Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, why does not the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and many of the gentleman's other colleagues come on the House floor and say they do not support the Clinton budget?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the budget resolution. This budget says to the American people, ``We think you are taxed too much.'' Since 1981, under Democrat control, we have had 19 separate tax increases. We think the economy is growing much too slowly. We know that slow growth coupled with enormous tax rates will leave our children with a lifetime tax rate of 80 percent just to pay interest on the debt. Why is a balanced budget so important? Americans will have more take- home pay because our budget includes a $500-per-child tax credit and a reduction in the capital gains tax which would stimulate economic growth. We also have true welfare reform, which is the No. 1 priority of most Americans. On the present course our children and their children will be left with immense debts and a tax bill of $180,000 a year just to pay the interest on the debt. That is why we cannot buckle in the face of adversity. We must stick to our principles. The President's plan has given the American people a tax increase of $241 billion and a deficit that will increase dramatically after the year 1997. In other words, slow growth, high taxes, and weak economic growth will continue unless we stick to our principles. Our country needs to go in a new direction. We must cut taxes and cut spending. Currently future generations will have to deal with this soaring debt and these high taxes. Let us pass this budget.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, last year, after a long and passionate debate, the United States joined the World Trade Organization. The WTO, as it is known, is an international body based in Geneva with 120 nation members. In simple terms, the WTO is the police force of international commerce and trade, a mechanism for enforcement of the world's trade laws. Supporters of the WTO promoted entry as a means toward a fair and free trade policy. It was, they argued, a way for the United States to knock down other nation's protectionist trade barriers. Opponents, who came from all political spectrums, foresaw a different world. Citizen's groups predicted a situation where other countries would pressure the WTO into weakening America's world-leading environmental, health, and safety laws. Economists warned that the WTO would penalize the forward-looking United States to the advantage of the mercantilist nations of East Asia and of the European Union. Nationalists were terrified of an organization that held the United States as equal to the other 120 member nations, for we would have no veto power, despite our obvious stature. Many of us in Congress worked diligently to defeat the ill-advised entry into this Organization. I believed then, and still maintain, that our sovereignty is endangered by our membership in the WTO. Simply put, we are not equal to other nations. We have the world's most powerful econony, the world's most desirable markets, and the world's most advanced and forward-looking environmental, health, and safety laws. In other words, we have the most to lose. Entry into the WTO made no sense to us; we saw it as a means toward the demise of our sovereignty, the weakening of our standards and laws, and as a means toward the subversion of our already precarious trading position. Unfortunately for all Americans, we were right. The WTO handed down its first decision in January, and guess who came out the loser? If you said the United States, you're right. The case, which was brought against the United States by Venezuela and Brazil, challenged a 1993 EPA rule on gasoline standards. Specifically, the rule required America's dirtiest cities to improve their gasoline by 15 percent over 1990 levels. The two plaintiffs argued that this rule put their fuel at unfair disadvantage, that they would be held to higher standards than domestic producers because they didn't have adequate 1990 data. The case was decided by a panel of three trade experts from Finland, Hong Kong, and New Zealand, who unanimously ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The WTO ruling granted America three choices as retribution: First, we can change the EPA rule and let in dirtier gasoline; second, we can keep the regulation in place and face $150 million in annual trade sanctions, such as tariffs on U.S. exports; or third, we can negotiate the terms of the sanctions and perhaps compensate the plaintiffs with lower tariffs on their exports. Regardless of which plan we pick, we lose. U.S. oil refiners, who have invested millions of dollars to come into compliance by producing cleaner fuel and by adequately reporting their data, will be forced to compete with dirtier, cheaper gasoline imports. Of course, the worse part of the ruling is the establishment of the WTO jurisprudence over a wide array of U.S. laws. The ruling affirmed the fears of everyone who opposed America's entry into the WTO. It deemed our environmental policy too stringent; it provided two weaker nations a means to unfairly enter our market; and worst of all, the ruling undercuts our sovereignty. Our laws and policies are made through a democratic process. And although we may not always agree with the laws and rules that govern us, we at least have the benefit of representation. Obviously, through this process we hope to balance the concerns of all involved parties. We hope, ultimately, to maintain a modicum of fairness. The WTO ruling has proven to be the antithesis of the democratic process. We as a nation have been forced to comply with the decisions of a body, whose main interest seems to be the forced opening of our markets. The WTO, in their ruling, subverted our laws and our legitimate trade barriers. They determined that we as a sovereign nation have no right to bar entry into our markets, regardless of the merits and regardless of another nation's failure to meet our democratically set standards. My colleagues, this is dangerous stuff. The WTO's ruling sets a scary precedent. It sends a message to the nations of the world that U.S. policy can be thwarted, that our democratic process means nothing, and that our standards mean even less. Furthermore, the ruling puts our own industries at a disadvantage, for they must continue to play by the rules. They must continue to obey the standards and rules of production and dissemination. In the end, America is the only loser. Our involvement in this Organization creates an unfair advantage for our trading partners, who don't have to live up to the same standards as U.S. firms. It forces American businesses, who must comply with stricter standards to compete with companies from countries with weak policies and a strong entry mechanism in the WTO. As is becoming the standard with our trade policy, the WTO will ultimately force American jobs overseas and force our country to weaken our environmental and health standards. This, of course, undermines the trust of our trade policy, which should serve as a job creation mechanism and as a tool to force other countries to come into compliance with out higher standards. Our involvement in the WTO is, unfortunately, the explication of all that is wrong with our current trade policy. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I am afraid that we will continually be forced into inequitable positions by the WTO, that the Organization will serve only as a tool for other nation's to bypass our sovereignty. America is the only loser in this game, and this, my colleagues is game we can't afford to play. Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying, this first ruling by the WTO forbodes a dark future for our Nation. I ask that we reconsider our entry into the WTO.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening in strong opposition to the DeLauro-Harman-Ward amendment. Let me pose this question for the citizens that are watching on television and let me pose this question to the people here in the Chamber. Do we want to be a facilitator for abortions at taxpayers' expense at our military hospitals? That is what the whole question is. Do we want to be facilitators or do we not? I think the question is that over there, they want to facilitate abortions at taxpayers' expense in military hospitals and the majority of people on this side do not agree. It is that simple. announcement by the chairman

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by just reading a final sentence from this letter that Nobility Homes sent to me. It says, ``The employees of our subsidiary, in addition, endorse this bill as much better for the industry and for the consumer.''

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, this is a tough call, and I want to say frankly I am one of the original cosponsors of the Roemer amendment, and I support what he was doing until I had a better understanding what the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] is doing. So I say to my colleagues, let me just say how I view it: That the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] has done something here which to the manufacturing home industry in itself is perhaps something they want more than the Roemer amendment, but the Roemer amendment has a chance in the sense there is a lot of consensus, a lot of people that favor it up here in Washington. In the beltway a lot of people think this is the best thing to do. But if my colleagues go back to my home congressional district, in fact if they go back to Nobility Home and they talk to Terry Trexler, who is the president of this company who has struggled in the trenches with this regulation and has dealt with this for years, he says he would rather have the McIntosh amendment than the Roemer amendment. So what we have here basically is we have an amendment which will affect the people who are working in the industry better than the Romer amendment, so I say to my colleagues reluctantly I would like them to support the McIntosh amendment. I think it is a better thing to do, and I think overall that this will bring a little bit more sense to the industry, and in fact this is something on the Senate side, as I understand, and I might have a colloquy with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] if I could get his attention. I would ask the gentleman from Indiana, if I can take a moment, can he tell me on the Senate side what kind of bill they have? Does it closely parallel the gentleman's or the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Roemer's?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the question today is who drove up the price of gasoline. In May 1993 the Federal gasoline tax was raised 18.3 cents a gallon. That vote marked the third time in just over a decade that Congress increased the tax. Since December 1982, the Federal levy on gasoline has exploded 357 percent, even as the price of gasoline has trended steadily downward. Mr. Speaker, inventories were down because of the unusually long winter, a fire in California closed a Shell oil refinery, and Saddam Hussein's stubbornness in keeping 500,000 barrels a day of Iraqi crude oil have caused the price to go up. But who in fact drove the price of gasoline up? I submit that Congress under Democrat control did by raising the gasoline tax. It is pretty clear who the people in collusion are. It is the people here in the Federal Government. The Federal gasoline tax was hiked in 1983. It has been hiked ever since, and we need to understand that the Democrat- controlled Congress is at fault.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Ohio for yielding time to me. Madam Speaker, we heard the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] say, do not give me anecdotal information. Remember when he said that? What in a sense he is saying is, do not give me the facts. The speaker before me said that this program is not working. We have here for the first time a program that is going to work. That is why I support the rule. I would like to commend all those who are involved for all the hard work they have done on this bill. I think it is now important that we pass this rule and move on to this legislation. It will bring stability into the lives of almost 500,000 children who are currently in the foster care system waiting to be adopted, waiting for a family. When children needlessly languish in foster homes and close to 2 million couples are desperately seeking to adopt, it is clearly apparent that the current adoption system is not working, and clearly, the current system ignores the best interests of the children. By implementing the simple changes we have in this bill, we will provide children with loving parents, a healthy home environment, and something that every child needs and deserves. Madam Speaker, let us enable couples to create secure American families by easing the burdensome costs and complex regulations now associated with the option. I think this clearly does it with this bill. We all know that the American family is the backbone of our Nation, so we should encourage the creation of American families, not impede them. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I also want to participate in this commemoration to our good colleague, Sam Gibbons, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Brown, my colleague, for setting aside this time to do this. Mr. Speaker, it came as a surprise when Sam Gibbons announced his plans to retire from Congress at the end of this year. Sam Gibbons' name has become synonymous with Florida politics. He has represented the Tampa area for the past 44 years, first venturing into politics as a State representative and then the State senate. He was sworn into Congress during the Kennedy administration and for the past 34 years has represented Tampa in the House of Representatives. When I first heard about Sam's plans to retire, I couldn't help but recall the 50th anniversary D-day invasion ceremonies that I had the privilege of attending and to which Sam Gibbons was appointed as a special representative, by President Clinton. It was indeed fitting that Mr. Gibbons was specially designated as the President's representative. Sam has a long and distinguished career in service to his country. A decorated World War II veteran, he showed extreme bravery by parachuting into Normandy the night before D-day and then made his way behind enemy lines during the Normandy invasion. After the war he returned to Florida and commenced his law practice. He then began a political career that spanned several decades. Although we have not always agreed politically, I believe Sam has served his constituents well and has worked tirelessly as a champion on their behalf. Sam has long been considered a leader and supporter of free trade which he attributes to his experience during the war. Sam has often been heard to say: ``I believe fundamentally, people who trade together and work together do not fight.'' As a fellow Floridian, I can assure you, Sam, that you will be missed. Your spirit and energetic nature have set you apart and truly demonstrate your commitment and willingness to fight for your convictions. Leaving can sometimes be difficult, but you leave knowing that you gave it all you've got and then some. Perhaps, now you will be able to find time for another great passion in life--arranging a tee time will now be a little easier. I wish you well in the future and I venture to say that whatever you do you will do with great passion and gusto.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in 1943 Congress passed the withholding tax law. This painless collection method was described by one Senator as the best way to ``get the greatest amount of money with the least amount of squawks.'' Unfortunately for us all, he was right. In fact, a recent poll showed that 54 percent of America's taxpayers have no idea how much of their income is withheld. It is the ultimate hidden tax, the best way to obscure the truth about taxes and the best way to obscure the cost of governing. I want Americans to see what their Government costs. So I've introduced legislation that would allow workers to pay their taxes monthly, writing a check to the IRS just like they pay their mortgages, their car payments, and their rents. In this way, taxpayers could see how much the Government is taking from their paychecks and how expensive their Government is. They would be able to determine for themselves whether or not they are getting their money's worth. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation, which simply lets the taxpayers see how much their Government really costs.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this environmentally sound legislation. Through its comprehensive collection, education, and recycling programs, the Mercury-containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act will effectively reduce the presence of mercury, cadmium, and other metals from batteries in the solid waste stream. The use of as many as 2.5 billion dry cells every year has made significant contributions to the high levels of mercury and cadmium in the solid waste stream. As dry cell batteries break down, their toxic contents are released into groundwater resources. In incinerators, toxins are emitted through the combustion of these dry-cell batteries. Through industry's collaboration with the EPA, State and local governments, retailers, and the recycling industry, a voluntary recycling program for nickel- cadmium batteries has been developed. The final step toward implementation of this program will be completed by passing this legislation today. Two important provisions in this legislation establish uniform labeling procedures, and uniform collection, storage, and transportation requirements for these recyclable batteries. The labeling requirement will clearly inform those who buy the batteries that they are recyclable. The transportation requirements are streamlined, providing further encouragement for participation in this voluntary program. The recycling program will promote the shipment of used batteries to a central recycling center, keeping them out of our local landfills and incinerators. The battery industry strongly supports this program, as well as the American people. At no cost to the Federal Government, we have the opportunity to efficiently and swiftly put these recycling programs into action. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this legislation which takes a positive step in working for the common goal of preserving the environment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, whenever you follow the good Representative from Massachusetts, you want to spend your time replying to some of his preposterous arguments. I submit on this House floor that disrespect to democracy has been greatest with the $5 trillion debt, and what we need to do is bring that debt down. We have had so many taxes on this House floor with 40 years of Democrat rule that we have not had the opportunity to control this budget, and now we do with this great House joint resolution.

Mr. STEARNS. I will not yield. Let me just say that going back 220 years, our Founding Fathers had the foresight to mandate a two-thirds majority vote on certain priority issues. This is something not brand new we are bringing to the Congress here in April 1996. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison and John Jay would be turning over in their graves if they saw that we had a $5 trillion debt in this country. James Madison, a vocal supporter of majority rule, argued that the greatest threat to liberty in a republic came from unrestrained majority rule, and that is why they proposed two-thirds majority for conviction in impeachment trials, expulsion of a Member of Congress, override a Presidential veto, quorum of two-thirds of the States to elect a President, consent to a treaty, proposing constitutional amendments. There were seven of these that were already in the Constitution when they wrote the document, and since then three more. I submit that to prevent any further debt, we must pass this resolution.

Mr. STEARNS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STEARNS. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I just rise in support of the rule. It is a long time in coming on this product liability. I know many of us were on what is called the old subcommittee on competitiveness in which we had an opportunity to have hearings on this, and this has been part of the Republican contract for America. But, more importantly, it has been an agenda which both Democrats and Republicans have had bipartisan support for. This support goes back to the 103d Congress where I had the opportunity to be the ranking member with the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins]. She and I passed a product liability bill out of our subcommittee which had bipartisan support. So I am in strong support of this rule, and I hope the bill will pass overwhelmingly.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the conference report, and I was very glad to hear that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], who is the former chairman of the Committee on Commerce, supports the bill. Also I want to recognize Victor Schwarz for all his long-term work on this project. For almost two decades, Congress has been struggling to interject common sense into our product liability laws. I want to commend the conferees for their success in bringing balance and reasonableness to our legal system. Everyone has heard justice delayed is justice denied. Well, this legislation ensures legitimate plaintiffs finally have their day in court by ending the frivolous lawsuits that needlessly tie up our judicial system. Mr. Speaker, these lawsuits have effectively prohibited individuals from pursuing legitimate grievances through the judicial system due to the fact that the dockets are overcrowded with meritless lawsuits. There are studies that indicate that fully half of the costs of our tort system are consumed in legal fees and expenses, while only one quarter goes to compensate actual economic losses. Attorneys are primarily the ones benefiting under the current system. This legislation encourages settlements out of court, thereby getting lawyers out of the way. I urge all of my colleagues to support this conference report that emphasizes fairness and individual accountability while maintaining an injured party's fundamental right to restitution.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Archer/Bliley bill because I believe the issue of genetic privacy is of tremendous importance. I introduced H.R. 2690, the Genetic Privacy and Nondiscrimination Act of 1995. My bill would ban discrimination based on a person's genetic profile. I wish to acknowledge my colleague and good friend Representative Joe Kennedy who is helping me on the other side of the aisle. He and I are working together on this bill. With new forms of genetic testing able to reveal an individual's likelihood of contracting a number of diseases, the possibility arises that employers and health insurers could use that information to discriminate. This is a civil rights issue. People who are already at risk due to their genetic makeup shouldn't have to worry about the additional hardship of losing their job or health insurance. Like a companion bill introduced by Senators Mark Hatfield and Connie Mack, H.R. 2690 would also ban the disclosure of genetic information by anyone without the written authorization of the individual. This safeguard would protect the privacy of individuals who would rather their genetic information be kept private. I am pleased that I was able to add a portion of my bill to the Archer-Bliley bill. Genetic testing has proved effective in certain cases, and it can be argued that the detection of a gene or a certain genetic characteristic will not necessarily result in the onset of a particular illness. So, we have an ambiguity here. We have an opportunity where somebody could have a defect which somebody would interpret different ways which would prevent them from having good health care insurance. Genetic testing is moving along, as we all know, and it raises many ethical and legal and social questions relating to access to genetic testing, insurability and employability, and we need to make this confidential. The purpose of the Genetic Privacy Act, which I have provided, is to establish some guidelines concerning disclosure and use of genetic information with the goal of balancing the rights of the individuals against the needs of society.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. The legislation we will vote on today addressed the most fundamental and important issues that currently prevent a large majority of the uninsured from accessing the health care system. What do Americans want from Health Care Reform? They want health care reform that ensures portability, controls costs, and expands access. If we are to have true health care reform, we must include malpractice reforms, medical savings accounts, increases in tax deduction for health insurance for self-employed individuals, provisions to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, and administrative reforms. Without providing such necessary relief, we will not succeed in bringing down the costs associated with delivering health care. Passage of this bill will benefit all Americans, especially the 39 million who lack any type of health coverage. These individuals must live in constant fear of becoming sick and not having the necessary insurance to meet their medical needs. Lastly, I am particularly pleased that my suggestion to include ``genetic information'' in the definition of health status was agreed to and made part of the final package. I believe by doing so we have enhanced and made it an even better piece of legislation. I will have more to say about this in the next period of debate.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this legislation to raise the debt ceiling because I do not believe we can allow our Government to go into default. To do otherwise would wreak havoc on our Nation's good standing and would result in Social Security and Veterans benefits from being sent out. It is difficult to take this action but I can tell you that because of this Congress' vigilance we have already saved approximately $23 billion in spending over the past year. This is a very good start on the road to achieving a balanced budget. There are two provisions in particular that are included in this measure that allow me to vote in favor of H.R. 3136. We provide the means to give the President the line-item veto. President Reagan asked Congress over and over again--``Give me the line-item veto.'' If only Congress had given him this mechanism for fiscal discipline, we wouldn't have these huge debts which, if not reduced, threaten to crush the next generation with huge taxes and a diminished quality of life. Today we have been given a rare opportunity to enact legislation that will accomplish this. My other chief reason for voting for this bill is that it contains an increase in the earnings limit for those age 65 to 69 to $30,000 by the year 2002. Currently, a working senior who reaches $11,280 in earned income loses $1 in Social Security for each $3 earned thereafter. That's a marginal tax rate of 33 percent. That's a high price for merely wanting to work. The earnings test limit is unjust. It treats Social Security benefits less like a pension and more like welfare. It represents a Social Security bias in favor of unearned income over earned income. It is effectively a mandatory retirement mechanism our country no longer accepts or needs. It precludes greater flexibility for the elderly worker and also prevents America's full use of eager, experienced and educated elderly workers. Finally, it deprives the U.S. economy of the additional income tax which would be generated by the elderly workers. Let's pass this bill today so that we can get America back on the right track.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, should an insurance company be able to deny children medical coverage because their mother died of an inherited heart defect that her children may or may not carry? That is the dilemma facing a California father who cannot get family medical coverage under his group plan as a result of his wife's death. And that is a dilemma crying out for congressional intervention. Scientific knowledge of the secrets hidden deep inside our genes is advancing at an unbelievable rate. It seems that we learn of a new genetic discovery on a weekly basis. But, as researchers find the genetic mutations that cause specific diseases or that appear to cause a genetic predisposition to specific diseases, a host of ethical, legal, and social complications arise that will take our greatest efforts to resolve. The human genome project is a 15-year, multinational research effort to read and understand the chemical formula that creates each of the 80,000 to 100,000 human genes. If spelled out using the first 4 letters of the 4 chemicals that make up DNA, that formula would fill one- thousand 1,000 page telephone books, representing 3 billion bits of information. Often, just a single letter out of place is enough to cause disease. We cannot read this entire genetic script yet, but advances in science indicate that we will be able to soon. In fact, although the project is scheduled for completion in 2005, at its current pace, many experts believe it will be done before then. That means that we need to begin making some very difficult public-policy decisions, now, before those decisions are made by self-interested parties. Senators Mack and Hatfield introduced legislation in the Senate on this issue and I have submitted the companion bill, H.R. 2690, the Genetic Privacy and Nondiscrimination Act, in the House. This measure will establish guidelines concerning the disclosure and use of genetic information and protect the health privacy of the American people. Genetic information must not be used--misused--to deny access to health insurance. This bill will not only safeguard health privacy and help preserve insurance coverage, it will also remove potential barriers to genetic testing. Eliminating the concern about reprisals by insurance companies will facilitate more effective use of genetic tests as they are developed and, therefore, promote cures and treatments. This will sustain the global leadership of the biomedical research industry in the United States. However, if you can lose your health insurance because your genes show that some day you might require that insurance, clinical trials will become impossible to conduct and new treatments and cures may not be developed. Consequently, it is important to have this protection, which will ultimately lead to improved health care for all Americans. Congress is moving rapidly now on legislation to reform the American health insurance system. It is likely that a bill could pass the House this month and the Senate next month. A conference agreement between the House and Senate could put the bill on the President's desk well before this Congress adjourns. The House bill is H.R. 3070, the Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act of 1996. Sponsored by Congressman Michael Bilirakis, this measure is a well-thought-out piece of legislation, and I am proud to be a cosponsor. The bill prohibits denying insurance coverage to an employee or beneficiary on the basis of health status, which is defined as an individual's ``medical condition, claims experience, receipt of health care, medical history, evidence of insurability, or disability.'' Fortunately, I was able to add two simple words to this list under health status--``genetic information.'' As medical science discovers what secrets our genes carry, the potential misuse of that information, whether through insurance or some other venue, becomes an ever- increasing possibility. It is imperative that the strongest possible statutory protections exist against applying this information toward genetic discrimination. In the future, these discoveries of genetic information could lead to employment discrimination. That is why we need to conduct hearings on my bill and to pass the rest of this important legislation. Discoveries of genetic information could be the civil rights battle of the next century. These two words make a good piece of legislation better, and I hope this language remains in the final health care bill. It is vital to ensure that all Americans, like those two little boys in California, do not have to go without health insurance because of a misspelling in a genetic script that they could not control and did not choose. Mr. Speaker, I might point out that similar efforts have been made in some 20 States, including Florida, and they have either enacted or are studying laws that would limit the use of genetic information by insurance companies. According to the Council for Responsible Genetics, a nonprofit group that monitors social issues in biotechnology, a genetic underclass is being created by employers and insurers who use genetic tests to deny coverage or jobs.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding me time. Let me ask my colleagues, how many gun control laws are on the books? Twenty thousand? Twenty thousand are on the books. And where are most of those laws applying? Washington, DC. You know, it is appropriate when my colleague from Georgia talked about the Washington Post. There was an article today that got my attention that showed crime has increased in Washington, DC, since 1995, 14 percent. A Lieutenant Duckett there, president of the Black Police Caucus, said gun control has not worked in Washington, DC. The only people who have guns are the criminals. Washington, DC, is often referred to as ``the crime capital of the country.'' Guess what folks? DC has one of the strictest gun control laws in the entire country. In fact, Lt. Lowell K. Duckett, president of the Black Police Caucus said citizens are right to arm themselves. He also said ``Gun control has not worked in DC. The only people who have guns are the criminals.'' Lieutenant Duckett further stated, ``DC has one of the strictest gun laws in the Nation,'' it also has one of the highest murder rates. And so, criminals are armed while good, law-abiding citizens are not. In the wild west at least both sides were armed. Now, criminals are armed and dangerous--citizens are the one's living in a prison-like atmosphere.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding employee who has worked at Munroe Regional Medical Center in my home town of Ocala, FL. Munroe's longest serving employee and his name is Plato ``Buddy'' Mathis. He will be soon retiring. Mr. Buddy Mathis' loyalty and dedication to Munroe spans over 50 years. He first came to work at the hospital in 1946 as a young boy. In fact, back then he had to stand on a wooden box to perform many of his chores. Munroe Regional has seen many changes both in its physical makeup, not to mention changes in personnel. But, one thing that did not change over the years at Munroe was Buddy Mathis. He remained a constant in the lives of the people who worked in the medical center and a constant in the community. Buddy should serve as a role model to all of us. He is the exemplification of the true work ethic. He started working at Munroe when he could barely reach the counter tops without standing on a box. And through the years he moved up, performing a variety of duties, including putting away stock and gathering vegetables from a small garden on the north side of the building. He also assisted fellow employees such as Felicia Stevens--head cook--Mrs. Annie Lee Stroud, and Mrs. Luella Strupp, among others. In 1951, he joined the military to serve in the Korean war and served for several years. After the war, he returned to Munroe as a cook and was also in charge of inventory. He then attended night school under the GI bill and finished his education. During the last 10 years, he and Jim Ruth have worked as a team, running the dietary department. Buddy has seen many changes take place in the building and operations of the hospital. Everybody who has or is still working at the hospital loved working with Buddy and I'm sure they will all hate to see him go. Buddy is respected by all. I am pleased to be able to join with his many, many friends and colleagues in paying tribute to Plato ``Buddy'' Mathis for his hard work through the years and his kindness and generosity over the years. I sincerely wish him the best in his retirement and congratulate him on his outstanding service to my hometown hospital, Munroe Regional Medical Center.