Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased here this morning to announce that the Republicans in Congress have passed legislation which President Bush has signed into law to provide all taxpayers some money, an immediate tax rebate check. Because Republicans believe that surplus tax dollars are better spent by the American people than the Washington bureaucrats up here, you will all be receiving a rebate check in the next few weeks: $600 for married couples, $500 for head of households, and $300 for single taxpayers. Now, this is real money. It is money taken out of Washington put into the hands of families who need it and deserve it. After all, it is their money. The Treasury Department will start sending letters out to every taxpayer in America explaining when you will receive your tax rebate check and how much you will receive. You can go on the Internet and find out. If you want to, you can call my office and we will give you the Internet site. Rebate checks will be mailed over a 10-week period at a rate of 10 million checks per week starting in July. Taxpayers will receive their check according to their Social Security number. Mr. Speaker, it is their money. The taxpayers should be the ones spending it on car payments, mortgage, saving for college, school supplies and clothing for their children, a new washer, a dryer, on energy bills and gasoline.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, a little over a month ago I brought to the attention of my colleagues the deteriorating state of the Lafayette- Escadrille Memorial, which honors all United States aviators who flew for France in World War I. On June 17, a wreath laying ceremony will take place at the memorial to commemorate the 85th anniversary of its dedication. Tomorrow I will be introducing a resolution in honor of the 68 Americans who were memorialized or buried on the site and to honor all our fallen aviators of World War I. In addition, the resolution will express support for the funding needed to restore this hallowed site. In a poster right here, this storyboard depicts the history of the Lafayette-Escadrille and their ``Heritage of Valor and Sacrifice.'' Seven Americans formed the original American squadron. When the Escadrille, which means squadron, transferred to United States command in 1918, 265 American volunteers had served in the French Air Service with 180 of those having flown combat missions. In all, the Escadrille flew 3,000 combat sorties, amassing nearly 200 victories. In fact, the Escadrille became the birth of the United States Air Force. A joint French-American committee was organized at the end of World War I to locate a final resting place for these American aviators. With the land donated by the French Government, the Lafayette-Escadrille Memorial was dedicated on July 4, 1928. The picture in the middle is the front of the memorial. It encompasses an arch of triumph with a series of columns placed on either side. Indeed, it is a sight to behold. The memorial also contains a sanctuary and a burial crypt. Sunlight fills the tomb by way of 13 stained glass windows. Each of these works of art depicts the Escadrille flying its many missions over the battlefields of Europe. One of the most striking stained glass works depicts the U.S. aviators, escorted by an eagle, on a symbolic flight across the Atlantic to come to the aid of France. Sadly, the memorial is in desperate need of repair. The structure sits in a meadow with a high water table. Heavy rains flood the tomb, exacerbated by the poor functioning drains and water leaking through the terrace behind the memorial. Structural repairs are needed for the crypt and the overall foundation, and double glass is needed to protect the remarkable, remarkable stained glass windows. If we look again at the center, we will see that the front of the memorial is cracked and stained with pollution. Let me show my colleagues the next poster. This graphic here shows the deterioration inside the crypt. The crumbling masonry and stucco and overall structural damage is evident. Here we can see additional damage on the ceiling. Furthermore, the stained glass windows, like the one we see here, are not protected. These beautiful works of art could be lost forever if the structural deterioration is allowed to continue. In 1930, U.S. Attorney Nelson Cromwell founded the Lafayette- Escadrille Memorial Foundation. He endowed the foundation with a $1.5 million trust fund for maintenance, which has all been exhausted. Today, the foundation has a mirror organization in France and a pledge of monetary support to restore this memorial. Although studies to estimate the cost of restoring the memorial are ongoing, it is obvious that the resources required will exceed the meager means of this foundation. The French Government has already indicated its willingness to assist, and it is time for the United States Government to do the same. Combining the efforts of private industry and the United States Congress, it is my hope to join the French in restoring the memorial to its original beauty. It is the right thing to do to honor our fallen aviators of World War I and to demonstrate our respect for the sacrifices of all Americans in service to our Nation and our allies. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join with me in supporting funding for the restoration of this great memorial.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, families are overtaxed, businesses are overregulated, and our economy is suffering as a result. Clearly there is room within the enormous tax surplus to pay down the debt and fund priority programs while ensuring working families receive the tax relief they both need and deserve. Full, fair, and immediate tax relief has been and will continue to be one of my top priorities here in Congress. The easiest thing to do in Washington is to increase spending. One of the hardest things to do is to reduce taxes. But thanks to the President's steadfast leadership, hardworking taxpayers will get the significant tax relief they deserve. Already this session of Congress, the U.S. House has passed key tax relief proposals, including repeal of the death tax, marriage penalty tax relief, and the expansion of the child tax credit. Mr. Speaker, our new President has been in the White House just over 100 days and already we have helped him to deliver this incredible tax relief package to the American people. This is not only a victory, it is a victory accomplished with incredible speed. Within this year, hardworking Americans across this Nation will be benefiting from more dollars in their pockets.

Mr. STEARNS

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

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering to H.R. 1 would require that the State educational agencies make known in the form of a report to the Department of Education those schools that States identify as not making adequate progress in educating our children. The Department of Education would then be required to send a report to Congress with this same information. This information would be a valuable resource, both to the Department of Education in carrying out its responsibilities, and, of course, to Congress in determining the level of funding needed. A school enters an improvement status when it fails to meet those State targets for improving student performance. These targets, of course, vary from State to State. Once identified for improvement, schools, with support from their districts, are given assistance and resources to improve student achievement. The number of title I schools across the country identified as needing improvement may be over 8,000. I say they may be, because we do not actually know which schools the States have identified as failing our children. Numbers alone do not tell us how long individual schools have been in improvement status. Under current law, the Department of Education is prevented from gathering this valuable information, which greatly hampers them in determining the needs of a low-performing school so they can better support State and local reform efforts. Instead of this creating more work for the local educational agency, this amendment, Mr. Chairman, actually relieves them of the burdensome task of having to respond to individual requests from the many programs that use this information. In effect, it streamlines the efforts of all who are involved in the effort to provide the best education to our children. Specific information on those schools identified is important so that we can assess which schools are not meeting State improvement goals. The information will also provide a baseline for determining the number of schools that improve. Mr. Chairman, $23 billion is a large amount of money, so it is imperative that in this body we are responsible and fully aware as to how this money improves our local schools and, of course, if it exceeds our expectations. The President's plan involves great accountability. This amendment is only an extension of that principle. This amendment is insistent upon requiring that all schools be held accountable by name. Individual schools will no longer hide behind an anonymous number. If we are sincere in wanting to ``leave no child behind,'' we must first know those children who are at risk. This is by no means an effort by the Federal Government to garner greater control of the local schools. Rather, Mr. Chairman, it is about facilitating access to very important information. So this is a simple idea and a very simple amendment. It shines the light of day on those schools in greatest need. My amendment lifts the veil on those schools that are found to be failing and enables the Department of Education and, yes, the United States Congress, to address those needs. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me this time. I support the rule. This bipartisan legislation addresses the needs of this country's most vulnerable citizens, the children. Many families who would like to open their homes to children in need are prevented from doing so because of the $8,000 to $30,000 cost that is associated with this. The increase in the adoption tax credit to $10,000 for all adoptions would greatly facilitate the placement of children into permanent homes. In Congress, we are limited as to what we can do to promote healthy families. We cannot legislate kindness from parents towards their children nor can we legislate responsible parental behavior. Therefore, it is our duty to do what is in our power to encourage strong families. One such thing we can do is to enable these families who would like to open their households as permanent and loving homes for children in need. This legislation relieves the heavy financial burden placed on these families. Any family who wishes to care for these children in a permanent way should have the support of this body. I support the rule and urge passage of the bill.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration has been in office less than 100 days, and they are unveiling a comprehensive energy policy. The Clinton-Gore administration was in office 8 years and provided this country with a comprehensive energy crisis. The energy issue is not about a clean environment, it is about developing a policy. The administration had 8 long years to provide this country with a coherent energy policy and they did not. Clinton-Gore Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said it best when he admitted that the Clinton-Gore administration had been caught napping on energy policy. Mr. Speaker, now this country is waking up to the nightmare of a full-blown energy crisis, complete with blackouts and high gas prices as a result. The Clinton-Gore administration had no policy for 8 years. The Bush- Cheney administration now has one within 100 days.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, having some concern by the recent UN votes that denied the United States a seat on both the Human Rights Commission and the Narcotics Trafficking Commission, many of my colleagues are again questioning how the U.S. should approach its participation in the United Nations. In reality, while there is sufficient reason to assess blame on certain functions within the UN, we should also look to our own government. In 1999, during the State Department authorization debate, I brought to the attention of my colleagues the treatment of a dedicated State Department employee, Ms. Linda Shenwick. Ms. Shenwick is an exemplary public servant, having served in the United States mission to the United Nations handling personnel and budget issues. She quickly carved out a reputation for diligence and hard work. She earned three consecutive outstanding ratings and a promotion to the Senior Executive Service. Ms. Shenwick's reputation earned the respect of other UN member states resulting in her election to serve on the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions in 1991 and again then in 1993. In her position she repeatedly found evidence of deliberate waste, fraud and mismanagement at the UN. Her reports, however, were largely ignored by the previous administration. Without recourse to address these incidents on her own, Ms. Shenwick began notifying key Members of Congress regarding her discoveries. As a result of her work, Congress forced the UN to create an Office of Inspector General to end such fraud and mismanagement. So how was one of the most valuable civil servants rewarded? Certain government officials and department employees embarked on a campaign to sabotage her career. Ms. Shenwick has endured false accusations, unsubstantiated poor performance reviews, and the ultimate and, I believe, illegal removal from government service. I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues that when former Secretary Madeline Albright refused to renominate Ms. Shenwick to the UN Budget Committee, negating 5 years of experience with the Byzantine UN budgetary bureaucracy, the U.S. ended up losing its seat on the Budget Committee for the next 4 years. In all honesty, I do not think we would be seeing current problems at the U.S. mission if we had more employees like Linda Shenwick. Ms. Shenwick is a person that believes in the United Nations and wants to serve to bolster the influence of the United States and to strengthen the organization as a whole. The problems of waste, fraud and mismanagement have been highlighted by most of my colleagues here on the House floor over the years. Why, then, do we not insist that the Department of State staff the U.S. mission with those individuals who know where to look for these problems and have the courage and have the dedication to serve and to report them to Congress? Ms. Shenwick should be reinstated to her former position, reimbursed for her personal expenses, and we should have her personnel files expunged of any unsatisfactory reviews or other false evidence to justify those reviews. I will be sending a letter to President Bush requesting reinstatement of Ms. Shenwick so the United States can again benefit from her expertise, her diligence, and highly exemplary service. Mr. Speaker, I am also introducing a concurrent resolution to the same effect. I hope my colleagues will join with me in signing this letter to the President and also cosponsor my legislation.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, many say as California goes, so goes the rest of the Nation. Considering that, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a new study of public education spending in California. The study reveals that the generally accepted per-pupil spending figure of $6,700 for California students significantly understates the actual per-pupil spending figure that is approximately $8,500. Moreover, two out of five, two out of every five, public school dollars are spent on bureaucracy and overhead rather than on classrooms. Instructions and internal legal squabbles drain education dollars from the system. The authors, Dr. Bonsteel of San Francisco and accountant Carl Brodt of Berkeley, intended their analysis to be a nonpartisan one. Bonsteel is a Democrat and Brodt is a Republican. I will share some of the key findings of the study entitled, ``Where is all the money going? Bureaucrats and Overhead in California's Public Schools,'' together with the authors' proposal for decreasing bureaucracy and enhancing accountability. First, consider that inflation-adjusted spending on public education in California has increased by 39 percent since 1978. Nevertheless, textbooks are frequently unavailable, school libraries have been shut down, and art and music programs have been terminated. The authors conclude, ``This is primarily because of the explosion in spending on administration and overhead.'' Approximately 40 percent of California's K-12 tax dollars are spent on bureaucracy and overhead, not classroom instruction. This figure comes not just from the Bonsteel-Brodt analysis, but also from previous studies conducted by the Rand Corporation and the Little Hoover Commission. Four levels of administration run K-12 schools in California, and they act as though they are separate fiefdoms. They quarrel frequently, and often those disagreements end in lawsuits among the bureaucratic fiefdoms, with the taxpayers picking up the tab for lawyers on both sides. The California Department of Education and the State Department of Education maintain legal counsel to sue each other. This Bonsteel-Brodt study presents a sample State Board of Education agenda listing 30 lawsuits confronting the State Board. Seven of those suits pit one layer of the education bureaucracy against another layer. In one set of lawsuits, the San Francisco Unified School District and the State Department of Education have squared off over bilingual education. The STAR testing statute mandates that children who have been in the United States at least a year be tested in English, the presumption being they should have learned English by then. But the San Francisco school district contends it must test immigrant students in their non-English native language. San Francisco is the only district making that claim, but taxpayers must cover the cost of that legal spat. Even more troubling is that special education programs for children with mental and physical handicaps are plagued by bureaucratic gridlock at the Federal, State, county, and local levels, as well as by unfunded mandates from the Federal and State levels. Parents of special-ed children have no effective voice in program decision-making. Local citizens have diminishing power to influence local school policy, since almost two-thirds of education tax dollars now are funneled through the States. In addition, while the Federal Government furnishes just 6 percent of education funding, its requirements account for close to half of all education paperwork. Lisa Keegan, State Superintendent for Arizona schools, has said it takes 165 members of her staff, 45 percent of the total, just to manage Federal programs. The Bonsteel-Brodt study notes bureaucracies in all levels ``invariably understate true per student spending.'' At the national level, the figures released by the National Center for Education Statistics are usually the ``current expenditures'' number, which does not account for the cost of school payments or interest payments on school bonds. In California, the spending statistics are ``even more deceptive,'' the study's authors charge. The all-inclusive and thus more accurate figure for per-pupil spending in California is approximately $8,500 per student, more than 25 percent higher. Using the low figure, the California NEA affiliate has advocated hefty spending increases for the express purpose of raising the State's per pupil spending above the national average. The best hope for decreasing bureaucracy and enhancing accountability, the Bonsteel-Brodt report concludes, is school choice of various kinds. They note, for example, that California's public charter schools have easily outperformed traditional public schools, while operating on about 60 percent of the per-student funding of conventional public schools. The charters have accomplished this by cutting the bureaucratic overhead. Mr. Speaker, as we look to solve America's education problems, we must first honestly ask, where does the money go? Only then can we make the right and often tough choices to reform education.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the deteriorating state of a memorial to our World War I aviators. The Lafayette-Escadrille Memorial, which is located west of Paris, honors all the United States aviators who flew for France in World War I, with 68 Americans memorialized or buried on the site. Formed in 1916 as part of the French army, the Lafayette-Escadrille was the birth of the American combat United States Air Force we have today. In fact, Captain Eddie Rickenbacker, the first U.S. trained ace, was trained by Mr. Lufberry, one of the original U.S. volunteers in the Escadrille. ``Escadrille'' is a French term for squadron. Seven Americans formed the original American squadron. When the Escadrille transferred to U.S. command in 1918, 265 American volunteers had served in the French air service, with 180 of those having flown combat missions. In all, the Escadrille flew 3,000 combat sorties, amassing nearly 200 victories. By the end of the war, most of the fallen of the Lafayette-Escadrille were buried along the battlefront in various military cemeteries. A joint French-American committee was organized to locate a final resting place for those American aviators. With land donated by the French Government, the Memorial was dedicated on July 4, 1928. My colleagues, the memorial is a site to behold. It encompasses an arch of triumph with a series of columns placed on either side. It contains a sanctuary and a burial crypt. Sunlight fills the tomb by way of 13 stained glass windows. Each of these works of art depicts the Escadrille flying its many missions over the battlefields of Europe. One of the more striking stained glass works depicts the U.S. aviators escorted by an eagle on a symbolic flight across the Atlantic to come to the aid of the French. However, sadly I report, the memorial is in desperate need of repair. The structure sits in a meadow with a high water table. Heavy rains flood the tomb, worsened by the poorly functioning drains and water leaking through the terrace behind the memorial. Structural repairs are needed for the crypt and the overall foundation, and double glass is needed to protect the remarkable stained glass windows. In 1930, U.S. attorney Nelson Cromwell founded the Lafayette- Escadrille Memorial Foundation. He endowed the foundation with $1.5 million for its maintenance, but unfortunately, all of those funds have been exhausted. Today, the foundation has a mirror organization in France and a pledge of monetary support to restore the memorial. Although studies to estimate the cost of restoring the memorial are ongoing, it is obvious that the resources required will exceed the meager means of the foundation. The French Government has already indicated its willingness to assist, and it is time for the U.S. Government to do the same. Just as we did in World War I, World War II, and most recently, in the Gulf War, it is time for the U.S. and French Governments to join together in doing what is right and what is just. This is an important memory. We must perform the duty of living and properly honor the memory of those who gave so much. Combining the efforts of private industry and Congress, it is my hope to join the French in restoring the memorial to its original beauty. It is the right thing to do, to honor our fallen aviators of World War I and to demonstrate our respect for the sacrifices of all Americans in service to our Nation and our allies. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting funding for the restoration of this magnificent memorial.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a Sense of Congress resolution that the Constitution of the United States allows for a prohibition against acts of desecration of the flag of the United States. I do so because I believe that nothing could be more important to most Americans than to preserve and honor our Nation's flag. In the past, those who have been prosecuted for flag burning have not been prosecuted for what they said, but for the method they chose to express themselves. Justice Stevens wrote that the government has a legitimate interest in preserving the flag, similar to the government's interest in protecting the Lincoln Memorial from acts of vandalism. Some say our flag is just a piece of cloth. Well, that's like saying America is just a piece of land, that Florida's just another state. No, there's something special about it. It's our flag. It represents us-- you, me, our families, our friends, our heritage and our future. It represents our memories and our dreams. To desecrate the American flag is to desecrate the memory of the thousands of Americans who have sacrificed their lives to keep that banner flying, intact. It is to desecrate everything this country stands for. Yes, Congress must be extremely careful when dealing with proposals that would amend the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment. American citizens must have the opportunity to voice discontent, however, that freedom of expression is not absolute. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens claims that the act of flag- burning has nothing to do with disagreeable ideas, but rather involves conduct that diminishes the value of an important national asset. The act of flag-burning is meant to provoke and arouse, not to reason. Flag-burning is simply an act of cultural and patriotic destruction. My Sense of Congress resolution reaffirms that Congress should have the power, but doesn't have the power until the constitutional amendment is ratified by the states.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, even before Vice President Gore conceded the Presidential election, the Democrats talked about counting all of the ballots to see who really won. Well, that task has been accomplished. The Miami Herald, Knight Ridder and USA Today conducted a comprehensive review of more than 64,000 ballots in all 67 Florida counties. What did this review find? Bush's margin of 537 votes would have increased to 1,665 if all the ballots were counted. This number was reached using the standard of counting every dimple, pinprick or hanging chad as a valid vote. Under different scenarios, counting chads with two corners detached, or counting dimples for the Presidential election, the verdict was the same: Governor Bush still would have won. This election was decided conclusively last year. For those who could not accept this fact, there was this fantasy, ``What if all the votes had been counted?'' The answer remains the same: President George W. Bush.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in the last Congress and many before, many of us have heard predictions that have been made regarding China. Advocates last year stated that granting permanent normal trade relations to China would help bring reform to this Communist government, and establish a real friendship between our nations. Reading the papers last year and this year, this week particularly, I see nothing to support that statement. I think relationships are pretty shaky as they are. On February 11 of this year, Chinese officials detained an American family. In doing so, they separated the couple's 5-year-old son from his parents for 26 days. After 26 days, little Andrew was reunited with his father and expelled; but his mother is still being held. President Bush is demanding the release of this Washington-based sociologist. Her family claims that the alleged spying charges are trumped up. The State Department has announced this woman was not even an agent of the American intelligence service. Now China has detained a second American scholar. This hardly seems like a nation that is becoming cooperative after receiving permanent normal trade relations with the United States. China's already poor human rights record sadly worsened last year. I am pleased that the new administration has recognized that fact and has urged the United Nations to address the widespread oppression in China. The United States U.N. Ambassador stated that the U.S. ``should not be silent when those who call for democratic government or more cultural preservation and religious freedom in Tibet and elsewhere in China are suppressed or when advocates of labor rights are thrown in jail.'' But sadly, this may never take place. Mr. Speaker, every year since the 1989 killing of student protestors in and around Tiananmen Square, China's delegation has introduced a ``no-action motion,'' therefore successfully stopping all attempts to examine its human rights record. It would seem naive to ask why. All of this would seem troublesome enough, but now we face even larger concerns. On Sunday of this week, a U.S. Navy plane and a Chinese fighter jet collided over the South China Sea causing the American craft to make an emergency landing in China and the Chinese plane to crash. Officials from China are claiming that the bulkier, clumsier American plane that is roughly the size of a Boeing 737 rammed the light, agile Chinese fighter jet. This would again seem to contradict our view of common sense. Many U.S. experts agree that the incident was most likely caused by an accident on the part of the Chinese. Sensitivity to the situation will ultimately result from the Chinese handling of the American EP-3 and its crew of 24. It is a reconnaissance aircraft, so it would seem likely that the Chinese military experts would want to board the aircraft to assess what is there, and I understand this morning that diplomats are meeting with the crew. U.S. officials state that the Chinese generally intercept one out of every three U.S. patrol flights. Recently, concern has been raised with the Chinese Government regarding the fact that Chinese pilots have ``become more aggressive.'' Now, according to Admiral Dennis Blair, Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command, the U.S. has protested the ``pattern of increasingly unsafe behavior,'' but ``did not get a satisfactory response.'' It is presumed that all 24 crew members are safe, but there is yet to be a direct contact between the crew and American officials. American officials are there and are hoping to get in to talk to the crew. Navy officials also claim that last week a confrontation occurred between a Chinese warship and a Navy surveillance ship in international waters. The officials describe the incident as threatening. Other examples showing cracks within our forged relationship with China also bear noting, such as China's involvement with Pakistan's nuclear bomb program and their recent questionable involvement in Iraq, to name just a few. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that our relationship with China needs to be carefully reevaluated. Since PNTR, we have seen aggressive behavior on their part. Our prayers are with the 24 crew members, and I am hopeful that a speedy resolution will occur. I look to the Bush administration to move forward appropriately with China.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I recently had the privilege to participate in an extraordinary event, the 15th National Disabled Veterans Winter Sports Clinic. This year it was held at Snowmass Village at Aspen, CO. Sponsored by the Disabled American Veterans, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and others, this event provides disabled veterans the chance to engage in various outdoor and indoor sports activities. More than 300 severely disabled veterans took to the ski slopes, tackled rock climbing, went scuba diving, or played sledge hockey. This wonderful program is much more than a source of fun and athletic challenges; it is designed to assist in the rehabilitation of veterans with severe disabilities. Physical activities are essential to improving physical fitness, refining motor skills, and building self- confidence. Many of these men and women at one time thought that their disability ended hopes for an active, vibrant life. Instead of viewing their physical condition as a barrier to recreation, these individuals saw the opportunity to overcome the obstacle posed by their disability. The men and women at the clinic did not dwell on adversity; rather they eagerly engaged in the physical trial of sports. This event demonstrated the courage and abilities of these veterans. It also serves as an inspiration to others to be bold in redefining what the disabled can do. I had the privilege of being Chairman of the Veterans' Health Subcommittee and I now serve as its Vice Chairman. I worked with the VA, the DAV, and other wonderful groups in strengthening the services provided to veterans and I look forward to continuing this cooperation. The Veterans are the only group of Americans that have earned their benefits, they didn't just happen to be here, they earned it on the battlefield, they earned it in service to America. Serving America's veterans mean exploring new options for enhancing their quality of life. The Winter Sports Clinic exemplifies an innovative approach to honoring the men and women who served in uniform.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall nos. 62, 63 and 64 I was detained to speak to the ``World Sports Clinic'' for the Disabled Veterans of America. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on all three.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a number of concerns that I have been made aware of by the Florida Public Service Commission regarding H.R. 496. In the past week my staff and I have been in contact with the bill's sponsor, Representative Barbara Cubin, in assembling answers to the Florida PSC's concerns. For the record I would like to summarize the Florida PSC's concerns and the answers we have received from Representative Cubin's office. As a result of these proposed diminished reporting requirements, how would regulated and deregulated services be differentiated to avoid cross subsidization of telecommunications offerings and non-regulated services? H.R. 496 would do nothing to change the FCC's or state commissions ability to differentiate regulated and non- regulated services. H.R. 496 would leave intact the FCC's cost allocation rules. It would only eliminate the separate requirement to file voluminous CAM and ARMIS reports originally designed for the largest carriers. How will there be assurance that purported savings from reporting responsibilities will actually be applied toward the provision of advanced services in rural areas, as highlighted in the bill? Virtually all 2 percent carriers only serve areas defined under the Act as ``rural''. Their network investment will necessarily be in rural areas. Rate of return regulation, by its nature, will ensure either reinvestment in rural network infrastructure or reduced rates for customers. Virtually all 2 percent carriers are rate of return carriers. Many of the benefits of the bill are intangible. It would primarily give carriers added flexibility to respond more quickly and effectively to customer demand and competitive opportunities. To attempt to tie specific savings directly to specific investments would significantly increase bureaucratic red tape rather than decrease it and would ultimately slow investment in rural areas. What restriction in this bill will prevent regional bell operating companies and other large holding companies from qualifying as a 2 percent carrier? New language added by the Energy and Commerce Committee necessarily excludes larger companies from the definition of ``two percent carrier''. The definition now includes an operating company which, together with all affiliated carriers, ``controls . . . fewer than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines. . . .'' The new language was adopted from a recent FCC order that definitively construed the same definition in Section 251(f)(2) of the 1996 Act. If a company such as Cincinnati Bell is considered a 2 percent carrier, then what assurance is there that this bill is truly targeted toward rural areas and not certain urban areas such as Cincinnati, Ohio? Apart from Cincinnati, the RBOCs and Sprint serve the remaining 99 of the 100 largest metropolitan statistical areas in the country. The remainder of two percent companies serve rural areas and second- and third-tier towns (e.g. Rock Hill, South Carolina; Roseville, California; Dalton, Georgia). How does self-certification of competitive entry by a ``single facility based competitor serving a single customer'' truly promote effective competition, or would this ``one-customer'' standard in reality inhibit true development of competition? H.R. 496 requires significantly more than ``one customer'' for competitive entry. It requires, either expressly or by necessary implication: Existence of an enforceable interconnection agreement between the incumbent and competitor (including any necessary state arbitration procedures). Provision or procurement of switching facilities. Actual provision of service (implying billing, customer service, maintenance and other systems that are fully operational). Any competitive carrier that has made the investment necessary to meet all these conditions would necessarily be positioned to pose a competitive threat throughout the ILEC's service territory. Any concerns regarding the competition standard in H.R. 496 should be mitigated by the fact that Section 286(a) only allows downward pricing flexibility. Regardless of the trigger, customers would benefit from lowered prices and increased competition. The standards set in 286(d) mirror the standards set by the FCC for competitive entry in the SBC/Ameritech merger, which required a small number of actual customers to establish competitive entry by SBC. If ``any new service'' not currently being provisioned by a 2 percent carrier is subsequently offered, would this bill preempt a State from oversight of this offering and why should it be exclusively considered interstate in nature? H.R. 496 would not alter state jurisdiction over new services. H.R. 496 would only affect the FCC's cumbersome approval process for new interstate services. Historically, states have had jurisdiction over intrastate services but not interstate services. To date, no party except the Florida PSC has suggested enlarging the scope of the bill to include new intrastate services. Would the ability of 2 percent carriers to opt in or choose to opt out of the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) pool, in Section 284 of the bill, undermine this mechanism and promote ``gaming'' of this process by certain carriers? New language added by the Energy and Commerce Committee restricts 2 percent carriers' ability to move in and out of the pool. This language provides an additional level of assurance that no company could game this process. The majority of 2 percent carriers will continue to rely on the NECA pool. It is not in their interest to undermine a mechanism that serves their and their customers' needs. Is this legislation premature in light of the FCC's current consideration of the proposal by the Multi-Association Group (MAG) which also purports to help promote the deployment of broadband services to rural areas? Also, isn't it premature in light of the FCC's docket on streamlining of reporting requirements for mid-sized carriers? H.R. 496 and the MAG plan address significantly different sets of issues. H.R. 496 is primarily designed to clear away a handful of outmoded regulatory burdens that are ill-suited for 2 percent carriers. The MAG plan proposes an entirely new system of incentive regulation and would also significantly alter existing access charges. Since they are complementary initiatives, it is unnecessary to delay one pending consideration of the other. The FCC docket on streamlining reporting requirements, while constructive, will in all likelihood perpetuate a number of the same burdens that exist today. The FCC has been debating accounting reform without taking any final action at least since 1999 when it was responding to the ITTA forbearance petition.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, Florida's veterans population is the largest in the nation second only to California. When I introduced legislation in the 104th to designate 1,500 acres of Cecil Field for a veterans cemetery, the veteran populations of the Florida and Georgia counties was 314,180. Today, that number is 451,127. The Florida Department of Veterans Affairs and the Georgia Department of Veterans Affairs provided this information. That represents a sizeable increase in the number of veterans living in this area. So, in just five or six years we have about 137,000 more veterans living in this region. These statistics bear out the fact that there is a definite need for an additional cemetery to serve the northeast section of Florida and southern Georgia. The nearest ``open'' VA cemetery serving the northeast Florida and southern Georgia veteran community catchment area is located in Bushnell, Florida, which is a three-hour drive from Jacksonville. An existing national cemetery in St. Augustine is full. The next closest in proximity is to be found in Marietta, Georgia just north of Atlanta. I hope my colleagues, especially my fellow Floridians, will join me and Representative Ander Crenshaw in our efforts to get a national cemetery in the Jacksonville metropolitan area.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, this week the House Committee on the Budget will take the first step towards passing the budget for fiscal year 2002. Our budget is a bold and responsible statement that places the concerns of hard-working American families ahead of the concerns of the Washington bureaucracy. With budget surpluses in Washington, we have an opportunity to shore up Social Security, protect Medicare, pay down our record amount of debt, and provide relief from enormously high tax burdens. Federal taxes are the highest they have ever been since World War II. When you combine the overall tax burden of local, State, and Federal governments, plus the cost of regulations, folks are giving almost half of what they make back to their government. This is unacceptable and needs to be changed. Without a doubt, working Americans need a break. This is not the time for politicians in Washington to point fingers of blame at the current state of the economy. We must rise above the partisan bickering and pass legislation that will provide immediate and meaningful relief to hard-working American families.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I just dropped a bill this morning, and I intend to talk about it. It is called the Health Care Tax Deduction Act. What it does is allow deductions for amounts paid for health insurance premiums and unreimbursed prescription drugs. What I am proposing would also provide much-needed relief to individuals struggling with the high cost of health insurance and prescription drugs through a tax deduction. As we all know, employers can write off the cost of health care coverage that is purchased for their employees. Why cannot individuals be afforded this same opportunity to write off their premiums and their unreimbursed prescription drug expenses? The current tax code sets a threshold at 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income before medical expenses can be taken as a write-off. I do not think this is fair. Right now, under the current tax code, in order to claim health care expenses the individuals must file an itemized tax return. I believe that all taxpayers should be allowed to deduct these out-of-pocket expenses and costs and that we need to include a place where this deduction could be taken on the short form such as the 1040 EZ, and the 1040A. My bill also applies to the self-employed because individuals who are self-employed will not be eligible for a 100 percent write-off until the year 2003. Employer-sponsored health insurance is declining. In 1987, 69.2 percent of the population under 65 had health insurance through their place of employment or a family member's place of employment. That number declined to 64.9 percent in 1998. Just who are we talking about? Well, four out of five uninsured Americans in 1998 lived in a family with a full-time worker. Only 72 percent of employees are eligible for coverage from their employer, and about 40 percent of small businesses, 50 workers or less, do not offer any kind of health insurance. This is according to the National Coalition on Health Care. So who is affected? Low and middle-income families; young adults 18 to 24 make up 30 percent of the uninsured; the near-elderly ages 55 to 64; minority and immigrant populations; people who work in small businesses; others include people with day-labor jobs, temporary or part-time jobs. I believe we must address this issue because so many Americans are uninsured today, and many millions more are underinsured. So you might ask why is this so important. Because we all end up paying for the uninsured through higher premiums, deductibles and copayments for covered services, higher taxes for uncompensated care, and reduced wages. Did you know that Americans spends more than $1 trillion on health care? That represents about 13.5 percent of the gross domestic product. By 2008, spending will increase to 16.5 percent of the gross domestic product. In fact, Mr. Speaker, Americans spend more per capita for health care than any other nation in the world. But why are so many people uninsured? Most studies cite cost as a major reason for not having insurance. Many workers decline coverage through their place of employment because they cannot afford to pay their share of the premium. Others, such as temporary workers, cannot afford to purchase their own insurance. We all know that the cost of health care has risen dramatically over the last 20 years. The average premium costs about $4,500 for an individual and about $6,500 for a family. Of that amount, employees pay 10 to 30 percent of that premium. Unfortunately, things will probably get worse because many employers cover the cost of the high premiums to keep workers in a tight labor market. However, if the economy continues to slow down and unemployment begins to rise, then employers might pass the cost along to the employees or in fact discontinue providing health insurance altogether. Seniors, in particular, have been impacted because so many HMOs have pulled out of Medicare due in large part to the high cost of prescription drugs. Allowing a simple write-off of certain costly health care expenses such as health insurance premiums and out-of- pocket expenses for prescription drugs would be a tremendous benefit that may not be available to them under the current system. Mr. Speaker, I will be sending out a letter; and I hope all of my colleagues cosponsor my bill. It makes sense to have all taxpayers have this type of deduction available to them.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, more than 76 million baby boomers are marching toward retirement, creating the greatest demographic challenge this Nation has ever faced. Our government is not prepared to meet their needs. Medicare could be insolvent in the near future. In just a few years, Social Security could be in the red. The implications are frightening. Seniors currently rely on Social Security for nearly half of their incomes. Medicare provides a staggering amount of the elderly with their basic insurance benefits. That is why the Republican Congress has taken the first step. We stopped the 30-year raid on the Social Security trust fund, and also on Medicare. Republicans made retirement security a priority and followed through on our word. Now Congress has adopted a lock box on the Social Security program and the Medicare program. Madam Speaker, Republicans stopped Congress from spending the surplus out of these trust funds for new spending programs.