Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Chabot amendment. I would say to those who are against this, that there are other ways to tax these products once they get into the State of jurisdiction, either through a tax on UPS or a tax on Federal Express, there are lots of other ways to tax it. I submit also the way the tax structure is from State to State is so complicated that you cannot even understand how to even tax it. So I think the moratorium, until we figure it out, is the way to go. I had an amendment, Madam Chairman, to extend the 19-member advisory commission on electronic commerce. That is the proper way to do it. This commission, as we know, had the formidable task of studying the impact of sales and use tax collection on Internet sales. They made some recommendations. I am disappointed, of course, that the commission failed to gain the two-thirds majority necessary for a formal recommendation to Congress. As a result of the commission's impasse and procedural wrangling, several of the most important questions the commission was given to solve, they could not answer. For example, whether Congress should mandate simplification of sales and use tax administration and whether the existing nexus standards for interstate commerce should be overturned still have not been solved. That is why I thought the amendment was appropriate for this debate this afternoon which was not in order, the parliamentarian said it was not in order, an amendment to offer to revise and reconvene the 19-member advisory commission on electronic commerce in order to finish the task that they were assigned originally. The underlying bill, the Chabot bill, which is to extend the moratorium forever and the Cox bill, which is to go for 5 years, I support in both cases. Without this 19-member commission reconvened, I do not think they can really start to understand some of the major questions of the Internet, mainly, the simplification of sales and use tax, and how we are going to even tax the Internet. So until we do that, we should have a moratorium on this. That is why I am very supportive of this Chabot amendment. This goes to a larger question. If, in fact, we cannot determine to simplify taxes through the Internet and understand it, maybe that goes to the overall question of reforming the tax code in America, which would be either a flat tax or a sales tax. I submit a sales tax is based upon taxing Americans on their consumption rather than how hard they work. That would be done on a State-by-State basis, and they would make that decision. I submit, also, that a moratorium on the tax on the Internet does not preclude the States from taxing within their State on products that are brought in through either location or through Federal Express or UPS and things of that sort. I think the actual way to handle this on a larger measure is to reestablish the 19-member advisory commission on electronic commerce, let them finish the task of determining how to simplify taxes and whether there should be taxes on the Internet, finish their job and present their recommendations to Congress, and hopefully the whole landscape of electronic commerce and the Internet will become more obvious, more mainstream and technology will catch up, and the answers that we are trying to grapple with this afternoon, we will be able to solve better. In the meantime, I think we should support the Chabot amendment. I urge adoption of it. Madam Chairman, I will draw up as a separate bill the idea of extending the 19-member commission to study the simplification of taxes on the Internet. I urge all my colleagues to support my bill.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, since 1995, Republicans have been working hard here in Congress to restore common sense to our Government. One of the ways we have done that is by declaring war on waste, fraud and abuse. American taxpayers work hard for their money; and when they send a portion of it here to Washington, the least we can do is spend it responsibly. Our House Committee on the Budget has a website where the American people can report on examples that they have seen of taxpayer money being spent wastefully. One such example is a company here in Washington, D.C., that was awarded a $6.6 million grant to find jobs for 1,500 welfare recipients. Nine months, $1 million later, this company had found only 30 jobs. This contract has since been terminated. But this is just one example. And, unfortunately, there are hundreds more. Last year's budget contained a .38 across the board budget cut aimed at eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. I hope this is something we can build on this year in Congress. American taxpayers deserve to have their money spent responsibly. They deserve a budget that eliminates waste, fraud and abuse.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, after the speech by my colleague, I think it is useful to perhaps tone down the rhetoric and bring some statistics and some information from Dr. John Lott, a distinguished scholar at the Yale University Law School, and talk about experts on crime and what they have to say. Mr. Speaker, I have an article from the Washington Times that is dated April 26 that I will make a part of the Record wherein Dr. Lott highlights a number of cases in his article detailing how anti-gun advocates routinely admit facts, figures, and they change statistics to generally develop a misinterpretation of gun ownership in America. Along with Dr. Lott, a Professor Bill Landes from the University of Chicago has done extensive research on waiting periods, sentencing laws, background checks, and other current gun control laws and they compare those with the effect on deterring so-called ``rampage killings.'' As to their conclusions, Mr. Speaker, I will quote directly from their article: ``While higher arrests and conviction rates, longer prison sentences and the death penalty reduce murders generally, neither these measures nor restrictive gun laws had a discernible impact on mass public shootings. We found only one policy that effectively reduces these attacks: The passage of right-to-carry laws.'' Both these professors confirm that law-abiding citizens, possessing a legal right to carry concealed hand guns, had a dramatic impact on multiple victim shootings. Indeed, these laws, on average, decreased multiple-victim shootings by one-fifth. Now, in my home State of Florida, they recognized this fact. In 1987, they passed a law to allow law-abiding citizens to carry a licensed, concealed weapon. What were the results? Florida's homicide rate dropped from 37 percent above the national average to 3 percent below the national average. The decrease in violent offenses involving firearms in Florida continues to decline. Now, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Uniform Crime Report, in 1989, firearms accounted for 30 percent of all violent offenses. Last year, firearms only accounted for 20 percent of all violent offenses. Mr. Speaker, 31 States today now have right-to-carry laws and have experienced similar results like Florida. Dr. Lott's article further highlights the need for individual Americans to be able to defend themselves outside their home. To address this issue, I developed and introduced legislation, H.R. 492, which is identical to my bill in the 105th Congress which was debated in the House Committee on the Judiciary. My bill establishes a national standard providing for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms into the State. Now, in order to carry a concealed firearm across State lines, a person would have to be properly licensed for carrying a concealed weapon in his home State and would have to obey the concealed weapon laws of that State they are entering. If the State they are entering does not have a concealed weapons law, the national standard provision in this legislation would dictate the rules in which a concealed weapon would have to be maintained. For instance, the national standard would disallow the carrying of a concealed weapon in a school, police station, or a bar serving alcoholic beverages. My bill also exempts qualified former and current law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns. Now, this language was adopted during debate on the juvenile justice bill last year. Mr. Speaker, right-to-carry laws are an effective deterrent to these mass killings and random murders. States which have adopted such laws, on the average, have 24 percent less violent crime, 19 percent less homicides, and 39 percent less robberies. These are precisely the type of statistics which gun control supporters refuse to acknowledge. Yesterday, the President stated that he is ``subdued, frustrated, and very saddened'' as he reflected on the lack of pending gun control legislation in Congress. Mr. President, we, too, are frustrated, frustrated that those who seek to curb gun violence refuse to acknowledge the one effective deterrent, the right to carry. So, as I stated earlier, the right-to-carry defense should not be confined to State boundaries. A law-abiding citizen legally carrying a concealed firearm in his or her State should be entitled to the same protection in any State. I urge my colleagues to support my bill.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4365 and applaud the chairman for the work he is doing here. He has lots of Members who want priorities. I think this is a very important bill. Part of the bill is this adoption awareness, and specifically infant adoption awareness ensures that family planning counselors have access to training on presenting complete and accurate adoption information and referrals to women facing unplanned pregnancies. Two, the special needs adoption awareness directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to carry out a national campaign to provide information to the public on adoption of special needs children, establishes a toll-free telephone line for providing information, makes grants to support groups for adoptive parents, and for research on reasons for adoption disruptions. I think this is extremely important here in Congress to realize that adoption awareness is a solution for many women. I applaud the chairman for all the work he is doing. I am pleased to be a cosponsor and to provide support.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I come to the House floor to not talk about the debate whether Elian should be reunited with his father or not. I think the majority of Americans say he should. What I am here to talk about is the constitutionality of what was done by the Justice Department, and to pose some questions and urge our leadership on this side to hold hearings. Regrettably, the American people, the Miami relatives of Elian Gonzalez and the Congress still do not have all of the answers which led up to the events that transpired on that Easter recess by the Justice Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Madam Speaker, of course, the world has seen that famous photograph by now of an INS SWAT officer pointing an assault rifle at Elian, that assault rifle was a Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine gun. The Attorney General during Easter weekend, ordered armed forces into the house of Mr. Lazaro Gonzalez in order to free Elian and reunite him with his father. What the world, Americans and Congress do not know are the events that led up to activities that transpired during and after the government's raid on a private citizen's home, just as the Congress did in the case of the Waco and Ruby Ridge. I think it is the responsibility of this legislative branch to seek the truth and have government justify its actions in instances in which the sacred constitutional liberties of Americans have been jeopardized. Madam Speaker, I submit this afternoon that there are many questions that still need to be answered, and we are not here to debate whether Elian should be reunited with his father. Those are answers that ultimately will be left up to the courts. While the court struggles with the issue of immigration and family law, the Congress has the duty and responsibility to seek answers to the policies of the Justice Department that led up to the heavily armed Federal agents breaking into the house of peaceful American citizens, with agents pointing machine guns at American citizens in their own home and trashing their own home, too. Just as important, oversight is needed to determine whether the judicial process was circumvented by the administration. Reports indicate that the nature by which the search warrants were issued were made under false pretenses. How many different judges did the administration go to before having the search warrant accepted? Did any of the judges refuse to issue a search warrant, and if so, on what grounds? During the early days of Elian's arrival in the United States, the Justice Department and the INS were quick to point out that asylum and custody questions could only be answered in the courts. What is the policy of the Department of Justice and INS when State courts do not agree with Federal agencies? Does the Attorney General have the power to overrule the decisions of State courts such as ones which decide custody measures? In addition, Madam Speaker, why was the Justice Department not willing to await the outcome of Elian's claim for asylum before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals? What does that say about how much weight the administration gives to our judicial branch of the government? How will the Attorney General justify her actions if the 11th Circuit decides Elian's asylum claims are true in manners which contradict the Department's actions? What constitutional authority does the Federal Government have in executing search warrants in cases that are not criminal? In how many other cases has the INS broken down doors and used armed agents in custody cases? Additionally, why did the Attorney General feel compelled or pressured to use overwhelming armed force when Elian's life was not in danger? The negotiations were still taking place at the time the INS broke down the door and trashed the Gonzalez house. Should it be the policy of the INS to present the possibilities of deadly force when confronting situations which are not criminal? Additionally, Gregory Craig, the attorney for Juan Miguel, also happened to be the attorney for the President during the impeachment trials. Elian's Miami relatives and the American people have a right to know what role Gregory Craig played during the shaping of the Department's actions. Furthermore, what contact did the administration have with the Communist dictator Fidel Castro? Was the President influenced by another Cuban boat lift? These are some of the questions I have, Madam Speaker. I call on Congress to hold hearings because the people across this Nation have a right to know. As Americans, we have inalienable rights to certain freedoms and protections. When government officials threaten or encroach on those rights, it is our duty to hold them responsible.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, for those persons who say that Elian must be returned to his biological father at all cost, I submit these other arguments. Let us point out that his real father, if he goes back to Cuba, will be Castro. In a Communist state, the government controls the state and controls the lives of the people. Those are the facts. Returning Elian to Cuba after so long in America will doom him to psychological abuse by the Communist regime. Ancient religious tradition from the Talmud, back 5,000 years, cites examples that, under Jewish law, a child must honor a person who teaches his moral and religious values above, above, a parent who does not. Since there are no religious values in Cuba, it follows that Elian could just as well honor his relatives in the United States, here, where they will teach him moral and religious values.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I am here this afternoon to talk about the Patients' Bill of Rights. Is this legislation necessary? The issue of whether or not Americans enrolled in HMOs, health maintenance organizations, need passage of the patient protection in order to sue their plans is currently in conference here in Congress. Today, I would like to call my colleagues' attention to a study by John S. Hoff. Mr. Hoff wrote this study for the Heritage Foundation, and he outlined some very compelling arguments about why passage of this legislation would result in more government control of our health care system. It is interesting that we are having this debate, because, Mr. Speaker, I think the majority of Americans already made clear their views on more regulation for health care when the Clinton health care bill was overwhelmingly rejected. The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder N1350 concludes that increased regulation, plus increased litigation will equal rising costs in health care and, ultimately, more uninsured Americans. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), my good friend and colleague, has been very critical of this study and did a Special Order to refute the analysis of this health bill. I am not here to comment on his presentation; but my purpose is, more importantly, to talk about Mr. Hoff's analysis and why Mr. Hoff's analysis, I think, has credible evidence. So I am here to merely present the other side of the argument that opposes imposing further Federal Government regulations on health care plans and delivery of health care. So according to Mr. Hoff, let us take each of the major items. He believes the Patients' Bill of Rights, in conference as we speak, increases regulation. If passed, it would impose detailed regulations by the Federal Government on health care plans and the delivery of health care. The question is, does anyone in this House think passing more government legislation will decrease the Government's involvement? In fact, I think most of us, every time we pass legislation that is going to increase government involvement, there is going to be more regulation. I think the regulation, as Mr. Hoff pointed out, is pervasive in this bill. For example, private health plans normally evaluate medical services, treatments and procedures. Under the Patients' Bill of Rights, however, managed care plans and fee-for-service plans are allowed to conduct such utilization reviews only, only as specified by the Federal Government. The time allotted for a decision and the status of those making a decision are two examples of such specifications. Further regulation involves an appeals process for denial of coverage. The proposed legislation requires an internal appeals process that follows precise, regulatory details on each and every procedure. It further requires a provision of external appeals of decisions made in the internal appeals process. The external appeal requires that the plan contract with an entity that is directly or indirectly certified by the Department of Health and Human Services, or the Department of Labor. So there we have it. We have both of these large agencies involved in conducting the reviews. I think this arrangement can lead to a situation in which the final determination of what is covered by a plan is made by an entity certified, regulated, and answerable only to the United States Government. Mr. Speaker, the proposed legislation also leads to Federal intrusion into the physician-plan relationship. Under the Patients' Bill of Rights, provisions of contracts between plans and health care providers are void if they restrict or have the effect of restricting the provider's ability to advise a patient about their health status or medical treatment. The legislation further intrudes by precluding a plan from discriminating with respect to participation by providers or in payment to them on the basis of license or certification under State law. Let us take another item. I mentioned earlier increased litigation. In addition to the increased burdens of regulation, this Patients' Bill of Rights in conference is talking about increased litigation. Each of the many regulations contemplated by the legislation will create legal rights that could be causes of action. In addition to an increasing number of actions that plans may be liable, the legislation opens up employers themselves to the possibility of being sued for damages resulting from denial of coverage. While the bill purports to protect employers if they refrain from the exercise of discretionary authority to make a decision on a claim for benefits, courts have been willing and creative in finding ways around similar provisions. Defenders of the legislation point to provisions which limit litigation. These provisions, however, apply to actions brought under ERISA claims only; they do not apply to state tort actions. Tort claims under state law may result in ``malpractice-type'' lawsuits with large jury awards awarded to sympathetic victims of faceless insurance companies. Effect of increased regulation and litigation: According to the CBO, the House bill would increase health insurance premiums by 4.1 percent. This increase may lead to more than 1.2 million Americans losing employer-based health coverage. In addition to rising costs, the threat of malpractice suits and the exposure of employers to liability could lead to millions more Americans joining the ranks of the uninsured.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, it is estimated that 500 million people around the world participated in Earth Day on April 22 this year. We should consider how the environment has changed since the first Earth Day was celebrated in 1970. Although a celebration, Earth Day 1970 generated a large amount of dire predictions for the future. I think we should take a moment to look back at those. One Harvard biologist declared ``we are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this Nation and of the world as a suitable place for human habitation.'' Another common premonition of devastation centered on population growth. Environmental doomsayers in 1970 estimated that the world population would exceed 7 billion people by the year 2000, prompting one Stanford biologist to state, ``At least 100 to 200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next 10 years.'' This picture of widespread starvation has not materialized, nor has the population projections. Instead of more than 7 billion people on the earth today, we have roughly just 6 billion. Just as in 2000, environmentalists in 1970 saw a growing environmental catastrophe in the form of climate change. Unlike today, 30 years ago the alarm was sounded over global cooling. They talked about another ice age was in the works. One ecologist, Kenneth Watt, proclaimed that, ``The world will be about 4 degrees colder . . . in 1990, but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.'' Now, frankly, there are no ice sheets spreading across this continent; the threat of global cooling dissolved into the sea of misinformation. However, how can we rage against climatic change if the world is not getting colder? It, therefore, must be becoming warmer. Evidence indicates that the world's average temperature has increased by 1 degree over the past 100 years. However, data from global satellites indicate that the earth actually has cooled by less than one-tenth of one degree Celsius over the past 18 years. The warnings of serious global warming today have as little basis in fact as those for global cooling 30 years ago. Now, doomsayers in 1970 also warned of poisonous air ravaging the populations in our major cities. In that year, Life Magazine said, ``In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution.'' The same scientist that predicted that starvation would kill ``at least 100 to 200 million people per year'' also opined 3 decades ago that air pollution would take ``hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years.'' How is our air quality now? The Environmental Protection Agency reports that between 1970 and 1997, emission of every major pollutant except nitrogen dioxide has decreased. From 1988 to 1997, the number of unhealthy air quality days decreased by an average of two-thirds for every major city in the United States of America. The first Earth Day in 1970 was observed against a backdrop of dire environmental predictions. Unfortunately, Earth Day 2000 was accompanied with similar predictions of environmental calamities. Instead of providing a platform for the harbingers of ecological destruction, we should use Earth Day, I think, to acknowledge the progress we have made. The environment is better today than it was 10 years ago and better than it was 30 years ago. If we continue our present course, it will be even better 10 years from today. Thanks to the Heritage Foundation, I can share my reasons for this optimism. Even though 16 billion cubic feet of timber are harvested each year in the United States, net tree growth exceeds tree cuttings by 37 percent. Today we have more forest area in America than we did in the 1920's and it is growing. The loss of wetlands has been slowing over the past 45 years. From 1992 through 1996, 160,000 acres of wetlands were restored privately through voluntary arrangements each year. The United States is within 47,000 acres of achieving a ``no net loss'' of wetlands acreage. Since 1945, the amount of land committed for parks wilderness and wildlife has expanded twice as fast as the growth in urban areas. Unfortunately, our major media prefer to focus on the negative; they still rely on dire predictions based upon questionable scientific data and misinformation. The American people of today and of future generations deserve their rich natural heritage of clean air, pure water, and unspoiled land. Across the board over the last 3 decades, our water, land and air have gotten cleaner. They will be cleaner in years to come. That is a message we should be sharing on Earth Day 2001.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the ranking member that I was here last year and the year before, and I say to my colleagues that every one of his arguments he has used almost in the same format every year. Now, what is interesting about his argument this year, it is all predicated upon a 10-year projection. But this is not a 10-year projection. We are talking about 5 years. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) talked about a dirty little secret. There is no dirty little secret. This tax cut is less than 2 percent. Less than 2 percent. We do not even have accuracy charts around here in Congress that we can guaranty anything less than 2 percent. And for the gentleman to project out on his chart for 10 years, that it is possibly a deficit of $1 billion, is really pushing the numbers. When we look at this tax cut for Americans, what are the components? It is a marriage penalty tax, a death tax, an education savings account, health care deductibility, community renewal, and pension reform. All these things are for Americans. So I urge passage. Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak in favor of the budget resolution conference report which outlines our spending priorities for fiscal year 2001. First of all it provides $150 billion in tax cuts, including repeal of the marriage-penalty tax and small business tax relief. Since Small Businesses produce so many new jobs and are responsible for the state of our economy, we need to make sure this prosperity continues. This is long overdue and I wholeheartedly support providing America's working men and women the opportunity to keep more of their hard earned dollars. The fiscal year 2001 Budget Resolution also protects the Social Security surplus by creating a ``lock box'' and dedicates the $161 billion surplus to the Social Security Trust Fund. This budget also sets aside $40 billion for Medicare reform and to fund a prescription drug benefit. We should give seniors the same choices that other Americans already have, including Members of Congress and the President. I believe that we must pay down the debt and this budget resolution dedicates $1 trillion over the next five years toward that end. What's more, by 2013 it will be completely eliminated. It is vital that the men and women who serve our country are fully equipped and it is our responsibility to make sure that our military is no longer asked to carry out its duties without the necessary resources. The defense budget is increased by $20 billion for fiscal year 2001. When the men and women who defend our country return home we must not forget them. That is why we have funded the VA at the level requested by he Veterans Committee, which represents $100 million for health care over the President's VA budget proposal. To sum it up, this budget resolution taxes less, spends less, places restraints on government growth, provides for a strong defense, protects 100 percent of Social Security surplus and reduces the debt. This is a budget that we can all be proud of and I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to come down here and speak on behalf of this amendment. I say with tongue in cheek that the Republicans celebrate July 4 and the Democrat Party celebrates April 15. For most Americans, April 15 is a dreaded day. It is a feared day, a day in which taxpayers across the country are concentrating and reflecting on America's most frustrating and complex tax system. I do not know how many millions of pages there are, but it is enough. So it is altogether appropriate, just before the April 15, we should reflect on our Nation's Tax Code and the problems it imposes upon taxpayers in America. So today we will be considering a most meaningful piece of legislation addressing the shortcoming of the system, the tax limitation amendment which will force Congress to garner a supermajority before approving any tax increase. Later we will have this opportunity to vote for the bill, to scrap the Tax Code so we can replace this burdensome tax system with something far more fair and equitable. Tax limitation would require in this House and in the Senate, if adopted, that there be a real consensus to raise taxes. It would take a two-thirds vote, which means we will not have a recurrence of one of the largest tax increases in American history in 1993 with President Clinton and Vice President Gore's proposal. When I look at this, I go back and think about our Founding Fathers. These honorable leaders had the foresight to mandate a two-thirds majority vote on certain priority issues in this country. James Madison, a vocal supporter of majority rule, argued that the greatest threat to liberty in a republic came from unrestrained majority rule, and that is why they proposed two-thirds majority for conviction in impeachment trials, expulsion of a Member of Congress, override of a presidential veto, a quorum of two-thirds of the Senate to elect a President, to consent to a treaty and proposing constitutional amendments. So if it is good enough for those, I think certainly it would be good enough for deciding whether we are having taxes here. There were seven of these that were already in the Constitution when they wrote the document and since then they have added three more. My colleague, Daniel Webster, obviously a great renowned legend of this great body, said, quote, ``the power to tax is the power to destroy.'' We voted yesterday against $116 billion in higher taxes and user fees as proposed in the administration's budget. Americans are simply taxed too much. It is both the Federal, State, and local level where it adds up to almost 40 percent; and, of course, there are many areas that we are taxed and we do not even know it. Gasoline tax is one of them, corporate income tax, excise tax, State and local, as I mentioned. Though the average American family is paying somewhat less in Federal income tax, as I pointed out, the overall tax burden is approaching 40 percent. So this amendment is needed, something that many States are already doing. I am glad the Federal Government is stepping up to the plate, and I urge strong support on both sides of the aisle to align yourself with what the States are doing, align yourself with the people and move forward to pass this amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, when did President Clinton tell the American people that the era of big government was over? You know, I really can't remember when he made that statement, and I'm willing to believe the President himself has forgotten. And I think it's obvious, with the $1.3 trillion in proposed spending along with $116 billion in tax and user fee increases included in the President's budget. I think that in actuality the era of big government prior to the Clinton/Gore administration is indeed over. And that's because the Clinton/Gore administration brought in a new era of bigger government. I'm sure my colleagues will remember one of the largest tax increases in history. That was passed by a Democrat controlled House, a Democrat controlled Senate and signed into law by the Clinton/Gore administration. And each year, the administration continues to propose new taxes and user fee increases. So we are here today to say stop! Stop spending money on wasteful federal programs. Stop increasing user fees and raising taxes on everyday Americans. The average two-income family tax burden is 39% of that family's income. We need to reduce the tax burden on Americans, not increase it.

Ms. STEARNS

Ms. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today we are taking a positive step toward effectively addressing gun violence. H.R. 4051, fashioned after the successful enforcement program in Richmond, VA, will send the message to criminals that an illegal gun will get you an automatic 5 year sentence without parole. Under this bill, States like Florida that have similar firearms laws would qualify for funding under this legislation. The grants can be used to strengthen all aspects of the State's criminal and juvenile justice systems. This is a commonsense approach to curbing gun violence. We are not just throwing money at new federal agents, we are addressing this issue at the State and local level--where it counts. Giving those States with tough firearms laws the assistance to aggressively enforce them, and helping other States adopt similar laws so that eventually, every criminal will know that wherever he travels within the U.S., if he has an illegal firearm--he is exiled to prison.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, last week I spoke regarding the coerced agreement between the Federal Government and the firearms manufacturer Smith & Wesson. I would like to continue my discussion this morning by highlighting a few more quotes from those who participated in this coercion through litigation. I would like to emphasize that these are not statements that this country should be proud of, and these are not statements one will find in an official press release. John Coale, one of the trial lawyers involved in the lawsuits against firearm manufacturers was quoted in The Washington Post as saying ``the legal fees alone are enough to bankrupt your industry.'' Regarding this agreement, the New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer reportedly said to another firearms manufacturer, Glock, Incorporated, ``If you do not sign, your bankruptcy lawyers will be knocking at your door.'' On April 2, Mr. Shultz, CEO of Smith & Wesson was interviewed on the ABC news show, This Week, regarding the agreement that was reached with the Federal Government on gun control proposals. Twice, my colleagues, in this interview, he referred to the ``survival'' of his company as a primary reason behind his settlement. In fact, in announcing this agreement, Smith & Wesson stated ``these actions are about insuring the viability of Smith & Wesson as an ongoing business entity in the face of crippling costs of litigation.'' Speaking of crippling litigation, last week's edition of National Review reported that Colt firearms manufacturer chose to cease producing firearms for civilian purchase because of the ruinous lawsuits. And this is a company that was voluntarily pioneering smart gun technology and had recently received a $50,000 grant to develop smart guns. Here was a company working towards a common goal of the gun control advocates, but that did not matter. Those same advocates and their trial lawyers continued to pursue this costly litigation against Colt into a fait accompli. Finally, an op-ed in today's Washington Post by Tom Cannon further characterized the agreement with Smith & Wesson. He stated ``this agreement is a legally binding contract, not just between Smith & Wesson and the government, but also between the manufacturer and every wholesaler, retailer and private customer of Smith & Wesson's product, even though these parties were not consulted, advised or asked for their consent.'' Mr. Cannon goes on to say that a preferential purchase of Smith & Wesson firearms would be a purchase that requires the voluntary surrender of the rights of choice association and privacy. Madam Speaker, I ask that Mr. Cannon's op-ed be made a part of the Record. [From the Washington Post, Apr. 11, 2000] (By Tom Cannon) If you follow the gun issue at all, you're aware that last month Smith & Wesson, one of the oldest American gun manufacturers, signed a deal with several government entities at all levels. The primary purpose of this deal was to release Smith & Wesson from the lawsuits being filed against gun manufacturers seeking to hold them responsible for the criminal misuse of their products by unrelated third parties. Among other things, this agreement is a legally binding contract not just between Smith & Wesson and the government but also between the manufacturer and every wholesaler, retailer and private customer of Smith & Wesson products-- even though these parties were not consulted, advised or asked for their consent. Any wholesaler or retailer who wishes to continue carrying Smith & Wesson products will be required to agree to the terms of this contract, and force is customers to do likewise. My primary objection is that the last time I checked, I had not granted Smith & Wesson power of attorney. In immediate response to this ``unholy alliance'' between a once-respected company and the government, gun owners from all over the country, myself included, contacted their local gun stores and begged them to discontinue carrying Smith & Wesson products. The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners sent a letter to every S&W dealer in Michigan, asking on behalf of our thousands of members that they drop the line. Across the country, thousands if not millions of us pledged not to patronize a business that sold Smith & Wesson products under the terms of this new agreement. Whether because of this market pressure or because of the onerous terms of the agreement itself, many dealers have decided to drop the Smith & Wesson line. As a free market economy, it seemed our work was done; our dollars had spoken for themselves. We would provide a harsh object lesson for the manufacturers about the attitudes of the market. But shortly after the Smith & Wesson agreement was announced, several of the same government entities that signed the deal announced investigations of S&W's competitors for alleged violations of antitrust laws. In short, the message seems to be: ``You will buy Smith & Wesson.'' Personally, I find this even more insidious than the original lawsuits that brought on this foolishness. In gangster movies this would be called a ``protection racket.'' It brings to mind the bus boycott in Montgomery, Ala., during the civil rights movement, and the local government's reaction to it. There is nothing to prevent Smith & Wesson from opening its own retail stores in every gun-buying market or from franchising its retail licenses, unless of course you count the fact that they won't sell many firearms to the traditional gun-buying public. A friend of mine, a collector whose passion is Smith & Wesson revolvers and who reportedly has ``more Smiths than Smith,'' says he is done buying new Smith & Wesson products. Their days in this market are probably numbered. Can Smith & Wesson survive? Sure, it could limp along on government contracts, or get some other kind of help from its new best friends. After all, our government has propped up thousands of businesses over the years long after they should have succumbed to market pressure and closed up shop. Or anti-gun groups such as Handgun Control Inc., with their incessant claims of support from suburban ``soccer moms,'' could create a new market by encouraging these moms to buy Smith & Wesson in support of their so-called ``dedication to safety.'' Handgun Control Inc. has already posted articles on its web site praising Smith & Wesson for its actions, so it's really only a half-step farther to promote Smith & Wesson's products to its audience. And that could just be the icing on the cake. More people would own guns, thus being able to defend themselves against crime, and traditional gun owners like me would split our sides laughing at the ironic spectacle of HCI shilling for

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. The rule and bill are fair and allows for an honest vote on the Partial Birth Abortion bill. H.R. 3660 allows for a clear vote in support of ending this heinous practice or a vote against life by opposing this legislation. It breaks my heart that we have to debate this bill. It pains me that this procedure is being allowed to take place in our nation. I find it hard to believe that my esteemed colleagues can with good conscience oppose this rule or bill. This bill is not about a medically necessary procedure, it is about abortion extremists pushing our country's moral limits over the edge. When I think of this procedure, I am reminded of the Nazi regime and their depraved view of the sanctity of life and I dread what the future holds for a generation that allows this procedure to occur. Recently, I heard a compelling argument for banning partial-birth abortion. The question was asked, ``So would you accept the fact that once the baby is separated from the mother, that baby cannot be killed.'' The answer was dodged and was never answered other than, ``A baby is born when the baby is born.'' The discussion continued without ever receiving a clear answer from the advocate of this procedure. Why? Because when pressed, an abortionist can not clearly answer that question and at the same time defend partial-birth abortion. It is a terrible practice that kills a baby, a living breathing human life. If we began doing this to cattle or dogs, imagine the outcry we would hear from PETA and from the same members who defend this practice. Obviously, the real question is when is a baby born? Is it when a foot is out? Is it when a hand reaches out of the womb? Is a child born only when their head has been delivered? I ask my colleagues that support this procedure to answer that question during general debate-- if they can. Pro-abortionist have no legitimate arguments to stand upon. They want to paint a picture that women are at risk so therefore they should be able to take the life of the child. Let's face it, every pregnancy poses a risk to the life of a mother. Women by the very act of becoming a mother are unselfishly putting themselves at risk. We should embrace all life as precious--the old, the young, the disabled, the unattractive and the unborn. How the Clinton-Gore Administration can with a clear conscience veto this legislation is beyond me. Let's not repeat history and continue this Holocaust. I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 3660.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I do not think my colleagues would be surprised to hear that the U.N. peacekeeping costs are on the rise. A recent Washington Post article reported that peacekeeping costs are expected to double this year to nearly $2 billion. This means that the United States will again be strapped with a financial and a personal burden, especially since the administration has stretched our military so much. Under the current formula, the U.S. pays about 30 percent, almost one-third of all the peacekeeping costs. Contrast that with China who is a member of the United Nations and they contribute a little less than 1 percent. The same China that the administration wants Congress to recognize for permanent normal trade relations. This antiquated formula has not changed for 26 years. A Republican led Congress has finally addressed this problem by requiring that United States arrears be tied to a more equitable formula. But this change is likely to meet with conflict. So who is shocked that many countries that have a free ride are balking at financial responsibility? Congress must maintain fiscal responsibility by requiring all members of the U.N. to do their share, including China.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on March 17, President Clinton announced that the firearms manufacturer, Smith and Wesson, had agreed to a certain number of gun safety proposals and the agreement reached, quote, ``an unprecedented partnership between the government and the gun industry,'' end quote. Partnership: now there is a very euphemistic term of what was accomplished. It obviously was high-handedness, to say the least. The Wall Street Journal ran an article on March 21 regarding this action by the administration. Here is a brief description of how the administration approached the CEO of Smith and Wesson, Ed Shultz. Quote, ``In late January two young Clinton administration lawyers flew to Nashville, Tennessee, where they handed Mr. Shultz, the chief executive officer of Smith and Wesson, a list of gun control demands. Agree to this, the government attorneys said, and the legal assault on the Nation's largest handgun manufacturer would be called off.'' Now, I am not sure exactly where this so-called partnership began, but such a story reeks of coercion. It reminds me of the old protection racket, pay up because you need my protection; otherwise, bad things can happen to you. Mr. Speaker, this action taken by the administration is a serious threat to our form of government. Our President should not attempt to change public policy by threatening a company with bankruptcy by way of lawsuits. As such, I have introduced legislation disapproving the use of this heavy-handedness by the administration. This agreement establishes a terrible precedent, one that can have enormous ramifications on our society. Where will the administration turn next? HMOs, utilities, pharmaceutical companies, tobacco companies and maybe, liquor, beer and wine companies? Mr. Speaker, there is a Washington Post editorial of April 2, Sunday, which I will make a part of the Record at this point. [From the Washington Post, Apr. 2, 2000] Government by Lawsuit . . . For those who favor robust federal regulation of tobacco and strict controls on handguns, as we do, it is tempting to cheer any use of the courts to circumvent Congress' unwillingness to implement common-sense policy. Litigation has caused tobacco companies to improve the way they operate. A recent deal with gun maker Smith & Wesson, is, in substance, similarly in the public interest. But the process is worrisome--prone to abuse. Filing lawsuits is generally speaking a bad way to make policy. The government has nearly unlimited resources; should it use them, in court, against law-abiding companies that it happens to dislike? Even a weak case can be used to bully those who lack the resources to fight to the end. So where is the line between legitimate governance and extortion? The tobacco case falls on the legitimate side of the line. The government has at least put its name on a complaint. Attorney General Janet Reno is politically accountable for that suit, which the industry is now asking the court to throw out. If she loses, Ms. Reno will have to answer for filing litigation the courts deemed frivolous. Moreover, the tobacco companies for decades misrepresented the state of their knowledge about the lethality of their products, engineered them to be addictive and marketed them to children. The government's argument that it has a cause of action under federal law remains untested, but it isn't laughable. Against the gun makers, the government does not even claim to have its own cause of action. Rather it is organizing a suit by local authorities and then stepping into negotiations to push its policies as a basis for settlement. If this is a legitimate strategy, it's hard to see why an anti-abortion administration, say, could not encourage litigation against drug companies marketing abortion-inducing drugs and then demand that those drugs be withdrawn as a condition of settlement. Abortion foes might cheer then as gun foes do now. Federal lawsuits can redress unjust readings of the law, as in the civil rights era. Novel legal theories surely have a place in government litigation. But this is not a broad license to use suits or the threat of suits to get around democratic policymaking. To do so undermines the legislative branch, demeans the judicial and poses threats to the liberty of those who obey the law but fall out of official favor. This article goes on to say, quote, ``The government has nearly unlimited resources. Should it use them in court against law-abiding companies that it happens to dislike? Even a weak case can be used to bully those who lack the resources to fight to the end. So where is the line between legitimate government and extortion,'' end quote? Mr. Speaker, the administration's action was wrong, and it speaks directly to the point of my resolution. The Constitution, article 1, section 1, states that all legislative power herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States. The framers of our constitution created this body to formulate public policy. What they did not intend was for the executive branch to circumvent Congress any time it disagrees with our actions. Furthermore, we in Congress are elected to uphold the Constitution and represent the views of our constituents, most of whom believe we need to enforce the 20,000-plus gun laws that are on the books to reduce gun violence. Now, the administration may use polling, but 800 or 1,000 people who are polled is hardly an indication of where Americans all stand on a particular issue. It is well known that any question can be skewed towards getting a specific answer. The administration consistently presents Americans with a one-sided version with regard to gun violence in this country. Why do we not hear from the administration that it has failed to enforce the 20,000-plus gun laws that are already on the books? In fact, Syracuse University did a study, and it shows that this enforcement is down 44 percent since 1993. So, the President, and the media, by not reporting things accurately, have demonstrated to Americans the extraordinary ability to change facts and statistics and season them with emotional hype while at the same time neglecting the information that may give Americans an equal opportunity to make an informed decision on guns. So I urge my colleagues to support my House resolution, which I intend to drop today. It basically says we cannot have government by lawsuit, and it talks about our country is a Republic while the government is the supreme power, it's power is vested in a its citizens who select and elect officers and representatives who govern them appropriately. We can not have the Government go out and use high- handed techniques to force corporations to comply with their wishes and omit the legislative process.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name withdrawn as a cosponsor of H.R. 701.

Mr. STEARNS

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask, is any Member opposed to my amendment?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is pretty simple. It attempts to establish fiscal responsibility. As all of us know, these emergency supplementals come once, twice a year. This is pretty simple. I cut spending by 10 percent across-the- board only, and I say to the Members, only for non-defense or non- emergency spending. So it would reduce by 10 percent these non- emergency appropriations for programs added to the supplemental for FY 2000. I offer this amendment because the rescissions used to offset this new spending are unauthorized funds whose use would be better served by using them for paying down the debt. For instance, Mr. Chairman, the $235 million reduction for emergency Y2K funds, these are the funds we appropriated for 1998. They are being used and this funding is being used, but it is not obligated, so we say, okay, let us use it. But the fact is, this is previously-allocated money that was appropriated, again, as emergency funding, and will now be used to offset this emergency supplemental. If we hear the word ``emergency supplemental'' used over and over here, we have to say to ourselves, what is an emergency and what is not? We need to hold the line on spending and practice some kind of fiscal responsibility. We have had several votes this morning, and we continue to add more money to the supplemental. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) had his amendment to set aside $4 billion for FY 2000, non-social security, for the on-budget surplus. The question is, why are we using $429 million, money that was appropriated but not spent to offset recently added spending, when we could apply it to debt reduction? This is an emergency supplemental. The programs that fall under non- emergency, if they are non-emergency, could we not go through the normal process? When we were in the minority, we always talked about all these legislative initiatives on the floor. We said, these are not necessary. These are non-emergency. Why are we putting them on the floor? We want to see them go through the normal, regular appropriations cycle under my distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). What we see happening with this bill is reminiscent of past years, when we kept adding more and more spending. If we go back and look at the spending that we did in the last fiscal year, we will see that the emergency spending balloons. This thing continues to balloon far beyond the original when leadership said, we will put on a bill that will be about $6.5 billion. Then it went to 7, 8. Now it is at 9 billion they brought it to the floor. This thing is continuing to go up. We have already loaded this bill up with money for Colombia, Kosovo, Bosnia, the Department of Energy security and cleanup. I am sure if this bill remained on the floor for a week, this thing would balloon up to $25 and $35 billion. I ask my colleagues, this is a very simple amendment just to reduce the non-emergency, only the non-emergency and non-defense, by 10 percent. The actual cut will be in millions of dollars, it will not be in billions of dollars. We must not appropriate more spending in this emergency supplemental. We must try to hold the line. We do not want to repeat last year's mistake. The final budget agreement exceeded the budget resolution by $25 billion in non-defense outlays. We seem to be heading in the same direction, so my amendment is modest and should be adopted. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding me this time. Let me just say to the gentlewoman from Connecticut and the gentleman from Massachusetts, I have also had the opportunity to live in New England, and I know how sensitive it is up there. In fact, during the energy crisis I was up there, and I was well aware that people were heating their homes with wood stoves; the cost of energy was soaring. But I thought I would put in the Record something that perhaps should be put in. It is not the end of the world if the EPCA, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, expires. It is supposed to expire, as I understand, tomorrow. It is not the end of the world. In fact, the House and Senate passed a reauthorization for the EPCA on September 30, 1999, last year. It was sent to the President on the day it was to expire. The President of the United States, President Clinton, did not sign it. In fact, he waited 5 days and it lapsed. So I point out that here it is not a crisis. We are going to take care of this, and I assure my colleagues, I am on the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, and working with the appropriators, we will do this; and I assure the gentleman we will. I am very sensitive and empathetic and sympathetic to what he has to say here.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think, in all deference to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), my distinguished colleague and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, I think he would agree, and he has been on the floor many times saying, particularly when he was in the minority as an appropriator, he said, why can we not take the non-emergency, non-defense spending and run it through the appropriations process, or go through the appropriate committees? Why should not all 435 Members of this House have the opportunity to see this in place and evaluate it? He has mentioned a couple of programs that he said this would cut. Now realize, Mr. Chairman, that we are only cutting 10 percent of 100 percent, so certainly, in government funding, if we cut 10 percent we are not decimating a program. We are not eliminating a program. So this is a modest attempt to signal to the citizens of the country and to signal to the Senate, if they decide to vote on this bill, and to make us feel, on this particular morning when we are voting for all new spending, that we are taking the task of being fiscally responsible. I would say to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Florida, if these are that important to him, why does he not run them through the appropriate process? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see the Ranking Minority Member from the Committee on Appropriations fighting to reduce waste and to say that he was upset about congressional pork, because I have been here some time and I have been in the minority and I have seen these emergency supplementals and in this case, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was chairman at that time. When the gentleman can stand on the House floor and take out a single program and say that we are going to decimate these people, we are going to hurt them because of the reduction, and it is only 10 percent, and, in fact, it is a program that has not been authorized by Members of Congress, why do we not just do away with all the procedures here in the House of Representatives and just bring to the floor any idea by any Member at any time and just vote on it? Pretty soon, we can be the brand-new Santa Claus of history where we just vote on bills, not on the basis of merit, but on the basis of emotion. So I urge my colleagues to look back at this bill and realize that this is not taking away from anybody. The programs are all left in place. This is nondefense. This is nonemergency. The gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned this huge amount of money that was provided for defense. The gentleman could actually have an amendment here on the floor to reduce that on the floor if he wants. If he really felt that strong about it, why does he not come on the floor and offer an amendment to reduce defense spending? It is an open rule. Let us up or down it. But the point is that we have to realize that at some point somewhere we are going to have to address these programs and not continue to bring them on the floor without being authorized without being brought to the appropriate committees. So I urge my colleagues again to consider this modest amendment and vote ``yes'' on the Stearns amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, can we have the balance of time remaining?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let us talk about what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just indicated, that he was strongly against the appropriations for defense. He said yesterday that he was on the floor objecting to the money that we added for defense. Is that correct?