Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 387 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) for his courageous stand, and his desire to ask for the Almighty's blessings on this country again and again. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Bernard A. Schriever, United States Air Force (retired), for his dedication and service to the United States Air Force, for his essential service in the development of the United States ballistic missile program, and for his lifetime of work to enhance the security of the United States of America. He was born in Bremen, Germany in 1910. Bernard Schriever came to America in 1917 and became a naturalized citizen in 1923. After graduating from Texas A&M, he began his military career in 1931 as an Army artillery officer, later transferring to the Army Air Corps for flight school and flying 36 combat missions during World War II. In 1943, General Schriever became chief of staff for the Maintenance and Engineering Division of the Fifth Air Force Service Command, and then commander of the advance headquarters, Far East Service Command, which supported theater operations from bases in Hollandia, New Guinea, Leyte, Manila, and Okinawa. He was promoted to lieutenant colonel in August 1943 and then to full colonel in December at the young age of 33. Following World War II, General Schriever was assigned to the position of Chief of the Scientific Liaison Section under the Deputy Chief of Staff for Materiel, Army Air Force headquarters, and while in that post, he developed planning documents that linked ongoing research and development efforts with long-range military planning. In 1954, the Air Force's highest priority was the development of the first intercontinental ballistic missile, the Atlas, and soon thereafter development of that missile became a top national priority under the Eisenhower administration to counter the Soviet nuclear threat. At that time the Soviet Union had produced nuclear and thermonuclear bombs and was pursuing an aggressive rocket technology program culminating in the October 1957 launch and orbit of the Sputnik satellite. General Schriever led the development of the new United States ballistic missile program and headed the Western Development Division, later called the Ballistic Missile Division, which was solely responsible for planning, programming and developing the intercontinental ballistic missile. In fact, the size and funding of the Western Development Division was actually larger than the Manhattan Project. On December 17, 1957, the Air Force conducted the first successful test launch of an Atlas missile, and by 1963 the Strategic Air Command had deployed 13 Atlas missile squadrons with nearly 120 missiles on alert to meet the contemporary Soviet Union threat. General Schriever oversaw the simultaneous development of the Atlas missile and the intermediate-range ballistic missile, Thor, which achieved an initial operating capability in 1959. Furthermore, the more advanced Titan intercontinental ballistic missile reached initial operating capacity by April 1962. And by October of 1962, 10 Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles were placed in service in response to the Cuban missile crisis. Mr. Speaker, it is nothing short of amazing that General Schriever's efforts produced, within only 8 years, four complete missile systems for the United States, each system being more advanced and more complicated than its predecessor. Both the Atlas and the Titan systems were modified and became the workhorses for America's space program, and the Atlas missile is still used as a satellite launch vehicle today. General Schriever retired in 1966 as a four star general, and continued his service to the United States as a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the Defense Science Board, and the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization Advisory Committee. His expertise is still sought in the continuous development of America's space systems. Walter J. Boyne, former director of the National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institution, wrote, ``Today's navigational, meteorological, intelligence, and communication satellites owe their existence to the work of Schriever and his team.'' Furthermore, the Air Force in its official biography of General Schriever recognizes him as ``the architect of the Air Force's ballistic missile and military space program.'' Furthermore, the Falcon Air Force base outside of Colorado Springs was renamed the Schriever Air Force Base. Mr. Speaker, during my service in the United States Air Force, I had the opportunity to work on many of the systems that General Schriever and his team pioneered. His name was spoken with an air of reverence, and the enormity of his accomplishments in developing a viable deterrent to the Soviet threat and ensuring American predominance in space was not lost on all of the Air Force personnel. I remember an article in Air Force News back in 1999 where General Schriever stated, ``We envisioned that space would become critical to our warfighters. Even back in the 1950s when we were talking about deterrent capabilities, we believed space would become an important factor. Nowadays, thanks to space, in the first few days of a conflict, we can shut their eyes, ears and their ability to talk. Then you can apply your forces with much less risk. Just look at what happened in the Persian Gulf and the Balkans, entirely different from Korea and Vietnam. Space had everything to do with that.'' General Schriever continues to uphold that premise, as he recently stated at a ceremony last month honoring space and missile pioneers when he said, ``We have to be number one in space. We need to keep that position to deter that kind of capabilities to make war.'' Mr. Speaker, America's dominance in space today is due in large part to the leadership, talent, and selfless service of General Bernard A. Schriever. I stand here today to state that Congress recognizes and honors him for his dedication and service to the United States Air Force, for his essential service in the development of the United States ballistic missile program, and for his lifetime of work to enhance the security of the United States. Thank you, General Schriever. God bless you, and God bless America.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not only to commemorate the lives lost September 11, 2001, but also to celebrate the indomitable American spirit that has been displayed since, and finally to remind our enemies that we are not finished with them. It has been a year to the date since an organization of men decided to test the resolve of the American people. With blind faith, unabashed cowardice, and intentions of terror, these men, these terrorists took the lives of over 3,000 men, women, and children. Through this evil act these men hoped to strike deep at our security, to impact the very fiber of our country's spirit. But as the towers fell, American flags rose, defying those who would attempt to shake the balance of freedom and power that we enjoy in this country. On that day the most diverse country on the planet was attacked, and from the twisted and smoldering wreckage arose the bond that has connected us all. Many claimed that we would never be the same; that an inescapable change had come over our country. On the contrary, I feel that we have changed. We are a stronger country, united in the face of tragedy. The terrorists failed to realize that there is no changing the American spirit, only revealing it. After the 11th, the spirit of America revealed itself all across this country. From the thousands who donated blood, to the thousands more who donated time, resources and love to the task of not only repairing buildings but also repairing the hearts of those who lost loved ones on that tragic day. In the few days following 9/11 we wondered how we would respond to these cowardly acts. It has now been a year since that day, and I feel we have responded quickly and accurately. In the past year we have been able to witness as a country the power and resourcefulness of our armed services. Combining both new and old world tactics we have seen special forces mounted on horse back calling in the amazing payload of a B-1 Bomber. In a foreign and alien terrain we have seen the men and women of our armed services perform and adapt in outstanding fashion. Mr. Speaker, as co-chairman of the Air Force Caucus I realize the increasing importance of our Air Force in current and future campaigns. Nowhere has this importance been more felt than in the precision strikes made in Afghanistan in our war against terror. As we continue to hunt down those responsible, we also continue the rebuilding process both home and abroad. As voices rise today in freedom from the sites of these grizzly attacks, soon also shall memorials rise, as a continual reminder of that day and the way in which we, as Americans have reacted in the years since. And, as America has reacted this year, we have struggled with the tender balance between security and freedom. While we of course must gird our nation for safety, are we eroding freedom and curtailing civil liberties and privacy in the process? Our federal buildings, once the most open of any nation, are becoming barricaded fortresses, with streets closed for blocks around, and loss of access. Airport travelers shed clothing, common tools in their toiletry kit, and their patience in the name of passenger screening. Future airport security measures may chillingly include smart-technology that scans a traveler's identification or body feature, and searches a database including information as personal as financial stability or neighborhood involvement, in the name of determining who is a trusted traveler. State legislatures ponder the Model State Emergency Powers Act, wherein a governor might be granted powers to quarantine citizens, force immunizations, and seize medical records, in the name of public health. I hope that as we strengthen our nation, we keep sight of the sublime principle of liberty on which the nation was founded, and think about the over-reaching consequences of binding the cords too tightly. The terrorists attacked our freedom; we should not attack our own freedoms. Turning from thoughts of ourselves to those of our aggressors, I remind my colleagues that we are facing an enemy who despises our very existence. They are consumed by a hate of a country that, despite its faults, is open to all people regardless race or religion. We operate under principles of freedom, the ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness. As such, our country is fighting with hope against terror, and freedom against oppression. Our enemies will never know freedom, because they are imprisoned by hate, and for that, they have already lost. Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger stated that ``The will of the American people once aroused . . . is capable of accomplishing all the things that have to be done.'' As long as we continue to maintain a moral high-ground in this campaign and take the appropriate and precise responsive measures, the will of the people of this county will know no bounds. Much has been said and will be said today about what happened a year ago. As observers, we have an obligation to the families and the victims. We must remember our fellow sufferers; that is the salve we offer the families. We also must remember those who terrorize us, as it is judgment on our enemies. Do Not Forget: It was a massacre--a cold- blooded, well organized, well executed, carefully plotted massacre of thousands of Americans. It was perversion--of a faith that preaches peace and tolerance. It was a message--delivered by maniacal men in possession of a perverse theocratic ideology. It was a crime--that must be paid for. It was an invasion--which damaged every sense of safety in every person who tried to sleep that night. For all the many things it was, it was also the beginning of a war that is not yet over. And as much as there is to say about this day, one thing we have learned is painfully simple. We have learned that whatever false sense of isolation we felt was an illusion. We must remain vigilant and remember that ``freedom is not free''. I conclude that we have learned that our lives are but a breath. That our families are more important to us than we ever knew and that protection of our lives and our families may cost us dearly. But we are Americans, and we will prevail.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for his continuing support in recognizing this anniversary. NPR had a great tribute to the general this morning which I listened to. I think it is altogether appropriate that the gentleman do this on the House floor, of course, and I want to thank him. Mr. Speaker, on another matter, I rise to deal with something that is more close to home, and that is dealing with something I am involved with in telecommunications. I am urging my colleagues to support a bill that I introduced to eliminate impediments that restrict the ability of certain wireless telecommunication providers to, I think, meet the urgent need of the consumers. The bill has bipartisan support and the support of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet on which I serve. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal supports my actions on this matter, and I will be providing the Wall Street editorial to be made a part of the Record and part of my speech. The affected providers are the successful bidders for wireless spectrum that the Federal Communications Commission auctioned off in Auction No. 35. Some of the spectrum had previously been licensed to companies, including NextWave Personal Communications, whose bankruptcy filings, and subsequent failure to pay amounts due to the FCC for their licenses, led to the cancellation of those licenses. The FCC subsequently reclaimed the licenses and reauctioned them off in Auction No. 35 for about $16 billion. In June 2001, the D.C. Circuit held that ``the Commission violated the provision of the Bankruptcy Code that prohibits governmental entities from revoking debtors' licenses solely for failure to pay debts dischargeable in bankruptcy.'' In August 2001, after the issuance of that court's mandate, the FCC restored the NextWave licenses to active status. More recently, the Supreme Court granted the FCC's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the D.C. Circuit's judgment. The Supreme Court will not hear argument in the case until the fall of 2002 and is unlikely to announce a decision until the spring of 2003. If the Court reverses the D.C. Circuit's decision, there will be further litigation on remand in D.C. Circuit to resolve issues that court did not reach in its first decision. As a result, there is not likely to be a final resolution of the status of the NextWave licenses any time soon, and the FCC therefore will not be in a position to deliver licenses to the winners of Auction No. 35, until three or more years from the time the auction was concluded. Now, the status of NextWave's license has been the subject of extended litigation in not only the bankruptcy court, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and soon to be, the Supreme Court of the United States. Although the FCC recently returned most of the downpayment funds previously deposited by all these successful bidders, it continues to hold, without interest, Mr. Speaker, substantial sums, equal to 3 percent of the total amount of the winning bids. It apparently intends to hold these sums indefinitely. Despite the lengthy delay in delivering the licenses, moreover, the FCC takes the position that the successful bidders remain obligated, on a mere 10-day notice, to pay the full amount of their successful bids if and when the FCC, at some unknown future date, establishes its right to deliver those licenses. Now, I think, as the Wall Street Journal points out, this is grossly unfair to those who bid on these licenses and did so in good faith. Companies calibrate their bids on the understanding of the auction, implicit in any commercial arrangement, that the delivery of the licenses will occur in a reasonable time following these auctions. That expectation is especially crucial in the context of spectrum licenses. Given the recent volatility we have seen in the market prices for spectrum, we can understand that there would be some action by the FCC after the auction. Moreover, it is particularly burdensome to some companies to have the FCC hold even a small portion of their enormous downpayment without any interest on these amounts. It is not done in the private sector; it should not be done in the government. They are paying no interest on these deposits for extended periods of time. In addition, winning bidders are obligated, as I mentioned, on very short notice to pay the remaining $16 billion they bid for the license at issue. Obviously, this adversely affects their capacity to serve the needs of their customers, because they must have this capital always on hand and they cannot use it for long-term benefits for business. This need to keep itself in a position to fulfill that obligation at an indefinite future date impedes its ability to take, as I mentioned, interim steps for building their own businesses. The FCC's failure to respond appropriately to alleviate these serious burdens, I believe, deserves the public interest. That is why I have dropped bill H.R. 4738. It addresses this problem in two ways, Mr. Speaker. First, it requires the FCC promptly to refund to the winning bidders the full remaining amount of their deposits and their downpayments. Second, it gives each winning bidder an opportunity to elect, within 15 days after enactment, to relinquish its rights and to be relieved of all further obligations under Auction No. 35. Those who choose to retain their rights and obligations under Auction No. 35 will nonetheless be entitled to a return of their deposits and downpayments in the interim period. If and when the FCC is in a position to deliver the license at issue to those who remain obligated, they will be required to pay the full amount of their bid in accordance with the FCC's existing regulations. Those who elect to terminate their rights and obligations under this auction will be free to pursue their business interests without the burdens under which they must labor. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this timely and much- needed legislation, and I appreciate the Wall Street Journal bringing to the attention of the Nation this very important problem, and I also hereby submit for the Record the article I have referred to. [From the Wall Street Journal, Aug. 21, 2002] Another Telecom Fiasco The telecom shakeout (or meltdown) continues, with Qwest ditching assets to stay solvent, and VoiceStream pursuing a merger in wireless with Cingular. The market will sort all of this out, though it sure would help if the Federal Communications Commission stopped making things worse. Consider the FCC's ongoing NextWave spectrum fiasco. That small wireless carrier won spectrum licenses in a 1997 FCC auction, but later defaulted on its payments. The FCC revoked the licenses and reauctioned them--even as NextWave was suing to get them back. NextWave won its case, and a red-faced FCC had to tell the other carriers that had just bid $16 billion that it had nothing to give them. In the real business world, the FCC would have cancelled the reauction once it couldn't deliver the licenses. But rules are different in FCC-land. The agency may not have delivered any licenses, but it has nonetheless held on to the hefty deposits the second batch of carriers gave it. And, by the way, the FCC has informed those carriers that when it does finally turn over the spectrum (in 2004, optimistically, if ever), it expects them to cough up the entire $16 billion within 10 business days. All of this is playing havoc with an industry already in chaos. Verizon Wireless, for instance, bid $8.7 billion for its share of the spectrum. The FCC took a deposit from the company of $1.7 billion, and then sat on it--interest free-- for 14 months. The FCC finally gave back some of the deposit earlier this year, though it still holds the bureaucratic pocket-change of $261 million. Verizon is also stuck with a large liability--money it can't effectively touch because of the 10-day future payment obligation. Credit agencies say they may downgrade its debt because of the $8.7 billion overhang. Meantime, the company can't afford to run in place for years while the FCC fiddles, so it has redrawn its business strategy around the lost spectrum--which means it may not need it even if it comes free. The FCC usually hands over licenses within three months, and for good reason: The industry changes faster than a politician's mind. Since January 2001 when the reauction ended, wireless and equipment companies have laid off tens of thousands of workers and lost $850 billion, or 65%, in market value. (Would that the FCC shrank 65% in size.) Wireless officials estimate that if the reauction were held today, the bids would be about 40% of the original $16 billion. But that gets to the heart of the FCC matter: money, and creative accounting. It turns out that when NextWave bid its $4.8 billion in 1997, the FCC booked the entire amount in the federal budget. Then, when the reauction happened in 2001, it booked that $16 billion as well--adjusted for what it had lost from NextWave. Chairman Michael Powell keeps promising a telecom revival, but this FCC money-grubbing doesn't help. The reauction is tying up much-needed investment capital: According to a recent study from AEI economist Gregory Sidak, the frozen $16 billion, if released, would increase GDP between $19 billion and $52 billion. Consumers are also losing out, as new services such as mobile videophones are delayed. The FCC isn't even helping itself, if it cares. Reputation counts, even in government, and the agency has important auctions to come. Carriers may discount future bids because of uncertainty of ever receiving licenses. Several big players may not be able to bid at all, since the FCC is already sitting on their capital. We still believe FCC auctions are the most efficient way of allocating spectrum. But their purpose is defeated when the government keeps the cash but won't deliver the goods.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the President on his reaching out to Congress to seek our assent over any Iraq action. The President will also meet with Prime Minister Blair and communicate with the U.N. Our leaders here in Congress were also briefed yesterday. We all know that Saddam is developing nuclear weapons. The President is reaching out to Putin of Russia, Jemin of China, and Chirac of France. He is doing the right thing. There may be a vote here on the House floor in about 4 to 5 weeks on this action. Congress will be consulted and the President is building a consensus. We will debate the question, the simple question: Is inaction an option or not? Should we force weapons inspections as a means of building this international coalition to act against Iraq? Saddam has had 11 long years in which he has sidestepped and crawfished on allowing us to inspect. Should there be a consensus first before we inspect? Mr. Speaker, all of these questions are healthy in the debate here in Congress, and I congratulate the President in reaching out to the public and to Congress and to have this important debate.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on July 23, 24, and 25, I was unavoidably absent due to family medical reasons and missed roll call votes numbered 327 through 351. For the record, had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Roll call 327--Passage of National Aviation Capacity Expansion Act-- NAY Roll call 328--On Agreeing to the Conference Report--2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response To Terrorist Attacks on the United States--YEA Roll call 329--On Passage--Disapproving the Extension of the Waiver Authority Contained in Section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with Respect to Vietnam--NAY Roll call 330--HR 5120 On Agreeing to Goss Amendment--YEA Roll call 331--HR 5120 On Agreeing to the Flake Amendment--NAY Roll call 332--HR 5120 On Agreeing to the Flake Amendment--NAY Roll call 333--HR 5120 On Agreeing to the Rangel Amendment--NAY Roll call 334--HR 3609 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended the Pipeline Infrastructure Protection to Enhance Security and Safety Act--YEA Roll call 335--HR 4547 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended-- Cost of War Against Terrorism Authorization Act of 2002--YEA Roll call 336--HR 5120 On Agreeing to the Moran Amendment--YEA Roll call 337--HR 5120 On Agreeing to the Hefley Amendment--YEA Roll call 338--HR 5120 On Agreeing to the Hefley Amendment--YEA Roll call 339--HR 5120 On Agreeing to the Sanders Amendment--YEA Roll call 340--H RES 498 On Agreeing to the Resolution Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 4965; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act-- YEA Roll call 341--HR 5120 On Passage Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2003--NAY Roll call 342--HR 4965 On Motion to Recommit with Instructions Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act--NAY Roll call 343--HR 4965 On Passage Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act--YEA Roll call 344--H CON RES 188 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, As Amended--Expressing the sense of Congress that the Government of the People's Republic of China should cease its persecution of Falun Gong practitioners--YEA Roll call 345--H RES 495 On motion to postpone consideration In the matter of James A. Traficant, Jr.--NAY Roll call 346--H RES 495 On Agreeing to the Resolution In the matter of James A. Traficant, Jr.--YEA Roll call 347--HR 4628 On Agreeing to the Roemer Amendment as Amended--NAY Roll call 348--HR 3763 On Agreeing to the Conference Report Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act--YEA Roll Call 349--HR 4546--FY03 Defense Authorization On motion that the House instruct conferees--YEA Roll call 350--HR 4546 FY03 Defense Authorization On motion to close portions of the conference--YEA Roll call 351--HR 4946 to amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide health care incentives related to long-term care On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended--YEA

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing this bill to the floor. The bill before us posthumously awards Congressional Goal Medals to government workers and others who responded to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and perished and to people aboard United Airlines Flight 93 who helped resist the hijackers. Last year, I introduced a similar bill for the crew and passengers of Flight 93, and since have worked with Mr. Engel on his Spirit of America Coin Bill to award to families who lost loved ones in the attacks. I especially want to thank Mr. Engle and his staff for their tireless effort on that piece of legislation. Earlier today, we passed a bill to create a memorial for Flight 93. It is widely presumed that the terrorists who took control of United Airlines Flight 93 intended to use the aircraft as a weapon and crash it into the United States Capitol Building in Washington, DC. From what we have been able to find out, upon learning from cellular phone conversations with their loved ones, that 3 hijacked aircraft were used as weapons against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the passengers and crew of United Airlines Flight 93 recognized the potential danger and took heroic and noble action to ensure that the aircraft they were aboard could not be used as a weapon. In the ultimate act of selfless courage and supreme sacrifice, the crew and passengers of United Airlines Fight 93 fought to recapture the flight from the terrorists and prevented further catastrophic loss of life. This same selfless act was demonstrated by the emergency workers, and other employees of State and local government agencies, including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and of the United States Government who gave their lives in responding to the attacks, working to save the lives of others. I am pleased that we have the bill before us today that not only honors those who gave their lives, with a Congressional Gold Medal, but also provides the opportunity for all Americans, with the authorization of a Spirit of America Coin, to hold the tragic events of September 11 as a reminder of the sacrifices made my not only those who serve and protect our country, but to all citizens who live in--and believe--in this country that is freedom. As President Lincoln stated in his Gettysburg Address, ``We here highly resolve that the dead shall not have died in vain, that the Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.'' I thank my colleagues for bringing this legislation to the floor and urge its adoption.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the name of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 5059.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind Americans why the Pledge of Allegiance is so important in light of the 9th Circuit Appeals Court decision. I'd like to submit Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court Roy S. Moore's July 1998 statement titled ``Our American Birthright.'' At that time, Justice Moore was a Circuit Court Judge. Our American Birthright (By Roy S. Moore) One nation under God was their cry and declaration, Upon the law of nature's God they built a mighty nation. For unlike mankind before them who had walked this earthen sod, These men would never question the sovereignty of God. That all men were ``created'' was a truth ``self-evident,'' To secure the rights God gave us was the role of government, And if any form of government became destructive of this end, It was their right, their duty, a new one to begin. So with firm reliance on Divine Providence for protection, They pledged their sacred honor and sought His wise direction. They lifted an appeal to God for all the world to see, And declared their independence forever to be free. I'm glad they're not here with us to see the mess we're in, How we've given up our righteousness for a life of indulgent sin. For when abortion isn't murder and sodomy is deemed a right, Then evil is now called good and darkness is now called light. While truth and law were founded on the God of all Creation, Man now, through law, denies the truth and calls it ``separation.'' No longer does man see a need for God when he's in full control, For the only truth self-evident is in the latest poll. But with man as his own master we fail to count the cost, Our precious freedoms vanish and our liberty is lost. Children are told they can't pray and they teach them evolution, When will they learn the fear of God is the only true solution. Our schools have become the battleground while all across the land, Christians shrug their shoulders afraid to take a stand. And from the grave their voices cry the victory has been won Just glorify the Father as did His only Son. When your work on earth is done, and you've traveled where we've trod, You'll leave the land we left to you, One Nation Under God

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today we will honor Ted Williams, the baseball legend, here on the House floor. I am here this morning to also honor him. On July 5, of course, of this year, he died. He is one of baseball's greatest legends. He was known as the ``Splendid Splinter,'' ``Teddy Ballgame,'' ``the Kid,'' ``the Thumper''; he was a man who turned the art of batting into a science. Mr. Speaker, he began his major league career with the Boston Red Sox on December 7, 1937, and played for the team exclusively for 19 years. He retired with a career high .344 batting average, and was, of course, the last player to hit over 400 for a full season in 1941. Ted Williams is tied for 11th all time, with 521 home runs, and 11th with 1,839 RBIs. He won two Triple Crowns, and was a two-time MVP. He held six American League batting championships and received 18 All-star game selections. These tremendous achievements, Mr. Speaker, were reached despite Ted missing five seasons serving his country as a naval aviator in World War II, and then later he went on to become a Marine aviator, flying 39 combat missions in Korea and earning an Air Medal and two Gold Stars. On January 20, 1966, Ted Williams was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, and on May 29, 1984, the Red Sox formally retired his number 9. In 1994, the so-called ``Einstein of batting'' opened the Ted Williams Museum and Library in Hernando, Florida, becoming the number one tourist attraction in Citrus County. My family has had the opportunity to visit this wonderful museum, and I was his Congressman for many years. We had an opportunity to meet and talk with him many times. But Mr. Speaker, Ted Williams was much more to his country than just a baseball legend. He was also a legend in terms of helping others. When I first came to Congress, Ted Williams, as I mentioned, was one of my constituents. Unfortunately, districts were redrawn in 1991 and I moved away from him. However, I continued to work with him and to speak with him on a number of key issues. And one issue, Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with you this afternoon. In 1995 he was recovering from a stroke that he suffered. During his therapy he came to know a young woman whose name was Tricia Miranti. She was also going through therapy much like him, and he used to play checkers with her and talk to her. She had a brain hemorrhage which she suffered at the age of five. Ted Williams is a man who exemplified determination and hard work. He was impressed with her determination and her hard work and he watched her go through therapy. They became fast friends and out of their friendship grew Williams' creation of a scholarship fund for disabled students. In 1997 I had the honor of working with Ted to raise funds for that scholarship program. Ted's dedication to Tricia and those who share her experiences can be summed up in the following quote he gave to an article in 1998. He said, ``It makes me feel lucky. If ever, as long as I live, I can help anyone in any way possible, I will. It makes you just feel great.'' This statement, of course, is no surprise to those who knew Ted. His passionate support of the Jimmy Fund, an organization dedicated to raising funds for cancer research and treatment for children, is also legend. In his autobiography Ted wrote, ``I think one of the greatest things ever said is that a man never stands so high as when he stoops to help a kid.'' Mr. Speaker, Ted Williams is one of the greatest hitters to ever play the game, if not the greatest. But he should also be remembered for what he accomplished outside of the game, accomplishments that we will not find in career statistics, but the impact of which will be felt for years to come. God bless Ted Williams and his family.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, and I am glad to be here and commend him for his special order on this issue. As the gentleman knows, we marked up in the subcommittee that I chair H.R. 5058, which is the Financial Accounting Standards Board Act, which was introduced and passed by bipartisan support out of my subcommittee, which attempts to bring some of these financial accounting standards up-to-date and modern. Mr. Speaker, in the roaring 1990s, investors were all caught in a spiral of ever-increasing optimism about the outlook for economic growth and stock valuations. It seemed the increase in stock valuations would never end, but of course, it did end. History teaches us they always do. In 2000, the so-called Internet bubble burst, and many investors lost money, not only monies invested in an Internet company, but also investments in leading, established blue chip companies. All of us remember when Alan Greenspan aptly characterized the phenomena of the stock market as ``irrational exuberance.'' All of us had sort of a special sense of spiraling optimism. Unfortunately, something that even Alan Greenspan did not predict has happened. In the wake of the roaring 1990s, we have witnessed corporate failures, bankruptcies, earnings restatements at unprecedented levels. Established companies that may have been overvalued were expected to weather these difficult times as business slowed, but they did not. The culture of the 1990s created something far worse: the race to up the earnings at all costs. Hype, hype, hype. Of course, the first to fall was Enron. Amid its ashes, we discovered a host of problems involving corporate governance, audit independence, accounting fraud, and accounting standards. It would have been easier to accept the collapse of Enron were it an aberration. That no longer, of course, appears to be the case, given the recent news of Tyco, Global Crossing, and WorldCom, just to name a few. There is one every week. These failures have put a strain on market recovery. Investors do not trust financial statements and that undermines their trust of all companies, good or bad. To stabilize our markets, accounting and corporate governance systems must be improved. We on the Committee on Commerce are committed to do that. This committee will do its part by acting on that which falls within our jurisdiction, which is accounting standards. Now, the President just recently offered additional steps to stem the tide of investor mistrust of the capital markets. The markets themselves have taken significant steps in that direction, as seen in the new rules that have been proposed by the New York Stock Exchange. Of course, on the legislative front, the House has already passed legislation out of the Committee on Financial Services to reform the corporate governance and the audit system. The Senate, as we speak, is moving towards legislation as well. Mr. Speaker, all of these efforts have primarily been focused on corporate and auditor governance. I believe changes to accounting standards and the process of setting those standards is another critical component of complete reform. I think that in addition to procedural reforms addressing governance issues, we must also carefully study and address substantive reform, which means that the content of the GAAP principles of accounting must be reexamined in light of Enron- like accounting scandals. So that is why our bill, H.R. 5058, which passed out of my subcommittee, the Financial Accounting Standards Board Act, is just an important first step for improving the transparency and reliability of financial accounting. Now, I thought I would review just briefly what the bill does. The bill does simply four main things. First, it gives FASB standards Federal recognition for the first time. Second, it directs FASB to promulgate rules in areas in which our investigations have revealed current standards need improvement: specifically, off-balance sheet accounting, revenue recognition, and mark-to-market accounting. Third, it requires FASB to promulgate a primary standard that must be used to ensure the application of accounting rules complies with principles of transparency and comprehensibility. This will go a long way to preventing the abuse of accounting standards like those that have been revealed in the oversight committee investigations, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) is involved in with Enron and Global Crossing. Fourth and finally, the bill requires the GAO and FASB to report on FASB's compliance with the act and other issues relevant to the standard-setting process. Again, Mr. Speaker, this was within our jurisdiction and this is the only thing that we could attack. I had an amendment in the bill which would also create a blue ribbon commission to study accounting standards and standard-setting processes. Specifically, the commission will evaluate FASB's 30-year record, evaluate the role of accounting standards, how they played in recent accounting failures, and explore alternative standard-setting mechanisms. This commission is not involved with governance. It is all involved with accounting standards and the standard-setting process. The commission, of course, will then present its findings and recommendations to our full committee. I would like to just mention one of the witnesses that we had in our hearing dealing with financial accounting standards, a Professor Coffee, who is an expert; and he testified that ``Reasonable people can disagree about the appropriate reforms that are needed to improve the regulation of the accounting profession and, not surprisingly, quite different proposals are currently pending in the House and Senate. But while reasonable, and sometimes even heated, disagreement is possible on many questions, there should be consensus on one fundamental point: our current substantive system of accounting principles, rule-based and hyper-technical, has shown itself to be vulnerable to exploitation by those willing to game the system.'' So I think our passage of H.R. 5058 will move forward, and when it moves to the full committee in the House and hopefully, to the conference, we will be able to add, expand, and make it more comprehensive. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to conclude by bringing to the attention of my colleagues some comments from the former president of Arthur Andersen, who gave an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Berardino. He was managing partner and CEO of Andersen and, of course, we know Andersen was found by the Justice Department to be guilty of shredding documents. But sometimes when you go to somebody who has seen the failure intimately they can sometimes bring to bear some very important points, so I would share with my colleagues some of his points. He admits we need to rethink some of our accounting standards. Heaven knows, the Tax Code has gotten so complex. Likewise, our accounting standards have gotten complex and technical. Enron used sophisticated financing vehicles known as special purpose entities and other off- balance-sheet structures to hide debt, and they did it in such a way that no one could even understand them. In fact, the management's discussion and analysis in their profit and loss statement was 16 pages of footnotes. That was in its 2000 annual report. Now, some of them, institutional investors as well as sophisticated investors, they all studied these 16 pages. Some sold short and made profits, but others who were also sophisticated analysts and fund managers said, well, I may be confused, but they went ahead and bought the shares anyway of Enron, and, of course, they lost money. So if these people, institutional investors, fund managers, cannot understand these 16 pages of footnotes, how can the common investor understand them? We need to change that. We need to fix this problem. We cannot maintain trust in our capital markets with a financial reporting system that delivers volumes and volumes of complex information about what happened in the past, but leaves some investors with limited understanding of what is happening in the present and, more importantly, what is likely to occur in the future. So the current financial reporting system has to be changed, and I would say to my colleagues, it was developed in the 1930s. It was developed for the Industrial Age. That was during times when assets were very tangible and everybody understood them. The investors who were involved at that time were very sophisticated, but they were few. There were no derivatives, the derivatives at Enron and all of these organizations used to hedge their bets; none of that was happening in the 1930s. There was no structured off-balance-sheet financing, no instant stock quotes or mutual funds, no First Call estimates and, of course, there was no Lou Dobbs on CNBC. So we need to move quickly here in Congress to establish and rethink our accounting standards and to modernize them, because I think the public is right, they have lost credibility, and this can be changed. The other area that I would like to discuss is the patchwork of regulatory environment we have here. We have an alphabet soup of institutions, from the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants to the Securities and Exchange Commission to the Auditing Standards Boards to the Emerging Issues Task Force to the Financial Accounting Standards Board, FASB, to the Public Oversight Board. All of these have important roles in our profession, in the accounting profession, of regulation, and they are made up of very smart, very diligent, competent people. But the problem, I submit, is all of these alphabetized, this alphabet soup of institutions, there are too many of them, there are too many cross-purposes. Somehow we need to bring them all together so they are focused better. And so the process, the whole process of oversight of all of these different institutions I talked about, needs to be redesigned. I do not think we should eliminate them, but I think somehow we have to get them more flexible and more suitable for the modern world. Lastly, I would say improving accountability across our capital system. Two years ago, scores of new-economy companies soared. They came out of nowhere. Of course, they had public offerings, initial public offerings, and they went up and they collapsed in dust. A lot of investors questioned their business model and prospects. The dot-com bubble cost investors trillions of dollars. So I think if we come together in a bipartisan fashion and look how to increase the market's integrity, I think we can do it. I think some of the comments from the former managing partner and CEO of Andersen are some ideas we should think about, and I think some of the things we have started in my bill, H.R. 5058, that came out of my subcommittee, is another good start for reforming the accounting standards in this country. I look forward to continuing this process.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today we will debate H.R. 4635, the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act. I urge my colleagues, of course, to support this; and I am especially pleased that Chairman Mica of the Subcommittee on Aviation has offered a manager's amendment that has a provision to give authority to flight deck crew to carry less-than- lethal weapons. This sensible measure supports the National Institute of Justice's findings that less than lethal weapons may also play a role in flight security. The NIJ recently reported to the Subcommittee on Aviation that ``Electrical shock weapons show promise for use by the flight deck crew. However, substantial systematic testing in realistic settings of their effects is essential to ensure they will not damage or disable critical flight systems.'' So, Mr. Speaker, in addition to firearms, we should expand and explore weapons alternatives that are available to pilots to defend their aircraft.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as many Members did this weekend, I am sure, I spent the Fourth of July back home with the people of the Sixth Congressional District. I had the privilege of joining others in my hometown community at the unveiling of a slave memorial in Ocala, Florida. The local community leaders believed that ``Florida could not have existed and grown as it did without the hard work, courage, sacrifice and sometimes genius of black men and women.'' For this reason, a monument was erected to honor the lives of the slaves who bear great responsibility for the prosperity we enjoy in the State of Florida. However, this is not only true in Florida; but, Mr. Speaker, I think it is true across this country. Lest this connection continue to go unrecognized, I along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) introduced the Slave Memorial Act. Both of us and many of our colleagues have long been involved in efforts to heal the legacy of slavery. This is the latest incarnation of our desire to contribute to the healing of our Nation. This bill would authorize the process for establishing a national slave memorial to honor the nameless and forgotten men, women and children who were slaves. It will hopefully enjoy a position of prominence in the shadow of the Lincoln Memorial. Papa Stewart, a former slave, once said, ``I want you to promise me that you're going to tell all the children my story.'' This is a conjecture, but I believe that what Papa Stewart is asking for is not that the children be told just so that the horrors of slavery could be avoided in the future, but I also believe he was earnestly asking for the recognition of the humanity of these individuals. We need to believe that there is something more meaningful than just our physical being. He is asking that this story, their humanity, be valued and told. In the telling of his story, we communicate our respect, our compassion and sensitivity to it. Papa Stewart's is a story that we are indeed in need of telling and hearing in this Nation. Mr. Speaker, in this new world that we have entered since September 11, it is becoming easier to remember that evil is an ever present reality. It is now easier to remember that hatred and bigotry are always and everywhere wrong. We gather to remember that the commission of monstrous sin requires not our consent but only our indifference. Of these things many of our ancestors are guilty. We can certainly say of slavery that it was ``one more wrong to man and one more insult to God.'' And as a means of ensuring that we never see the same, we propose a memorial in the shadow of the Lincoln Memorial. We do this as a testament to slavery's ``many thousand gone.'' Each slave was an individual and a child of God. Not only do they deserve our remembrance, we owe them our respect. The legacy of our Nation includes many people, including those who were victims but chose not to be victimized. As Americans, we naturally understand this universal story of resilience and strength; and with this memorial we have the opportunity to thank the people who so greatly contributed to an American cultural understanding of perseverance and, of course, independence. Mr. Speaker, it is my earnest desire that a slave memorial will play a part in healing the legacy of slavery. It is said that symbols are the natural speech of the soul, a language older and more universal than the words that we use every day. Hopefully, this memorial will speak in a language more easily understood than simple words. We stand here today to honor the slaves themselves and the men who fought to end their slavery. This discussion cannot stop with the troubles of those who were enslaved, but must continue on to celebrate their deliverance.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from New Jersey that the Republican plan is based upon what I have as a Member of Congress and what he has and also what the Senators have and what the President has, which is based upon free enterprise. It is a private sector prescription drug program. The program we as Republicans are providing has the same prototype. I think the contrast he makes is valid, only in that he wants the government to run this program and we want the private sector to run the prescription drug program. We do not want mandates. We do not want price controls. We want just basically the free enterprise to work. The committee he and I serve on, Energy and Commerce, marked up a bill last week and also the Committee on Ways and Means marked up a bill. Both of these bills have been marked up by the Republican majority. There is much in these bills to applaud. We have addressed shortfalls in payments to hospitals and incorrect formulas in reimbursing physicians. However, most significantly, the bill out of the Commerce Committee contains the long overdue addition of a prescription drug benefit for Medicare. Medicare was designed before innovative and lifesaving medications played such a prominent role in health care. Our seniors and disabled beneficiaries have waited for many years to get this final plan that we are working on and hopefully will vote on this week. One point I would like to raise is that while expansion of health care coverage, including a prescription drug benefit, is a goal for all of us here in the House, opinions obviously differ between myself and the gentleman from New Jersey on how to achieve it. Simply expanding and automatically funding government programs is not necessarily the most desirable route to take. I see in the CQ Daily Monitor today that one of our Democrat colleagues reasons that an $800 billion plan delivered by the government would be ``what seniors are used to, are entitled to, what is fair.'' It is three times the program the Republicans have proposed. I disagree and I dare say the seniors for whom he claims to be speaking may want a fresh approach, rather than another stale, rigid government program in delivering their prescription drug benefit as well. Choice and individual decision-making are hallmarks of America, and free market approaches best lead to economy, quality and freedom for all. Over my years as a Member of Congress, I have consistently worked for consumer choice in health care, and I believe we should approach this piece of legislation from exactly this point of view. Let us try to harness the free market forces that empower all of us to make our own decisions about health care instead of having the Federal Government do it for us. This bill would deliver a responsible, affordable, flexible prescription drug benefit to our seniors and disabled. The bill works via many favorable market-based elements. It arranges for competitive bidding among health care plans. It does not oppose innovation-stifling price caps. We have crafted a benefit plan to be financed and administered by a new Medicare benefits administration but to be delivered by the private sector. Seniors can shop around for a benefit that works best for them, just like myself and other Members of Congress can do. American insurance companies offer a myriad of choices in health plans, from health maintenance, HMOs, to fee-for-service, drug-benefit- only or point-of-service plans, with the most lenient alternatives for the beneficiaries. We Members of Congress have a variety of options at our disposal, from basic to gold-plated, based upon how much we want to pay. We can select what works for our family situation, our health needs and, of course, our budget. Our seniors deserve no less. The substitute approach the minority favors would first cost a grossly irresponsible amount of money. It would bankrupt Medicare, but also limit drug and doctor choices for seniors, force them to navigate a bloated bureaucracy and lead to price controls. From the Soviet Union to the backlogged lines for health care treatment experienced in Canada, our neighbor, history and economics have reliably borne out that price controls do not work for patients and they will dampen incentives for our pharmaceutical industry to continue producing new and innovative drugs that cure, relieve and enhance our quality of life. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I add that it is not only fiscally dangerous to rely on the Federal Government for all the answers, but a government one-size-fits-all approach is both philosophically arrogant and paternalistic. It deprives Medicare beneficiaries of the option to exercise the same choices that you and I do. Finally, while this bill is largely about benefits for today's Medicare beneficiaries, the cost impact of this legislation on today's taxpayers, the young people today who will be tomorrow's beneficiaries, should be noted. The Republican bill contains the most realistic, liberating approach of a prescription drug benefit for seniors today while keeping the Medicare program healthy for tomorrow's beneficiaries like my children. Having said that, I look forward to what will surely be a lively debate. Let us do what is best for today's Medicare beneficiaries, but at the same time keep an eye on the future of the Medicare program.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today I am joining the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) in introducing legislation to develop a memorial to American slaves. It must not be forgotten that each slave was an individual and a child of God. Not only do they deserve our remembrance, we owe them our respect. The legacy of our Nation includes many people, including those who were victims but who chose not to be victimized. As Americans, we naturally understand this universal story of resilience and strength, and with this memorial we have the opportunity to honor those who suffered in bondage yet maintained their humanity. With this memorial we will remember those who endured slavery and those who fought to end their slavery. In addition, this legislation will educate the current and future generations on the evils of slavery. This discussion cannot stop with the troubles of those who were enslaved, but must continue on to celebrate their deliverance into freedom.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in the summer of 1942, we were deeply embroiled in war. Our leaders saw that it was imperative that we institute a formal intelligence service, so on June 13, 1942, we established the Office of Strategic Services, OSS, considered to be the precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency. As we sit here in the summer of 2002, 60 years ago this week, we are again at war, and I want to commemorate the OSS on what would be its 60th anniversary. Whether we call it intelligence, reconnaissance, collection, espionage, or simply spying, as a former Air Force intelligence officer myself, I recognize the critical function of this agency in winning wars. One of the recipes for success in the OSS was its diverse inclusion of operatives. It was modeled after England's intelligence agency. Accordingly, Lieutenant Commander Ian Fleming of British Naval Intelligence, the same Mr. Fleming who went on to create the world's most famous fictitious secret agent, James Bond, had this rather stodgy advice for OSS Director William ``Wild Bill'' Donovan: ``Pick men in their forties and fifties, possessing absolute discretion, sobriety, devotion to duty, languages, and wide experience.'' However, Mr. Donovan had the insight to look more broadly. He selected younger, recklessly daring men and women; pro athletes, missionaries, reformed gangsters, professional counterfeiters, journalists, movie stars, Hollywood stuntmen, and singers. I would like today to commend some outstanding contributions from women in the OSS. Arlington National Cemetery has an excellent exhibit, now until December 2002, called Clandestine Women: The Untold Story of Women in Espionage. From this, we learn that 4,500 women served in the OSS during World War II. Besides spies, they worked as saboteurs, cryptographers, propaganda experts, and guerilla warriors. They also contributed as secretaries, as clerks, and as drivers. But let me begin with just one employee I thought would be of great interest to my colleagues, Julia McWilliams. She was a patriotic woman who wished to serve the United States Navy, but was rejected because of her height. She was 6-2. Instead, she got a job in East Asia with the OSS and was eventually awarded the Emblem of Meritorious Civilian Service. Ms. McWilliams was instrumental in creating a shark repellent. Sharks proved problematic for Navy and OSS divers trying to bomb German U-boats. Years later, NASA used her shark repellent recipe to protect astronauts whose capsules landed in shark-infested waters. Ms. McWilliams married a diplomat, Paul Child. The couple moved to France, where Julia took cooking classes that would change the face of American dining. Today we can all be grateful for Julia Child's gift to America both in intelligence and as a French chef. Another brave and resourceful American woman was Virginia Hall, the ``Limping Lady of the OSS.'' Her nickname came from a wooden leg due to a prewar hunting accident. This Baltimore native worked tirelessly for the French resistance. Hall was highly educated and multilingual. She learned Morse code and how to work a wireless radio, which made her indispensable to the OSS because communication lines were destroyed after D-Day. She engaged in guerilla and subversive activities, placing her own life in danger for the salvation of France. Hall is the only civilian female to receive the Distinguished Service Cross, and after World War II became one of the CIA's first female operations officers. When President Truman himself offered to present the award to her, she declined to return to the States on the grounds that she was just too busy, too busy in intelligence work to leave France at that critical time. Finally, also working behind the lines of occupied France not for the OSS, but for the French resistance, and therefore for the benefit of all Allied forces, was the American expatriate Josephine Baker. A talented and beautiful African American singer, this Missouri native became a French citizen. Still permitted to perform her shows around Europe by the occupying Nazis, Josephine craftily used this freedom to travel as a tool of transferring secret documents. Most courageously, she even smuggled classified material in her sheet music to Allied collaborators in Portugal. French President Charles de Gaulle presented her the Legion of Honor, which was France's highest decoration. She was also awarded the Medal of the Resistance with Rosette, and named a Chevalier of the Legion of Honor by the French government for hard work and dedication. At her death, the French government honored her with a 21-gun salute, making Josephine Baker the first American woman buried in France with military honors. So I commend, Mr. Speaker, these and all the dedicated valiant women of the OSS, without whom Europe and the world may not exist in its present state. I also call my colleagues' attention to the book ``The Secret War'' by Francis Russell, if they are interested in learning more about the details of this great agency as well as the women who participated.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I was not going to comment on the speech of the previous speaker, but since he mentioned my name, I will say that the plan that he is proposing is basically a new government program operating out of HCFA, which is the government body that administers this program for prescription drugs. What Republicans want to do is provide a drug program like we, as Members of Congress and the Senate and the President, have. It is patterned after the Federal Employee Health Benefit program, which is a private program. So the whole gist of what he is saying comes down to a new government agency versus a program similar to the one Members of Congress have. I really think the people of America, our constituents, would like to have the same health care I have, the same prescription drug program I have, and not a new government program. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman mentioned, I am here to talk about the Permanent Death Tax Repeal Act this body passed. Actually, Mr. Speaker, we have passed 22 tax cuts bills for the 107th Congress. Now some of these tax cuts were not passed by the Senate, were not signed by the President, but we passed all of these in the House, for example, foster care. We had a tax credit for foster care. We had an adoption tax credit. We had a tax credit in the energy bill. We had a tax credit for victims of terrorism. We had a tax cut for pension plans. The Marriage Penalty Relief Tax Acceleration Act was passed on May 21 of this year. We had an adoption tax credit and we had Holocaust victims tax credits. Mr. Speaker, all of these 22 tax cut bills passed by the House are as follows: 22 Tax Cut Bills Pass the House--107th Congress, 2001-2002 March 8, 2001--Across-the-Board Income Tax Relief: H.R. 3, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001, by Rep. Bill Thomas; passage vote 230-198 (Republicans 219-0, Democrats 10-197). March 29, 2001--Marriage Penalty Tax Relief: H.R. 6, the Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act of 2001, by Rep. Jerry Weller; passage vote 282-144 (Republicans 217-0, Democrats 64-143). April 4, 2001--Death Tax Repeal: H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act of 2001, by Rep. Jennifer Dunn; passage vote 274-154 (Republicans 215-3, Democrats 58-150). May 2, 2001--Retirement Savings and Pension Reform: H.R. 10, the Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act of 2001, by Rep. Rob Portman; passage vote 407-24 (Republicans 219-1, Democrats 187-22). May 15, 2001--Foster Care: H.R. 586, the Fairness for Foster Care Families Act of 2001, by Rep. Ron Lewis; passage vote under suspension 420-0 (Republicans 215-0, Democrats 203-0). May 16, 2001--Across-the-Board Income Tax Relief: 1836, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, by Rep. Bill Thomas; passage vote 230-197 (Republicans 216-0, Democrats 13-196). May 17, 2001--Adoption Tax Credit: H.R. 622, the Hope for Children Act, by Rep. Jim DeMint; passage vote 420-0 (Republicans 213-0, Democrats 205-0). May 26, 2001--Bush Tax Cut (Signed into law by President Bush): Conference Report on H.R. 1836, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, by Rep. Bill Thomas; passage vote 240-154 (Republicans 211-0, Democrats 28-153). July 19, 2001--Tax Provisions in Faith-Based Initiative: H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act of 2001, by Rep. J.C. Watts; passage vote 233-198 (Republicans 217-4, Democrats 15- 193). August 2, 2001--Tax Provisions in Energy Bill: H.R. 4, the SAFE Act of 2001, by Rep. Billy Tauzin; passage vote 240-189 (Republicans 203-16, Democrats 36-172). August 2, 2001--Tax Provisions in Patients' Bill of Rights: An amendment to H.R. 2563, the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act, by Rep. Bill Thomas; passage vote 236-194 (Republicans 217-2, Democrats 18-191). September 13, 2001--Terrorist Victims Tax Relief Bill (Signed into law by President Bush): H.R. 2884, the Victims of Terrorism Relief Act of 2001, by Rep. Bill Thomas; passage vote 418-0, (Republicans 214-0, Democrats 202-0). October 24, 2001--Economic Stimulus Package: H.R. 3090, the Economic Security and Recovery Act of 2001, by Rep. Bill Thomas; passage vote 216-214 (Republicans 212-7, Democrats 3- 206). December 20, 2001--Economic Stimulus Package: H.R. 3529, the Economic Security and Worker Assistance Act of 2001, by Rep. Bill Thomas; passage vote 244-193 (Republicans 214-2, Democrats 9-190). February 14, 2002--Economic Stimulus Package: An amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 622, renamed the Economic Security and Workers Assistance Act of 2002, by Rep. Bill Thomas; passage vote 225-199 (Republicans 214-1, Democrats 10-197). March 7, 2002--Tax Provisions in Unemployment Benefits and Jobs Bill (Signed into law by President Bush): An amendment to the Senate Amendment of H.R. 3090, renamed the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, by Rep. Bill Thomas; passage vote 417-3 (Republicans 218-0, Democrats 197- 3). April 11, 2002--Tax Provision in Pension Reform Bill: H.R. 3762, the Pension Security Act of 2002, by Rep. John Boehner; passage vote 255-163 (Republicans 208-2, Democrats 46-160). April 18, 2002--Make Permanent the Bush Tax Cut: An amendment to the Senate amendment on H.R. 586, renamed the Tax Relief Guarantee Act of 2002, by Rep. Bill Thomas; passage vote 229-198 (Republicans 219-1, Democrats 9-196). May 21, 2002--Acceleration of Marriage Penalty Relief and new WOTC Reforms: H.R. 4626, the Encouraging Work and Supporting Marriage Act of 2002, by Rep. Amo Houghton; passage vote 409-1 (Republicans 211-0, Democrats 196-1). June 4, 2002--Make Permanent the Expanded Adoption Tax Credit: H.R. 4800, to repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, with respect to the expansion of the adoption credit and adoption assistance programs, by Rep. Dave Camp; passage vote 391-1 (Republicans 204-0, Democrats 185-1). June 4, 2002--Make Permanent the Holocaust Victims Tax Benefit: H.R. 4823, the Holocaust Restitution Tax Fairness Act of 2002, by Rep. Clay Shaw; passage vote 392-1 (Republicans 205-0, Democrats 186-1). June 6, 2002--Make Permanent the Death Tax Repeal: H.R. 2143, the Permanent Death Tax Repeal Act of 2001, by Rep. Dave Weldon; vote note held yet. Prepared by the Office of the House Majority Leader, 6/4/02 Mr. Speaker, there is no greater defining principle of our party than letting taxpayers keep what they earn. Time and time again we have shown tax relief is good policy and good politics. As we debate these bills, we have the opportunity to reflect on our Nation's Byzantine tax code and the problem it imposes on the American taxpayers. This week, Mr. Speaker, we will be considering important and meaningful legislation to address a shortcoming in our tax system. Adopting the tax limitation amendment would require prospective tax increases to achieve a two-thirds vote which means it will be more difficult to have a recurrence of one of the largest tax increases passed in 1993. Our Founding Fathers had the foresight to mandate a two-thirds majority vote on certain priorities issues. The fourth President of the United States, James Madison, a central figure in the development of the Constitution and a vocal supporter of majority rule, argued that the greatest threat to liberty and Republic came from unrestrained majority rule. And that is why they proposed a two-thirds majority for conviction in impeachment trials, expulsion of a Member of Congress, and to override a presidential veto, quorum of two-thirds in the Senate to elect a President, consent to a treaty and proposing a constitutional amendment. Daniel Webster, a great Member of this body, said, ``The power to tax is a power to destroy.'' Americans are simply taxed too much. The total tax burden is the highest since World War II. We have the Federal income tax, the payroll tax, the gasoline tax, various other Federal excise taxes, finally, State and local taxes. Wherever we turn, we can expect to pay a tax on something. Americans are paying taxes and at the same time they are trying to pay off their debt. They have mortgages, auto loans, credit card debt and school loans. Americans also face the cost of complying with this tax code. According to the Tax Foundation, businesses and nonprofit corporations as well as individuals will spend an estimated 5.8 billion hours complying with the Federal income Tax Code, with an estimated compliance cost of almost $200 billion. This amounts to imposing a 20.4 cent tax compliance charge for every dollar the income tax system collects. Raising taxes comes all too easy for certain people here in Congress. It is the simplest solution for those who have affinity for increased spending around here. But this week we have the opportunity to make it harder to raise taxes. In this country supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officials like ourselves and representatives responsible to them according to the law. By passing the tax limitation amendment, we adhere to this definition of a Republic by requiring two-thirds of the Members, best representing the views of their constituents, to vote in favor of raising taxes. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.J. Res. 96 when it comes to the House floor to show our appreciation and to follow the mandates of a good Republic.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the Veterans Administration cemetery expansion is a top priority for the President next year. Florida has our Nation's second largest veterans' population in the United States and one of its oldest. In fact, it is number one. Nearly 325,000 veterans call home somewhere in the Jacksonville City vicinity, and this is the location of 3 congressional districts, mine, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), as well as in nearby southern Georgia. Yet the closest VA cemetery is at least a 3-hour drive from Jacksonville. The next closest in proximity lies in Marietta, Georgia, which is just north of Atlanta. A new national VA cemetery in the metropolitan Jacksonville area or nearby Clay County would answer the unmet need for north Floridians and southern Georgians. My colleagues may ask why should I support a cemetery in Florida. Well, from Michigan and New York, the Midwest and elsewhere, there is a high likelihood that their constituents are contemplating retiring in north Florida. We welcome them and I hope my colleagues will sign on to my bill H.R. 1205. We welcome your veteran constituents to call north Florida home. I hope you will consider cosponsoring my bill, H.R. 1205, and help us to provide the dignified, hallowed grounds our veterans deserve.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to share with my colleagues that May is Asthma Awareness Month. Last Wednesday on May 1, here on Capitol Hill, we held an entire day of related activities including a hearing and free screenings. I thank my colleagues that participated and found it rewarding and informative. Meanwhile, Asthma Awareness Day was observed nationally and many cities around the country hosted screenings and festivities to foster awareness about this startlingly increasing health condition in the United States. As you may know, some 15 million Americans have asthma, and also 50 million suffer from allergies. The incidence of asthma is increasing at an alarming rate, doubling over the last decade and a half. Of particular concern is that the group diagnosed with the highest increase of asthma is children under five years old. I hope that we in Congress can all do our part by promoting knowledge about some simple steps that can be taken to alleviate suffering of asthma and allergy symptoms in our Nation's schools. To begin, I would like to share what I do for my constituents in the Sixth Congressional District of Florida. In February working with a wonderfully resourceful group called the Allergy and Asthma Network Mothers of Asthmatics and the Environmental Protection Agency, I mailed this Indoor Air Quality, IAQ, Tools for Schools Action Kits. As you can see, this is a very fine kit and has lots of wonderful things to help schools. I mailed it to all 236 schools in my district, elementary through high school, public and private. These kits provide explanations and suggestions for identifying air quality problems and suggestions for their improvements. Now, why is indoor air quality important? This is from the EPA: ``The EPA studies of human exposure to air pollutants indicate that indoor level of pollutants may be two to five times and occasionally a hundred times higher than outdoor levels.'' Of course, most of people spend their time indoors. So here are our school children and our teachers captive inside a building all day, charged with building the foundation for their future, the children's future, potentially trapped in a state of dusty or moldy or other respiratory discomfort. This kit walks a school through setting up an indoor air quality program to make the school an environment of comfort and well-being for all the children and all the adults inside. Let me share the contents of this kit. To begin with there is a video tape with two short episodes. Hosts from the award winning PBS home improvement series, ``This Old House,'' show how one school successfully implemented this kit and explains the importance of healthful indoor air quality and properly maintained school ventilation systems. They point out that many indoor air quality problems can be easily and inexpensively prevented or solved by school maintenance professionals using basic techniques outlined in this video. Moving along, there is an IAQ coordinator guide check list and sample memos to the school, parents, contractors, and the media. There are also insightful start-up hints. To be most successful, a school would want to assemble a multidisciplinary IAQ team. This might include the school nurse, maintenance staff, teachers, food service staff, housekeeping, air conditioning and heating contractors and someone from the school district or superintendent's office. There is an IAQ problem-solving wheel. It combines identification of symptoms (blue), type, severity, and frequency and timing with environmental factors to finger through on the chart: odors, temperature or humidity problems, exhaust problems, grounds or building sources such as recent paint or pesticides, to arrive at instructions most applicable and helpful. I am glad to report that most of the suggestions in this kit are inexpensive to implement. Often just planning and organizing can make a monumental difference to indoor air quality in our schools. Finally and encouragingly, the kit reminds the IAQ coordinator that ``implementing an IAQ management program is an ongoing process and not an overnight miracle. Be patient, stay consistent, organize and never forget that you are doing something important for staff and students in your school.'' Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to our children and their teachers with asthma who also have allergies to ensure that our schools do not worsen their condition. I am pleased that my schools have this tool at their disposal and hope that they might give me some feedback to the progress in implementing it. If any Member would like information on obtaining these kits for your district schools, please contact my staff who will be delighted to help. Finally, I think something worth checking out, a recent book has come to my attention called ``My House Is Killing Me,'' the home guide for families with allergies and asthma by Mr. May and Mr. Samet is available. It is chock-full of extraordinary information. This is just one of many books. Let us all resolved to help overcome indoor air quality challenges. Mr. Speaker. I rise to share with all members that May is Asthma Awareness Month. Last Wednesday, May 1, we held an entire day of related activity, including a hearing and free screenings. We heard from physicians, a respiratory therapist, and a school nurse, all experts in diagnosing and treating asthma. We heard from a professional in air quality, from the Environmental Protection Agency, who discussed issues of air quality, dust, mold and other contributors to respiratory distress. We listened to an overseer of the States' Medicaid program to talk about drug formulary and disease management program issues with us. Most importantly, three courageous asthma sufferers came to relate their stories: two enthusiastic school children, Kyle Damitz and Allison Smith, and one hardy NFL football player, Jerome Bettis of the Pittsburgh Steelers. I think my colleagues that participated found it rewarding and informative. As you may know, some 15 million Americans have asthma, and also 50 million suffer from allergies. The incidence of asthma is increasing at an alarming rate, doubling over the last decade and a half. Of particular concern is that the group diagnosed with the highest increase of asthma is children under five years old. I hope that we in Congress can all do our part by promoting knowledge about some simple steps that can be taken to alleviate suffering of asthma and allergy symptoms in our Nation's schools. I myself have experienced bothersome allergy symptoms for much of my adult life, so I understand how critical it is to assess and modify, if necessary, your environment, and to have knowledgeable, reliable professionals on your healthcare team. I think many of us will agree that it can take patience, creativity, family support, and a sense of pure resolve to tackle your asthma or allergy symptoms, and find the regimen of medication, exercise, household adjustments and overall lifestyle that works for you. One point I would like to address is how, unfortunately, occasionally works of fiction or media portray the suffering of asthma in a negative light, or a reason for exploitation of a character. For example, in the classic book ``The Lord of the Flies'' a boy who is overpowered by other young men is identified as asthmatic, among other traits, and is therefore thought weak. Also, in a feature movie out last year, ``Pay it Forward,'' schoolyard bullies beat up on a child who helplessly watches his inhaler fly from his pocket. Finally, I understand from the most recent newsletter of the patient advocacy group Allergy and Asthma Network Mothers of Asthmatics that a character in the animated movie ``Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius'' is similarly exploited and mistreated by his classmates. All of us can help promote awareness and understanding of this physical ailment so as to combat any stereotyping about it. To that end, I would like to end my statement marveling at how one young asthmatic schoolboy conquered his labored breathing and went on to a wonderful role in history. I like to call this a story of ``respiration inspiration.'' It is about a little American boy in the 1870's who had very severe asthma. Back then, there were no inhalers or other medicine as we have today. He was often sick and generally very weak as a young boy. Well, he wanted to grow up and go to Harvard University and to hunt and to be in the military and to do many great things with his life. Luckily, he had a wise doctor and loving parents, who suggested he exercise his body along with his mind. His parents installed a sort of ``home gym'' for him, and he devised a strenuous regimen for himself. Today, we can read in a ``Sporting Calendar'' preserved, that from August 21 through December 11, 1871, this young fellow competed with his brothers and make cousins in ``fifteen athletic contests-- running, jumping, vaulting, wrestling, and boxing--and won fourteen of them, drawing the other one.'' [From The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, Edmund Morris, 1979.] He still suffered some asthma attacks, but less frequently, and less fearfully. This little boy grew up to become the governor of New York, and the leader of the most famous cavalry unit in the Spanish-American War, and finally, the President of the United States: Theodore Roosevelt. I think that with the attention to medical access, environment, and lifestyle that our hearing will showcase, that any of the children here with us today might follow in Teddy Roosevelt's footsteps. Let asthma slow no-one down!

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring a little good news to the floor this morning on the subject of welfare reform. When the 1996 welfare reform bill was debated in Congress, scholars across this country, legislators at the State and Federal level, in the Senate and the House alike, predicted that a welfare system which demanded work, imposed sanctions, and operated under time restrictions would result in huge declines in family income. One Member of Congress went so far as to say that the 1996 legislation was, quote, the most brutal act of social policy since reconstruction, end quote. Well, Mr. Speaker, we now have the benefit of time and we have the benefit of the U.S. Census Bureau data on family income and poverty for the year 2000, thereby allowing informed judgments in the debate on welfare reform and, of course, its benefits to the poor. This new data suggests great strides have been made since 1996. For the seventh year in a row, poverty is down. Even more, African American and Hispanic households had their lowest poverty rates ever. And the overall child poverty rate was lower than in any year since 1976. During the debate in 1996, the Urban Institute predicted that if this bill was enacted, the 1996 reforms would cast another 1 million children into poverty. Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, nearly 3 million children have been lifted out of poverty since 1996. The African American child poverty rate and the poverty rate for children living with single mothers are both at their lowest points in United States history. In fact, child poverty has declined more than twice as much during the economic recovery of the 1990s as it did during the economic recovery of the 1980s. Welfare reform has removed the ``expectation-less'' public safety net that served more as a hindrance than a motivational tool. As required by the 1996 law, States have overhauled their work requirements. As a result, in fiscal year 2000, the percentage of working welfare recipients reached an all-time high, up to 33 percent from 11 percent in 1996. The poorest 40 percent of single-mother families increased their earnings by about $2,300 per family on average between 1995 and 1999. Many single mothers leaving welfare told researchers and reporters that not only were their children proud of their work, and she was proud of them, but they felt pride in their accomplishments as well. Welfare reform has positively affected both the recipient and well- intentioned yet often misguided programs. Program leaders have realized that offering material goods and money is no substitute for personal engagement, instruction, and mentoring. The previous welfare system unintentionally engendered dependency and encouraged irresponsibility. Today's welfare-to-work mentoring programs are established to reach impoverished city residents beyond just monetary support. It is a way of recapturing a commitment to others. While social welfare policies primarily affect various individual aid recipients, they also affect the families of the working poor, the governmental agencies administering welfare programs, and institutions of civil society, including social service nonprofit organizations. However, welfare reform's most profound influence is seen in its effect on our families. Reform is assisting parents in becoming responsible role models. The resulting positive influence for the children is immeasurable. Mr. Speaker, the critics were wrong. Millions of families have been lifted from poverty by trading their welfare check for a paycheck. As we begin to reauthorize the welfare programs enacted in 1996, let our vision for independence rather than dependence be maintained. Surely we have seen a revolution in how government addresses the needs of the poor through assistance and empowerment. However, the real success belongs to the individual who took responsibility for themselves and their families.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, what do all these things have in common? Trade promotional authority, the energy bill, the job stimulus bill, the terrorist insurance bill, faith-based initiative; in fact, 51 bills all in common, plus 90 appointments for judges? What they all have in common is they have not been acted upon by the other body. The American people elected a Republican House and we have been productive over here. Governors, CEOs, coaches, deserve to have their team in place. We need the other body to act to put the administration's team in place and address the 51-plus bills that are in need of action. Point of Order

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, we need to expedite and to take the bills that were in the House and get them passed by the other body. The American people want action by its elected officials here in Congress.

Mr. STEARNS

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise of course in support of H.R. 476, the Child Custody Protection Act. Unfortunately, in May of 2000, Florida's parental notification laws were challenged in circuit court and a permanent injunction was granted. So we in Florida are very much involved with this debate. To give amnesty to those who manipulate State laws by crossing into States without parental notification laws, in my opinion the people who support this bill, it is irresponsible and a misguided use of the law. When we talk about this law, we are talking about safety here. To leave parents out of such a serious decision for the child with potentially long-term medical, emotional and psychological consequences is to jeopardize the health of the child. So when we talk about the Fugitive Slave Act or we talk about commerce, we are missing the point. We are talking about safety. To leave parents out of this decision for minors, in my opinion, is irresponsible. Some seem to suggest that most parents are not being reasonable but their primary concern is their teenaged daughter. One study has shown that up to two-thirds of the school-aged mothers were impregnated by adult males. These men could be prosecuted under State statutory rape laws, giving them a strong incentive to pressure the young woman to agree to an abortion without involving her parents. Let us put this into perspective. A child must have parental consent to be given an aspirin. Should the child want to go on a field trip, parental consent is required. Play in the school band, parental consent. Cosmetic ear piercing, that requires parental consent. Why? Because they are concerned about safety for fear that the girl may contract dangerous infections. Here we have advertising to minors that they can cross State lines, but surely the gentleman from New York would not support advertising of cigarettes to minors to allow them to smoke, so this kind of advertising should be prohibited; and obviously we should prohibit allowing young minors to go across State lines. Parents know what is best for their daughters' medical condition and can best help their daughters in times of need. I ask my colleagues to support this bill and pass it.

Mr. STEARNS. But the gentleman would agree that advertising to minors to allow them to go across State lines for an abortion is wrong?