Kevin Brady

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 530, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my mom came to visit over the Labor Day weekend to see our new baby boy, and I told her that in my second term I still pinch myself every day that I have the opportunity to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is such a privilege, but one of my fears is that we are drifting away from a citizen Congress, a citizen Congress that our Founding Fathers and Mothers envisioned for us. The cost of an open competitive campaign for Congress these days is just a little less than a million dollars, and it is doubling about every 4 years or so. My fear is that there are a lot of good people in my community who will never raise their hands to run for Congress because they do not have a million dollars. They do not even know where they can find a million dollars laying around. I do not think the very wealthy can make great decisions for us. It is just that for a representative democracy like ours, I do not want to wake up some day and find out that a lot of good people who would make great decisions in Congress cannot ever run because of the cost factor. I want to return to a citizen Congress. That is why I am a cosponsor with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) of the Campaign Integrity Act we are voting on today. First, common sense tells us new campaign laws will not do a whole lot if we do not first enforce the ones we have on our books. That is why I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman, has a bill today that ought to become the law of the land. Secondly, any campaign finance ought to preserve free speech. We ought to encourage the people to be involved in this process. This is their country. They ought to be speaking out strongly for it. So today, I predict that Shays-Meehan will pass by a comfortable margin as it did last year, and I predict that it will die the same predictable public death it did last year in the Senate, for good reasons. It is constitutionally flawed. It will not pass the Senate. It will not pass constitutional muster. So here is my message to the Senate. When Shays-Meehan dies, as it will again, look at the Hutchinson bill. If we are serious about real reform, if we are serious about closing the soft money loophole, if we are serious about preserving free speech but letting people know more about who is financing us and pushing us back into our districts and communities to raise money rather than up here in Washington, the Hutchinson bill is real reform. It is constitutionally very sound. It makes good sense; and, more importantly, the reason we need to pass that bill is that I am convinced the reason people do not talk about campaign finance more, it does not show up in the polls, is not that people do not want it but they have just given up hope that Congress will do something about it that we will actually do something to make life a little tougher for us up here and a little more grass-roots oriented back home. The Hutchinson bill does that. It is very important for America. I think it is very important to give hope to people to pass this bill.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the American dream is unique to our Nation. It means that no matter where we were born or of what means, if we work hard enough, if we want it bad enough, we can be anything, anything we want to be in this life, including a Member of Congress. These days I am not so sure that American dream is going to be around for our young people. Today the average cost of winning an open seat in Congress is just about a million dollars. It is a million dollars, and it is doubling every 4 years. That means a lots of good people in my community and a lot of good people in years to come are not going to be able to raise their hands to run for Congress because they do not have a million dollars; they do not even know where they would find it. Well, it is not that perhaps the very wealthy cannot make good decisions. The point is, in a representative democracy like ours, I do not want to wake up some day and see that people from all walks of life cannot serve in this great body. I am convinced they can. The Hutchinson bill takes a big step in restoring us to a citizen Congress from all walks of life. It is balanced. It does not give an edge to either political party, and it is constitutionally sound. Today let me make a prediction. Shays-Meehan will pass this House and Shays-Meehan will die yet another death in the Senate, as it did last year. Now, for some that is not a problem, but for me it is. I am convinced the reason people do not raise campaign finance in the polls as often is that they have given up hope it will actually do something. And every year it fails, every year it fails to pass into law, we discourage more people. So my message is to the Senate, after Shays-Meehan dies, as it inevitably will, if they are serious about real reform that is constitutionally very sound, can actually become the law of the land, take a look at Hutchinson. We are a little like the girl next door. When we get tired of chasing the prom queen and we are looking for real substance, the Hutchinson reform bill is here. It closes the soft money loophole. It preserves free speech and returns us to a citizen Congress. And more importantly, Hutchinson offers hope for those Americans who have lost hope that Congress will do the right thing to restore a citizen Congress to make it harder for incumbents to push us back in our districts to listen to our people. Hutchinson offers hope.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) for pointing out the key parts of this bill, because it is very reasonable. As he says, it puts a premium on hard money, which sounds like a hard phrase, but the principal of hard money is so sound for America. What it says is that we think a contribution ought to come from a person, from their pocketbook, from what they have earned, what their family has decided to contribute to another person, to a party, to a cause that they believe strongly in. I want everything to be hard money. I want it to come from a person directly to a party, principle, a cause that they believe in. I watch our Republican women's clubs in parties. Each year, they will host a fundraising, barbecue, or catfish fry, or silent auction that one will go to. They will work for 2, 3 months ahead of time. They will get a local business person to donate the food. They decorate the tables. There are silent auction items, quilts that they have made, local restaurants donate a dinner. They have got American prints. Flags have been flown over the Capitols, just good solid American products. People are out there, and they get their neighbors to come to bid on these. Together, they might, they might net maybe $2,000, maybe $800 that they will net, they will make off one of these events after 2 or 3 months of hard work to give to their local candidates in their State and the people that they support. To me, I put so much more value on that $800 or that $2,000 that has come in hard money from real people than a check written that same day for $200,000 from some company, some industry, some group that goes in soft money to one of the parties or some other direction. Because I really think for the future of democracy, for the citizen Congress, that hard money is so valuable long-term, getting people involved, keeping us close to the people that we represent. Let me destroy two myths for my colleagues if people out there have bought into this at all that we hear quite a bit. One is that the Republicans and Congress do not support campaign finance reform. Everyone knows historically that the party that is in majority up here has tended to resist some of the reform because, frankly, they used the current system, they fought hard, played by the rules to get to that majority. So human nature says they are a bit resistant. Since we had campaign finance reform under Richard Nixon, the Democrats held the House for more than two decades and resisted campaign finance reform for all that period, or most that period themselves. So, historically, whoever is in the majority tends to resist a bit, and those that are in the minority use it as campaign tools. So that is what has happened again. Do not believe this. We have found so many good solid Republicans who want to change the way business is done. It is really to Speaker Hastert's credit that he has scheduled a very reasonable timetable this year. Rather than rush into it, rather than just let one bill be anointed, Speaker Hastert set a September timetable which was very fair. He said first things first, let us tackle our budget. Let us be the first Congress since 1974 to get our budget done in time. Let us focus on rebuilding our defense, on quality education, on local control, on tax relief. Let us make first things go first and schedule a good time for campaign finance reform. Let us go through the committee process so that all the good ideas, and there are a lot of them, on campaign finance reform can be heard, which was done. Then the four major bills are set for debate tomorrow. I think that is a very fair timetable. We are already in the election process. If we made a change today in haste, we would only be giving the advantage to one person or another in these campaigns. Rather than to rush through this, let us do it right. It is so important that we do it right, that we have a full and open debate. We are getting that. That is to Speaker Hastert's credit. I am very proud that he has given us this opportunity.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) for yielding, but also for his leadership on this issue. As freshmen together 2 years ago, the gentleman played the leadership role in working together, Republicans and Democrats, over a very thoughtful 5-month period, meeting with experts on constitutional law, citizens who felt the way we finance campaigns ought to be changed, people who thought the status quo was fine, listening to all opinions and approaches before, I think, developing a very reasonable, balanced, thoughtful approach that is real reform. It is not, as some of these measures are, hidden as a campaign advantage bill, which gives an edge to one party or the other. This bill is designed to create more of a citizen Congress, to push us back toward a Congress as a representative of the people that we have the privilege of representing, and that is why I am so glad to be a part of this effort. I think we are drifting away from a citizen Congress here in this Nation. The average cost of a congressional campaign, a competitive, open seat is just a little under $1 million, and it is doubling about every 4 years. Now, there are a lot of good people in my communities who would do a great job in the U.S. House of Representatives or in the U.S. Senate, but they do not have $1 million and they do not know where they would get a hold of it; and as a result, they are not going to raise their hand to run for Congress. My concern is not that the very wealthy cannot make the decisions, many of them can. But for a country founded on a representative democracy where people from all walks of life, and whether they have a big wad or they have made some choices in life that they have pursued other goals, and so that they do not have that, but they would be great here in Congress are not going to be able to run. So what this bill does is really start to push us back toward a citizen Congress, start to close that national loophole on soft money, preserves free speech for individuals, groups, even for States to remembering soft money the way they have very responsibly. It increases and indexes, which is long overdue, the individual contributions which again, to move people into Washington and back home where we want that support to come, and increases disclosure so that people who are watching our campaigns, who are trying to decide which person to vote for can quickly and electronically determine who our backers are and that that represents part of their decision-making in this process. And, as importantly, which the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) have stressed, we encourage people to get involved in the process, groups who want to do score cards, individuals who feel so strongly about an issue they want to take out ads to get involved, and we preserve and encourage that free speech, but we start that very important first step back toward a citizen Congress. Mr. Speaker, I think all of us believe that the first step in any campaign finance reform is first to enforce the laws that we have already on the books, because it does not make such sense to add new ones if we are not going to enforce them either. Secondly, we have to preserve free speech. But after that, the real choice tomorrow when Congress meets on campaign finance reform is this: do we go with the Shays-Meehan bill which has gotten a lot of attention, and those two sponsors have worked very hard on behalf of that bill. I take nothing at all away from them. But my concern is that Shays-Meehan will pass the House again, not much of a margin, but it will pass again and it will die exactly where it died last year, in the Senate. They have debated it fully, they have had a great discussion on it; it is not going to pass the Senate. Even if it were, it could never pass constitutional muster. It would be struck down and never be the law of the land. I guess my concern is that each year we raise campaign finance reform and each year it fails. I think we turn off another group of voters who are hoping for more of a citizen Congress, who want these changes. People say today, well, campaign finance reform does not rate very high in all of these polls they take by the day and the hour anymore around here. My thought is that I think people still want campaign finance reform. They want to change the way we do business in Washington. But I think they have given up hope that we will do it. I think they have given up belief that we will do something that makes life a little tougher on us, and it will; that gives more of a fair chance to challenges, and it will; that forces us out of Washington and back in our districts; more of a citizen Congress, and it will. None of those are easy tasks, but it is the right thing to do, and rather than pass a bill forward that I sincerely know will die, and it will die again next year and it will die again the year after, I think the Hutchinson bill is a substantial, significant reform measure that can pass the Senate, that we know, we know can pass constitutional muster and can become the will of the land to start to restore that faith in what Washington is doing. Mr. Speaker, I think it is a good measure, and I would say to the gentleman that I am here tonight mainly to tell him that with his integrity that was shown throughout the impeachment proceedings, the integrity shown throughout his service here in Congress and before in Arkansas, the gentleman has shown he is not afraid to take on the tough issues. I know that this is a balanced bill, it does not give an edge to our party, and I love being a Republican, but I am glad this does not give us an edge necessarily. I do not think we ought to take one for the Democrats either. It ought to be balanced. The gentleman has worked hard to do that. I think this is a great, solid, significant step for people who still have hope that Washington will change, bring a little more moderation and balance into how we finance our campaigns. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, it happens every school day, every afternoon. A mom waits at home, watches nervously for the school bus. Another mom at work keeps looking at the phone, awaiting a phone call. One is hoping her child returns home safely that day. The other breathes a silent sigh of relief when the phone rings and a small voice utters three very magic words, ``I'm home, mom.'' Schools are becoming more and more dangerous. Teachers tell me they do not feel safe in their schools. Too many tell me that they are afraid to discipline unruly students, and for good reason: They may face an expensive and a career-ending frivolous lawsuit by overzealous lawyers. Worse yet, they stand a good chance of being humiliated again when they are not backed up in their decision for discipline in their school. They are not backed up by principals in school districts who try their best but are intimidated with constant threats of expensive and very unfair litigation. It is time to take the lawyers out of our classrooms. It is time to shield responsible educators from frivolous lawsuits so our children have a safe school we can learn in. Responsible teachers should not be afraid of violent bullies with intimidating attorneys. I will tell the Members what, when we maintain order in the classroom, the first call a teacher makes should not be to her attorney, it ought to be the parents that of that unruly student. School boards should not have to choose between doing what is right for their kids or risking their local tax dollars to fight an empty, frivolous lawsuit where even if they win, the children lose. This measure shields educators when they do the right thing to maintain order. Some States have recognized the role discipline plays. They have passed some laws, but most have not. We need to shield, and what this does is it ensures that each State can adopt this law, opt out or choose whatever version they feel safe with, but we are going to shield our educators. So who opposes restoring order and discipline to our schools? The same people who believe that when a burglar breaks into someone's home, slips and falls, he ought to be able to sue; the same person who says a Good Samaritan who races to the aid of a stranger and things do not turn out perfectly, he ought to have a right to take everything they possess. It is those who place the rights of the destructive student who does not want to learn over the rights of the good kids who do want to learn. The teacher liability protection amendment by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant) offers a clear choice: good kids, responsible teachers and safe schools versus violent bullies and their reckless attorneys. I choose the children.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 209, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 204, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1401 and congratulate the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their leadership on this issue. There is one provision, though, that troubles me, and I respectfully raise it today. Section 113 concerns the U.S. Army's family of medium tactical vehicles. They are trucks for the army. Specifically, this section, 113, allows the U.S. Army to ignore the will of Congress, to drop a proven volume discount for producing the trucks and pursue a second source contract award without proving any economic savings to the government. Well, that does not make sense. Congress made it clear last year, in law, that we wanted justification from the Army. Now, they did a report to justify it, but they will not release it. Now, what does that tell us? We should not change the law to allow the Army to go forward on this because it is bad for the taxpayers and it is going to be proven to be very ill-advised. It is my sincere hope, Mr. Chairman, that the distinguished chairman and the ranking member and the Members to be named on the conference committee will provide the best trucks for the Army at the best price to the taxpayers.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 155, I was inadvertently detained and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''. Amendment Offered By Mr. Coburn

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for her support, as well as the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) for permitting this timely bill to come to the floor.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the preamble.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from California yielding to me. As a member of the Committee on International Relations, I have appreciated her hard work on these and other issues affecting the globe. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important, bipartisan, and timely measure that supports the humanitarian mission into Kosovo to assess the humanitarian and emergency needs of the more than 600,000 ethnic Albanians trapped within the embattled Yugoslavian province. While hundreds of thousands of families have fled Kosovo, an equal number remain, fighting disease and starvation while lacking water and medical care. They need hope, and the world needs to know now their true condition so we stand a chance of saving their lives. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the last food delivery to the displaced and at-risk Kosovo population occurred 8 weeks ago. Hiding in the hills without food, water, medical care for nearly 2 months, these families and their children are fighting to survive. Every day counts for them. It is timely because the 13-member U.N. humanitarian delegation, which includes the International Red Cross and U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, is in Belgrade today. It is headed by Sergio Vierira de Mello, the United Nations Undersecretary General for Humanitarian Affairs. It is expected to head to Kosovo in the morning. They are attempting to provide the first very important independent confirmation of conditions within Kosovo and Montenegro. They will also provide great help to the international community as we prepare for the potentially massive emergency needs of the estimated 600,000 to 800,000 ethnic Albanians remaining in Kosovo. This measure urges the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to provide this delegation a safe and secure passage, as well as freedom of access to do their job. It also encourages NATO and its member nations to consider reasonable measures to enhance the safety of this international delegation during its brief humanitarian mission. I would simply say that this measure offers hope to people who need it desperately.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on International Relations be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 161) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the condition and humanitarian needs of refugees within Kosovo, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I think, too, that as the gentleman from Colorado has pointed out our constitutional duty, I always try to support the President, any President, in military action and we have in every case in Congress. But my duty and the duty of my colleague is not to the President, it is to the Constitution. And I think we have a higher moral duty to our young American soldiers. And they are young. I mean, they are young, bright, wonderful people who are serving our country and think that if they fight and risk their lives it will be for freedom, not to allow Milosevic to live, not to allow a Serbian army to go untouched, not to flinch when sent into war because of their constraint on them as individuals. Our duty today was not to cover the President for a terrible decision. That would have been disloyal, in my opinion. Our duty was to our American soldiers who are over there right now and the belief that we ought not sacrifice their lives when we do not have the courage, when our commanders in chief of this whole operation politically do not have the courage that we are asking of them. No one should ever ask more of their troops than they ask of themselves. And in this case, we ask too much.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a point that is real critical here. Today, and in much of this debate, people will try to convince Americans that it is between those who care for humanity and those who want to isolate America. It is a rhetorical trick, a way to wedge people onto different sides, as opposed to talking about reasonable approaches. But the fact of the matter is that America does have a role in peace in this region. We do have a role to play. But the world has changed. Now that we are the strongest world superpower, while the world has changed, we are confused about our role in it today. We still respond by wanting to fight the disputes and fights of every one of our brothers, older or younger, around the world. And we will. We will jump to any battle, to any fight, and we will fight every one of our brother's and sister's fights for them. But at some point, because we have so many around the world, we simply cannot. You can fight other's disputes until you are so weak yourself that you lose your own fight when called upon to protect your own family, your own interests. That is where we are today. I think our new role, America's new role, is not to fight every one of our brother's fights, but to help teach them and work with them so that they can fight their own disputes, settle their own conflicts. America's role in peace, I believe, is to not lead others in what is principally their challenges but to support them, to help, to advise, to provide technology, to back them up in their challenges and their responsibility, but to not be always taking the lead in their fights; because frankly, we have new challenges here in America, such as the terrorism challenge, where the smallest rogue nations can develop biochemical weapons. International drug cartels have a distribution network literally to every community in this country. Then on top of those two, we have organized crime which finances instability because it is profitable to do that. So now America faces a challenge where literally biochemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, can be brought into literally every community in America. We have not changed our security to respond and prevent that. We have nuclear missiles and the capability by countries to reach the continental United States that we are not prepared for, although thank goodness this Congress is taking the leadership role in doing that. So I think we do have a role to play in peace. Peace is always, almost always, less costly and less damaging than war, but there are times when your interest, your defense, and national security will quite compel you to do that. But I notice that Dwight Eisenhower, our former commander and president, made a statement in 1946 that I think rings true today. He said, ``Men acquainted with the battlefield will not be found among the numbers that glibly talk of another war.'' Those who have been to war, who have seen the blood, who have been part of all of that, understand the need to explore their options first; to know that when you launch that hostility, just what type of courage it takes, and the blood that will always be on your hands. Unfortunately, in this foreign policy, in the advisers, in the Commander in Chief, I think perhaps we talk too glibly of war when in fact Europe and others around the world urged us to try to find another path to peace in Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, their predictions of the damage have been just terrible.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. The gentleman from Colorado is right on target and people know it. Every time we go into a classified briefing on this war I am always hopeful to hear more, to hear that there is a plan I am not aware of, a hint of a mission that is so clear that I know that we can achieve it. Because the gentleman is right, the military, they will achieve any objective, no matter how difficult. They will lay their lives on the line. But in fact, it is just the opposite. I come out thinking, at each of those sessions, and believing that we ought to give the military right now every medal possible and every acclaim possible, because they seem to be fighting this with two hands tied behind their backs, and a leg, perhaps, as well. It is interesting about objectives. I went back and took a look at America's intervention in our world wars and our intervention in Korea. The clarity of our missions in Germany and in the world wars, and the vagueness of our mission in Vietnam and here, is eerie. I looked back and I read a statement by President Johnson from Texas, as a matter of fact, as he addressed the Nation in 1968. Tell me if this sounds familiar: ``Our objective has never been the annihilation of the enemy. It is to bring about a recognition in Hanoi that its objectives could not be achieved.'' If that sounds much like the President's objective, not to defeat Milosevic in Yugoslavia but only to degrade their ability to conduct their activities further, the gentleman is right. And with a mission so vague, and without a commitment, unfortunately, with a lack of courage to do what war requires us to do for compassion and humanity, that is why we do not get into wars until there is no other resort, because it is destructive to us and the enemy, and we must have the courage and will to win. My concern, and I think it has already been proven, is that we have lacked that. The Kosovars have paid the price. The question will be will American soldiers be the next to pay the price. I am not willing to wager their lives in this war, because that is what it is, without a clear objective, and in fact, without that will to win. I always use, and perhaps the gentleman does, as well, I use a test for our conflicts: If a young soldier were killed in this battle, could I go to the family and tell them, look them in the face and tell them they lost their son or daughter, their brother or sister, their wife or husband, and that they did it to defend America, in the best and highest cause of American interest? In this case, I cannot tell them that that death would be justified. It is a high standard, but I think it ought to be any time these young people are sent into battle on our behalf. We have a war memorial just at the bottom of this hill, the Vietnam War Memorial, where every time you go, and every other memorial is so lively and so inspiring and you get a sense of history, and it is people talking, and there is an enthusiasm and inspiration by our memorials. But when you go to the Vietnam War Memorial, it is stone cold quiet. Every time I go, and I walk from the base of the memorial, and you start to look, as you look at the names and you begin to walk up and out of the memorial and up into the sunlight, my thought every time is, never again. Never again will we put bright young American lives with wonderful hopes and dreams, and those of their families, never again should we commit them to war where our political leaders and our Commander in Chief do not have the will and the courage themselves to win. That, unfortunately, is where we are at today. I wish there were an easy way to say it. I like to believe the best in everyone. I hope and try to believe the best in our Commander in Chief, even as disappointed and upset as I get at times. But this time, we have lost that opportunity. We can never bring those people back. We can only save Americans and learn from the Vietnam War, never again.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, thankfully, we live in a country where we have the opportunity to vote our conscience, to raise issues that trouble us, to talk about them, and to unite behind our American troops, to be absolutely a hundred percent behind them. Whatever they need while they are there, financially and funding-wise, we are going to get them. And in fact, not only that, but we are going to make sure that there are the reserves and the dollars to try to rebuild our military to where we are not costing lives each time we are given a new challenge as we do today. I was thinking also that our allies have been hurt terribly in this, as well. We have now pushed the ethnic Albanians out into the neighboring regions. And it is almost like taking part of our State and pushing them to other States. And by nature, if we took a bunch of Texans and push them out to three neighboring States and basically say they cannot come back or they can come back to a small, damaged, torn up, insecure, non-secure area, I will tell my colleagues what they are going to do. They are going to carve out from the three States, they are in a new Texas, a new State, with people they know and values they have and religions that they share. And this is what is happening now in the Balkans. We have pushed out ethnic Albanians out of their home. As in Bosnia, very few, my guess, will return. That is what history shows us. And they are going to look for a new country, a new independent nation with people whose values they share, and that means we will likely create a greater Albania and perhaps too a Macedonia. And I do not know what other damage we will do to our neighboring countries. So our friends there are paying a very steep price. And here is Europe who was asking all along, we want more options than just bombing, here is Europe in their biggest year perhaps ever. They launched a new currency, the Euro, created new Federal banks sort of like our Federal Reserve. They are trying to hire a new foreign policy person to unite the European Union. They had had their whole European Commission resign because of corruption, which was a major blow. They were asked and brought in expanded three new NATO neighbors and costs that are associated with that. And then we pushed them into not only defending themselves, but America said their new strategy in Europe is going to be to resolve disputes like this and resolve it militarily. We are like a friendly banker who keeps pushing the small business to expand, to expand, to expand, to expand, until one day they expand themselves out of business. My concern is that at a time when NATO should be reasonably and thoughtfully talking about their new role in Europe and with America in this new world, that we are pushing them into a role they are not ready to play. And while I have to admit, after 24 hours after bombing three of the countries, NATO said, enough, we think that is enough. Stop, that is enough bombing for us. To their credit, as a group, they have hung pretty tight. But the fact of the matter is that they do not know what victory is anymore. They do not know about if they can shoulder the costs of it. They do not know if they can survive this NATO expansion. So each of our closest allies we have pushed into a terrible position that will hurt them economically, politically, culturally for many years to come. And I just think again, war ought to be the last resort. We have so many pressures. We have so many tools that we ought not to ever glibly talk of war or to enter one. And whether we today declared war, which we did not but we know we are in it, and now have the responsibility to face up, to be held accountable ourselves for our actions, and what is sad is the price that we will all pay, but at least we ought to commit and have the courage to sacrifice no American lives in this terrible mess.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to participate with him in his special order. The gentleman takes, as I do, great faith in learning from our town hall meetings. Meeting with the people we represent, we never fail to learn when we listen carefully to their thoughts, when we listen carefully to the burdens they are under, whether they are just struggling to make ends meet or just trying to get their business going and keep it afloat, or just to have dreams for their kids that they want to make happen and how difficult it is when government gets in the way; even when the government is trying to help, it gets in the way. It is so important. Like the gentleman, I also consult my constituents whom I represent at my cracker barrel sessions, my town hall meetings, which we have always called cracker barrel sessions around the tradition of meeting around the cracker barrel, talking about what is going on in the community and talking about politics, and we do the same thing today because we have a traditional district. Issues like Kosovo, the war, the shootings in Colorado, Social Security, there is much to discuss, and we had some of our best cracker barrel sessions ever, and I am looking forward to a new round we are holding in the next 6 weeks. Mr. Speaker, on Kosovo, I want to talk a bit about that. I had a moment, a brief moment this afternoon to start to discuss it, and time was short, and I wanted to go back to it because it is such an important issue. Mr. Speaker, Americans have big hearts. That is one of our best traits. Whenever we see killing, whenever we see injustice anywhere, we want to stop it, whether there is a national interest in it or not. Well, Kosovo, having good intentions, but a bad plan of proving to hurt the very people we are trying to help; rather than stopping the human suffering, we have increased it. Rather than stabilizing the region, we have made it more unstable. And now, it appears we are ready to pour more fuel on a very deadly fire in this very volatile region. It seems tragic to me that with the lessons of the Vietnam War barely cold on our plates that we have not learned from it. Like Vietnam, we are waging a war today almost by the seat of our pants, driven not by military expertise, but by polls and what is politically correct and what are the overnight focus groups saying. As the gentleman would guess, results are predictably fatal, and failing. Worst of all, I think we forget the most important lesson of Vietnam. It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it. Those who most sought this war have shown that they lack, unfortunately, the political courage to aggressively target Slobodan Milosevic, his leaders and the Serbian army he commands. As General Douglas MacArthur said in a speech to Congress back in 1951, I believe, he said, ``War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war, there is no substitute for victory.'' Well, if a lethal criminal entered our neighborhood today, our schools, our hospitals, and began to shoot our families and innocent children and victims, the first responsibility of law enforcement would be to bring them down, to stop them cold, now. How would we feel if that responsibility, the law enforcement officers flinched, reluctant to take the shot, reluctant to do what it takes to stop the killing? Well, history will record in Kosovo that America flinched, that the allies flinched. The lives of innocent people, young and old, were lost because the commanders in chief somehow found it immoral or were reluctant to bring the shooters down and end these atrocities. Last Thursday as I read The Washington Post, I read in one section about the atrocities and the fresh graves that had been dug, and I also read a NATO admission that they were, by design, leaving large sections of the Yugoslav Army untouched in the desire or the strategy that perhaps someday they can be part of a peacekeeping mission. So what I realized was that on the same day we were describing how young American fighter pilots were heading into Yugoslavia, led and being cleared the way by young American pilots leading the process and clearing the path with overhead reconnaissance planes, again with young American soldiers in them, all risking their lives in this conflict, yet, at the same time, we were, by design, preserving the lives of the Yugoslav Army, the ones who were committing the atrocities. I find nothing humanitarian in a policy that allows young American soldiers to lose their lives, but lets Milosevic live. I find nothing moral or just about a policy, a strategy where the lives of innocent Kosovars die lonely and cold and hungry by the side of the road while we leave the Yugoslavian Army untouched, those who committed the atrocities, remain untouched. Today in The Washington Post, and in many papers across America and in Texas where I live, NATO updated the war, and they went through a pretty impressive list of the aircraft that they destroyed and the airfields and some of the hangars and office buildings, and some of the infrastructure. But when it came to talking about the Serbian Army and what damage we had done to those who have committed the atrocities, they were silent. Unfortunately and tragically, we now have pilots, young American pilots who risk their lives, and not in the hopes of preserving the American Army, but in preserving the Yugoslavian Army, and their targets are picked not by military experts, but by pollsters, and that is a failure. In this war, our humanitarian effort unfortunately has failed the Kosovars and failed the allies miserably. And now, like a desperate gambler who will not acknowledge their losses, we are thinking, if we can just gamble a little more, if we can just bomb a week longer, if only we can send in Apache helicopters, if only we put American ground troops in, just one more roll, just one more gamble, and perhaps we can win it all back. Well, we cannot win back the lives of the Kosovars that have been lost and we cannot bring back together the refugee families that have been torn apart. But surely we can save the hopes and dreams of Americans and allied soldiers whose lives have yet to be gambled with. A short walk from this Chamber, the Vietnam War Memorial lies half buried, silent, below the green grass of the national Mall. Mr. Speaker, 58,000 lives and names are engraved on the wall, 58,000 fathers, brothers, sons and some daughters gone because America's leaders then would rather lose the lives of soldiers than lose face as a Nation. Mr. Speaker, 58,000 teenagers, because the average age of those fighting on the front line in Vietnam was 19 years old, barely out of high school. Mr. Speaker, 58,000 Americans who lost their lives in a war we were not willing to commit to victory to, and it is eerily like the war we are in today, because as America and allied political leaders flinched, Kosovars fell down around us, and we can never get that back; that opportunity for victory in saving those lives is gone. We have a moral obligation today, to our young soldiers and their families, to prevent another Vietnam War. We have a moral obligation to our soldiers' mothers who love them like no one else can, to their fathers who harbor dreams for them, can barely talk about without getting emotional; to the brothers and sisters and family members of every American soldier and their spouses and their friends, we have a moral obligation, because it is unconscionable to allow young Americans to give up their life and die while we allow the shooters, all of them, to live by design. I care a great deal about Kosovo and Kosovars. I am concerned about NATO. But my duty is to our American soldiers. I think that is our highest moral obligation and duty, to prevent another Vietnam War and all the destruction, all the lives and all the families that have been damaged and hurt so much by it because we did not have the courage and the will that when we started the war to conclude it, in victory. It is hard. It is hard to do that, and that is why war should be the last resort, because it is so damaging. I think before the President pours more deadly fuel on this fire, I think and I would respectfully ask that he exhibit what I would call battlefield leadership. And it means first being honest, truthful to oneself about the failure of the current strategy. It means putting the troops you command first, not yours, worrying not about your record, not about NATO's credibility, not about your legacy, but caring about the troops under your command. I think probably the toughest battlefield decision has been made many times by those who recognize that a hill cannot be taken, that sacrificing more lives and sacrificing more young people will not accomplish that goal, and to put them first, to do no more harm to them, and to determine what in real life can be done to advance our just and moral cause. I think the President needs to be totally honest with the American people about the steep price, and I mean staggering price, that we will pay, already we must pay, in lives, in resources, in years, to even attempt to secure a temporary peace in that civil war. My exit strategy, unfortunately, the time has gone for that. My exit strategy was simple. Although I opposed the intervention, once in, my belief is that we bring the shooters down and end the atrocities, or we do no more harm and negotiate an international peace treaty, attempt to secure what we can of Kosovo, attempt to relocate; how many refugees really want to go back to a region they can no longer call home; and to attempt to contain the damage we have now done in the neighboring regions. I believe it is time to do no more harm. I am not willing to sacrifice young American lives to a war we are not committed to win. That is my duty. That I think is Congress's duty, and I look forward to the day when we can complete that duty.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Americans have big hearts. It is one of our best traits. Whenever we see killing anywhere, injustice anywhere, we want to stop it, even if our national interests are not at stake. On Kosovo, having good intentions and a bad plan have proven to hurt the very people we are trying to help. We have increased human suffering. We have not stopped it. We have spread instability rather than prevented it. With the lessons of the Vietnam War barely cold on our plates, here we go again. Like Vietnam, we wage a war we are not committed to win, by the seat of the pants, war by committee, war by posters, war by the politically correct. It is having fatal results. Worst of all, we forgot the most important lesson of Vietnam. It is fatal to enter a war without the will to win it. Those who sought this war lack the political courage to win it. To aggressively target Slobodan Milosevic, his leaders in the Serbian Army he commands, they have forgotten what General MacArthur has told us. War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war there is no substitute for victory. If a lethal criminal entered our home, entered our school, entered an airport, entered our neighborhood and began to gun down innocent families, it would be the first responsibility of law enforcement to stop them cold, now, to bring the shooter down without flinching. History will record in Kosovo an America that flinched, and the lives of Kosovars fell around us because we were unwilling and lacked the courage to bring the shooter down, the leaders, the Army and to end the atrocities. There is nothing humanitarian about a policy that puts American pilots' and fighters' lives on the line so that Milosevic can live. There is nothing just about a policy that allows Kosovars to die cold and hungry and lonely on the side of the road while we preserve Serbian troops, our enemies, the killers on the very day American pilots flew into Yugoslavia.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in recognition of a very special person to Bryan-College Station, Texas--a unique leader, Mr. Bill Erwin. Not only recognized as a significant contributor to the community of the Eighth District of Texas, Bill is somewhat of a celebrity in the Bryan-College Station area. In fact, he has been supporting volunteer services in the Bryan-College Station area for thirty-five years. It is for these efforts that the Governor of the State of Texas awarded Bill with the Lonestar Achievement Award for his volunteerism and community service last month. I think his own words speak volumes for the attitude that won him this recognition. Upon hearing the news, Bill said, ``this will be great for the community''--and great for the community he is. Elected as the Volunteer of the Year and the Citizen of the Year by the Bryan-College Station Chamber of Commerce, he remains dedicated to bettering the community in which he lives, thus bettering the world. His list of credentials include serving as president for a number of non-profit organizations in the area, such as the United Way, Chamber of Commerce, Better Business Bureau, the Boys' and Girls' Clubs of the Brazos Valley, the Brazos Chapter of the Texas Manufacturers Association and the St. Joseph Foundation. It was said by Christine Shakespeare of the Texas Commission on Volunteerism and Community Service that the judges said ``it was so amazing that whenever he identified a need he went to work to resolve it and that he didn't stop to wonder who was going to get credit for it'' and that they were ``honored to give this award to him because of the amount of work he has done.'' Mr. Speaker, I commend Bill Erwin and those like him that take the time to give back to their communities more than they take for themselves. I, as well as the citizens of Bryan-College Station, applaud Bill for his tireless dedication and perseverance to serving this remarkable community. He has set an example for us all to follow.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today marks the 1-year anniversary of the new Montgomery County Hospital District Emergency Medical Service (MCHDEMS). Therefore, on this occasion, I want to recognize and applaud the accomplishments of MCHDEMS in providing quality patient care and customer service for the citizens and visitors of Montgomery County. During its first year, MCHDEMS implemented a system-wide improvement program focused on accountability to the patient and the community. They have also joined with area hospitals and school health programs to provide educational classes for pediatrics, trauma, and cardiac emergencies. Furthermore, the Montgomery County Hospital District Emergency Medical Service has provide CPR certification for over 300 lay persons, who through this training, increased the survival rate for people in our community. Many of the CPR rescues and other critical interventions they have performed have saved patient lives and restored patients to their families. In addition, its community outreach programs, including how to ``dial 911'' featuring Andy the Ambulance and Twinkle the Clown, have reached over 5,000 children. Their Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) awareness programs, provided across county high schools, have been beneficial in preventing many needless tragedies. For all of these and other efforts, Allen Johnson, Operations Manager of the Montgomery County Hospital District Emergency Medical Service was recognized as the Administrator of the Year for the State of Texas for his leadership in the resumption of the Emergency Medical Service for Montgomery County Hospital District. Mr. Speaker, I wish the Montgomery County Hospital District Emergency Medical Service well as they begin their 2nd year of service.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) for his leadership and that of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) on this issue. I know we are fortunate to be going through very good times right now, but when I listen to my neighbors and the families that I represent, we have an awful lot of families that are struggling to make ends meet each month. School, clothes, the cost of medicine, car insurance, college is all so expensive, we have so many families, both parents working as hard as they can, working harder than they ever have before, keeping less than they ever have before and really living paycheck to paycheck. All it takes is one of your kids gets sick and that cost is expensive, then one of your family members passes away unexpectedly, you have got to figure out a way to travel there. I can guarantee you, just when you think things could not get worse financially, your car will break down. There must be a Federal law that requires that to happen. But it always seems like those things occur. The worst feeling in the world, whether you are a student or a parent or a senior, is to lie awake at night, it is a sick feeling to lie awake at night thinking ``How in heaven's name am I going to make it through this time?'' The opponents of this bill say, ``Look, if you will send us more of your paycheck, just send us more of your money, and then you can go down to a government office and maybe stand in line and fill out these forms. In a month or so come back and we'll let you know if you are eligible so we can help you.'' Our belief is just the opposite. We want you to keep more of what you earn. We think it ought to be a little easier to make ends meet each month. We think you can make better decisions. It is your money, after all. This constitutional amendment ties the hands of Washington so we can untie the hands of our families and our working families. I think Ronald Reagan said it best. It is time someone stood up to those in Washington who say, ``Look, here are the keys to the Treasury, spend all you want of the hard-earned tax dollars. It is not yours, anyway.'' This amendment stands up for families and taxpayers, and I support it.