 million men and women who have died defending this country. Our military personnel protect our country's unity, freedom, and value symbolized by the American flag. Mr. Speaker, burning the flag is not a method of speech or expression. It is a measure, a clear measure of hatred for our country. Our flag represents America's past, its present, its struggle and, of course, its promise for a great future. As an American, I cannot accept the Supreme Court's decision which allows the American flag to be set on fire, spit upon, trampled as a form of political expression protected by the Constitution. That is where the problem many of us have is, where the Supreme Court is allowing people to set it on fire, to spit upon it, and trample it as political expression. For more than two centuries Old Glory has exemplified the ideals our Nation was founded upon, including its constitutional rights. I remain an ardent supporter of the first amendment; however, I feel strongly that this freedom should not be an excuse for the scornful action of flag desecration. Burning the flag is not simply an expression of personal opinion. Mr. Speaker, it is an act of violence, an act of violence against a national symbol which represents the intangible spirit of liberty. Again, I say to my colleagues, the freedom of speech is not absolute. The need for a flag protection amendment is a commonsense issue that resonates throughout this country. A vote for this amendment will put a stop to the erosion of decency and mutual respect facing our Nation. Americans do not see it as a partisan or an ideology issue, and neither should we. Mr. Speaker, I would conclude by pointing out and reminding my colleagues if 49 States, 11 more than needed in the 38 for ratification, have called upon Congress to submit a congressional amendment protecting the American flag against physical desecration, why do not we?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a substantive piece of legislation regarding the duopoly rules of broadcast ownership under the current law. In the historic Telecommunications Act that was introduced in 1995, the Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives included provisions in its version of the act that would have allowed ownership of two broadcast stations in a local market. The members of the House Commerce Committee who supported duopoly reform believed that allowing one person or entity to own two such stations would not have a negative effect on local communities, but would in fact promote programming diversity and would strengthen local broadcast owners who could not operate their businesses in a way that provided the best programming services to their local communities. Unfortunately, our efforts were not agreed to by our Senate colleagues and the duopoly provisions were not a part of the final conference report to the Telecommunications Act, which was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. In order to rectify this situation, I have introduced this legislation to provide for real duopoly reform. The heart of the legislation would allow a person or company to own two stations in a local market, but one would have to be a UHF station. Therefore, such an entity could own two UHF stations or a VHF-UHF combination. Notwithstanding, however, the FCC still would have an override of that duopoly condition if they significantly harm diversity in their opinion. This bill also would allow the FCC, under unusual and compelling circumstance, to allow a person or company to own two VHF stations. Relaxation of the duopoly rule will mean more local programming in the market, more news, more sports, and more children's programming. This change is necessary to ensure that free, over-the-air television continues in a multichannel world. The communications marketplace today is vastly different than when the television local ownership rule was last examined in 1964. Since that time, there has been a substantial increase in the number of broadcast television stations and phenomenal growth in other video technology and outlets, including cable, DBS, wireless cable, and Internet broadcast. There are now more voices in every market, and more competition for viewers and advertising dollars with these additional players. The competition for advertising dollars has been particularly formidable as cable systems increasingly cluster themselves over entire local markets, thus enabling them to offer advertisers the same buy as local broadcasters. The sheer abundance of media outlets now available to consumers ensures that a relaxation of the duopoly rule to permit UHF-UHF and UHF-VHF combinations poses no threat to diversity and competition. Indeed, a revision of the duopoly rule will help preserve diversity and competition in local broadcasting markets. Whether it is providing critical emergency information, as in the case of the recent North Dakota floods, or covering local sports teams, or reporting the local news, local stations serve a unique and vital role in their communities, all at no cost to the viewing public. But local programming is very expensive to produce. Duopoly rule revision will give stations flexibility to pool resources and provide more quality programs for their communities. At the same time, wireless broadcasters and Internet providers will still be competing with these broadcasters for consumers. I strongly believe that this is good legislation, especially in light of the dramatic ownership changes already taking place in the field of telecommunications. Considering the Bell Atlantic-NYNEX merger, the MCI-BT announced merger, and the proposed AT&T-SBC merger, we are seeing clear consolidation in telephony. There is also multichannel ownership in cable services and cross-cable services, such as Viacom owning MTV, Nickelodeon, and other stations, as well as ABC owning 80 percent of ESPN. The banning of ownership of two local broadcast stations is a glaring deficiency and unfair result of the Telecommunications Act. The multiple current instances in the industry of Local Marketing Agreements [LMA's], which allows two local broadcast stations to combine efforts and financial relationships in order to improve their stations' programming ability, reflect that such duopoly ownership could actually promote diversity in programming, as well as saving numerous local stations from bankruptcy enhancing the limited financial resources of many stations. I am proud to sponsor this legislation and I look forward to the Federal Communications Commission supporting my legislation on duopoly reform through its forthcoming rulemaking on this issue.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, a former colleague, Congressman Tom Evans has captured the essence of horseracing in America. I'm pleased to make this part of the Record because of its significance. [From the Daily Racing Form, June 7, 1997] Captain Bodgit Gave This Owner Thrill of a Lifetime (By Thomas B. Evans Jr.) ``My Old Kentucky Home,'' so symbolic of all that the Kentucky Derby represents, was a song I had always loved to sing on many trips to Louisville the first Saturday in May. This year it was even more special, but I could only finish the first few lines. I'm sure it was in part because it's so unlikely that I would ever again have the chance to sing it as an owner, albeit only a small percentage one, of a wonderful horse like Captain Bodgit. The shared excitement and joy felt by the many owners of Captain Bodgit was contagious and added to his increasing popularity and to the excitement of the moment. As I glanced at the tote board indicating the odds, the Captain was clearly the favorite of the majority at Churchill Downs as well. I was aware of the crowd, and through tears, also of the many people offering encouragement and good luck. However, my thoughts were of the sacrifice, the discipline and hard work that it took to get to the Kentucky Derby. I thought of the young trainer. Gary Capuano, I was standing behind, and Captain Bodgit's grooms, and exercise rider. Sammy Davis, all of whom cared so much about Captain Bodgit. I thought of the passion with which the Captain approached his races and his workouts and the marvelous example that sets for everyone. Years of going to the races and enjoying many great times at Derbys past could never prepare you for this incredible moment played out in two electrifying minutes in arguably the greatest classic in American sports. From my own perspective, the anxiety that accompanies political campaigning cannot compare with the anxiety you feel in the days, hours and minutes leading up to the Kentucky Derby. I thought of so much in those few minutes before the race, including the marvelous support of racing fans, friends and family, and some of my former colleagues in Congress--all of whom I knew were rooting for Captain Bodgit. I thought of my mother and father and the many fun times we had at Delaware Park. As the starting gate opened, the exhilaration and rush of adrenalin I felt were almost beyond comparison. The stirring stretch drives of the Captain and the courage he displayed along with Free House and Silver Charm will forever be etched in my mind. Taking nothing away from any of the other horses, and especially Silver Charm and Free House, I will always believe in my heart that our horse could have won both races with any degree of racing luck. Being forced to change leads in the stretch robbed him of his momentum in the Derby, and still, he lost by only a head. Drawing a post position in the Preakness next to a very nervous and fractious horse did not help his start in that race. Starting from 13 lengths behind at Pimlico is difficult to make up, especially on a track that was not kind to closers. All day long, the track favored speed; therefore Captain Bodgit's sensational close at the end to lose by only a neck was all the more remarkable. The courage he displayed in the last 70 yards of the Preakness was truly unbelievable, and without detracting from the superb talents of Silver Charm, Free House or Touch Gold, I believe the Belmont at a mile and a half was Captain Bodgit's race. Sadly and unfortunately, we will never know. Out dreams were shattered when word came of Captain Bodgit's injury, which was probably caused by his all-out desire to win in Baltimore. Although the news was bad, I believe most all of us feel that we are indeed fortunate to have had such a marvelous experience. Although I had dreamed of owning a horse in Kentucky Derby, I never thought it would happen. I will always be thankful of the thrill of owning even a small part of such a wonderful horse. These great 3-year-olds produced sensational racing and thrilled millions on television. In the process, they have done a lot of thoroughbred racing, which adds so much to so many communities in the United States. From a purely practical standpoint, thoroughbred racing accounts for hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions in revenue, not to mention the great enjoyment it brings to so many. It is sad about Captain Bodgit's injury, but a friend and avid racegoer put it in perspective for me when he said, ``Just think, Captain Bodgit will have a new girlfriend every day.'' I only hope that his offspring will be bred here in America. That way we can look forward to seeing young Captain Bodgit giving us some of the same thrills and displaying the same stamina and courage and the great Captain did for all too short a time.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, recently in my district a celebration was held for Cecil Clark of Leesburg, FL on the 25th anniversary of Cecil Clark Chevrolet. I appreciate this opportunity to congratulate Cecil for a quarter century of service to our community. Fifty years ago Cecil Clark sold his first Chevrolet, along with his first Frigidaire appliance. In 1972, he opened up his own car dealership--Cecil Clark Chevrolet. Over the last 25 years he has sold 25,000 new cars and trucks, and he has sold over 40,000 used vehicles. His wife Jackie has shared his vision for almost 50 years and has worked with him at his dealership. Now, his son Greg has assumed responsibilities for the dealership as co-owner, and Mr. Clark's daughter, Cindy Clark Brooker, opened her own dealership last year in Wildwood, FL. Our society is a mobile society, and we are dependent on automobiles. Cecil Clark and his family have been essential in meeting the needs of thousands of people in my district. Congratulations, Cecil, and my best wishes to you and your family.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, with that assurance from the chairman, that is as good as gold. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, this is a question I think that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] mentioned. I think there were three of us that have amendments from last night. We have been sitting on pins and needles hoping that we could vote on these. We thought these three amendments would be voted on before the Campbell amendment and the Smith amendment. Now they have not. At this point we still are not clear when our three amendments would be voted on. I would just like to urge on behalf of my colleagues that we vote on them today. If we do not vote on them and adjourn for next week, then the debate is lost for all the time we spent yesterday evening when we were here until 8:30 talking about this. I will not object, but I would like the chairman, if he could, just to clarify again for me and for the other Members, when will we expect a vote on those 3 amendments?

Mr. STEARNS. I will not object but I do protest that, that we are delaying them that much. Second, it is very difficult for the Members that have these amendments to sit around their office and try and find out what is going on and then if they do not come down, the way we structured this, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, is that if we do not show up these amendments will not even be voted on. Could the Speaker clarify that for me?

Mr. STEARNS. What this means is that we would have to stand and say there is a quorum not present, Mr. Speaker, and pending that, a quorum not being present, we request a quorum before we get a recorded vote, and then pending the quorum, then we would go ahead with the procedure asking for a recorded vote? Is that what we would have to do?

Mr. STEARNS. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. STEARNS. But even though it has been requested, if the Member who has the amendment, if he or she is not here on the floor at the rostrum, as I understand, that amendment will not be voted on because it was presented in a manner that it has to be presented by the Member again. Could the Chair clarify that? I was not clear on that last night.

Mr. STEARNS. The difficulty with that is last night we were here, we asked for a recorded vote, the assumption we had is we would get a recorded vote. Now the Chair is saying we will not get a recorded vote unless we are here.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I want to make my colleagues aware of a crisis existing in the middle district of Florida. The current Federal case load is one of the worst in the country. The population continues to increase. If no additional judgeships are approved, by 2005 there will be only one-third of the State's Federal judges assigned to two- thirds of the State's population. As case loads increase, current judges cannot simply shoulder the additional burden. By failing to create additional positions, we are producing a backlog of cases, increasing legal costs for citizens and undermining the Federal courts. Lately much attention has been focused on getting tough on crime. We must remember the only path from indictment to incarceration is through the judiciary. It must receive adequate resources, otherwise the process is brought to an absolute standstill. Only judges can exercise judicial power. There is no substitute. I urge my colleagues to fill and fund these vacancies and provide much needed help to judges, not only in Florida but across this Nation.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I heard the comments on that side of the aisle, and I would say to my good friend from Connecticut and the gentlewoman from New York, if we knocked on the door of the people who live in Danbury, CT, in Torrington, CT and in Hartford and we said to them, we want to tax you and take the dollars that you are paying for your automobiles and dollars you are paying for your food and we want to send them over, as the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] would like to do, to Egypt, we are sending them over to Egypt to a group that is involved with family planning. What do you think the people of Westchester and Armonk, New York and Torrington and Danbury and Hartford would say. Get a life. They would not say, here are my dollars, run over to Egypt and give them to a family planning organization. How ridiculous. They would say no, I want to keep my dollars here. Then we would say, well, we are going to put in a very strict accounting mechanism that is going to say, wait a second, these dollars will not be used for abortion, they will only be used for the health and welfare of the child and the mother. They would say, well, maybe, just maybe, but by and large every one of the people in Torrington and Hartford and Armonk and Westchester County would say, you know what? I would like to keep my tax dollars here. We are talking about taxpayers money. We are talking about people who pay taxes. My colleagues on the other side want to send this money way over to these countries and let these people use it for anything they want. And the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] here, all he is saying is, I want to put a mechanism in place to protect the taxpayer. Good Lord. Let us support the taxpayers and support the Smith amendment. Mr. Chairman, since his first days in office, President Clinton has pushed for abortion on demand, both domestically and abroad. His policies undermine the laws of several foreign countries where abortion is illegal, particularly in Africa and parts of Latin America. With his repeal of the Mexico City policy in 1993, President Clinton has granted United States funds to organizations heavily involved in promoting both the legalization and provisions of abortion in foreign nations. Supporters of worldwide family planning legislation say that this vote has nothing to do with abortion, but everything to do with family planning. We must understand that abortion is a central element to what many countries consider family planning. Whether or not U.S. funds pay for the actual abortions themselves, nothing is preventing pro-abortion organizations from spending more of their own money on abortion when U.S. funds are there to fill the caps. Congress must assure that international population assistance dollars will not support organizations which perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning. Representative Smith's amendment assures the American taxpayers that their money will not fund any program which not only performs abortions but attempts to change abortion laws in other countries. This amendment reinstates the Mexico City restrictions on international family planning by prohibiting United States funding to any organization that directly or indirectly performs abortions in a foreign country. Furthermore, this amendment will prevent the United States Government from funding any aspect of China's horrific population control programs. United States policy must stand against China's brutal policies toward its women and baby girls. But we don't have a chance of succeeding until we stop pouring money into programs that force abortions and sterilizations without consent. Thomas Jefferson once said, ``The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.'' I share this commitment to actively support legislation that sustains the Federal Government's traditional goals in family planning. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support Representative Smith's amendment which will restore the program's original purpose--promoting family planning, not abortion.