Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, my point in coming to the well this morning is to talk about CBO and OMB. These are Beltway terms, I know. The Congressional Budget Office is the CBO; and the Office of Management and Budget Office is the OMB. OMB is used by the White House. That is their in-house accounting firm. The CBO is our in-house accounting firm here in Congress. We use it for out budget analysis. I wish every Member had an opportunity this afternoon to listen to what I have to say because it brings great bearing on our debate today on the budget and for the remaining 2 or 3 months. In March 1996, with only 6 months left in the fiscal year, OMB projected that the deficit for fiscal year 1996 would be $154 billion. They were wrong, overestimating by almost 44 percent. Now let us look at CBO. In May 1996, just 4 months remaining in the fiscal year, CBO anticipated the budget deficit for the year would be $144 billion. They too were wrong, overestimating by more than 34 percent. We went from 6 months to 4 months. Now let us go to 1 month and see if these folks are accurate. With 1 month left in fiscal year 1996, both CBO and OMB estimated that the budget deficit for the year would be around $117 billion. The actual deficit for the year was $107 billion. Both agencies, despite the short period of anticipation, were off by 10 percent. Mr. Speaker, in other words, neither CBO nor OMB could estimate the budget deficit for the year just 30 days, 30 days, prior to the end of the fiscal year. Yet despite these seemingly inexactitudes, politicians from both sides of the aisle consistently place great credence on these agencies' predictions, often going so far as to base America's entire fiscal policy on their estimates. Sometimes policies are enacted by employing the assumptions from these agencies for as long as the next 5 years in estimating budget data. Mr. Speaker, if they cannot estimate the budget in 30 days, in 4 months, and in 6 months, how can we expect them to estimate over the next 5 years? CBO and OMB usually disagree sharply on their budget projections, and depending upon which side of an issue one is on, one side is either siding up with OMB or CBO. In general, CBO is more pessimistic, OMB is more optimistic. Thus, siding with the CBO makes balancing the budget a more daunting task. Despite all of this, both agencies, as I am going to show, are typically wrong altogether. That is, they both err on the same side of the budget. Recently, both agencies have been too pessimistic, consistently overestimating the actual deficit. In the 1980's and in the 1990's, both agencies consistently underestimated the deficit. Let us now go to the budget agreement that has been recently in the news. When viewed as part of the big picture, the two estimates are essentially identical. For fiscal year 2002, for example, the difference in deficit predictions was $52 billion. But given the odds that both will be off by about $300 billion, you know, it is really almost meaningless to talk about what they are projecting in 5 years. Furthermore, the agencies' forecasts for the size of the national economy in the year 2002 are almost identical at 10.00, a trillion, for CBO, 10.087 trillion for OMB. To be blunt, Mr. Speaker, any discussion about who is right and who is wrong just does not make any sense given the magnitude of these figures especially when we are talking about a budget projection 5 years from now. More interestingly than who is closer to right is often the fact that both of them have been essentially wrong and cannot even predict the budget within 30 days. It must be noted that a study of the two agencies' predictions over the last 20 years shows CBO to be closer to right more than OMB. So, perhaps CBO is the one we should follow, although I question that. Fortunately, CBO conducted a large majority of the study, so they had a higher percentage of opportunities to prove they were right. So, Mr. Speaker, what is the point of all this, what is the lesson to be learned when we look at CBO and OMB and ask them to project out over 5 years? Well, both agencies are quick to point out that the differences between themselves are insignificant and are not good indication of future performance. And I do not know if past performance is a good indication of future performance. The only certainty that we have this afternoon is that neither one will be absolutely right, and we as Members of Congress should not put a great deal of emphasis on these individual agencies because they both have been wrong. Let me conclude by saying economics is not an exact science and we have to rely on all of us to work together continually to reach a balanced budget and that is the only way we know to reduce the deficit.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 75th anniversary of the Moosehaven facility, which provides residential care to older members of the Loyal Order of the Moose. I am proud to have this outstanding facility, located in Orange Park, FL, as part of my district. The Loyal Order of the Moose will be holding its international convention in Florida this summer. They have selected Florida as the convention site for the purposes of acknowledging the Moosehaven facility. Founded in 1922, the Moosehaven facility is unique in the fraternal world. The self-funded facility currently provides free care to 420 men and women who are members of the Moose Order. The infinite need for organizations to provide community-based solutions is exemplified by the success of the Moosehaven facility. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Moosehaven facility on its 75th anniversary, and I look forward to its continued growth and progress in the future.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, sports enthusiasts around the world were treated to a stunning race Saturday during the 123d Kentucky Derby. Silver Charm raced neck and neck with Captain Bodgit from midstretch to the wire, with Silver Charm winning by a head. Not only was this a thrilling contest, it was also noteworthy that Silver Charm and Captain Bodgit are both Florida-bred horses, born and trained in the rich horse country surrounding Ocala, my hometown. Silver Charm is a product of Dudley Farm in Ocala, and Silverleaf Farm in Ocala is home for the horse that sired Silver Charm, Silver Buck. In addition, Captain Bodgit is a product of Marion County, bred at Ocala's Still Lake Farm. This was the first Run for the Roses victory for a Florida horse since Unbridled won in 1990. Florida stands second only to Kentucky in breeding Derby horse winners. Mr. Speaker, speaking for my fellow citizens from Ocala, I know that we are honored but not surprised that an Ocala horse would place first and second in the Kentucky Derby. I look forward to seeing how the Florida horses fare in the Preakness.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a topic of much importance: Reforming and improving the United Nations. I think the time has come to look at this important agency and make some changes. We should not continue the status quo any longer. In 1996, 134,281 tickets were issued by the New York City police to the United Nations diplomatic and consular vehicles. Almost all of those were unpaid. The Nation of Russia itself accounted for 31,000 unpaid tickets. Foreign United Nations officials have more of their salaries and pensions paid by the American taxpayers than from their own country. There is sort of a elitism that is existing at the United Nations. And Americans are fed up with the elaborate spending without some kind of accountability at the United Nations. That is why I sponsored legislation, House Resolution 21, that expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that unless the United Nations adopts certain reforms, the United States should withhold financial support for the United Nations and its specialized agency until certain prudent things are done. Now, let me tell you what this is about. I believe, first of all, we should have a comprehensive, independent audit of the United Nations and its specialized agencies. No. 2, an audit of its functions to determine if these functions can be carried out more efficiently by other organizations, or perhaps within the private sector. Prompt and complete implementation of the audit recommendations and the possible termination of New York City as a permanent headquarters of the United Nations should also be considered. Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could rotate the location of the United Nations and allow it to go to other countries. Other nations could provide the headquarters. Implementing a rotation system like I have suggested could create a more efficient operation, I believe and allow other countries to help with the overhead costs. Prior approval by the primary donor member countries for peacekeeping operations is something we should have some control of. We now need a more careful definition and a more effective execution of the United Nations peacekeeping operations in itself. Last, Mr. Speaker, a lot of Americans are concerned that the United Nations is going to implement a tax on the Internet, or perhaps a tax on worldwide banking transfers. We should clarify, completely clarify, for the American people that absolutely no taxing power or the right to raise revenues directly on the American people can be implemented by the United Nations. My legislation is only the start of changing and improving the United Nations. I believe the time has come. The time is now. I believe even the leadership of the United Nations would agree with some of my ideas. The people of our country chose to change the party in power in the U.S. Congress for the first time in 40 years in 1994. I believe the overriding reason for the historic change was that the American people wanted a smaller, more responsive, and more efficient Federal Government. They wanted Congress to reevaluate every level and every aspect of our Federal Government, and I think the American people want the same thing done at the United Nations. Another fundamental area that Americans wanted reevaluated of course is our overall national foreign policy. The world has dramatically changed with the downfall of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, but our foreign policy has failed to react properly to this change. There are different threats today in the world. The United Nations has created a response to horrors of the two world wars, but that has changed. We now see a world that is overwhelmingly democratic, or implementing democratic change, and a world that is embracing free markets. It was the perseverance of the American people and the American leadership in combating the evils of communism that led to these changes. I think we provided to the world the American model of government and economics. Why not have the United Nations provide a new model, a new pattern, in diplomacy and fiscal responsibility. The United Nations should meet the new demands of the world today and set this pattern by reforming itself. Outside of legitimate concerns with some terrorist nations and North Korean, Iraq, and the threat of programs from Communist China, the world has been working. It is working to solve problems on a day-to-day basis. It is obvious to me and to many Americans that we need a new pattern for the United Nations, less bureaucratic, more efficient, more fiscally responsible; like we are trying to do here in Congress. A permanent United Nations based in New York City may not be in the best interests of creating a new U.N. model. The American people, the American taxpayers, simply cannot subsidize a group of elite diplomats indefinitely without reform. So, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor my House Resolution 21. It makes sense. The time is now.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I have heard some of these arguments. The problem is that this project is two-thirds complete in operation. We are not talking about something like the super collider here where we are just starting it and then we killed it. Even then there were large termination fees. Here is a project that is two-thirds complete into the operation. Now, these folks keep talking about a $92 billion overrun. That is over 15 years. That is about $6 billion a year. This is a project that we are almost already about to see the light at the end of the tunnel, so I think we are too far along to consider terminating it. It may be $92 billion in overruns, however it turns out to be a very small number over the 15-year period. This amendment lost by 65 percent last year in the 104th Congress. I will bet that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and everybody else in the House would love to win an election by 65 percent. The majority of people here in Congress believe this space program is a good project, yet time and time again the gentleman, Mr. Roemer brings this up. I will bet on the last day of the project the gentleman will bring up the fact that we have to shut this program down. Another thing is that we will not be able to shut this project down because of our agreements with many, many countries. I would point out to those that keep coming to the House floor and saying this is fiscally irresponsible to push this space station, I went back to the vote on the National Endowment for the Arts on June 22, 1994, and almost without an exception these people could not even reduce and do away with a program that was $160 million. We are not talking billions, we are talking about millions. In fact, my good friend from Indiana did not agree to substantially reduce or shut down the National Endowment for the Arts. Another point I want to make is that we are talking about a program that only is $23 billion to completion. So we are not talking about billions and billions of dollars, but $10 billion for completing it and $13 billion for the operation for the next 10 years. My friends, there is no parallel between this and the super collider. We have promises we have made to other countries. We must keep them. Author J.G. Holland said, ``Heaven is not reached by a single bound. But we build the ladder by which we rise.'' We are currently building that ladder, in a series of bounds. What we find at the top of this ladder will inspire future generations to imagine, explore, and actually see, first hand, the unprecedented advances that the space station will provide. We must retain funding for the space station. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Roemer-Ganske amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the full committee for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1092, and commend my chairman for bringing this bill to the floor for consideration early in this session. I believe we are sending the VA an important signal today in taking early action on this legislation. With this bill, we are not only extending a good program but expanding it to encourage highly productive public-private partnerships. This bill would extend for 5 years the VA's authority to enter into long-term leases of underutilized VA property in order to foster development of projects which will benefit the VA as well as the lessee. This authority has been effective in encouraging development of construction projects that have proven both directly and monetarily beneficial to the Department. Mr. Speaker, existing law imposes certain limits on this authority, which I believe have outlived their usefulness. It limits to 10 the number of enhanced-use leases that the VA may execute in any year, and caps at 20 the total number of such projects under this authority. In lifting these limitations, H.R. 1092 should help spark an expansion of an important partnership concept. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of the Members to support H.R. 1092.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the tax limitation amendment. What could I say in this short amount of time that would change many Members on that side of the aisle? I thought carefully about it. Did all of my colleagues know, perhaps they heard this before, that the Constitution has been amended 27 times? Perhaps they did not know in the first 4 years of this country's history they amended the Constitution 10 times. Perhaps they did not know this, but at that point they prohibited any taxes at all. Mr. Speaker, the Founding Fathers did not want to have any taxes. They were interested in perhaps real estate taxes or a sales tax, but they did not honestly believe in taxing up to 39.5 percent, almost 40 percent. When you add State income tax and local taxes, you are talking about for people, some people are paying 55 percent. Our Founding Fathers 220 years ago, of course, had the foresight to use supermajority for certain things. Impeachment, talking about expelling a Member of Congress, overriding the veto, they foresaw the need for a supermajority. They understood firsthand what could happen with corruption and power. The power to tax is what we are talking about today, the ruination of overtaxation. The gentleman from Texas is simply offering an amendment to slow this process down. Quite simply, our forefathers fought a war to ensure freedom from unchecked oppression. They fought a war basically to prevent ruination of taxation, which we have today. So the gentleman from Texas is simply trying to stop this by saying let us have a two-thirds majority. The American people do not like and trust their Government. They have said that over and over again. It is 1997, and the Government needs to be put in check just like the modern-day King George III which we are trying to do today what our forefathers tried to do when they started this country. Over the past 40 years, Congress has continually increased taxes. Since 1981, there have been 19 separate tax increases, in 1993, the largest tax increase in history. It is obvious to anybody who has studied the political landscape, if we do not have this amendment, we will have increased taxes. Mr. Speaker, we increased taxes on airline tickets, and I am ashamed that we passed that vote without a counterbalancing amendment to make it budget neutral. In 1775, the rallying cry was no taxation without representation. Here we are, over 200 years later, and it has not changed. The American taxpayers are fed up. They are looking at bloated bureaucracy and they want a change. Daniel Webster once said, the power to tax is the power to destroy. This afternoon, these words ring with resonance on April 15. What we want to do here is very, very simple. We only want to make it harder to raise taxes, to make it just a little bit more difficult for this Congress to prevent someone from succeeding in the American dream, to make sure that the power to tax is not abused. Simply put, we want to put the power back where it belongs, back where the Founding Fathers put it, in the hands of the people. I urge my colleagues to put partisanship aside and to cast their vote for the taxpayers of this Nation. Remember, our Founding Fathers amended the Constitution 10 times in 4 years, and it has been amended 27 times since this Republic has been founded. This is a very simple step forward, on a symbolic day of April 15, to bring this Congress under control.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today is tax day. I think most of us would agree that we are taxed too much. But do we really need to tax seniors like we do? I do not think so. Sadly, that is precisely what happened with the Clinton 1993 budget package. Some might try to argue that that was a good package. They were wrong. They are still wrong. These folks in the administration have long pursued a tax and spend policy. Try telling seniors that their taxes on Social Security are fair and necessary. I have introduced legislation to roll back this additional tax burden that was placed on seniors by the Clinton administration in 1993. It also includes indexation of capital gains and American dream savings accounts for young people who are trying to purchase their first home. I urge my colleagues who believe in tax relief, true tax relief for all Americans, to sponsor my bill which is budget neutral. It is H.R. 1266. It is entitled the Budget Neutral American Tax Relief Act.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the question I hear is, Congressman, this bill is not necessary because assisted suicide is not currently funded. This is a solution in search of a problem. Mr. Speaker, let me answer that question, because I think it is fundamental to this debate. Current Federal law uses broad and general language. For example, Medicare pays for items and services ``reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury.'' If assisted suicide is legalized by the Supreme Court, or any individual State, all it would take is one district court judge to rule that assisted suicide fits under the Medicare statutes guidelines. We need to make sure that this does not happen today by clarifying the Federal law. This bill is also very important because it will send a clear message to States and insurance carriers. As has happened in many cases, State and private coverage is often modeled after Federal law. For example, when Congress extends Medicare or Medicaid coverage to address a particular health condition, States and private plans frequently adopt the same changes. Mr. Speaker, by banning Federal funding for assisted suicide, we will serve as an example for States and private carriers to follow, thereby reducing the number of suicides and promoting better end-of-life care and suicide prevention.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that would ease the tax burden for all Americans and assist all of us in pursuit of the American dream. This legislation contains three simple provisions affecting the Tax Code: Indexation of the capital gains tax, establishment of the American dream savings accounts, and repeal of the 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits. Quite simply, this bill is designed to right several wrong things that I think presently exist in the Tax Code. And I would point out, Mr. Speaker, these three things are offset by reductions in the Department of Commerce and the Department of Energy. Surely the Department of Commerce would appreciate the fact that we are reducing taxes, and so would the Department of Energy. So the important thing about this bill is it is budget neutral. The legislation addresses capital gains taxation. This type of tax arises when an asset is sold and the difference between the base and the sales price is taxed. The appreciation in value can reflect real or perhaps it can reflect inflationary gain. Because of the uniqueness of this tax, what happens is, people hold an asset for a long period of time, they are taxed, and basically much of that tax is due to inflation. Put simply, gains should be indexed to account for this inflation, and that is what this bill does. I can give some statistics, which I will make part of the Record, Mr. Speaker, but basically, in real terms, fixing this simple capital gains indexation will increase investments by $75 billion, raise gross domestic product by $120 billion, and reduce the cost of capital by 12 percent, creating an average of 233 additional new jobs. Best of all, a capital gains tax reduction affects nearly everyone in this country. In fact, nearly 50 percent of those Americans who claim capital gains have incomes of less than $40,000, and 60 percent of those who claim capital gains have incomes of less than $50,000. The second part of this legislation establishes dream savings accounts to encourage personal responsibility and, frankly, savings. In short, America needs a system that encourages and betters retirement and big-event purchasing savings and does so through these dream savings accounts. The current system does not provide any incentive at all for Americans to save for their first home or for their children's college education, nor does the current system afford American taxpayers the opportunity to use their retirement savings for catastrophic events. In fact, it can easily be argued that the current system penalizes Americans. We must change that. The third part of my bill would repeal the tax increases on the Social Security benefits that were enacted in President Clinton's 1993 budget reconciliation bill. Prior to 1993, individuals with income in excess of a certain threshold could be taxed only at half of their Social Security benefits. Recipients with incomes below the threshold were not at all taxed on their Social Security income. However, after President Clinton's 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act had been implemented, higher income thresholds were achieved. Now, individuals earning above these thresholds can be taxed at 85 percent of their Social Security benefits. Unfortunately this bill also includes dividends on earnings. Thereby even tax-exempt dividends count as income when calculating Social Security taxation. Simply put, the tax increase in the President's bill is unfair and wrong. It is punitive and hurtful toward our Nation's seniors and should be repealed. The last Congress sent to the President legislation to repeal the Social Security provisions, but the President stood by his original plan and it did not pass. Nevertheless, this issue is not resolved as far as I am concerned. We must address this issue, which is why I have introduced the language in this legislation to repeal the onerous 1993 tax increase on our seniors. This bill is very simple. It does these three things. It is common sense and fair. Simply altering a few necessary portions of our Tax Code, it would help all Americans and give a fair and level playing field. Best of all, every penny in reduced revenue is offset by reductions in the funds available to the Department of Commerce and the Department of Energy. This is a small but important step forward in the debate over our Nation's future. This is legislation we cannot afford to live without. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is imperative for our country's present and future generations that we address these issues today.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague from Illinois for allowing me this opportunity to close the debate. Mr. Speaker, I was down in Mexico last weekend when the headlines appeared in the newspaper and President Zedillo said that the sovereignty of Mexico was at stake. What became apparent to me is that this country (Mexico) would react very unfavorably to a motion to decertify. I think the motion that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] has outlined is an able compromise that we should all get behind, particularly on this side of the aisle. For those Members who are considering that this is not a compromise, it is a compromise, because we could get something that could be much more damaging to economic progress in Mexico and to their feeling that their integrity is being questioned. There is no doubt we could improve our relationships, improve our drug programs between the two countries. We need to improve our drug program here too. So I pose this question to all my colleagues. How does the money get from the people who use drugs here in the United States back to the Mexican drug cartels? Does the United States not have a level of responsibility here? These are huge sums of money, billions of dollars. Mr. Speaker, I honestly think the best solution is to vote for the Hastert amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, last month I had the opportunity to attend a ground breaking ceremony for the Afro-American Memorial Museum at Camp Blanding, FL. The museum hopes to foster understanding, interest and pride in the military history of Florida and in particular of black Floridians. The dedicating speech at this event was given by Prof. Robert Hawk, a former Navy corpsman and current professor of American and Florida history. To put it simply, Professor Hawk is the exemplification of the museum itself. He has authored many books on the Armed Forces and on Florida; he has worked for the Florida Department of Military Affairs as a historical site interpreter; he has assembled and published 150 volumes of archival material on Florida history; and he has codesigned and created three public museums devoted to Florida history. We all have a lot to learn from a man like Professor Hawk. His speech at the ground breaking struck a chord with me; it enlightened me; and it made me proud to be an American and a Floridian. Mr. Speaker, attached is the text of Professor Hawk's speech from the ground breaking. it is to be made part of the Record. I urge my colleagues, and indeed all Americans, to read through what he has to say. His message is invaluable in understanding the history behind our great country, and is therefore invaluable in understanding the pride in being an American, a Floridian, and a neighbor of great men like Professor Hawk. Black Florida Military Heritage (By Robert Hawk) A narrative version, based on the notes prepared, of the speech I gave the Black History Month groundbreaking ceremony for the ``Walk Through Time'' memorial project at Camp Blanding, Florida; February 21, 1997. Its pretty rough as it was designed as a speech and not a finished product for publication. Anyway, here it is as best I could reconstruct it! I am also enclosing a copy of the historical background material for the project grant that was handed out at the ceremony as I wrote that as well and it tells the story a bit more coherently. As a professional historian and teacher, I am frequently surprised, indeed depressed to realize how very little the average American knows of our country's history. And for Florida history; even among individuals born and raised here, with long family histories associated with the state, their knowledge of our state's history is generally extremely limited, often non-existent. There is virtually no knowledge or appreciation of our peninsula's long, interesting and distinguished history which extends over more than four centuries. And knowledge of Florida's Black military historical heritage? Even less is known. Contemporary, popular or ``politically correct'' view of Florida, and its Black history, suggests cotton fields and slaves and, for virtually everyone, Florida history begins when the Americans take over in 1821. But this view completely overlooks the more than 350 years of Florida's history which precedes American control and, it ignores the important military service which Black Floridians have given their new world home for all those preceding centuries. Our ``Walk Through Time'' memorial is designed to commemorate the entire 430 years of dedicated military service by Black Floridians. And that unique heritage begins where it should; at the beginning! 1565 When Pedro Menendez de Aviles established the military or presidio settlement of St. Augustine in September 1565, he mustered all his troops and the settler militia. The company of local militia contained at least two men of African origins. As a note, under Spanish law, in a presidio or military settlement, all males, black/white, free and slave; Indians, mixed bloods; even convicts were liable for military or militia service. From 1565 on, there was never a time when there were no men of African origin serving in the Florida militia or local garrison. By the middle of the 17th century, at least one entire company of Florida militia infantry was composed entirely of free and slave black local residents. During the War of Jenkins Ear, Florida was partially defended by a Black infantry company of former slaves and free citizens attached to the Fort Mose settlement north of St. Augustine commanded by Francisco Menendez, a former slave and now wealthy free man of color in Florida. In June 1740 after the British invaded Florida and laid siege to the city of St. Augustine, those Black soldier, along with their Spanish Regular compatriots, successfully assaulted the British positions at the occupied Ft. Mose, precipitating the subsequent evacuation of Florida by the British. Few Floridians and fewer Americans seem aware that Florida was a Loyalist colony during the war of the American Revolution. The colony raised a regiment of East Florida Rangers of nine companies, at least one of which was entirely composed of local Black citizens. The Rangers fought the Rebels from the north several times and never lost a battle, eventually helping the British occupy east Georgia which they held until war's end. During the Second Spanish period following the Revolution, Florida had many Black infantry and artillery militiamen. In 1821 the Americans took over Florida. Things would change as the Americans had different institutions and values. There would be a much reduced, almost non-existent role for Blacks in the local militia but some Florida Blacks did serve in the Seminole Indians Wars. And then there is America's most devastating war; the Civil War or the War of Northern Aggression. Most people believe all Southern Blacks who serve in the war did so in the Union Army. Not so. Throughout the South, approximately 40,000 Southern Blacks, both free men and slave, actively served in or with the Confederate Army and they fought for their homeland; the South. Some did serve in the Union Army. From Florida, most local Blacks who served the Union did so in the 1st South Carolina, later re-named the 33rd US Colored Infantry. But other Florida Blacks served the South. For example, at least twelve local men of color served in Company B, 3rd Florida Infantry, Confederate States Army, one of whom was Corporal Emmanuel Osborne. His brother Samuel Osborne, served as a Private in the 33rd US Colored Infantry, Union Army. Not only white families were divided by this terrible war. After the Civil War, Florida, and America's military and militia units were segregated. Black militia units in Florida did not receive official recognition but Black Floridians continued to organize and train their own militia units right up to the beginning of the First World War. Some Florida Blacks served in the Black Regiments of the Army fighting Indians in the West, in Cuba and the Philippines. At least three members of those regiments from Florida were killed in action at the Battle of San Juan Hill in 1898 and are buried in the National cemetery in St. Augustine. During World War I and World War II, America's military remained segregated. But thousands of Black Floridians served in the military, some died and some were killed in action fighting the Germans in the First War and Germans and Japanese during the Second. Largely desegregated after the Second War, Black Floridians continued to serve their state and nation in Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm and in all the many military deployments and associated activities of our nation since 1945. And, finally, three African American Floridians have received our nation's highest medal for valor; the Medal of Honor. Adam Paine, Clifford Sims and Robert Jenkins. Adam Paine was a Seminole Negro Indian Scout with the 4th US Cavalry and earned his medal 20 September 1874 on the Staked Plains of Texas. He was born in Florida and moved to Mexico just before the outbreak of the Civil War and crossed into Texas after the war to join the Army. To quote from his citation; ``Seminole Negro Indian Scout Adam Paine; for gallantry when attacked by a hugely superior party of Indians. This is a Scout of great courage'' signed Colonel Ranald MacKenzie; commanding the regiment. Clifford Sims of Port St. Joe, Florida, was a Staff Sergeant with the 101st Airborne in Vietnam when he earned his medal 21 February 1968 in a battle associated with the Communist Tet Offensive near Hue. He was a squad leader leading his men in an attack against heavily fortified enemy positions. He exhibited excellent leadership throughout the battle and saved his men from serious injury when an enemy ammo position exploded. Shortly afterward, when the unmistakable sound of an enemy booby trap being sprung was heard, he threw himself on the enemy device and was killed. His men lived. Robert Jenkins Jr., of Interlachen, Florida was a Private First Class in the United States Marine Corps when he earned his medal on 5 March 1969 near the DMZ in northern Vietnam. He was serving as a machine gunner with Recon unit when his position was assaulted by NVA Regular troops. He and his assistant gunner fought back effectively, but when an enemy grenade was thrown into their position, Jenkins, without hesitation, placed himself between the grenade and his comrade, thus receiving the wounds from which he died later that day. His fellow Marine lived. He came to visit Robert's grave in Florida just this past year. Well, this is but a sample of Florida's Black military heritage which we wish to commemorate with this memorial project. It is an interesting, unusual and distinguished heritage; one that needs to be made known to all Floridians. Out ``Walk Through Time'' memorial exhibit will be a start toward making this part of our state's long and incredibly diverse history available to the general public. We extend our most profound thanks and appreciation to all of those who have, or who will, assist us in the creation and completion of this project.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the most imperative issue facing this Nation, and, that is, the Federal budget. The last time our Nation, the greatest Nation on Earth, balanced its books, Nixon was President, the first moon landing occurred, and the Mod Squad was a top TV show. It was 1969. And in the 28 years that followed, the Federal Government has spent almost $6 trillion more money than it has taken in. Put simply, this irresponsibility, this addiction to deficit spending, poses the greatest national threat to our future, to the financial security of our Nation, and to the economic well-being of our families. A balanced budget is not simply a desirable ideal. It is absolutely necessary. And not simply because of our precarious situation as a Nation, but because putting a stop to deficit spending is good for all Americans. It means a lower cost of living, lower interest rates and a financially stable Government. A study by McGraw Hill projects that a balanced budget would yield a 2-percent drop in interest rates. This means yearly savings of $1,230 on a $50,000 home loan, $200 on an auto loan, and $216 on a student loan. Perhaps even more important is the moral responsibility to stop robbing future generations of their opportunities and a chance to achieve prosperity. A child born today owes nearly $200,000 in taxes over his or her lifetime just to pay the interest on the national debt. Is such a crushing legacy something we want to leave to our children and our grandchildren? It is important to note that balancing the Federal budget does not require drastic spending cuts or massive tax increases as many would have the American public believe. Instead it requires exercising common sense and leadership. I know that I have to stay within a budget in running my congressional office and caring for my family. This is nothing new. Most of us have to stay within our means. Why can the Federal Government not do the same thing? The truth is it can. Look at what we did in the 104th Congress. Over a 2-year span we reduced Federal spending by $53 billion from the level proposed by the President, not by slashing prudent and necessary Government programs but by eliminating 300 wasteful and duplicative programs, projects, and grants. I cannot stress the following statement enough: Our national debt does not result from the American people being taxed too little, it is a product of Government that overspends. Since 1981, there have been 19 separate tax increases, the largest being President Clinton's tax hike in 1993. Yet the debt continues to rise. Today Americans pay more in taxes than ever before in history. In fact the average American family pays 40 percent of its income in taxes. That is more than it spends on housing, food, and clothing combined. Taking more money from the taxpayers has not proven the ability for us to reduce our debt. It has, however, proven to increase the size of the Federal bureaucracy. We in Congress and in the White House have an obligation to serve the public interest, a responsibility to work toward a balanced budget while taking less money from hardworking Americans. There is a right way and a wrong way to prepare our Nation for the next century. Following the right way, we should reach a balanced budget by the year 2002 and we should keep the budget balanced without tax hikes or gimmicks. We should provide permanent tax relief for families, and we should offer an honest means of extending the life of vital and important programs, like Medicare and Social Security. Earlier this year President Clinton submitted his budget proposal. Despite his claims and promises, his budget fell well short of these criteria. First of all, the President's budget will not reach balance in 2002, or in any year before or after. Applying the methods used by Congress in making budget projections, Mr. Clinton's budget will be $69 billion in the red in 2002. In fact, he would have us run deficits in the $120- billion range until after he left office. Under his plan, an amazing 98 percent of the proposed spending reduction would occur in the years 2001 and 2002, when he has retired to Little Rock. Shakespeare said it best over 400 years ago, ``Though it be honest, it is never good to bring bad news.'' True, President Clinton's budget deserves little praise, but this is not a case of partisan carping. Every President since President Nixon, Republican and Democrat, have at least put forth a proposal on paper that would achieve a balanced budget. Yet here we are today with a debt of almost $6 trillion. Nevertheless, there is something that we can do to bring about economic sanity. Congress can pass the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The fact that for over 20 years the temporary residents of the White House have offered plans to balance the budget underscores the need for this amendment. We must remove the concept from policy papers and the rhetoric of politicians and bureaucrats and instead place it in the Constitution of the United States. Rather than talking about eliminating deficit spending, let's do it. An amendment is the only way to ensure that Washington permanently changes its ways, to make the Government accountable for every one of your tax dollars, and to prevent the next generation from being saddled with the cost of our profligacy. This is not a partisan issue. We must not be separated by party affiliation. We must come together and share a vision for our Nation's future. Knowing that facts do not sustain their cause, supporters of the status quo will fall back on their most potent weapon--fear. President Clinton has already brandished this weapon through his partisan charge that the amendment is a threat to Social Security. But remember what the late Paul Tsongas had to say, ``I'm embarrassed as a Democrat to watch a Democratic President raise the scare tactics of Social Security to defeat the balanced budget amendment.'' Although I support taking Social Security off budget, the immutable truth is, the greatest threat to Social Security is the national debt itself. Of the 5.5 trillion dollars of debt, almost $600 billion is owed to the Social Security trust funds. If we do not balance the budget, that debt will double. Do you really think that if the Government goes bankrupt it can pay that $1.2 trillion debt back to the trust funds without hyperinflation or a depression? The future solvency of Social Security depends solely on putting our fiscal house in order--it depends on approving the balanced budget amendment. This is not a time to stand helplessly to the side. This is one of those moments that will define our country's destiny. First and foremost, Congress and the President should come together to affect real and meaningful fiscal change and to bolster our efforts, we should feel obligated to send to the States the balanced budget amendment. Our future is at risk, and that means everything is at risk. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I earnestly urge Members to consider and vote for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the balanced budget amendment was defeated in the Senate by one vote. Again, the will of the American people is being thwarted because folks here promise one thing at home, then come to Washington and do something else. It is ironic indeed that the Clinton White House worked so hard to defeat the balanced budget amendment, when the budget they submitted to Congress is the best argument for a balanced budget amendment. Bill Clinton's budget is big government, more taxes, more programs, and status quo Washington, DC. Clinton's budget contains temporary tax cuts but has permanent tax increases. The CBO has reported that in the year 2002, after Mr. Clinton is gone, the Government would run a $70 billion deficit. Mr. Speaker, Bill Clinton's new budget is unbalanced and avoids the tough choices. America deserves an honest balanced budget, one without gimmicks or temporary tax cuts.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I have here a dollar bill that says ``In God we trust.'' Behind the Speaker it says ``In God we trust.'' This finite example, these examples provide tangible proof of the traditional cooperation of church and state. I say to the folks on this side, the Ten Commandments hang currently on the wall of the U.S. Supreme Court in a frieze. In fact the very chamber in which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated with a notable and permanent, not seasonal, symbol of religion, Moses with the Ten Commandments. In order to preserve the religious principles on which our Nation was founded, let us demonstrate today to the Nation our belief that the Ten Commandments are a cornerstone of a fair and just society. Mr. Speaker, John Knox, the Scottish religious reformer, once wrote: ``a man with God is always in the majority.'' We are a Judeo-Christian society. It is time we rose in support of it. Judge Roy Moore's courtroom illustrates his commitment to the tenets of the Ten Commandments. I urge my colleagues to support our Nation's founding principles and individual liberty by passing this resolution.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield] for what he has done on this bill and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] for bringing this bill to the House floor. In the United States armored cars are used to transport millions and millions of dollars in currency, coins, food stamps, and other valuable property. The Federal Government remains the largest customer to the armored car industry. As a result of their cargo, armored cars are often a target of crime. In order to protect the safety of both the cargo and the individuals responsible for its transport, we are once again considering amendments to the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to have been an original cosponsor of similar legislation which passed the House unanimously during the 104th Congress. The need for these amendments can be illustrated by an incident, a case in New Jersey, in which the operation of an armored car across the State lines almost ended in the loss of $40 million in very valuable Federal property. The armored car was stopped by a policeman for a traffic violation, and when the licenses were checked of the armored car guards, it is found that they did not have the proper permit, and they were arrested for carrying a weapon without a permit in that State. The armored car remained on the side of the highway overnight, containing $40 million worth of very valuable property. Had the amendments we are considering today been in place, the potential for a financial detrimental situation could have been avoided altogether. I think it important, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize that these amendments do not place weapons in the hands of additional people. The reciprocity of the licenses extends only to those professionals who have obtained a weapons license in that primary State of employment, and of course when they get this permit, they must commit to a safety test, and their record is checked and a background check is made. Since the genesis of this legislation involves the reciprocity of weapons licenses, I want to briefly mention legislation that I have introduced to allow reciprocity for concealed weapons, licenses that would be given to individuals. H.R. 339 establishes the right-to-carry parameters across State lines. It is my hope that my colleagues will join me in support of further reciprocity for gun owners. Mr. Speaker, today we are faced with an easy task. By passing H.R. 624 we will remove the barriers that currently inhibit interstate travel of armored cars. It is senseless that armored car guards who have met the professional licensing requirements to carry a weapon in one State should be required to obtain a license in every State that they travel through when they are transporting their cargos. So I urge passage of this bill and I again compliment the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield].

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, women hold a unique and very special place in today's society. Women must be multifaceted--they have many roles which they must fulfill. In addition to the role of wife and mother, many women must also work outside the home and have many demands made upon their time. While women experience the same stresses and strains that all Americans must contend with, women have special health concerns that affect them directly as a group. Health care has been the focal point of discussion in and outside of Congress over the past few years. Why should women's health care needs be treated any differently from other health care problems? Simply because women experience all the normal aches and pains, but they are also struck with diseases which are predominant among women. Since women live approximately a third of their lives--about 30 years--after menopause, it is crucial that we learn more about this passage in a woman's life. That is why I am reintroducing the Menopause, Outreach, Research and Education Act [MORE] to provide a program for research and education regarding menopause and related conditions.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, let me thank you for the opportunity to welcome my pastor from Ocala, FL. He is a minister and pastor from Grace Presbyterian Church. He comes by way of Covenant Presbyterian Church in South Carolina and knows the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent] well. I want to welcome him, and of course I also want to tell him how important it is to have him here today. He came up with part of the National Pastors Policy Group that Dr. Jerry Falwell has brought here to Washington as an attempt to establish the restoration of the Judeo- Christian ethic here in America. They are looking for spiritual revival. Last night we learned from Dr. Falwell and Mike Osborne had the opportunity to listen to him and meet him. I wanted to welcome him here and particularly tell him and Members of this House, this great body, that we can pass all the laws we want here in Washington. Of course, we have a crime bill almost every year, but the real hard work is back in each of our congressional districts by pastors such as Mike Osborne. If he will preach the gospel and talk about the Judeo-Christian ethic, we will restore what is right to this country and we will not need to pass more and more laws. I request that all of us will pray for him and pray for our pastors back in the district that they might have the ability to transform all this in our values because the legislation we pass will not do it as quickly and as mightily as he does in the pulpit every Sunday. So, Mike Osborne, I welcome you to this great body. And I thank the Chair for this opportunity.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, prayer in schools has moved to the front burner in American politics, and for good reason. Today, in many communities across the country, children are forbidden to pray in schools. Not just forbidden to participate in organized prayer, which most constitutional scholars believe would violate the U.S. Constitution, but forbidden to pray voluntarily, which is well within every child's constitutional rights. For this reason, I have introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives that would amend the Constitution to make it perfectly clear that voluntary school prayer is a fundamental right that all school children enjoy. The amendment, which is just 33 words, simply states: Nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit the inclusion of voluntary prayer in any public school program or activity. Neither the United States nor any State shall prescribe the content of any such prayer. It is a sad commentary on the state of American jurisprudence that such an amendment is necessary. it should be obvious to all that the Government has no business, and no right, to prohibit voluntary prayer by anyone. Nevertheless, liberal activists have succeeded in propagating the idea that any school prayer violates the separation of church and state. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, my amendment would restore a proper understanding of the church-state separation issue. School children would be permitted to pray voluntarily, but no Government entity could determine the content of such prayer--which is as it should be. There are those in America who would like to see not only prayer, but all other religious expression banished from public life altogether. They will not succeed. Our Nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and values that have just as much right to expression in the public arena as the culture relativism so fashionable today. It is amazing that in a time when civility seems to be breaking down all around us that school prayer could be regarded as a threat. On the contrary, it is the removal of moral influences from public life that has contributed to our Nation's social ills. By introducing a constitutional amendment to ensure the rights of school children to voluntary pray in school, I hope I have made a small contribution toward a restoration of the legitimate place of religion in society.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will not only save American consumers billions of dollars, but also reduce Federal regulation and promote competition in the electric power industry. My bill will prospectively repeal section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978--PURPA. Section 210 mandates utilities to buy power from a certain privileged class of generators of electricity at prices set not by the free market but by the government. In fact, the independent Utility Data Institute estimates that consumers pay as much as $8 billion a year more for their electric energy as a consequence of this anti-competitive mandate. Simply put, PURPA is a Federal barrier to a more efficient, cost- effective, and competitive electricity industry. Each day we wait to deal with PURPA is another day that this mandate distorts electric markets and creates liabilities that will become stranded investments. Already, PURPA is estimated to have burdened the market with over $38 billion in stranded costs. As I said upon introduction of virtually identical legislation during the 104th Congress, my only interest in introducing this bill lies in achieving the most efficient and most cost-effective means of electric generation for America's consumers. I am prepared to move forward with this bill as introduced, or as a part of a much broader legislative effort. Indeed, I am anxious to work with Chairman Schaefer, Chairman Bliley, the House Committee on Commerce, and all other interested parties as Congress moves forward with its comprehensive examination of the industry. But it must be noted that we can take an important step toward the laudable end with the timely and sagacious elimination of PURPA's unnecessary and costly Federal mandate. Everyone will agree that we must begin to explore a move toward an electricity industry that is based on competition, market force, and lower prices for ratepayers. This is certainly my objective as I introduce this imperative aspect of electricity reform legislation.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today I was officially sworn in as a member of the 105th Congress as were my 434 colleagues. I was heartened to learn that although Ms. Loretta Sanchez was sworn in to represent the 46th district of California, this would in no way prejudice Congress' consideration of the request made by former Representative Bob Dornan that Congress initiate a formal investigation into certain voter irregularities, which have occurred in the election in District 46, California on November 5, 1996. I would caution my colleagues that this is not some bogus demand being made as a vendetta, nor is it groundless and without merit. There are proven cases of voter fraud in this election, which have already been acknowledged and verified. My major concern is that we must not allow our election process to become a sham merely because it is perceived to be politically correct. As a result of an initial investigation into this matter, an arm of the office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] has already been ordered by INS to shut down its citizenship testing program as of January 6, 1997. Have we forgotten the struggles of minority citizens and women and their efforts to attain the right to vote? Mr. Speaker, this request is not without precedent, I call to your attention McCloskey and McIntyre in the 99th Congress, 1st session or Roush versus Chambers 87th Congress, 1st session. These two cases involved dispositions to the House concerning Federal elections. This country prides itself the fact that we are a democracy and abide by the axiom of ``One man; one vote.'' However, I would like to quote a well known playwright who wrote: ``It's not the voting that's democracy; it's the counting.'' [From the Washington Post, January 4, 1997] INS Halts Interviews at California Organization (By William Branigin) With allegations of vote fraud continuing in one of the most hotly contested congressional elections, the Immigration and Naturalization Service is distancing itself from an organization that reportedly registered immigrants to vote before they became citizens. The INS this week suspended citizenship interviews at three Los Angeles area offices of Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, a Hispanic and immigrant rights group, pending the outcome of voting probe. To streamline the naturalization process, the INS had been conducting final citizenship interviews at the group's offices with applicants who had passed English and civics tests administered by Hermandad. According to published reports, dozens of Hermandad clients illegally registered to vote after passing the tests and the INS interviews, but before they being sworn in as citizens. Some said they had registered to vote at Hermandad offices while INS officers were present. Of more than 1,300 people registered by Hermandad last year, nearly 800 reportedly cast ballots Nov. 5. At least some of them voted in the California district in which Rep. Robert K. Dornan, 63, a Republican, lost by 979 votes to Democrat Loretta Sanchez, 36. Dornan blamed his defeat on alleged irregularities, including voting by noncitizens and felons. He filed a complaint with the House seeking to overturn the election result. Sanchez, a member of the district's growing Hispanic population, said a recount had confirmed her victory. She is scheduled to be sworn in when Congress convenes Tuesday. ``I don't want to be the first person in history, man or woman, House or Senate, to be voted out of office by felons, by people voting who are not U.S. citizens, who are felons or children or people not allowed to vote,'' Dornan said in a television interview last month. He charged that up to 1,000 noncitizens and felons had cast ballots. Republican members of a House subcommittee have accused the INS of improperly naturalizing criminals in a rush to produce new pro-Democratic voters in time for the Nov. 5 elections. The Los Angeles Times reported last week that 19 noncitizens acknowledged voting in the Dornan-Sanchez race before completing the naturalization process. All said they had registered to vote at Hermandad, 18 of them after taking citizenship classes there and passing a test and INS interview, the paper reported. They did not say whom they voted for. The Orange County Register reported that 30 Hermandad clients had registered to vote weeks before they were sworn in, although all but four became citizens before the election. It is nevertheless a felony under state law to register to vote before becoming a citizen. Under a new federal immigration law, noncitizens who vote are ineligible for naturalization and can be deported. The Orange County District Attorney's Office began investigating ``possible registration and voting'' by ineligible persons, but has not collected enough evidence to prosecute anyone, Assistant District Attorney Wallace Wade said. Richard Rogers, INS district director in Los Angeles, said that pending the investigation, the INS would no longer interview citizenship applicants at three Hermandad testing sites, requiring applicants to come to an INS office. He said INS officers would routinely ask applicants if they had voted. A spokesman for Hermandad, Jay Lindsey, said the group takes the allegations ``very seriously'' and is conducting a review to determine if any regulations were violated. He denied that the group knowingly committed voter fraud and said ``we do not engage in politics.'' Some Hermandad sites are affiliates of Naturalization Assistance Services, Inc., one of five companies designated by INS to conduct citizenship classes and testing. The firm ran into trouble last year after evidence of fraud was found at some of its sites. Last week, the INS ordered it to shut down its citizenship testing program on Jan. 6. Hermandad also has sites affiliated with another company, which will continue to administer citizenship tests and prepare applicants for INS interviews.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my own remarks and to allow other Members to be permitted to insert their remarks on the service and pay tribute to our colleague, the gentleman from New Hampshire, Bill Zeliff, who is retiring.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as the 104th Congress draws to a close, we can look back at a solid record of common-sense accomplishments. However, the end of this Congress will bring about the end of the distinguished service rendered to this body, and to this nation, by my dear friend and colleague--Bill Zeliff. Elected in 1990, in only his second term Bill put his name on an amazing proposal--the ``A to Z'' plan. Zeliff was the ``Z'' in this plan--an idea to hold a week long marathon session devoted solely to debating spending cuts. Although this plan did not make it to the floor, it did set the stage for the remarkable record of holding down the growth in spending accomplished in this Congress. Although at the end of the alphabet, Bill Zeliff was a leader in our efforts to balance the budget. However, Bill never limited himself to just one issue. With all of the problems we face in this Nation, Bill was always willing to take on another assignment. He demonstrated his leadership through the Whip organization as well as his skills in working with Bill McCollum on the Waco hearings. He did a superb job. His efforts to combat the scourge of drugs has also been outstanding. No matter how tough the issue, Bill was willing to meet it head on. It was only natural that Bill and I would become friends. We shared many of the same concerns and a common background. We were small- business owners before coming to Congress, both of us as innkeepers. Through this mutual background we learned how Government can become a burden on businesses--the paperwork, regulations, and taxes. We both embarked on campaigns for Congress, to change the way Washington works. My personal esteem is so great for Bill, that he became my roommate. I will miss the time we spent together discussing the issues of the day. I would also point out that as former hotel owners, we kept the place spotless. I know that Bill looks forward to spending more time with his family--Sydna and your three children--but you will leave a hole here in Congress that will be hard to fill. I know I speak for all of our colleagues in thanking you for your service and leadership--and we wish you God's speed in your next endeavors.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.'' I, along with many of my colleagues, wholeheartedly agree and have fought attempts to limit a law-abiding citizen's constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Law- abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves, their families, and their property. As a strong supporter of the second amendment, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to a courageous, but little known saint, St. Gabriel Possenti, who exemplifies the need for legitimate gun ownership. In 1859, the Catholic seminarian saved the village of Isola, Italy from 20 dangerous terrorists who were terrifying the citizens, burning down the village, and stealing personal possessions. As one of the terrorists was in the process of assaulting a young woman, Possenti, unarmed and alone, went to face the band of criminals. The terrorist who was about to rape the young woman, looked over and rested his gaze on Possenti and commented on him being all alone. Possenti quickly grabbed the terrorist's weapon from his holster and demanded the release of the young woman. Startled, the terrorist obliged. Possenti then disarmed a second terrorist. Upon hearing the commotion, the rest of the band came over to Possenti with the intent of overtaking the lone monk. It was at that fateful moment, a lizard ran across the road. When it stopped midroad, Possenti, using one of the terrorist's revolvers, demonstrated his shooting prowess. He carefully aimed and killed the lizard with a single, clean shot. Possenti, then turned both revolvers on the terrorists and ordered them to douse the fires, return the property and leave the village. Not surprisingly, the bank of brigands was never heard from again. Possenti, who was thereafter referred to as the Savior of Isola, died in 1862. Pope Benedict XV canonized him in 1920. Possenti's prowess with the revolver protected life and property. His brave actions evidence the necessary right of legitimate self-defense. It is this past conduct of the 19th-century Italian saint that is celebrated and studied by the St. Gabriel Possenti Society, Inc., which seeks his designation as the Patron Saint of Handgunners. I would like to personally thank Mr. John Snyder of the St. Gabriel Possenti Society for his tireless dedication on behalf of the crusade for legitimate self-defense. I urge all my colleagues to remember this truly amazing story when they are called upon to make decisions regarding a citizen's second amendment right to keep and bear arms. Via the second amendment, citizens have the right to protect themselves, their families and their possessions from those who roam our streets and terrorize whole communities. As stewards of the public trust, we have the obligation to ensure the ability of law-abiding citizens to exercise this important right.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. Let me point out to my colleagues, legal residents of this Nation cost the American taxpayers $4.5 billion. Who pays this? Most of the education, public education funds are raised almost exclusively through the taxation of State residents. The State has to tax individual families, individual people to pay for this, $4.5 billion. Therefore, it is fitting that the State decide this issue, not the Federal Government. So the gentleman's bill is simply saying let the States decide instead of forcing an unfunded mandate from the Federal Government. It is also a case where it is only right. There are disincentives, if we pass this bill, for people to come and put their children into schools illegally. I urge my colleagues to think of it in those terms. Would Members want to be taxed to pay for the education of illegal immigrants? Why not let each State decide? If New York City or New York wants to decide one way, they can decide. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.