Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 725) to establish a toll free number under the Federal Trade Commission to assist consumers in determining if products are American- made, as amended.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material on H.R. 725, as amended.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are constantly reminded in our daily lives that knowledge is power. Under H.R. 725, the American consumer has the power to determine if a product is indeed ``Made in America.'' This bill, introduced by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), my friend, will make ``Made in America'' product information more readily accessible to the consumer and without cost to the Federal Government. Currently, my colleagues, there is no central repository for lists of American-made products. H.R. 725 establishes a 3-year pilot program creating such a repository entirely funded by fees assessed to manufacturers that choose to voluntarily list their products in this database. Mr. Speaker, under this pilot program, a toll-free telephone number is established to facilitate consumer access to the database. It is important to note that participation in the program is voluntary and that the operation and maintenance of the toll-free number and database shall be contracted out to a third party by the Department of Commerce. American consumers are increasingly sensitive as to whether a product is ``Made in America.'' Such sensitivity has certainly applied to the U.S. government procurement process. Since 1942, the so-called Berry amendment has prevented the use of any funds appropriated to the Department of Defense to be used to purchase an item of food or clothing not produced in the United States. The Defense Logistics Agency can issue a waiver of the Berry amendment upon a determination of a nonavailability, meaning there is no available domestic producer. The Defense Logistics Agency decided to waive the Berry amendment requirement recently in order to procure 1.3 million berets for the Army at a cost of $26 million based on nonavailability. The rationale for the waiver, we are told, is that Americans suppliers would not be able to supply the Army's needs to have the berets in time for its 225th anniversary on June 14. We are also told that American suppliers, even if given adequate time, if they are given adequate time, can meet the orders' requirements. Personally, I believe that if a universal black beret is going to serve as a symbol for the United States Army in the 21st Century, it should not be made in China. Fortunately, the Pentagon decided yesterday to revisit this issue. Early in the history of this country, we have had high tariffs to protect our industries. Now we have low tariffs and are part of a global economy. There must be a balance, my colleagues, if we are to preserve American jobs and industry, while also enjoying the benefits of world trade. Americans have seen a proliferation of products from other countries. My colleagues, this simple bill gives Americans the knowledge to make an educated choice in the purchase of American-made goods. Let me close my statement by commending the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for his persistence and tenacious promotion of this bill and for introducing this bill so that we have this opportunity this morning. Last Congress, the House passed this legislation almost identical to H.R. 725, so I do not believe we will have any trouble today, but I think it is important and particularly in light of what has happened in the Department of Defense and reading in the paper their decision to stop the procurement of the berets being manufactured in China. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments before I yield back my time. Obviously, years from now little will be remembered about this debate this morning. But in many ways, as my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, there is a time and a moment when there is a sense of goodwill and a feeling in the House when we are doing something that makes all Americans feel patriotic. I think this bill that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is offering does just that. I am so glad the Army, who is going to celebrate their 225th anniversary, has decided to hold off procuring the berets overseas and having them manufactured in China. I hope they will sense this feeling that we have this morning, that this bill does not cost anything and is symbolic, is important for the welfare of all Americans. I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the President of Russia recently concluded an agreement with the Ayatollah of Iran. Russia has been helping Iran in the development of a nuclear power plant, and that cooperation will continue. It is curious why a nation such as Iran, a major petroleum producer, would need nuclear power. I fear that the answer is found elsewhere. This agreement with Russia is also a major arms pact. Iran is seeking advanced military equipment from the Russian government. Global stability depends on isolating rogue nations, such as Iran, North Korea, Libya, and Syria. The Russians are providing arms and technical assistance to a terrorist state which intends to expand its reach throughout that vital region. The recent espionage case involving a top FBI official underscores the fact that Russia's intentions towards the United States are not benign. We still live in a dangerous world and the Russian government is making that world less secure. We must be on our guard.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, this body last week passed President's Bush's tax relief plan, the first step towards a broad tax reduction for our generation. The timing, Mr. Speaker, could not be better for all of us. We have to tighten our belts and prepare for a possible change in our economy. In fact, the NASDAQ stock exchange closed below 2000 points yesterday, the first time the index closed so low since December, 1998. President Bush's tax relief plan is a vital means of ensuring the economic engine that we have today continues to move forward, continues running; and of course, we do not want the economy to stall. By returning Americans' hard-earned dollars back to their wallets through tax relief, we will be saving Americans their checking accounts and, of course, and this is my point this afternoon, from Congress spending their money. For, if we fail to return money back to all those hard- working Americans, men and women, the Federal Government will just keep writing checks to spend their money. It is important we give it back to them, with the economy starting to slow. How much money would Congress spend? Well, due to previous threats of a government shutdown by former President Clinton, and now a practically evenly divided Congress, the Federal Government has been on a spending spree of record proportions since the budgets emerged in 1998. I believe President Bush has proposed holding spending at roughly 4 percent, a 4 percent increase. He has also offered to pay down the debt while reducing the record tax burden shouldered by all Americans, furthermore removing from Congress the temptation to spend the tax overpayment Americans are presently paying to the U.S. Treasury. Even Chairman Alan Greenspan agrees with this plan. When the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, came out with its most recent budget estimates, one number, Mr. Speaker, stood out: $5.6 trillion. That is the size of the projected surplus over the next 10 years. It is enough, of course, to pay down the debt, reduce the tax burden through broad tax relief, and target spending at some of the important programs that President Bush just talked about: health care, defense, and education. But within that budget analysis, there was another number that garnered less attention. That number was $561 billion. That is the amount of new spending Congress added during last fall's spending spree, discretionary, mandatory, and additional interest expense, $561 billion. That amount represents fully one-third the size of the proposed Bush tax relief plan. It also represents the iceberg's proverbial tip. Since the surplus emerged in 1998, Congress has accelerated spending increases three- fold. In the 3 years prior to 1998, discretionary budget authority grew at a reasonable approximately 2 percent a year. Since 1998, discretionary budget authority has grown at a galloping 6 percent a year. How much has this increase in discretionary spending reduced the projected surplus? It is $1.4 trillion. Again, that is just the discretionary spending. According to the CBO, the mandatory spending adopted by Congress last fall reduced the available surplus by $70 billion. Mr. Speaker, in 3 years we have already reduced the projected surplus by almost the equivalent of President Bush's tax relief plan. Moreover, the Office of Management and Budget estimates that if discretionary spending continues to grow at its current rate, the 10-year surplus would be $1.4 trillion less over the next 10 years; again, almost equal to the Bush tax relief. So if we do not give it back to the people today, Congress will spend this money beyond inflation's cost of living. An analysis of spending since the budget surpluses first emerged showed that if Congress had avoided this simple temptation to increase spending above the budget baseline caps, today we could offer American families a tax relief program equivalent to the Bush plan, and still we would be able to have a $5.6 trillion surplus left over to pay down the debt, increase funding for education, health care, and defense, and still cut taxes even further. Mr. Speaker, I conclude by urging the other body, the Chamber in the Senate, and other Americans to support the President's broad-based tax relief for American families, and of course, hold spending to 4 percent.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it is important that all of us work with the President when he presents his budget in April. All of us should be committed to three things: A budget that fits America's priorities; second, a budget that reduces the largest debt in history; and, three, provide fair and responsible tax relief to all American taxpayers. Consider this. Washington will take in $28 trillion in the next 10 years and President Bush's tax cut relief is $1.6 trillion. This is about 5.7 percent of the total revenues brought into this government in the next 10 years. Surely we can return about 6 percent of this money to the taxpayers. This is not a massive tax cut, as the Democrats say. In April, as we do every year, we bring in the budget. We will vote on it. That is just how we do it around here. The economy will be strengthened and jobs will be secure with a tax relief program for the American taxpayers. We cannot wait. The economy needs this incentive now.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for introducing this resolution. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of these soldiers, and this tragedy serves as a reminder of the sacrifices made by those who serve and protect our country. As many of us know, the plane's crew were members of the 171st Aviation Battalion of the Army Air National Guard based in Lakeland, Florida. I came to find out that the Command pilot, Chief Warrant Officer John Duce was from my district. I especially want to convey my heartfelt sympathies to his wife, son, and daughter. It should be no surprise to those who knew John Duce that he was an extremely dedicated pilot and family man. He was a decorated veteran, having served in Vietnam and Desert Storm. It has been said that he was a man you would want to go into combat with. Chief Warrant Officer John Duce, his co-pilot Chief Warrant Officer Eric Larson, and Staff Sergeant Robert Ward, and the 18 Virginia Guardsmen were all equally dedicated to their jobs, their families, and their communities. The men and women in our armed services place their lives on the line daily, where even routine training missions can carry the same risk as actual combat. So I ask my colleagues to remember those who serve our Nation. They may not have the notoriety, but their service is immeasurable. I thank Mr. Schrock again for introducing this resolution and urge its adoption.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 727) to amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to provide that low-speed electric bicycles are consumer products subject to such Act.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 727, a bill that transfers jurisdiction over low-speed electric bikes from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. This is a bipartisan bill, and I am pleased to support its passage. Low-speed electric bicycles offer consumers the enjoyment of biking with the convenience of assisted power so they can use the power or not use the power, use the bike as a normal bike. They give their riders, most of the time seniors, the disabled, and law enforcement, some extra help in peddling long distance and climbing hills. Currently, low-speed electric bikes are regulated by NHTSA, which subjects these bicycles to the same standards as motor vehicles. For instance, under NHTSA regulation, low-speed electric bikes would be forced to have items found on trucks and automobiles. Such requirements would upset the weight and balance, as well as increase the price, of these bicycles. In turn, this would have a detrimental effect on many of my constituents, and I believe others in this House. A vast majority of the people who use these bicycles are seniors. They are designed to make it easier for the elderly to get to the grocery store, ride through the park and perhaps get some fresh air. Let me give an example. For instance, today's Congressional Monitor reported that a 66-year-old retired engineer from California, who uses his electric bike to commute to and from his home in Santa Cruz, he states that before he bought the electric bike, ``There was some terrain I just could not ride because of my wind and lack of conditioning,'' end quote. H.R. 727 transfers regulatory jurisdiction over low-speed electric bikes, those bikes now with less than a one-horsepower engine and a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour, to the CPSC. This, I believe, is a common sense approach of treating bicycles like bicycles, treating these types of bicycles like the normal bicycles and ensuring that they are safe for all drivers. Language identical to H.R. 727 passed the House last session. Unfortunately, there was not enough time to enact this bill. I would like to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for expediting this bill through the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Commerce, and my friends on the other side of the aisle, for their support. H.R. 727 is a good bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 727.

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, American families deserve to share in the rewards of this economy they shaped and the surplus they created. At the same time recognizing the slower economy of the last 6 months, we need to get some help, and tax relief would do that. Critics of tax relief cannot have it both ways. They argued against tax relief when the deficits were more than $250 billion in the 1990s; and now they argue against tax relief again when the deficits have turned into surpluses. So many families are still struggling today to pay their credit card and utility bills. Ending the marriage penalty tax and phasing out the death tax will create a fair Tax Code that would benefit all Americans. Madam Speaker, allowing all Americans to keep more of their money is a good policy for the economy as a whole. Clearly there is room within the surplus to pay down the debt, fund priority programs, and enact President Bush's tax cut.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, last week the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and I introduced bill H.R. 804, a bill to repeal the 2 percent excise tax on private foundations. The United States is blessed with a deep spirit of philanthropy. Charitable organizations serve the interest of both the individual and the community. Private foundations in particular have made measurable differences in the lives of Americans, from access to public libraries, developing the polio vaccine, and even leading in the creation of the emergency number 911. Each and every American has experienced the benefits of the tireless efforts of these foundations. Madam Speaker, currently there are 47,000 foundations in the United States. In 1998, foundations gave away an estimated $22 billion in grants. These foundations were also forced to give the Federal Government a grant of $500 million in 1999. Under current law, not-for-profit private foundations generally must pay a 2 percent excise tax on their net investment income. This requirement was originally enacted in the Tax Reform Act of 1969 as a way to offset the cost of government audits on these organizations. So some 31 years ago, we instituted a tax on these foundations to cover the audit expense. However, when you look at the number of audits that have been performed, particularly since 1990, the IRS audits on private foundations has decreased from 1,200 to just 191. Yet the excise collection during these 31 years has grown from roughly $200 million in 1990 to $500 million in the year 1999. In addition, private foundations are bound by a 5 percent distribution rule. Foundations must make annual qualifying distributions for charitable purposes equal to roughly 5 percent of their fair market value of the foundation's net investment assets. The required 2 percent excise tax, which is payable to the IRS, actually counts as a credit to the 5 percent distribution rule. So in a nutshell, what we have here is a private foundation making a charitable grant to the Federal Government every year, and since 1969 the number of audits have gone down; yet the number of charitable foundations has gone up. Madam Speaker, I do not believe that the Federal Government is in dire need of this excise tax, and in fact in the next 10 years the Federal Government will show a surplus of $5.7 trillion. In 2002 we are projected to have a $231 billion surplus. Therefore, I believe that Americans have been more than charitable in giving the government their hard-earned dollars. It is time that we begin the process of returning the money to the people. President Bush is working to accomplish that goal with his reduction in tax rates, allowing for the increased use of charitable deductions and credits. My bill goes one step further. It gives those charitable organizations relief from the $500 billion tax that the Federal Government instituted 31 years ago so they can give more of their money back to the people who need it. I would like to also emphasize, Madam Speaker, that the former President, Mr. Clinton, proposed a reduction in this same excise tax in his fiscal-year 2001 budget. The Treasury Department noted: ``Lowering the excise tax rate for all foundations would make additional funds available for charitable purposes.'' So, Madam Speaker, common sense dictates that the elimination of this tax would increase additional charitable giving. I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), for his support on this bill. I ask my colleagues to take a look at this piece of legislation. I would like their support. It is H.R. 804.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday, 21 National Guardsmen lost their lives when their C-23 transport plane crashed. The guard members were returning from a training mission in Florida--one of the pilots lived in my district. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of these soldiers, and this tragedy serves as a reminder of the sacrifices made by those who serve and protect our country. Mr. Speaker, last week, both the House and Senate passed resolutions honoring the life of NASCAR great, Dale Earnhardt, who was killed in the Daytona 500. I, of course share in the admiration of his life and the remorse in his death. I do want to make the point, however, that the guardsmen who lost their lives on Saturday were no less dedicated to their jobs, their families, or their communities. The men and women in our armed services place their lives on the line daily, where even routine training missions can carry the same risk as actual combat. So I ask my colleagues to remember those who serve our Nation. They may not have the notoriety, but their service is immeasurable.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the United States is blessed with a deep spirit of philanthropy. Charitable organizations serve the interests of both the individual and the community. Private foundations, in particular, have made a measurable difference in the lives of Americans. From access to public libraries, developing the polio vaccine, and even leading in the creation of Emergency 911, each and every American has experienced the benefits of the tireless efforts of these foundations. Currently, there are approximately 47,000 foundations in the United States. In 1998, foundations gave away an estimated $22 billion in grants. These foundations were also forced to give the Federal Government a grant of $500 million in 1999. Under current law, nonprofit private foundations generally must pay a 2-percent excise tax on their net investment income. This requirement was originally enacted in the Tax Reform Act of 1969 as a way to offset the cost of Government audits of these organizations. However, since 1990, the number of IRS audits on private foundations has decreased from 1200 to 191. Yet, excise collections have grown from $204.3 million in 1990 to $499.6 million in 1999. In addition, private foundations are bound by a 5-percent distribution rule. Foundations must make annual qualifying distributions for charitable purposes equal to roughly 5-percent of the fair market value of the foundation's net investment assets. The required 2-percent excise tax--payable to the IRS--actually counts as a credit to the 5-percent distribution rule. So, what we have is a private foundation making a charitable grant to the Federal Government every year. Now, the last time I looked, the Federal Government was not in any dire need of charitable contributions. In fact, in the next 10 years, the Federal budget surplus is projected to be $5.7 trillion. In 2002 alone, we are projected to have a $231 billion surplus. Therefore, I believe that Americans have been more than ``charitable'' in giving the Government their hard-earned dollars. It is time that we begin the process of returning that money to the people. President Bush is working to accomplish that goal with his reduction in tax rates, and allowing for the increased use of charitable deductions and credits. My bill goes one step further, it gives those charitable organizations relief from wasting $500 million on the Federal Government and, instead, giving the money to those who truly need it. I would also like to emphasize that former President Clinton proposed a reduction in the excise tax in his fiscal year 2001 budget. The Treasury Department noted, ``Lowering the excise tax rate for all foundations would make additional funds available for charitable purposes.'' Common sense dictates that the elimination of this tax would spur additional charitable giving. I want to thank Congressman Crane for his support on this bill and ask our colleagues to lend their support as well.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it is a delight to be back here to serve the people. I am here in honor of Black History Month. I would like to bring my colleagues' attention to legislation that I intend to introduce today. The bill is entitled the North American Slavery Memorial Council Act. I believe that this bill can best be thought of by a quote from Papa Dallas Stewart. He was a former slave that was captured; and his comment sort of provides the essence, I think, of what my bill is trying to do. This is what he said: ``And one thing I want you to promise me: that you are going to tell all the children my story.'' So my colleagues, we need to tell it. Stewart, a former slave, knew firsthand the heartache and the pain that slavery could bring. As a child, his eyes were burned out when an overseer caught him simply studying the alphabet. He spent his life encouraging others to never forget the horrors of slavery. He understood the problems of forgetting the past. He recognized that we must share the painful past in order to protect our future. We must help ensure that future generations grasp the injustice that occurred in North America's past so that we may never repeat it. My bill is patterned after the Holocaust Museum Act and pays tribute to those who suffered and perished under slavery in North America. Mr. Speaker, slavery infected our past and oppressed several ethnic groups. Education is one of the best weapons to prevent such injustices, and what better way to educate future generations than with a fitting tribute in our Nation's Capital to those who were enslaved in North America. My bill is designed to ensure that Americans never forget the horrors of slavery. We have wisely given honor to those who lost their lives and suffered during the Holocaust. But we have neglected to honor those who lost their lives and were imprisoned by slavery. We should offer a proper tribute to those who were denied their freedom in North America, and I am confident that my bill will help to rectify this oversight. Last year, the Roth Horowitz Gallery in New York City showed a splendid exhibition. It was entitled ``Witness.'' The exhibit chronicled the practice of lynching between 1863 and 1960. An article stated that after the opening of the exhibit, hundreds of visitors had poured in to see the exhibit, many of them waiting in lines up to 20 minutes in freezing temperatures. After one viewer came out, this is what he said: ``Perhaps the popularity of this exhibition should serve as an argument for a museum devoted to slavery.'' Acknowledging slavery as a tragedy is very important. Groups have begun holding commemorations on their own. In fact, one group is the St. Paul's Community Baptist Church of Brooklyn, New York. The horror they are remembering is what is called the Middle Passage and the hundreds of years of enslavement that followed. The church pastor, the Reverend Johnny Ray Youngblood, would like every church and civic organization in this country to do the same. Youngblood believes, along with many of his church congregants, that acknowledging, just simply acknowledging the pain of the past will pave the way for real change, political and personal. Several noted psychologists contend that because of the trauma from this original deep wound, it was so great, so deep and has gone on so long publicly ungrieved, it may account for some of our social ills. As with the many public remembrances of the Jewish Holocaust, St. Paul's commemoration allows grieving for forefathers and mothers, acknowledging the psychic wounds whose agonies still are felt in our communities today. One church observer said, ``You have to admit there was pain, real pain. Once you admit it, then you can heal it.'' So, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what this museum would seek to do. We can heal, and people healing will prevent division. One way is to acknowledge the past problems and injustices. Americans have a rich history, but we must be true in recalling our history and slavery is sadly a part of that history. This museum will stand as a beacon and not only pay tribute to those who were forced into slavery, but should also stand to help end slavery that still exists throughout the world. For the sake of Papa Stewart and countless others, we must never forget the past. I encourage my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring the North American Slavery Museum bill.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 524, but I do so with some reservation. I am troubled by the bill on two particular grounds: first, its potential negative impact on e-commerce; and, two, its encroachment on the Committee on Energy and Commerce jurisdiction. Let me take the negative impact on e-commerce and explain this more fully. H.R. 524 ``authorizes the National Institute of Standards and Technology to assess critical enterprise integration standards and implementation activities for major manufacturing industries and to develop a plan for enterprise integration for each major industry.'' Mr. Speaker, such an authorization seemingly grants an open invitation to a Federal Government entity, NIST, to meddle in voluntary standard-setting activities by private parties relating to business-to- business electronic exchanges. Such a governmental intervention could harbor substantial negative repercussions for e-commerce. Voluntary standards-setting activities by private, non-governmental parties have been credited with the vibrancy and innovation associated with our e-commerce industry. Industry enterprise integration or business-to-business exchanges are a critical component of our e-commerce sector. Today, transactions on such exchanges represent 85 percent of the total value of e-commerce. The Federal government injecting itself into a business-to-business exchange standard-setting activities in our view on the Committee on Commerce holds no other promise but to retard dynamic and innovative change synonymous with e-commerce. Moreover, authorizing such a government intervention sends the wrong signal to our trading partners in Europe. The European Union Commission is favorably inclined to inject itself into private standard-setting activities. This makes for a bad recipe for the future of global e- commerce. Too, Mr. Speaker, my other concern is with jurisdiction. As the title of H.R. 524 clearly denotes, electronic commerce is the focal point of this legislation. The Committee on Energy and Commerce is the committee of jurisdiction over matters relating to electronic commerce. The committee's jurisdiction over electronic commerce is perfectly clear. E-commerce is a mere subcategory of interstate and foreign commerce and, as such, is undeniably within the purview of the committee's long- standing jurisdiction. The committee also has repeatedly dealt with e-commerce issues, as exemplified by its leadership role on the following issues: No. 1, encryption; No. 2, electronic authentication of electronic signatures; No. 3, data security; and No. 4, interoperability. H.R. 524 is within the committee's jurisdiction and should have been referred to it. The time for such a referral may have passed, but I assure the Members that we, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, will vigorously exert our jurisdiction over interstate commerce irrespective of the medium; that is, electronic or mobile. The committee will carefully monitor NIST standard-setting activities, as outlined in H.R. 524.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate the 90th birthday of Ronald Reagan. As we honor his life it is important to reflect on what he has contributed to our nation. As I consider this remarkable life, from his boyhood to the present, I see the heroic figure of a man coming to the rescue. His first period of public service was when he served as lifeguard at Lowell Park in Dixon, Illinois. In seven years as a lifeguard, he is credited with saving 77 lives. To this very day, the sum of Ronald Reagan's contributions is measured by what he has done for others. After a successful career in Hollywood as an actor and union president, Reagan again turned to public service. He witnessed the turmoil of the 1960s and the difficulties facing his beloved state of California. He saw the need for leadership and a new course directed from the governor's mansion. Never before holding public office, Ronald Reagan boldly stepped forward and offered his vision to the voters of America's most populous state. He won in a landslide. After two terms in Sacramento, Governor Reagan saw a series of threats menacing the United States. He challenged the incumbent Republican President in 1976 for the nomination, and, although he did not succeed, he revitalized the conservative movement. In 1980, Reagan again entered the presidential race and this time he won his party's nomination. I remember well the era of uncertainty that clouded America's future. Communism had reached the zenith of its power with strongholds in Asia, Africa, Europe, Cuba, and even Central America. American hostages were held in Iran and the enemies of the United States celebrated our weakness. Our economy was deflated and the American people dispirited. Here in Washington in 1980, the President buckled to the pessimism of the time and called on the people to accept that our best days were gone. Ronald Reagan would have none of that--not the nonsense that America was a crippled giant, or that our best days were history. He placed before the American people his vision that we could overcome any hardship and route any challenge. He renewed our belief in ourselves and we elected him to the White House. Again, Ronald Reagan came to the rescue. He turned our economy around, rebuilt our military, and aggressively outlined our national interests. The results were astounding. Double-digit inflation and a 70-percent tax rate drained out economic vitality. He pushed the top tax rate down to 28 percent and broke the back of inflation. In the last 18 years, we have enjoyed economic growth in all but six months. Our recent prosperity is rooted in the seeds Reagan planted 20 years ago. Reagan applied his faith in freedom and opportunity to world events as well. He knew that if we stood up to communism, it would be the forces of oppression that would collapse. Now, the Cold War is over-- his unwavering defense of freedom and economic opportunity has transformed the world. Our prosperity and our security are the legacies of Ronald Reagan. However, I think his most lasting gift to the nation is the rekindled American spirit. Thank you President Reagan for all you have done for the nation and for the world. I join everyone in wishing you a happy birthday.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today, I will reintroduce legislation to allow health insurance premiums and unreimbursed prescription drug expenses to be tax deductible. Last year's bill number was H.R. 4472. Under current law, employers can write off the cost of health care coverage purchased for their employees. Why can't individuals also be afforded the same opportunity to write off their premiums and unreimbursed prescription drug expenses? The current tax code sets the threshold at 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income before an individual can write off their medical expenses. That doesn't seem right to me. Currently, in order to claim health care expenses an individual must file an itemized tax return. I believe that all taxpayers should be allowed to deduct these out-of-pocket 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 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 2003. This type of relief is long overdue. Allowing individuals to write off certain costly health care expenses they may incur would be a tremendous benefit that may not be available under the current system. The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) endorsed my bill in the last congress.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, almost 4 weeks ago the American people went to the polls to elect a new president. This election was close, but the election is over. Governor George Bush is the certified winner of 271 electoral votes. He is the president-elect. However, Vice President Gore has taken the unprecedented step of contesting a presidential election in court. Governor Bush won the original vote in Florida. He then won the required recount vote and won again, and won again when the overseas ballots were included. He won a fourth time when the counties submitted the results of their hand counts and the Secretary of State certified the results. For the first time in history, the party currently in control of the White House is refusing to cooperate with the transition to a new administration. Vice President Gore should concede, end his legal challenges, and allow the President-elect to prepare to take on the awesome responsibilities of the office.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague for yielding, Mr. Speaker. The point I just wanted to make, and I think it is probably clear from this conversation, if we are going to recount in a Democrat county and the Democrats by a two-to-one margin decided they wanted to do a third recount, then what about a recount in all the other 67 counties, as my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), has indicated? I think that was pointed out in the editorial this morning in the Washington Post, that basically that is not fair just to go into Democrat counties, and these are very heavily Democratic districts, counties, and recount these votes, and not go into all the other ones, particularly the Republicans, as we have mentioned.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague. My only point is that we still have the overseas ballots for Florida. They will be in and counted by the 17th, this Friday, I believe. With that in mind, I think all we should do now is let us wait for the final count on the overseas ballots. That will determine Florida's 25 electoral votes. Then we will be fully appraised of who the winner is of this presidential election. I think we should move forward with dispatch and, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and the gentleman have pointed out, we could have endless legal battles. That is not in the best interest of this country.