Tom DeLay

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 his community. Christopher Dols of Houston 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. Mr. Dols, a ninth-grader at Strake Jesuit College Preparatory School, is being recognized for developing a Pre-Teen Health Information Line for the Harris County Hospital District. This information line provides free bilingual health information on 24 topics of special interest to young adults. 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 king 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 Mr. Dols 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. Mr. Dols should be extremely proud to have been singled out from such a large group of dedicated volunteers. Mr. Speaker, I heartily applaud Mr. Dols for his initiative in seeking to make his community a better place to live, and for the positive impact he has had on the lives of others. He has demonstrated a level of commitment and accomplishment that is truly extraordinary in today's world, and deserves our sincere admiration and respect. His 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.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate all the hard work that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has done and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) has done on this bill. Working together they have done outstanding work, and I am very proud to support this bill. I also want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) for all their hard work on this legislation. This bipartisan dedication to this cause shows how both sides of the aisle can come together under the goal of peace through strength. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because Taiwan desperately needs America's help. Throughout the 20th century, struggling democracies across this globe knew that they could always count on America for support when their freedom was threatened. At the dawn of a new century, the world must be reassured that the United States will continue to stick by their friends. Taiwan has a strong and vibrant economy, and in March they will hold another free and open election. I ask all my colleagues, is this not the kind of system we should be backing? Would it not be a tragedy for this light to be extinguished because America had her head stuck in the sand? Given the volatility of the situation in the Taiwan Strait, any mixed signals by our government can easily be read by the Communist Chinese as complacency. This Congress must erase any doubt as to whether or not we are fully committed to Taiwan, and that is the purpose of this bill. Stability of the entire Asian region is predicated on a balance of power that keeps China in check. This bill stabilizes Taiwan and the Pacific region by strengthening U.S.-Taiwanese cooperation. It also reassures Japan, South Korea, and all of our Asian allies that we will not neglect their best interest under the shadow of a rapidly growing Communist China. Despite countless claims by supposed experts that the People's Republic is not a threat, Chinese intentions to the contrary are very clear. In fact, they have been saber rattling for years. A clear message was sent when China fired missile tests off the coast of Taiwan in 1995 and 1996. Since then a massive Chinese missile and military logistical buildup across the Taiwan Strait has served as a constant threat. Waiting for the next shoe to fall would be a very costly mistake. Ever since the annexation of Hong Kong and Macao, consuming Taiwan has become a pressing goal for the expansionist Communist government in Beijing. To this day the PRC refuses to denounce the use of force in its quest to take back Taiwan. While visiting Washington, D.C. just 6 days ago, a PRC general asserted, and I quote, ``We will never commit ourselves to renouncing the use of force.'' During the 50th anniversary celebrations of Chinese communism, held just last October, a leading reformer in the PRC leadership warned against U.S. support of Taiwan. ``Sooner or later it will lead to an armed resolution of the question,'' he said. And this is from a so- called reformer. Make no mistake about it, this is a gravely serious situation. Considering what is at stake, the cost of American assistance is very minimal. The Taiwanese are not asking us to send troops. They are not asking us to bomb anybody. They simply need strategic military advice, technological expertise, and access to purchase American defense systems so they can defend themselves. Without any more hesitation, U.S. policy must support the continued vitality and security of this thriving nation. Under the TRA, the United States committed to providing defensive capability to Taiwan based on their defense needs. The need is pressing. The time to act on this promise is now. Mr. Speaker, American prestige is on the line in the Taiwan Strait. The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act honors our commitment to stability in Taiwan by increasing cooperation between the U.S. and Taiwanese militaries. It fulfills promises this Congress has already made to Taiwan and reiterates our national agenda of seeking peace through strength. Simply put, this Congress must support democracy in Taiwan. We must honor our commitments in the Far East. Supporting this bill accomplishes these goals.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and especially the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for all the hard work on this very, very important issue. Mr. Speaker, abuse against children is one of the unpardonable sins we must all work to end in this century. This Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act takes a very big step toward making America safer for all of our most vulnerable youngsters. Without question, too many of our young ones are having their innocence stripped away. Two years ago, there were 3 million cases of child abuse and neglect in this country. Today, as I speak, there are at least a half a million American kids in foster care because it is not safe enough for them to live with their own families. At the federal level, we have to help lift these children out of despair while simultaneously giving more flexibility to States to deal with their local concerns. In other words, we must take action and get out of the way and not interfere with the good work that is already taking place. Nationally, billions upon billions of dollars have been spent on child welfare programs, but money is not the solution and one-size- fits-all federal programs often allow too many children to fall through the cracks. Such failure directly translates into trouble for our communities in the future as children with a bad formation predictably make bad choices in life. No one is surprised to learn that there is a correlation between adolescent crime and child abuse. But this is a cycle of trouble we can beat. CAPE is the first step toward this goal. This legislation allows State and local officials to take advantage of existing Byrne law enforcement grants for child abuse prevention work. It also mandates that localities may use Identification Technology Act grants to provide criminal history records to child protection agencies. This bill also now includes Jennifer's Law, a sensible measure that simply makes certain that descriptive case information is reported to the FBI computer database. These measures simply make use of resources that already exist, while cutting out wasteful repetitive action from different agencies at different levels of government. Along with these steps, CAPE also increases the set-aside for child abuse services in the Crime Victims' Fund, all of which comes from non- taxpayer dollars. In short, this bill expands services, cuts red tape and works within already existing programs. It is good for government at the federal level, better for State governments; and, most importantly, it is great for the victims of abuse that it seeks to protect. Just one example of the good work CAPE assists is the Court Appointed Special Advocates, COSA. COSA is a group of volunteers who provide millions of hours of courtroom support for abused children. In Texas alone, these programs save the Federal Government an estimated $80 million a year, at least, all while maximizing support services for children and minimizing their time in foster care. But this is just one program of many that do tremendously good work. Mr. Speaker, there are no lack of ideas in the fight to prevent child abuse and neglect, but many people do not know where to start. Supporting this legislation is a good start.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, during our charitable choice debates on H.R. 3073, The Father's Count Act of 1999, I listened with interest to Mr. Edwards express his reasons why he believes the Constitution and the Founding Fathers would have objected to this Body providing opportunity for all people--including those in the community of faith--to participate equally in government opportunities and services. Mr. Edwards set forth several historical inaccuracies and argued that they should be ``precedents'' to be followed by this Body. Nothing is more certain than that bad history leads to bad policy, and this is certainly true in the case of both the policy and the history set forth by Mr. Edwards. First of all, Mr. Edwards cited James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in support of his church-hostile proposals, and then he argued that these two had framed the Establishment Clause in the Bill of Rights. As historical records clearly prove, Mr. Edwards was wrong. Consider first the role of Thomas Jefferson. During the time that both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and its religion clauses were written and approved, Thomas Jefferson was overseas. He did not arrive in America until after the completion of these documents. In fact, when a biography was written about President Jefferson, Jefferson sent a note to the author requesting that he change or delete one errant claim. Jefferson explained: One passage in the paper you enclosed me must be corrected. It is the following, `And all say it was yourself more than any other individual, that planned and established it,' i.e, the Constitution. I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned, and never saw it till after it was established. Jefferson properly disqualified himself as a constitutional authority since he was not in America when the Constitution was framed and never saw it until after it was finished. Furthermore, according to Mr. Jefferson, his total input on the Bill of Rights amounted to one letter. As Jefferson explained: I wrote [a single letter] strongly urging the want of provision of the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the substitution of militia for a standing army, and an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union. . . . This is all the hand I had in what related to the Constitution. Since Jefferson was neither one of the 55 individuals at the Convention who drafted the Constitution nor one of the 90 members of the First Congress who framed the Bill of Rights, how, then, can he be considered as an authoritative voice on either document, especially in preference to the 145 actual participants who did write that document? Evidently, Mr. Edwards chooses to ignore these important historical facts and he wrongly elevates Mr. Jefferson into a position which Jefferson himself properly refused to accept. Madison, too, similarly disqualified himself--although for different reasons. As he explained to a supporter: You give me a credit to which I have no claim in calling me ``the writer of the Constitution of the United States.'' This was not, like the fabled Goddess of Wisdom, the offspring of a single brain. It ought to be regarded as the work of many heads and many hands. Interestingly, Mr. Madison--while undeniable an important influence during the Constitutional Convention--was often out of step with the majority of the other delegates. This is proven by the fact that 40 of Mr. Madison's 71 proposals offered during the Convention were rejected by the other delegates. Additionally, the Constitution that Mr. Madison initially sought was far removed from the final document. And what was Mr. Madison's influence on the Bill of Rights and the religion clauses of the First Amendment? Significantly, when George Mason proposed at the Constitutional Convention that a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution, it was opposed by Mr. Madison (and on this occasion, Mr. Madison's position prevailed). When the Constitution arrived in Virginia for ratification, the State proposed the addition of a Bill of Rights and Mr. Madison again opposed the motion. This time, however, he lost. Virginia insisted--like many other States--that a Bill of Rights be added; and the Virginia Convention--like many other State conventions-- proposed its own version for a Bill of Rights. The religious protections sent from Virginia to the United States Congress were written not by James Madison but by George Mason, Patrick Henry, and John Randolph. In Congress, Madison introduced his own proposal for a Bill of Rights, but very little of his original language on the religion clauses made it into the final wording. In fact, the records of Congress make clear that Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, John Vining of Delaware, Daniel Carroll and Charles Carroll of Maryland, Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman, and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, William Paterson of New Jersey, and many others exerted a significant influence on the wording of the religion clauses. Why, then, did Mr. Edwards cite Mr. Madison--whose version was not accepted--and fail to cite those who did produce the final wording of the First Amendment? And furthermore, why did Mr. Edwards cite Thomas Jefferson instead of those who actually wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? And why did Mr. Edwards fail to cite individuals like George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, and so many other important men who drafted those documents? Very simply, it is because none of them made any statements which Mr. Edwards could possibly twist and misconstrue into a support for his position. Mr. Edwards does a disservice both to this Body and to the nation by singling out two Founders with whom he agrees and ignoring 144 others with whom he disagrees! This is not to say, however, that Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson were not significant and important Founding Fathers-- they clearly were. However, they were not the only two voices in America on religious issues--there were 144 other Founders who had direct impact on the Constitution and its religion clauses. I was further intrigued by another of Mr. Edwards comments. He declared--and I quote: I think it is time for this House to take a stand in saying that we are not going to compromise the meaning of the Establishment Clause--the first 10 words of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights--not out of disrespect to religion but out of total reverence to religion. The ten words alluded to by Mr. Edwards state--and I quote: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free-exercise thereof.'' Mr. Edwards believes that to allow charitable-choice provisions--that to allow people of faith to participate equally with those of non-faith in government programs and services--would violate the First Amendment! Mr. Edwards evidently believes that the First Amendment requires that the government discriminate against faith. He clearly disagrees with the Supreme Court decision in Zorach v. Clauson which declared: When the State encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities . . . it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. . . . We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence. . . . We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion. Mr. Edwards' reading of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment directly contradicts the interpretation of that Clause given by the Founding Fathers (including Mr. Edwards' two heroes, Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson). Furthermore, Mr. Edwards' reading is opposite of that rendered by legal experts and governmental bodies for a century- and-a-half following the adoption of the Constitution's religion clauses. For example, in 1854, our own House Judiciary Committee conducted an investigation on what constituted ``an establishment of religion'' under the First Amendment. After a year of hearings and investigations, the House Judiciary Committee emphatically reported: What is `an establishment of religion'? It must have a creed defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the nonconformist. There never was an established religion without all these. In 1853, the Senate Judiciary Committee similarly reported: The [First Amendment] speaks of ``an establishment of religion.'' What is meant by that expression? It refer[s] without doubt to. . . . [1] endowment [of a religious group] at the public expense in exclusion of or in preference to any other, [2] giving to its members exclusive political rights, and [3] compelling the attendance of those who rejected its communion upon its worship or religious observances. These three particulars constituted that union of church and state of which our ancestors were so justly jealous, and against which they so wisely and carefully provided. . . . They intended by [the First] Amendment to prohibit `an establishment of religion' such as the English church presented, or anything like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people . . . they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistic apathy. Further confirmation on what the word ``establishment'' meant in the First Amendment is provided by Justice Joseph Story, a legal expert appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison. Justice Story is titled the ``Father of American Jurisprudence,'' and in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States--a work which is still cited regularly in this Body--Justice Story explained: [A]t the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of [the First]Amendment . . ., the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was that . . . [a]n attempt to level all religions and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation if not universal indignation. . . . the real object of the [First] Amendment was . . . to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. The historical sources agree: to have a First Amendment ``establishment of religion'' there must be a single, national ecclesiastical group which has the exclusive support of the federal government; there must be a defined creed with specified rites and ordinances, and national ministers to teach those creeds; there must be exclusive political rights for the members of that religion; and the national government must be able to compel attendance and observance of those rites and impose penalties for those who do not conform. As the House Judiciary Committee properly noted in 1854, ``There never was an established religion without all these.'' Those early legal experts reached their conclusions because of the Founders' succinct declarations made during the framing of the Constitution's religion clauses. For example, according to the Congressional Records, James Madison recommended that the First Amendment say: ``The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.'' Subsequent discussions during the framing of the First Amendment confirm this goal of preventing the establishment of a national religion. For example, the Congressional Record for August 15, 1789, report: Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] . . . feared [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether. . . . [T]he State[s] . . . seemed to entertain an opinion that . . . it enabled [Congress] to . . . establish a national religion. . . . Mr. Madison thought if the word ``national'' was inserted before religion . . . it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent. The records are clear--the purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent the establishment of a national denomination by the federal Congress. The First Amendment was never intended to stifle public religious expressions, nor was it intended to prevent this Body from encouraging religion in general or even in assisting faith institutions. Only in recent years has the meaning of the First Amendment begun to change at the hands of activists like Mr. Edwards who are intolerant of the faith-community. In fact, Mr. Edwards' approbation of the many extremist groups supporting his position (he specifically lists the ACLU, the Baptist Joint Committee, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State) simple confirms the religion-hostile position he is advocating. Is there any group in America more responsible for the current hostility of the courts toward religion than the ACLU? And Mr. Edwards has their support! It was the ACLU which opposed a legislative bill in Arizona that permitted schools to post classic historical documents like George Washington's Farewell Address. Why did the ACLU oppose that measure? Because many official speeches made by our Founding Fathers contain religious references, and the ACLU felt that to expose students to such religious references in our history would violate the ``establishment clause'' of the First Amendment! And it was the ACLU which opposed the legislative effort in California to teach sexual abstinence to students. Why? Because the ACLU claimed that to expose children to this moral teaching would violate the ``establishment clause''! There are scores of other cases which reflect their radical, intolerant, anti- religious agenda. Additionally, the faith-hostile agenda of other groups supporting Mr. Edwards (such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Baptist Joint Committee, etc.) is clearly documented through the legal action they take in courts and in legislatures. And Mr. Edwards is pleased to have their support! Another comment by Mr. Edwards which was of interest to me was his statement that--and I quote: The best way to have religious freedom and respect in America is to build a firewall between government regulations and religion. And that separation, that wall of separation between church and State, has for 200 years worked extraordinarily well. I wish that Mr. Edwards really believed his own statement! If he really thought there should be no government regulations imposed on the church, then he should aggressively pursue repealing the government tax regulations imposed on churches--government regulations which limit a minister's ability to voice his convictions from the pulpit for fear of running afoul of the IRS or some other government body or regulation. And, surely, if Mr. Edwards wants to see churches free from government regulations, he should aggressively pursue exemptions for church bodies from government zoning regulations, from government fire regulations, from government health regulations, from government hiring regulations, from government social-service regulations, and from so many other government regulations which have resulted in literally hundreds of lawsuits brought by the government against churches. Unfortunately, Mr. Edwards' record proves that he does not believe in protecting the faith-community from government regulations--evidenced by his vote against the Religious Freedom Amendment. That Amendment was specifically designed (1) to free the community of faith from government intrusion into their religious expressions and (2) to protect voluntary citizen expressions of faith--including those of students. In opposing that Amendment--an Amendment which would have ended the government regulation of religious expression--Mr. Edwards amazingly declared--and I quote: In my opinion, th[is] Amendment is the worst and most dangerous piece of legislation I have seen in my 15 years in public office. Mr. Edwards actually feels that it is ``dangerous'' to end government regulation of public expressions of faith and to allow students to participate voluntarily in prayer! Another problem with Mr. Edwards' ``firewall'' quote is that it attaches the phrase ``separation of church and state'' to the requirements of the First Amendment. He claims that the ``separation of church and state'' phrase accurately reflects the intent of those who framed the First Amendment. Again, official records prove Mr. Edwards wrong. The entire debates surrounding the framing of the First Amendment are recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789. Over those months, ninety Founding Fathers in the first Congress debated and produced the First Amendment. And those records make one fact exceptionally clear: in months of recorded discussions over the First Amendment, not one of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the Constitution's religion clauses ever mentioned the phrase ``separation of church and state''! It does seem that if this had been their intent, that at least one of them would of said something about it! None did. For this reason, legal scholars committed to historical and constitutional accuracy rather than an activist judicial political agenda have correctly drawn attention to the type of blunder committed by Mr. Edwards. In fact, one judge accurately commented: ``[So] much has been written in recent years . . . to `a wall of separation between church and State.' . . . that one would almost think at times that it is to be found somewhere in our Constitution.'' And Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart similarly observed: ``[T]he metaphor [of] the `wall of separation' is a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution.'' And Chief-Justice William Rehnquist also noted: ``[T]he greatest injury of the `wall' notion is its mischievous diversion . . . from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . The `wall of separation between church and State' is a metaphor based on bad history. . . . It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.'' It is indeed striking that in the century-and-a-half following the adoption of the Constitution, the ``separation of church and state'' rhetoric so heartily embraced by Mr. Edwards was invoked in federal courts less than a dozen times--and on those occasions, the phrase was interpreted to mean that (1) America would establish no national denomination and (2) the federal government would not limit public religious expressions or activities. However, in the last 50 years, the federal courts have cited the ``separation of church and state'' principle in over 3,000 cases in order to allow the federal government to regulate public religious bodies and expressions--in direct opposition to the original intent of the First Amendment! In summary, Mr. Edwards claims that ``separation of church and state'' was the goal of the First Amendment. It was not. Mr. Edwards also claims that Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison would support his view. They would not. However, even if they had, they were only two among the 145 Founders who framed the Constitution and drafted the Bill of Rights. And unless Mr. Edwards can show that a majority of those framing the Constitution and First Amendment support his reading, then the views of two cannot be extrapolated to establish the intent of the entire body, especially when the great majority of those Founders-- according to their own writings and legislative acts--opposed what Mr. Edwards proposes. No Member of this Body should be part of obfuscating the clear, self- evident wording of the Constutition, or misleading the American public by claiming the First Amendment says something it doesn't. We should stick with what the First Amendment actually says rather than what constitutional and historical revisionists like Mr. Edwards wish that it said.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, on an outstanding performance in bringing this bill to the floor and finalizing the budget process. This chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the chairmen of the subcommittees have done an outstanding job. I rise in support of this bill, but more importantly, I rise to set the record straight. The Republican majority in Congress has redefined the way that budgets are crafted. In so doing, we have set the Nation down the path to fiscal responsibility. When I ran for office the first time, I ran because I found a situation where we were running up the debt on my children and my grandchildren and no one wanting to pay down the debt; that we had budgets that ran deficits as far as the eye could see and no one trying to balance the budget; that we had a situation where we raised surpluses in the Social Security Trust Fund so that we could spend the money on big government programs. I ran for office and never really thought that I would be standing before my colleagues today very, very proud of the work of this House over the last 5 years. At this time, it is important for everyone to reflect on how far we have come. When Republicans took control 5 years ago, we pledged that we would change the scope of government; and we are delivering on that promise, going down the line of issues that are important in this country. The fact is unavoidable that this Congress has been an overwhelming success. Even when people would like to rewrite recent history, this is the first time in my 15-year career that we put 13 appropriations bills on the desk of the President. He signed eight of them and vetoed five because there was not enough spending to suit him. We negotiated each bill individually. This is not an omnibus bill. Each bill was negotiated individually, and each authorizing bill that is in this package has been voted on by this House. We have rebuilt our military after years of neglect. We took significant power over education away from the Federal Government, returned it to the States. We tried to cut waste by just suggesting a 1 percent across-the-board cut. Incredibly, the Democrats maintain that a measly 1 percent of waste could not be found in the Federal Government. Well, even the President eventually agreed with us. Now we have an across-the-board spending cut. We have stopped the raid on Social Security. We have balanced the budget for the second time in 50 years without raising a dime of taxes to do it. We are paying down the debt, $99 billion last year. We will, next year, pay $130 billion down on our children's debt. Mr. Speaker, this bill is the last step in a very successful budget season. We have worked hard to balance the budget and pay down the debt without raising taxes or raiding Social Security. The hard work has paid off. Vote for this bill.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong objection and opposition to this amendment. It is amazing to me how people can misinterpret history. Separation of church and state was created in this century by these courts. And, in fact, the courts are moving away from the concept, as outlined by the Members on the other side of the aisle. To claim that our Founding Fathers were for separation of church and State is either rewriting history or being very ignorant of history. So I just rise in strong opposition to the charge that there is this great wall separating this Government from religious influence. There was no such separation when the Nation was founded, and there can be no separation today. George Washington, the father of our country, left no doubt that religion and religious institutions provide indispensable support to our Government. In his farewell speech, President Washington warned that, ``Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.'' John Jay, the original Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, said it is the duty of wise, free, and virtuous governments to ``encourage virtue and religion.'' John Adams, our second President, stated, ``Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.'' John Hancock argued that, ``The very existence of the Republics depend much upon the public institutions of religion.'' Time after time, the founders implored the influence of religion in public affairs. This amendment tries to forbid the exact same influence that the Founding Fathers thought so necessary. Those who argue for an absolute separation of church and State like to quote Thomas Jefferson as he has been quoted here many times and they quote him all over the place, but they leave out a few details. For example, while he was President of the United States, Jefferson supported the appropriation of Federal funds to pay for Christian missionaries to Indians. That is right. As President, Thomas Jefferson provided cash support from the government to pay for missionaries and actually built a church building with government money. The point is very clear. All of these great men had a profound impact on the creation of this Republic, and their words add essential insight into the original intent of the Constitution. This bill we are debating deals with fatherhood programs and charitable organizations. Despite the precedence set by the Founders, this amendment tries to build a wall between virtue and its source, religious principle. Mr. Chairman, America has always been one Nation under God. The Constitution and religion have never been mutually exclusive. As the founders set forth, it is simply impossible and it is unwise to try to separate people and their government from religion. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bad amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, it is almost Halloween, and the Democrats are up to their usual tricks in search of the big government treats. Like all our appropriations bills, this conference report funds many very significant programs sufficiently while maintaining a balanced budget. But despite all the good qualities of this legislation, it is being opposed. Now, I hear a lot of rhetoric about getting down to business from the other side of the aisle. One Member after the other walks up to the podium and accuses the Republicans of partisanship. Well, I have a message for the Democrats. Stopping the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund is not a partisan issue. The Republicans want to ensure that every penny of the Social Security Trust Fund goes to those who paid into the fund. Today, with this vote, the Democrats will have the opportunity to join us in this battle. But it seems very clear that many Democrats are going to turn their backs on this historic opportunity in voting ``no'' on this bill. When these individuals vote ``no'' in the coming minutes, they are telling their constituents in no uncertain terms that they are willing to raid the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for big government programs. Why will the Democrats vote to raid the Social Security Trust Fund? The answer is very simple. Because above all else Democrats want to increase Federal spending. They have continually said that the taxes that Americans pay to the Federal Government are not enough to fund their programs. Now they are saying that they need to take those tax dollars and the Social Security money to pay for these programs. Today, the Republicans are saying in one very clear voice that we will keep our hands off the Social Security Trust Fund. The Republicans know how important it is to secure the trust fund, and we have a plan to do it.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. I think fighting crime is serious business and this legislation works to make America safer. I want to commend the two gentlemen, the ranking member and the chairman, for working together in the manner that the process is supposed to work, in working together, fashioning a bill and bringing it down without any politics involved. Among many other provisions in this bill, there are very strong commitments to local law enforcement, juvenile crime prevention, the Drug Enforcement Agency and truth-in-sentencing programs. Important priorities are funded and the entire package keeps the budget in balance and does not spend a dime of the Social Security surplus. This is a good bill. But it does not silence the critics of common sense who want to increase spending on everything. No matter how much funding we provide in this bill, there are always screams from the left that too much is not enough. This sophistry coming from the other side of the aisle must come to an end. The Democrats go on and on with a line of reasoning and they do not stop for anything except the truth as revealed by the facts and the bills that we are actually passing. They refer to press reports as if press are the gospel, as if you read something in the press and it is true. I have found the Washington press have yet to get it right. They use assumptions on spending that we are not doing and claim that we are spending the Social Security surplus. They say that they want more spending and they are willing to pay for it by making the tough choices. Well, that is the old shell game of tax and spend. When they say tough choices, that means increased taxes and they want more spending and they will pay for it with increased taxes. When the Democrats were in control, they spent every dime of the Social Security surplus on government programs for over 40 years. When the Democrats were in control of this place, they never passed a balanced budget. Yet we are to believe all their Washington press reports and their specious figures. This is not a fantasy debate. A balanced budget for 2 years in a row is not a fantasy. Paying down the debt now for 3 years in a row is not a fantasy. Locking up the Social Security surplus for 2 years in a row is not a fantasy. It is very real. The problem is their arguments are all wrong despite the evidence to the contrary. They maintain that the Republican budget plan is irresponsible. Actually the opposite is true. I think it is very responsible to balance the budget without raiding Social Security and increasing taxes. The Democrats cannot make such claims, so they attack the budget with specious arguments. The trend is clear. We pass bills and the President vetoes them because he wants more spending. But there are only three ways to maintain a balanced budget and pay for the President's big spending programs. We are not going to raid Social Security, we are not going to raise taxes, so he will have to find cuts in the budget to spend more money. That is what we are doing. Vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman bringing this resolution to show the truth to the American people, the real truth in real terms, not the numbers that we just heard that are not real numbers. They are concocted numbers by the Democrats because they have nothing to offer except higher taxes and more spending and they want to spend the Social Security surplus. The President himself at the first of this year said that he wanted to spend 40 percent of the Social Security surplus. In the last few days he has come off of that. That is good. We welcome the President coming our way. But he will not come off of his new taxes. He has schemes to raise new taxes that we just heard. They either call them offsets or tough choices. Not surprisingly, the President wants to increase spending. So the administration has concocted a laundry list of new taxes and user fees of all kinds to cover some of it. Tough choices, they say. This taxing and spending has to stop. The American people want it stopped. Tough decisions need to be made to restrain spending, not increase it. The demagogues on the left, Mr. Speaker, always like to claim that Republican legislation hurts the poor, but overtaxation is one of the main factors that prevents the working poor from moving up. We must not add to the burden already on the backs of working Americans. We have surpluses. Can we not restrain ourselves to just spend the surpluses? But that is not good enough. They want more spending, above the surpluses, and they want to raise taxes to pay for it. Surpluses mean overtaxation. That means the American people are paying more than we need to run the government. Mr. Speaker, Americans need tax cuts, not tax hikes. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against these outrageous tax increases on the American people.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I think we are starting to see what is going to be going on in the heat that will be turned up in this cool fall in Washington, D.C. The President is vetoing bills because they do not spend enough. There is simply no other explanation for his action. He wants more money. Some had said he wanted $2 billion, he wanted $4 billion more. According to the White House, the President is vetoing this bill because he thinks there is not enough spending in it. According to the White House, $12.6 billion is not enough money; but if this is not enough, I only have one simple question: Where does the President think more money will come from? Day after day, the President walks up to the television cameras and says that tough choices need to be made, but then all he suggests is skyrocketing spending increases. That is not a tough choice. That is the easy way out. Times have changed here in Washington. Even the President claimed not so long ago that the era of big government was over. If this is true, the tough budget decisions that need to be made must be to restrain spending, not increase it. Money does not just fall from the trees. It is not the President's money. There are only two ways to maintain a balanced budget, three ways actually, and pay for the President's big government spending increases. He can either raise taxes, and I can say unequivocally this House is not going to raise taxes for more government spending. The President can raid Social Security surpluses. We are not going to do that. Even the President says he does not want to do that. There is only one other way he could get more spending increases, and that is to find cuts in other parts of the budget. Frankly, if the leadership goes down to the White House tomorrow I think the message is going to be, ``Mr. President, we are not spending one dime of the Social Security surplus. Mr. President, we are not going to raise taxes for more government spending. Mr. President, if you want more spending, then tell us how to pay for it. Where are you going to cut it from? Where are you going to move money around? How are you going to pay for it?'' All he said in his veto message was there is just not enough spending. He wants more spending. Now, the President vetoed this bill and he said that he wants a whopping 30 percent increase in foreign aid. Make no mistake about it, every dime of this increase, without offsets and cuts in other spending come directly out of the Social Security surplus. I think this is so shortsighted. Raiding tomorrow's generations to cover the excesses of today robs America of its future. The Republican budget plan is committed to balancing the budget without raiding Social Security or raising taxes to do it, and we can say it over and over until we turn blue in the face. The President says we are already into the Social Security surplus. That is another Clintonism, Mr. Speaker. We are not into the Social Security surplus. They get a CBO letter that uses false assumptions that we are not doing, and they wave the letter around saying we are spending the Social Security surplus. We are not there. This House is not going to raise taxes. Mr. Speaker, the budget will not balance itself. We in Congress are working very hard and making the responsible decisions for the future of America. All they are doing at the White House is throwing mud and hopes it sticks.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I too want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for bringing this very important piece of legislation to the floor, and I particularly want to thank the two gentlewomen from Ohio for all the hard work in putting this together; but I particularly want to thank one of my staff members, Autumn Hannah, whose tireless work and her work in raising the visibility of the abused and neglected children in this country has been so exemplary, and we greatly appreciate all her hard work. Mr. Chairman, abuse against children is one of the unpardonable sins we must all work to end in this country. The Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act takes a big step towards making America safer for all of our most vulnerable youngsters. There is no topic more important and no issue more pressing than the welfare of our Nation's children. But for far too long the tragedy of abuse has been swept under the rug. The result is that the culture of abuse continues because we, as a Nation, have at times been afraid to admit our own failings. It is time for the silence to end. It is time for the years of relative inactivity to be turned into humane action. After all, the health of a society is easily reflected in how it treats its most vulnerable. Today, too many of our young ones are having their innocence stripped away. Two years ago there were three million cases of child abuse and neglect in this country. Today, as I speak, there are at least a half a million American kids in foster care because it is not safe enough for them to live with their own families. These numbers are as staggering as they are hard to comprehend. The sheer sadness that poisons so many little lives must move us all to action. There are many ways that we can help, though the task is complicated. At the Federal level we have to help lift our children out of despair while simultaneously giving more flexibility to States to deal with their own local concerns. In other words, we must take action and get out of the way and not interfere with the good work that is already taking place. Nationally, billions upon billions of dollars have been spent on child welfare programs, but this is not just a question of dollars and cents because it would be worth every dime if money was the solution to ending abuse and neglect. But money is not the solution, and a one- size-fits all Federal program often allows too many children to fall through the cracks. Such failure directly translates into trouble for our communities in the future as children with a bad formation predictably make bad choices in life. No one is surprised to learn that there is a correlation between adolescent crime and child abuse, but this is a cycle of trouble that we can beat. CAPE is the first step towards that goal. This legislation allows State and local officials to take advantage of existing Byrne law enforcement grants for child prevention work. It also allows localities to use the identification technology act to provide criminal history records to child protection agencies. These measures simply make use of resources that already exist while cutting out wasteful repetitive action from different agencies and different levels of government. Along with these steps, CAPE also increases the set-aside for child abuse services and the crime victim fund, all of which comes from nontaxpayer dollars. In short, this bill expands services, cuts red tape, and works within already existing programs. It is good for government at the Federal level, better for State governments and most importantly, it is great for victims of abuse that it seeks to protect. Just one example of the good work CAPE assists is the court-appointed special advocate, a group of volunteers who provide millions of hours to have courtroom support for abused children. In Texas alone, these programs save the Federal Government an estimated $80 million a year at least, all while maximizing support services for children and minimizing their time in foster care, but this is just one program of so many. The point is that there are no shortage of ways and no lack of ideas in the fight to prevent child abuse and neglect; there is only a lack of involvement. Mr. Chairman, too many Americans sit on their hands idly while others raise their hands in silence; but in most cases, Mr. Chairman, people simply do not know how they can make a difference in the lives of children. One easy way is to support this legislation.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, during August the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget tried to write a Republican budget, and he made certain assumptions that the Republicans are not going to do. He sent a letter to the Congressional Budget Office asking if we would spend the Social Security surplus under his Democrat-written Republican budget. Well, of course the CBO wrote back that under that budget, the Social Security surplus would be spent. They cannot even write a Republican budget. The budget that we sent to the CBO that we are actually going to pass in this House and send to the President was sent to the CBO yesterday, and here is the letter back to the Speaker, Mr. Speaker, that says, ``CBO estimates that this spending plan will not use any of the projected Social Security surplus in fiscal year 2000.'' So, media, listen up. Why do you not get it right? At least comment on the plan that the Republicans are putting before the House and the Senate and the CBO numbers that reflect that plan.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor a man whose dedication and commitment to his community should not go unnoticed. Today, September 22, 1999, marks the 50th anniversary of Hilmar Moore's continuous service as the mayor of Richmond, TX. The mayor's term is a unique one in Texas and the Nation's history. Mayor Hilmar Moore was appointed to serve an unexpired term for Richmond, TX, on September 22, 1949. Since then he has unselfishly served for the advancement of the community. Mayor Moore has deep- seeded Texas roots. He is descended from several of Stephen F. Austin's original colonists who settled Texas. In fact, Mayor Moore is a life member of the Sons of the Republic of Texas. His family's strong commitment to community has lasted generations and many have served in State and local governments. From 1970 to the present, the mayor has been and continues to be, a leader in the livestock community. He has served on the Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association as second vice president, first vice president, and president from 1974-76. He has served on the Beef industry Council of Meat Board as vice chairman from 1979-81 and as chairman from 1981-83. In 1983-84, Mayor Moore served as treasurer of the National Livestock and Meat Board and in 1984-85 as chairman-elect. Also, in 1985, he was named Trustee Emeritus of the Gulf Coast Conservation Association. Mayor Moore has received numerous awards and recognitions from the National Livestock and Meat Board Association, Texas Brahman Breeders Association, and the Golden Spur Award. Presently, along with his mayoral duties Hilmar Moore is the director of the King Ranch. I wish to extend to Mayor Hilmar Moore my heartfelt congratulations and I know my colleagues here in the U.S. House of Representatives do so as well. It will be a pleasure to continue working with him for the improvement of the city of Richmond and the Fort Bend community.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. It also proves that Shays-Meehan is nothing more than incumbent protection. Mr. Chairman, it continues to amaze me that Members of Congress, newspapers and ``senior scholars'' continue to advocate limiting free speech and prohibiting citizens from criticizing government officials and incumbents in the name of ``campaign reform.'' The first amendment, America's premier political reform, was not written for pornographers or flag burners. It was drafted to allow citizens to petition and criticize their government. But Shays-Meehan would stifle free speech and end criticism of elected officials at critical stages of the election process. Make no mistake about it. Shays-Meehan guts the first amendment, threatens citizen participation in the political process, and ends the ability of citizen groups to educate the public unless they file bureaucratic paperwork with the Federal Government. All things considered, this is the mother of all government regulation, because it attempts to control the political process and limits freedom just to protect incumbents. The Shays-Meehan bill will erect a Byzantine set of laws and over 275 new government regulations that will gag citizens' speech. These attacks on issue advocacy through statute and regulation have repeatedly been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and other lower Federal courts. The high Court has always viewed issue advocacy as a form of speech that deserves the very highest degree of protection under the first amendment. That Court has not only been supportive of issue advocacy, it is untroubled by the fact that issue advertisements may influence the outcome of elections. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Justices stated, and I quote, ``the first amendment denies government the power to determine that spending to promote one's political views is wasteful, excessive or unwise.'' The Court continues to state that it is the people, individually and collectively, some people call them special interests, but they are people, they are American citizens, individually and collectively in associations and committees who should retain control of the debate. Some try to argue that free speech is not an issue here. But the free speech implications of the legislation are very clear. For example, Shays-Meehan supporter and House minority leader Richard Gephardt has said that we cannot have both freedom of speech and healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy. Mr. Chairman, we must have both. Freedom and reform are not mutually exclusive principles. Shays-Meehan gives us neither. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' against Shays-Meehan.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman would yield, I never said that.

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will prevent the burdensome restrictions and regulations in Shays-Meehan from applying to the Internet. Shays- Meehan will impose unprecedented free speech restrictions and discussions on the Internet. Chat rooms, e-mail and personal Web pages will all be regulated by the Federal Government if Shays-Meehan, as drafted, becomes law. I want to take a minute to show my colleagues how overreaching some of these restrictions are. This Web site right here was created by an anonymous, private person who supports the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader. The purpose of this site is to tell other people why Dick Gephardt and other Democrats are good people. Simply put, this private citizen is exercising his first amendment rights to communicate. But under Shays-Meehan, this site would violate the law. First of all, the site clearly falls within the broad and burdensome express advocacy definition in Shays. Second, this person does not disclose their name and address, which Shays-Meehan would require. And third, the person has not submitted proper information to the FEC concerning the independent expenditure. Now I want my colleagues to look at this Web site. This is the Nazi Party home page that freely distributes its hate and its filth across the Web. Under Shays-Meehan, this site is not regulated. These hate mongers can distribute their opinions under the protection of the first amendment without regulation. Now I find it very disturbing that an informational site like this private citizen who supports the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) will be regulated while this Nazi Web site can freely distribute its filth. What is the sense in this legislation? The Internet is a medium that allows individuals to engage in political discourse without regulation. I believe we should encourage this dialogue, not discourage it through burdensome regulations. Citizens should not be forced to register their Web sites with the Federal Government, and my amendment protects the rights of individuals who want to engage in political communication on the Internet. Even Democrat FEC Commissioner Karl Sandstrom supports this approach, stating that the best remedy for questionable information is more information, and our goal should be to encourage, not discourage, this new form of political participation. So, Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more. We must defend the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the burdensome Internet restrictions in Shays-Meehan and support this free speech amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeLAY. Absolutely not. I am for free speech, and I want open and free speech.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, first of all, I think it is a specious argument because I do not know how we would require the Chinese to file with the FEC, number one; and it just points out how when we seek regulating free speech, how complicated it can get.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in introducing the chairman of the Internet Caucus, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), I would just say the Internet is pure free speech. That is what makes it a powerful force for freedom around the world and here in the United States. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I think we just heard what this is all about. This is about more regulation of free speech and, at the end of the last speaker's remarks, taxpayer-funded elections. That is where we are headed when you regulate free speech and regulate the people's right to participate in the political system. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this substitute legislation. We simply cannot allow the participation of Americans in our democracy to be limited. We have an important choice today, a choice to either encourage participation in our political system or a choice to limit it. We can either choose to uphold the first amendment which guarantees our citizens the right to free speech, or we can choose to infringe upon this right. Now, some of the rhetoric on the other side might sound good, but we must not allow those who support Shays-Meehan to fool us. In short, the Shays-Meehan bill restricts the democratic process by placing unfair regulations on those willing and able to compete as candidates and as their supporters. While accountability in fund-raising is necessary, we must be sure that we do not limit the ability of those who want to compete through fair and worthy avenues to do so. The Doolittle substitute will instill this accountability. Among other things, the Doolittle substitute institutes new filing requirements and mandates that the Federal Election Commission post all campaign reports on the Internet. After all, what reform can restore accountability more than an open book? Simply put, freedom works. Only those supporting Shays-Meehan would think that freedom is a step backwards. The important responsibility of this body is to protect freedom, not take it away. Mr. Chairman, Congress must work to reform, not restrict, the political process. We must encourage, not limit, our citizens' ability to participate in the political system. I urge my colleagues to vote for fairness, vote for freedom in our political system by supporting this substitute.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and the bill. I want to give my heartfelt thanks to the chairman of the subcommittee for all the hard work under very difficult circumstances that he has done on this bill and finally crafting a bill that maintains a strategy of fiscal responsibility that the majority has been on the path of for all this summer. I also want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the full committee, who has been working so hard to carry out a strategy that was laid out by the Speaker of the House early in this year. That strategy was basically that we would lock up Social Security and not spend one dime of the Social Security surplus, unlike the Democrats for so many years has taken the surplus to spend on bigger government; that we would maintain the balanced budget that we brought because of a Republican Congress in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997; and we would work as hard as we could to stay under the budget cap. We have been able to do that so far through this bill. Now I wish the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) was still here, because I am standing here challenging him, as he asked me to do when he made the comment that, with this bill, we are breaking the cap and spending Social Security. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If we just can add, we take all of the 11 bills after this bill is passed and add them up, we are actually cutting spending from last year, real cuts to real spending, something the Democrat Congress has not been able to do in my lifetime. Real cuts and real spending. Now, we did make a mistake in 1997, and I am here to admit it. In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we did not contemplate and did not put in the money to do the census, and we have to deal with that. But in declaring this an emergency, we do not break the cap, although, if someone votes to remove the emergency designation, they will be voting to break the cap. What we did was we are spending the on-budget surplus, not Social Security surplus, the on-budget surplus of $4.5 billion. That is reality. That is the real thing that we are doing here. Now, the underlying reality here is that the Democrats, the do- nothing Democrats, because we know what their strategy is, they are trying to make sure we do nothing and trying to stop all of the good things that we have been able to do this year. They want to spend more money. They are crying out to spend more money. The administration has already put out four statements of administration policies saying that the appropriations bills that we have been passing are too low in spending. The other side of the aisle, Members have been here during this debate saying there is not enough spending, there is not enough spending. They want to break the cap. They want to spend Social Security surplus. They want more spending. That has been their legacy for nigh on these 30 or 40 years. They want to spend more money. We are keeping fiscal responsibility. We are keeping the balanced budget. We are not going to spend one dime of the Social Security surplus. Overall, there is only one essential thing to remember about this situation. If my colleagues vote to defeat this rule or offer an amendment that undermines this rule, they are collaborating with the forces for increased spending. Vote for the rule and vote for the bill.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I too want to offer my sympathies to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the Mollohan family. I know the loss of a father leaves a very deep hole, and we all feel very sympathetic to the gentleman and his family. Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this bill. I understand why this bill comes, but my colleagues, I was raised in the oil fields. My daddy was a drilling contractor. We went through many ups and downs in the economy in the oil and gas industry. I come from Houston, Texas, the capital of the oil and gas industry in the world, and I am telling my colleagues this is a horrible policy. This is a horrible policy. We just went through a depression in the oil and gas industry in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and we got through it. Sure, there were a lot of people that lost their jobs, but I have to tell my colleagues that the oil and gas industry got through that deep depression and they are stronger for it today. They are stronger for it today. When this bill was first conceived, oil was at $8, $10 a barrel, West Texas crude is up to $20 to $21 a barrel. The oil and gas industry does not need the government fooling around with their market by suggesting that loan guarantees will somehow save all the jobs and save the oil and gas industry. They do not need this. My daddy would be turning over in his grave today, because I can remember my entire life, every night at 6 o'clock around the dinner table how much he would gripe about how the government was constantly interfering in the oil and gas industry and stopping us from developing the kind of industry that we needed for our national security. They do not want this, they do not need this, and I hope that my colleagues will defeat it.