Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting debate; and it is a good debate to have at the closing hours before the August district work period, because it is a great warning as to what is going to happen in September. Yes, I am sad to say that spending is up on this bill. The House did an incredible job over this year passing 12 bills, and hopefully this afternoon 13 bills, trying to hold the line on the spending. Through all the debates, every debate on every one of those 12 bills that we have already passed, and the debate we saw yesterday on the D.C. bill, the minority, the Democrats, complain that there was not enough spending. They want to spend more money. They want to spend more money. They claimed every bill was woefully, woefully inadequate in spending. The President has said he wants more spending. So we thought that, in fashioning this particular bill, we would honor as much of their request as we could honor in order to get their support and in order to get the President to sign the bill. We did consult with the White House on what their needs were in the Treasury-Postal bill. We begrudgingly gave them some of the money in the TPO bill, $1.2 billion, that they have been crying for all this year, because we know that the President of the United States has to sign the bill before it becomes law. So we did that. But do not denigrate the work of this House. The work of this House has been strong in trying to hold the line on spending. They are salivating over the notion that there is this huge surplus, that they could spend more money. It is harder to deal with these issues under a surplus than it was under a deficit because of the penchant of many Members wanting to spend more money. But we have told the American people that we are going to pay down on the debt. There is a $270 billion surplus, and we are going to spend 84 percent of that in paying down on the debt on our children and grandchildren. We ask for 8 percent, 8 percent of that surplus to give some tax relief and tax fairness in the marriage penalty repeal, repealing the death tax. On this bill is repealing the Spanish-American War tax that they kept spending when they were in control on bigger government. We think the American family needs a little tax fairness and tax relief, 8 percent of the surplus. We sort of set aside another 8 percent, $22 billion, for their increased spending, knowing that we could not get the President to sign it unless we gave it to them. That is why we bring it here. Let me just quickly touch on the Cuba issue. They won the Cuba issue. I was absolutely opposed to it. But they want it in the TPO bill, which is not the proper way to do it. But because those two amendments passed and passed overwhelmingly, they won. They have got the leverage now to go and negotiate in the conference of the Committee on Agriculture appropriations bill to get what they want. That is very significant. But to do it the way that they did it is really something that the Senate just would not accept because it is not the right way to do it. We have tried to hold the line. But let me tell my colleagues what is really going on here and why we have had to use this unusual procedure in order to get these appropriations bills. This is the anniversary, by the way, the 1-year anniversary when the minority leader announced that their strategy is to disrupt, obstruct, and stop the Republican House from passing anything. They have been trying to carry that out all year long. We have a six-vote margin, now, thank God. We have a 7-vote margin as of yesterday. We have a 7-vote margin. On these bills, it has been very difficult to put these bills together all by ourselves because they refused to participate. They have even asked their own Members to vote against their own districts and their own interests in these appropriations bills in order to obstruct getting things done. They outline their strategy. They are trying to carry it out. Right now, in the other body, they cannot pass anything because the Democrats in the other body have the Senate tied in knots. The reason that we had to do TPO on this bill is they cannot get it up on the floor of the Senate because the Democrats do not want to pass it. That is why we had to put it on this bill. They have used everything available to them to obstruct our ability to carry out the appropriations process. The point I am trying to make is we have worked very, very hard to pay down the debt with the surplus, to give a little tax fairness and hold the line on spending. That is the fiscally responsible thing to do. The other side, and I point out that they argued all year there is not enough money in here, and now we see them arguing because there is too much money in this bill. It is an amazing dichotomy that we witness here all day long every day. The point is they do not want the process to work. They do not want us to pass these bills because they want to force us into some sort of summit with a big omnibus bill so they can get more spending. Well, we ain't goin' there. We ain't goin' there. We are going to pass these bills. We are going to do the fiscally responsible thing, and I hope our Members will stand up, vote for this rule and allow us to proceed.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the first duty of our Government is to protect American citizens. This bill would help meet that responsibility by assisting the victims of terrorism. The Clinton administration has been quick to offer words of comfort to the bereaved relatives of those who have been killed by international violence. Their actions, however, have done little to hold the vile regimes responsible for such crimes accountable. It may be hard to believe, but the Clinton Justice Department has actively worked to stop terrorism victims from receiving just compensation out of the seized assets of terrorist states. This administration has thwarted the efforts of victims as they tried to collect court-ordered compensation from countries like Iran, Libya, and Fidel Castro's evil regime in Cuba. Held in even the most favorable light, this policy is unacceptable. It is a policy that smacks not only of appeasement, but capitulation to perpetrators of international terrorism. And of this administration's poor foreign policy decisions, this is truly one of the most contemptible and distressing. The President of the United States should not be protecting the assets of foreign terror states. This bill would stop the Treasury Department from continuing to withhold these assets from victims' families. The President gave his word to help injured parties collect compensation from terrorist states. Now, the foot-dragging of his administration requires us to pass legislation that would simply fulfill his promises to those victims. We look forward to the day when a handshake in the Oval Office is enough to guarantee justice for victims of terror. Unfortunately, the President's handshake apparently isn't enough. Therefore, we must pass this bill to ensure that terror victims don't first have to fight their way past their own government before they can receive the compensation owed to them. To understand the importance of this proposal, consider the following example. In 1996, Fidel Castro gave the order to murder American pilots who were searching the Gulf of Mexico for refugees from his repressive dictatorship. Four years later, the pilots' families still haven't been compensated. This sad reality should spur the House to action. We ought to pass this bill and put terrorists on notice.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, today is a time of remembrance and deep appreciation. It was 2 years ago that we lost our brave friends, J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson. As we recall their sacrifices, I wish to place the accomplishments of these two great heroes into a larger context. The shock of tragedy we all felt at their loss has grown into the deeper pain of longing. We wonder how can it be that God chooses to allow tragedy to visit the homes of good people, people we honor, love and respect? This we cannot know. Scripture teaches that God pursues his own purpose in his own time. But there are questions we can answer. What did these men live for? What drove them to revere their work and to carry out their duty even in the face of terrible danger? The simple truth is that they lived to defend freedom that is cherished and loved by us all. This passion for liberty is the foundation of our democracy. It is the sturdiest support upholding democracy across the globe. These officers loved their jobs despite the risks because they embraced a broader commitment to a most noble purpose. In doing so, Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut have taken their place in the continuum of freedom. From the New England farmers who routed the British on the road to Saratoga to the volunteers who marched south to San Antonio, as the determined men who charged into destiny at Gettysburg, Americans have always answered freedom's summons. From the fearless defenders of Corregidor, to the besieged ranks of guarding the Chosin Reservoir, to the GIs in the heat of the Ia Drang Valley, the call has been answered. From our sailors under the strange stars of distant oceans, to our pilots flying above the hostile lights of unfamiliar lands, the work of freedom goes on. From the Marine stationed at a tiny embassy in a strife-torn nation, to the officers on duty today under the dome of this Capitol, the tradition endures and America goes on. It is a continuous line of Americans demanding the most from themselves, freedom for our Nation and the best for this world. This unwavering commitment is the foundation of our democracy. In Paul's letter to the Corinthians he states, ``If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver or costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is because the day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward.'' Mr. Speaker, these men were tested. They endured the flames. Their work still stands, and I know in my heart that having received their reward they are now enjoying a peace and joy beyond our worldly understanding. God bless John Gibson and J.J. Chestnut and their families. Let us never forget their awesome sacrifice.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I do so because I have been listening to this debate, and I am rather appalled by the notion that we won the Cold War by allowing Americans to go visit, and I disagree with my friend from South Carolina. Ronald Reagan did not win the Cold War by engaging and appeasement. Ronald Reagan did the right thing by standing up and pointing to the Communist dictators that killed millions and millions of people, and called them what they are, the evil empire. Called them the evil empire. Fidel Castro is evil. Now, it might be nice to send American citizens down as tourists to pad the pockets of Fidel Castro and fund his habit, but where is our compassion for the people of Cuba, the people, the thousands upon thousands of people in Cuba that have been maimed, killed, buried? Where is our compassion for the American citizens that Fidel Castro has killed in a murderous way? This is a tiny island, this is not Eastern Europe, this is not the Soviet Union, this is a tiny island with an evil dictator that is oppressing his citizens. Yes, it has not worked the way it should have worked, because we have not been turning the screws on him and screwing him down and putting pressure on him, so that his people will rise up and throw him out for what he is. Let me just tell my colleagues something. We talk about apartheid. The tourist industry in Cuba is apartheid. The Cubans do not get to go to the tourist facilities except to work there, as long as they are very well screened and the right kind of people that will work with the tourists. There is no interchange here. You go down, you lay on the beach, a nice hotel, you get to go to all of these wonderful places. This is an evil empire on the island of Cuba, and we should not lift the embargoes, we should screw it down tighter.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, securing a just and enduring peace in the Middle East is a paramount goal of the United States and vital to our national interests. I sincerely hope that the day will come when the region is a stable, peaceful home of emerging democracies and U.S. allies. The ongoing dialogue about the future relationship between Israel and its neighbors in this volatile region is essential if a true peace is ever to be realized. The current talks may be a meaningful step toward achieving our common goal. However, I am concerned that the pressure to reach a deal--any deal-- will outweigh that of securing a good one. A deal for deal's sake is not in the interest of Israel or the United States, nor is it in the interest of long-term peace and stability in the Middle East. In this volatile region, a flawed agreement that produces greater instability would be worse than the status quo. Accordingly, American leaders must not abuse our unique relationship with Israel to force acceptance of destabilizing strategic concessions. True peace can only be obtained if both sides are confident that they are negotiating freely and in the interest of their people--free from outside pressures. I was quite alarmed to hear the Administration's spokesman stating that there is tension between the two sides due to the President's pressure on negotiators to come up with an agreement. Clearly, Israel should not be forced to negotiate away what's in its best interests to accommodate the political interest of any group. Israel has been a longtime ally of the United States. The struggle of the Israeli people to maintain their sovereignty and security from hostile neighbors has been long and valiant. As Americans, we recognize their struggle is also our own--that beyond our strong ties of kinship, a strong and secure Israel is undoubtedly in America's best interest. An Israel with secure boundaries, free from threats or acts of war, is essential to long-term peace and stability in the region. Over the last 50 years, Israel has shown its willingness to work with its neighbors to find peace, sometimes successfully--sometimes not--but in all cases the outcome was contingent on the determination of both sides to truly secure peace. At this time, it is unclear to me that this is the case in these negotiations. In fact, the threat of the Palestinians to unilaterally declare statehood on September 13, regardless of the status of negotiations, call to question their commitment to peace and respect of Israel's autonomy and security. Any attempt by the Palestinians to unilaterally declare an independent state would have severe consequences to the relationship between the U.S. and the Palestinians. Make no mistake, this Congressman will not support such a unilateral declaration, particularly outside the confines of an agreement with Israel. The U.S. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that any agreement the American people may be asked to embrace will truly protect Israeli and American interests, enjoys the support of the Israeli and Palestinian people alike, and brings a lasting and durable peace to the region. Accordingly, any final agreement must carry a real chance for meaningful peace before committing U.S. support. No one should assume that the Congress will simply sign off on committing enormous American resources to a deal that contains compromises which would seriously undermine Israeli or U.S. security. Before a financial commitment is made by the U.S., the Israeli people must have their referendum, and we must have had an opportunity to examine the proposed agreement on its merits from an American perspective--both for the security of Israel and the security of the United States. Finally, I remain gravely concerned that the Administration has yet to adequately consult the Congress on the status of the negotiations. The prospect that an agreement will contain an ongoing American commitment requires that the Administration work closely with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to build a broad consensus in support of the deal. We must be certain that the final agreement carries a legitimate chance for an enduring peace before we commit the vast American resources routinely mentioned as part of a settlement. Any meaningful peace agreement must be attractive to both parties independent of financial incentives. Further the U.S. must not force an untenable deal that delivers today's headlines at the expense of lasting peace.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Florida giving me the time, and I congratulate her on bringing this bill to the floor. It is a very meaningful piece of legislation that I hope the American people will pay some attention to. Mr. Speaker, Members should support this bill and demand accountability in our relations with Russia. The simple fact that American taxpayers are targeted by a Russian intelligence facility on Cuban soil demonstrates the predictable fruits of this administration's flawed and failed foreign policy and its alarming disregard for our national security. The Vice President has positioned himself as the architect of our relationship with Russia. He brags about it. Those policies have been a dismal failure. Our relations with Russia have fallen to the lowest ebb than at any time since the Cold War. It is this administration's insane contention that Russian spying from this facility in Cuba enhances our relationship because it fosters trust. The fact that this facility remains open shows this administration's empty commitment to national security. American foreign policy should be negotiated from a position of strength, not the capitulation of appeasement. This administration has tossed good dollars after bad to prop up failing, inefficient and corrupt institutions in Russia. For years, keeping Boris Yeltsin in office was seemingly our sole goal. The administration propped up Yeltsin at all costs as he and his cronies ransacked the government while they lined their own pockets. Sound relations with Russia must begin with accountability. Unfortunately, the administration still has not embraced this fundamental concept. Their answer is to blindly pour more money at the problem. Clinton and Gore want to either restructure or forgive billions of dollars that Russia owes the United States. We cannot forget that Russia's vast potential is not bound up in the destiny of any one man or one faction. Rather, success lies with the growth of those institutions that allow democracy to take root. Without the proper foundation, the Russian people will never know the blessings of a stable democracy. Until that day comes, we must remain vigilant, and this cutting-edge spy facility is a bad sign. Many Americans will be shocked to learn that at the same time this administration is ready to write off billions of dollars that Russia owes the United States, the Russians are subsidizing Fidel Castro's evil regime with hundreds of millions of dollars. Russia leases an intelligence gathering facility at Lourdes, Cuba. The committee reports that this annual payment may consume as much as 1 percent of Russia's entire budget. Money, of course, is fungible. Money sent to Russia for a high purpose can be misapplied to fund inappropriate activities. Intelligence gathered from this site may well be shared by Russia with regimes hostile to America. The simple cost of operating this facility alone directly benefits the most dangerous regime in our hemisphere. We should not ask the American taxpayer to subsidize a hostile facility that is targeting the Nation from the foot of our continent. This is a regime that does evil to its people. The Russian lease for the Lourdes espionage center is an important source of hard currency for Fidel Castro. It is strongly against our national interests to have an espionage facility actively stealing our vital national secrets, pilfering economic information, and collecting private information about individual Americans. This is simply wrong and we should not be paying for it. Members should demand that Russia be given no economic support until this facility is out of business. They can do that by supporting this bill.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be introducing today the ``American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2000''. This legislation will protect our Armed Services from being prosecuted by the ill- conceived International Criminal Court which the United States has refused to join. In some parts of America, national sovereignty is still taken seriously. Today, we take a strong step to protect the men and women who protect U.S. from an extra-constitutional monster that could very easily be abused. The International Criminal Court is a threat to our national interests. Under this system, American servicemembers could become pawns for hostile powers seeking revenge against U.S. policymakers. We must not allow the International Criminal Court to exert authority over our fighting forces. Administration officials admit that our armed forces could be subjected to the ICC's jurisdiction through peacekeeping, humanitarian and other missions. That means Americans could be prosecuted or imprisoned by the court even though we never signed the treaty. This we cannot allow. The administration refused to sign this treaty because of the threat it poses to our military personnel. This bill is a reasonable measure that gives the President the necessary tools to protect U.S. from a deeply flawed proposal. If the President ever signed and the Senate ever ratified this treaty, then this bill will become null and void. In the meantime, we must meet our responsibility to protect our armed services from the whims of a new international bureaucracy. American men and women in uniform take an oath to defend our Constitution from all threats, foreign and domestic. At a minimum, our soldiers, sailors, and airmen deserve all of the protections granted to them by the great document they swear to preserve. What if we do nothing? Under its terms, Americans could be brought before the ICC's court and tried without important rights. They could be denied a trial by jury. The court could compel Americans to provide self-incriminating testimony. And it could deny them the right to confront and cross-examine any witnesses that testify against them. If we don't act to protect Americans, this court will assume unto itself powers over our citizens that the Constitution forbids. Our first duty as Members of Congress is to protect our Constitution. Turning a blind eye to the threat posed by this International Court could constrain the options available to American officials. We have no idea what threats the future holds. Can we risk allowing the threat of actions by this court to water down our nation's response to acts of terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and aggression against our vital interests and allies? Under this treaty, an American President could be tried before an international court if the prosecutor decided that an American foreign policy decision was unjustified. This bill protects Americans in several important ways. First, it stops federal, state, and local governments from assisting the ICC. It stops U.S. officials from arresting or extraditing suspects for the ICC. It also prevents U.S. entities from performing searches and seizures. In short, this bill protects Americans from all the ways the ICC could intrude into their lives. The bill also stops U.S. forces from taking part in missions that would expose them to the reach of this court. U.S. forces could still be deployed if the President certifies to Congress that exemptions to prosecution are in place to protect our forces. The bill also safeguards our national interests by denying classified data to the ICC. Finally, this bill authorizes the President to use whatever means necessary to rescue Americans who are detained under the authority of the ICC. The Clinton administration is continuing to seek revisions to the ICC treaty to protect our armed forces from the court's jurisdiction. This legislation should reinforce the administration's efforts by making clear to those countries that support the ICC what the future will hold if American concerns about the court are not satisfactorily addressed. Mr. Speaker, America is not ready to timidly cede her sovereignty to an unaccountable, international entity that is not bound to respect our Constitution, and that we have refused to join. Members should support this bill and defend our first principles.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this motion to recommit. If Members are for the bill, vote for it. If they are against the bill, vote against it, but do not do it this way. This is a very clear poison pill by opponents of free trade to kill this historic legislation, make no mistake about it. This amendment is a procedural vote that is cleverly drafted to appeal to those of us who support Taiwan. But let us be clear. This is a blatant political move to bring down this bill both on substance and on procedure. Mr. Speaker, there is no bigger supporter and defender of Taiwan than myself. I have worked with Members on both sides of this aisle and on both sides of this debate on legislation to protect Taiwan and give it the resources it needs to defend itself from Beijing. Most Members voted for the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act. I have been and will continue to be an outspoken opponent against China's Communist leaders. I share the concerns of my friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) about Beijing's constant refusal to renounce the use of force against Taiwan, and I will continue to work with anyone in this Congress who wants to address these issues. But, Mr. Speaker, this amendment does not help Taiwan. It puts them square in the middle of a vicious political fight. Taiwan supporters need to understand this. Taiwan does not support this language. We have spoken to I-jen Chiou, the Deputy Secretary-General of the Taiwan Security Council, and he made it clear that this amendment is not helpful to Taiwan. They support PNTR. They support China getting into the WTO. This amendment puts all of that in jeopardy. Let me say to my friends on both sides of the aisle, if China attacks Taiwan, I will be the first to come down on this floor to force any administration, whether it be Democrat or Republican, to take action against China. But let us be clear. This language will do nothing to address our concerns with Beijing, it will have no impact on their actions but will permit the Chinese to refuse WTO benefits to American companies. The USTR has already made it clear that this language will subject us to punishing tariffs once China enters the WTO. And at the same time, it does not give us any new authority. We already have the authority under the WTO to remove PNTR for China for national security reasons. However, singling out China preemptively is a violation of our commitments under the WTO. So, Mr. Speaker, I understand why this language looks appealing, but I urge my colleagues not to use our friends in Taiwan as a political tool. After all the discussions, after all the commitments that have been made on this issue, Members will not even get to vote on final passage today if this motion to recommit passes. Now, they say it will come back from committee. I have got to tell Members, they do not come back from committee. When motions to recommit like this go back to committee, they are subject to oblivion. This is it. If you are against it, vote against the bill. If you are for it, vote for the bill but do not play this kind of game. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, today we are plotting a bold course that is in keeping with our history, our potential, and our ultimate goal of liberating the Chinese people. In the international arena, America doesn't shrink from a challenge. We seize opportunity. We are fighters, visionaries, and pioneers. It's in our nature as Americans, to look past a challenge to victory. Standing as we do, at the head of the world, in a position of unprecedented strength and prosperity, why would we now choose the timid path? We should not, and we will not. That's why we will pass Permanent Normal Trade Relations status with the People's Republic of China. While PNTR will help our American economy, this is only one step toward our larger goal; ending communist rule in China by exposing the Chinese people to American values. Freedom is a contagious virtue. Defeating a foe is a poor substitute for liberating a country from the weight of a repressive ideology. We should today ensure the triumph of liberty by planting the seeds of freedom in China. We should not accept a retrenchment driven by fear and insecurity. There are serious issues we must address. Confronting these issues requires real American leadership and courage, We should not for a moment imagine that PNTR will solve or even the address the many troubling questions concerning the future of the communist government in Beijing. Without a doubt, expanded trade must be matched with a revitalization of America's military and a strengthening of our friendships with our allies in Asia. Simply expanding trade without supplying these critical elements will not create a free China. But we shouldn't let the strong steps we must take to resist aggression prevent us from communicating with the Chinese people. The cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy has always been to make the case for freedom and democracy. We have never been afraid to place our values and our form of government up against any competitor. Give us half a chance, and we will win. Expanding trade with China is just this sort of opportunity. Fundamental change in China will not happen simply through State Department dictates. It will only happen after we inspire the Chinese people to demand freedom. We want to appeal to the Chinese people. To do that we have to be there, on the ground, spreading our values and the sure knowledge that there is a far better, nobler form of government than communism. Ignorance is the ally of repressive governments. Expanded trade, because it spreads American values, is an essential tool in changing a closed society. And in the battle for China's future, one Chinese entrepreneur is worth a million government bureaucrats. Over the last century, communist countries have run from this competition. They hid their people behind walls and fortified borders, because they knew that if their citizens were exposed to our values, then the battle would be lost. As a great power built on a foundation of timeless virtues, we fear no competing political systems because we trust the strength of our ideas. We should ask ourselves: Why do so many of the hardliners, the old communist guard in China, resist opening their country to increased trade and interaction with America? It's because they understand the power of democratic values. We need to support Chinese reformers by giving them more, not less, access to American ideals. This will raise the call for human rights and lead China to the rule of law. We can't for a single minute ignore abuses by the Chinese government. Beijing's record on human rights, religious persecution, coercive abortion, and arms shipments to hostile states is shameful. The Chinese government does wicked things to its people. The way to stop these evil deeds is to end communist rule and that means transforming China into a free-market democracy. This is much more likely to happen if American ideals eat away at the infrastructure of tyranny from the inside out. We must also reject any notion that our support of expanded trade in China signals in any small way a slackening of our solemn commitment to defend Taiwan from aggression. We are sworn to defend Taiwan and we say again today that the United States will not allow any resolution of Taiwan's status that involves force or threats. We will not stand for it. Further, we must insist that Taiwan be admitted to the WTO as well. Granting PNTR to China is a critical component of a strategy driven by our one, clear objective: destroying communism. So, I urge my fellow Members, to support PNTR and commit the United States to this contest between freedom and repression.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if this motion to recommit passes, it does not instruct the committee to report back forthwith with instructions. Does that mean that if this motion to recommit passes that the bill will have to go back to committee?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, what that means is that it will be reported back to committee, and there will be no vote on final passage?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, that is why I took the action to suspend the diversion of Federal funds previously approved for in other transportation improvements to fund this light rail project. As I said when I announced my opposition to this process, three things have to happen before the light rail goes anywhere. First, Houston must gather all the facts. They need to commission a regional congestion study that will identify the problems that are hampering mobility in the region today. Then Houston needs to develop a comprehensive regional mobility plan that provides solutions to our current problems. We are at the end of this full funding contract. It is time to redo a regional mobility plan. Before taxpayers pay $300 million to develop light rail along the Main Street corridor, should they not have a comprehensive plan that shows how the light rail proposal would fit into the regional transportation plan? The mobility plan must also anticipate further transportation needs. After all the facts are assembled, the taxpayers need to have a final say. Houston must be given a referendum on the decision to build the Main Street line.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, decisions like this ought to be decided by the voters, not through bureaucratic end fighting. The excuses that supporters have given just do not hold water. In 1998, the city held a similar referendum under the same laws. What is disturbing about this whole process, Mr. Chairman, is the full and open discussion of the transportation needs and costs associated with this project. The people of Houston need to know not only what exactly it is they are getting on Main Street, but also what they have to give up elsewhere to get it. Now, my fundamental reservation about this project remains. How would investing enormous amounts of their tax dollars in the light rail project for Main Street help my constituents, the constituents of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), the constituents of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the constituents of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and all other Houstonians? I believe Houstonians deserve all the information on this huge investment. Houstonian have a right to make the decision for themselves. Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members to oppose this amendment.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I have to apologize to our colleagues that we are taking up the time of the House for something that should be settled in Houston, Texas. But I rise and feel the need to rise to explain what is going on here. Mr. Chairman, I have been involved in mobility around Houston for 20 years. I have been involved in the regional mobility plan and in developing that plan in the 1980s that we are now finishing. I am very proud of the fact that the city of Houston, as my colleague says, the fourth largest city in the country, just does not do things like everybody else does. We are a major city and a great city in this country because we do not just do it the same way. We are the city that built the Astrodome. We are the city that has a port that is off the shores of Texas and the second largest port in the Nation. We are a city that does not say that they are not a great city unless they have rail. And the reason is, and I might point out to my colleagues, if they had been involved in all the rail systems as I have, and the chairman has for over 15 years, they would understand why L.A. is getting out of the rail business, because it is a boondoggle and a black hole for a city that is spread out like L.A. I might say that Houston has stepped outside of the box and developed a regional bus plan that is the model for major cities in America. This bill has over $20 million in it, finishing the last part of $500 million in building one of the best bus systems in the world. Because we did not grab ahold of the notion that, in order to be a great city, they have to have a rail system. Every line that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) talked about, every one of those lines, loses huge amounts of money and takes money away from mobility systems for those cities. But they do get to take a picture of a nice train and put it in their brochures, and it makes everybody feel good. The problem here in this particular dispute is that the Houston Metro, following the design of many other cities, and the gentleman says no elections were held in those other cities, it is because the other cities did not pay attention to the voters in those cities and developed the same strategy that is going on here in Houston. They developed the strategy of starting a little starter line; and when it does not make money and becomes a huge hole for transit funds, they go to the people and say, we made this great investment, but it does not work only because we do not have this other line. And when that does not work they say, well, we are just going to build another line. And then they wake up and develop what Dallas now has. Dallas now has a rail line, but now has surpassed Houston in congestion because Dallas is more concentrated on rail than they are for the mobility in Dallas. I do not want to see that happen in Houston. It is my responsibility as a member of this committee to make sure that the full funding grant by the FTA, the $500 million, is finished. What Houston Metro wanted to do is take money from the regional bus plan, from our regional mobility plan, and move it to a rail line that makes no sense whatsoever, transportation-wise. My good colleague and friend the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee) says no criticism. There is all kinds of criticism, including Houston Metro's own study that says, this does not help mobility, this does not help transportation, and this does not help the environment. This is an economic development project to build a signature main street in Houston, Texas, a very worthwhile project. But this is not a transit system. This will not carry anybody. This will not get anybody off our freeways. This will not get Bubba, I say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) out of his pickup and put him on a rail system. This is an economic development project. My position is, if they are going to build a huge rail system in the Houston region, then the people of the Houston region ought to vote on it and decide whether they want a rail system or not, instead of doing the back doorway that was done in Dallas, that was done in Portland, that was done in Miami, that was done in many other cities that I described. There is no transit benefit here. Mr. Chairman, major transportation decisions like the proposal to build this system in Houston should be decided by the whole community. As things stand today, Houstonians cannot make an informed decision because Metro does not have a comprehensive light rail system to take to the voters. The people of Houston cannot make an informed decision about what the role of this project would play in reducing congestion.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman obviously knows that that procedure includes the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, and that can approve or disapprove reprogramming; and Metro failed to tell the people of Houston that very fact.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my unqualified support for this resolution. Tales of babies being left to die in dumpsters and alleys are almost too horrifying to believe, but they are true. Steps must be taken to combat the crisis. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that more than 30,000 babies are abandoned in hospitals by their mothers every year. This is troubling, but these babies are the lucky ones because they have a chance to live and are eventually adopted. Babies left in hospitals get the care they need during their first crucial hours and days. The little ones left in trash bins and on street corners do not often live past their first day. Today, there are no reliable statistics that accurately detail how many such tragedies occur. April is Child Abuse Prevention Month. This is a time when we all need to think more seriously about child abuse and neglect and consider new ways to combat it. One essential tool is data. We must know how bad the problem is before we can stop it. This resolution simply states that this Congress holds that local, State, and Federal governments should chronicle statistics regarding abandonment of newborn babies. Mr. Speaker, we must do everything in our power to make the world more welcoming to newborn babies. We must do everything in our power to learn what circumstances precipitate the unthinkable acts that hurt and kill our children. And finally, as individuals, as communities and as legislators, we must do everything in our power to protect these vulnerable lives and afford them the opportunity to thrive in secure and permanent homes and to become productive members of our society. I applaud the efforts made thus far on this issue in Texas, including the work of my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), and State Representative Genie Morrison, who is here visiting the Capitol today. I just urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and other efforts to confront child abuse and abandonment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, once again, I rise to express my support for this lifesaving bill. It is hard to believe that it has not been signed into law already, but we live in very sad times. Every day, on television, in the papers, on this floor and, in particular, in the White House, I hear over and over again about how much everyone cares about children. Never in the history of man has more lip service been paid to the needs of our children. But, tragically, never in history have children been sacrificed so mercilessly in such high numbers. Abortion is a stain on our Nation that we must begin to wash away. A ban on partial-birth abortions is the first step. Bill Clinton even ran for the presidency by saying that he wanted to make abortion rarer; but after 8 years in office, he has done nothing to curtail the number of abortions in this country. In fact, he has twice vetoed the attempts of Congress to eliminate the harshest abortion techniques. And make no mistake about it, that is what this bill does. We need to be honest about what abortion is. We also need to be honest about what this specific technique is. I have heard some of my colleagues complain about the charts that have been shown here on the floor that explain the process of partial-birth abortion. Well, that is what happens to between 3,000 and 10,000 babies every year. The descriptions of this procedure are reality. Now, most Americans would not want this done to a dog; yet the White House and others turn their heads away as it is done to babies. The abortion industry has gone too far, and on this issue the conscience of this country has been pricked. A vast majority of Americans now believe that partial-birth abortions should be illegal. Mr. Speaker, the President needs to listen to the conscience of America and sign this ban.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, last year, congressional Republicans fought tooth-and-nail to cut waste, fraud and abuse out of a bloated Federal budget. We were successful, but we have only just begun. This year we remain vigilant in our crusade to return accountability to the Federal Government, and, today, thanks to the chairman of the Committee on Resources (Mr. Young), we are taking another important step by bringing this bill to the floor. This measure will eliminate waste, fraud and abuse at the Fish and Wildlife Service and restore integrity and accountability to our conservation programs. Last century, America's sportsmen agreed to excise taxes on sporting equipment so that others could enjoy hunting, fishing, and other outdoor activities. In doing so, they placed their trust in the Federal Government to administer these funds, their hard-earned dollars, for State conservation efforts. This system worked for decades, but this administration has shattered that trust. A yearlong committee investigation revealed that half the money set aside to administer these programs, over $15 million, was improperly used. But do not just take my word for it. The GAO report, and I quote, ``to our knowledge, this is, if not the worst, one of the worst managed programs we have encountered.'' Mr. Chairman, this bill ensures that the government manages the people's money wisely. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and restore trust between America's sportsmen and their government.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the resolution offered by the Majority Leader, Mr. Armey, and am proud to be an original cosponsor. The people of Taiwan should be commended for their brave and inspiring show of courage in support of democratic values. The people of Taiwan stood in the face of tremendous intimidation and constant threats from the tyrants in Communist China, and they refused to back down. About 80 percent of the people went to the polls to exercise the most sacred of democratic freedoms--the right of citizens to choose their own leaders. Mr. Speaker, that is the essence of democracy. Undoubtedly, this new administration in Taiwan will face many challenges. For the first time, Taiwan will experience a peaceful transition of executive power. This transition will not be easy, but the peaceful passing of power is at the core of democracy. The United States must support this transition in every way possible. This expression of freedom should not serve as a threat to Beijing, but as an inspiration. Hopefully, the day will soon come when the people of communist China, for so long fettered by the chains of communism and tyranny, will be able to determine their own destiny through free and fair elections. Until that time, it should be clear that the United States is firm in its commitment to Taiwan, and I urge the Administration to use this occasion to signal to the world that we will stand by and support our democratic allies. In the meantime, Taiwan should meet future threats by Beijing with the same strength and determination that guided this most recent election.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I just have to say to my colleagues that it is mind-boggling, and I do not think anybody in the United States believes, that the other side of the aisle has an answer to this problem, period. They talk about emptying out the strategic petroleum reserve. What do my colleagues think OPEC would do if we did that? They would just tighten the valve down just enough to offset that amount that we are doing. That is not the point here. Now, gas taxes. I am for cutting the gas taxes. I am for cutting more than the Gore gas tax. I am for cutting the Bush gas tax. Mr. Chairman, today's high gas and oil prices are unnecessary, and it is unfortunate that we have to do a bill like this because this administration has no credibility in the world, and everybody in America understands that. We are having a tin cup diplomacy running around begging OPEC to open their valves. And the reason is because the Clinton-Gore administration is squarely to blame for this, what is going on in America today, the high prices of gasoline. The simple fact is that the American economy is too dependent on foreign oil because this administration refuses to allow an increase in domestic oil production. Just this month, just this month this administration has increased the royalties on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, despite the repeated objections of Congress. They have also banned new pipeline and dam construction and forbidden access to multipurpose Federal lands. These restrictions should be lifted. Kowtowing to environmental extremists, Clinton and Gore policies have severely restricted oil, coal, hydro- and natural gas energy production across the board. And if my colleagues do not believe me, read the Vice President's book, Earth in the Balance. It is all here. It is all designed to drive up the cost of gasoline so he can eliminate the internal combustion engine. Steps must be taken across the board to make all these energy sources more viable. The facts speak for themselves. Today our domestic oil production is at the lowest point since World War II, and we are importing more oil than ever before, even more than during the 1973 embargo when everybody was in gas lines to fill up their cars. In fact, every day Americans spend more than $300 million on foreign oil. In light of this situation, you would think that American refineries and wells would be working overtime to provide as much fuel as possible, but that is not the case. During the 1998 oil price crash, over 150,000 marginal oil wells were closed and never reopened, because the Clinton-Gore administration simply did not care about domestic production. Now, while these wells each produce less than 15 barrels a day, the total output derived by opening only half of them would boost domestic oil production by 250,000 barrels of oil every day, but Federal tax incentives, like ones we have in Texas, could easily achieve this increase. On March 27, a little less than a week away, OPEC ministers will be meeting to discuss a possibility of increasing their production levels to help stabilize oil prices. This bill is an honest effort to encourage them to do the right thing. And I am going to vote for it; but let me be perfectly clear, the reason we are in this mess in the first place is because for the last 7 years, this administration has turned its back on our domestic energy needs. In effect, Clinton and Gore have left us with no choice but to beg our OPEC allies to turn the spigot up. This is a humiliating position for America, and it hurts families and businesses, especially truckers who are stuck with paying higher prices.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to congratulate and honor a young Texas student from my district who has achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in her community. Cara Rainwater of Missouri City has just been named one of my state's top honorees in The 2000 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor conferred on the most impressive student volunteers in each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Ms. Rainwater, a senior at Lawrence Elkins High School and an active community volunteer, is being recognized for serving as a peer counselor for burn victims at Camp Phoenix, a summer camp sponsored by the Burn Children Recovery Foundation. In light of numerous statistics that indicate Americans today are less involved in their communities than they once were, it's vital that we encourage and support the kind of selfless contribution this young citizen has made. People of all ages need to think more about how we, as individual citizens, can work together at the local level to ensure the health and vitality of our towns and neighborhoods. Young volunteers like Ms. Rainwater are inspiring examples to all of us, and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow. The program that brought this young role model to our attention--The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards--was created by the Prudential Insurance Company of America in partnership with the National Association of Secondary Schools Principals in 1995 to impress upon all youth volunteers that their contributions are critically important and highly valued, and to inspire other young people to follow their example. In only five years, the program has become the nation's largest youth recognition effort based solely on community service, with nearly 75,000 youngsters participating since its inception. Ms. Rainwater should be extremely proud to have been singled out from such a large group of dedicated volunteers. Mr. Speaker, I heartily applaud Ms. Rainwater for her initiative in seeking to make her community a better place to live, and for the positive impact she has had on the lives of others. She has demonstrated a level of commitment and accomplishment that is truly extraordinary in today's world, and deserves our sincere admiration and respect. Her actions show that young Americans can--and do--play important roles in our communities, and that America's community spirit continues to hold tremendous promise for the future.