Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to vacate the time allotted to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and take it myself.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to set the record straight. The President of the United States was in Chicago today taking all kinds of credit for the successes of the Welfare Reform Act that was passed by this Congress and signed by the President. This President has taken a lot of credit for a lot of things over the last few years, particularly over the years that the Republicans had maintained a majority of this Congress. Frankly, Madam Speaker, I have had just enough. This President, Madam Speaker, has not initiated one thing, one piece of legislation that he takes credit for. I will grant him that he finally signed many of the pieces of the legislation, but he has not lifted one finger to pass any of this legislation that he takes credit for through this Congress. There should be no mistake about it, the well-documented success of welfare reform is the work of the Republican majority in this Congress. Back in 1994, Republicans campaigned on a plan that included comprehensive welfare reform. The Contract With America put Republicans in control of Congress, and we delivered on our agenda. History should not be rewritten. The President and the Democrats in Congress fought Republicans tooth and nail on welfare reform. And, frankly, Madam Speaker, the debate was not very civil. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle charged that Republicans wanted to kick desperate people out on the street to fend for themselves. Our opponents on welfare reform screamed that the Republicans would be responsible for countless starving people in this country. Our opponents maintained that reforming welfare would create an unmitigated social disaster. Well, it is time to set the record straight. Americans are not starving due to the Republican insistence for welfare reform. Americans are not sleeping on park benches due to Republican insistence on welfare reform. And without question, there have been no social upheavals of any kind as a result of the Republicans' insistence to reform welfare. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The results of Republican welfare reform have been so incredible that President Clinton has typically been taking credit for the success, despite the fact that he vetoed welfare reform twice before reluctantly signing it into law. That is right, President Clinton vetoed welfare reform not once but twice, and now he is trumpeting the success on his own and traveling around the country claiming all this success as being his success, his idea, his initiative. Well, this tactic is nothing new. We are used to it. We have been used to it for 4\1/2\ years now. Republicans are accustomed to working hard to initiate commonsense reforms that the Democrats oppose only to watch Democrats adopt these ideas after they succeed. Democrats even tried to take credit for the budget surplus, even though everyone knows that it was the Republicans in Congress who rammed the balanced budget agreement through 2 years ago. But the American people know better. The American people understand what separates the Republican philosophy from the Democrat philosophy. The Republican philosophy wants the government to do more with less. The Republican philosophy seeks to empower communities with more local control by freeing them from the restraints of big government spending in Washington. And the Republican philosophy places ultimate trust in the individual, who, in most cases, will succeed if he is cut free from the chain of dependence. This stands in stark contrast to the big government philosophy of the liberal Democrats. They do not trust the strength and dedication of the average American. The Democrats do not think that individuals can succeed without the government holding their hands all throughout their life. Well, the record speaks for itself, Madam Speaker. In the 3 years since welfare reform was passed, over 12 million Americans have moved from welfare to work. That is 12 million Americans who have moved from dependency and despondency to independence and dignity. By December of last year, welfare rolls had dropped by 45 percent. And that is a national average. Many of the States have much higher success rates. For example, caseloads are down by 81 percent in Idaho and over 70 percent in Wisconsin. And this is very important. Child poverty rates and overall poverty rates have declined every year since welfare was reformed. Beyond any doubt, these facts show that hope for those on welfare is found in more personal responsibility not more government bureaucracy. So, Madam Speaker, the spirit of the American people is based on the freedom that comes from hard work and combating the odds. From the beginning of this Nation, Americans of all walks of life have fought uphill battles and won. The Republicans in Congress believe in the American spirit, and that is why we fought so hard to reform welfare reform and we should have the credit. The President has no right to take credit. When the going gets tough, the tough get going, and the Republican Congress is responsible for welfare reform, not the President of the United States.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. I think OSHA should not be trying to tie down American businesses and the American worker with regulations based on potentially unsound science. The gentleman from California said we should be doing what is right. Well, Mr. Chairman, how does he know what is right, because what we are wanting is a study, a pure scientific study, not some conjecture, not something that has been cooked up by some politico sitting over in OSHA or the Department of Labor, real science. The gentleman listed all kinds of wonderful things that are happening for the workers out there. Most of what is happening, in order to work with repetitive action, is happening within the marketplace without regulations. I am not saying we should not regulate, but we should know what we are doing and have a study and rely on these studies in order to know what we are doing, because if we do not, we end up costing these same workers their jobs. Last fall, President Clinton agreed with this Congress to authorize a study by the National Academy of Sciences to determine whether there is a need for some ergonomic regulation. I guess to the President and his OSHA, that agreement with this Congress is no good anymore, that his word is no good anymore. This study will be done in a year or so. Despite this sincere effort to guarantee that regulations are at least based on sound science, OSHA has decided that it does not want to wait for the scientific findings. Why, do you ask, do they not want to wait? It is amazing to me that the workers or the unions would be against this bill because it is to the benefit of the workers to do what is right and what science dictates. No, this is a political move by Washington union bosses in order to control the marketplace. That is all this is about. It has nothing to do with protecting the workers, because if they truly wanted to protect the workers, they would want to do it based on sound science. OSHA wants to regulate as much as it can as soon as possible, and they are planning to do so, in direct contradiction to the will of this body. Mr. Chairman, burdensome regulations already hinder American businesses and American workers. Too many of these regulations are outdated, they have been unnecessarily oppressive or they are just simply based on trendy but unproven scientific theories of the moment. It is amazing, when the bureaucrats have taken this approach, and many times are proven to be embarrassed by the approach that they take because in actual practice, the regulations are undermined and proven to be onerous and unproductive. Irresponsible regulation of this kind hurts American companies and the workers that they employ. Despite the excessive regulatory zeal of OSHA, it should be the policy of the United States to research before we regulate, and this is all that this legislation does, it mandates that OSHA must wait until the ergonomic research is completed by NAS before it starts sticking its fingers deeper into American business. It is age-old advice, Mr. Chairman, to look before you leap. Likewise, government must research before it regulates. So, Mr. Chairman, there is simply no consensus in the scientific community regarding the need to implement widespread, oppressive ergonomic policies. No new OSHA regulation should be enforced until conclusive research shows actions should be taken. But that time has not yet come, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Smith-Barcia amendment. Under no circumstances, under no circumstances should American taxpayers underwrite pro-abortion activities in foreign countries. Today an increasing number of Americans are growing weary of the abortion on demand policy in our land. There is a growing sense that this practice has hardened our hearts and torn the very moral fabric of this great Nation in two. After almost three decades, American attitudes towards abortion are becoming less permissive. In fact, a recent survey for the Center for Gender Equality showed that 53 percent of American women believe that abortion should be illegal under all circumstances, or allowed only in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. That is up 8 percent from only 2 years ago. During this time, when American views on abortion are changing so drastically, it should not be the policy of the United States to undermine abortion laws in other countries. Over the last 6 years, the U.S. Government has provided over $3 billion of taxpayer money to population control organizations overseas. Many of these groups are the largest abortion providers and promoters in the world. This amendment does not cut population control funding to these organizations by one cent, even though many of us would like to do so. This amendment simply prohibits American aid from going to groups that violate existing foreign abortion laws, or lobby to change the laws in approximately 100 countries that currently restrict that practice. Mr. Chairman, in a Nation founded on freedom, we must continue to trumpet the reality that all of our rights add up to nothing if we do not protect the most important of them all, the right to be born. While we are struggling with this truth at home, we definitely should not be undermining abortion laws abroad. I just urge my colleagues to support the Smith-Barcia amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this is a proud day for me, particularly to watch one of my heroes, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), who is Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, to bring such a great bill to this floor, that shines on his ability and his strong, strong advocacy that the American family should keep more of the hard-earned money that they make. It is just really a pleasure to be on the floor with the chairman and we greatly appreciate him bringing this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this substitute tax amendment. The average American family needs tax relief, not a tax increase. Overall, this substitute raises taxes. They are so unaccustomed to cutting taxes that the do-nothing Democrats cannot even write a tax bill that cuts only taxes, they have to raise taxes. The Joint Committee on Taxation has determined that this do-nothing Democrat amendment would actually increase taxes by $4 million. Amazing. This tax burden means that working Americans are forced to spend more time at work and less time with their families just to pay the government tab. Typically, the average American family today pays more in taxes per year than it spends on food, clothing and shelter combined, combined. That is flatly outrageous; and we want to change it, because the Republicans think that the government should do more with less. Republicans think that American families need relief from overtaxation, but typically our opponents kick and scream and charge that it is irresponsible to return money to those who earned it in the first place. They want to spend the American families' money. I think we should look back at the past a little bit to recall how responsible the Democrats were when they were in the majority. Today, Republicans are proposing tax cuts, but when the Democrats were in the majority, we had nothing but tax increases. Today, Republicans have forced a balanced budget; but when the Democrats were in the majority, we had nothing but deficits as far as the eye could see. Today, Republicans are locking up every dime of Social Security taxes in a lockbox. But when the Democrats were in the majority, every cent of those Social Security taxes were spent every year on new big- government programs. Simply put: The claim that the Democrats can be fiscally responsible just does not correspond to the reality of history, and the American people know it. Today, the do-nothing Democrats are offering a plan that has some very narrow and some very targeted tax cuts, but even these are contingent on special reforms on Social Security and Medicare, reforms which they have not even presented a plan for. Their alleged tax cuts will never happen because they tie them to legislation that they know does not and will not exist. The Democrats are big-government addicts. They just cannot break the old habit of tax and spend. Overall, their tax plan raises taxes, raises taxes, while the Republican plan gives money back to every, every, American family. The time has come to say enough is enough, America. Americans deserve tax relief, and we are going to start giving it to them today. Mr. Speaker, even when they try to come up with a tax cut bill, the Democrats end up raising taxes. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this substitute.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 329, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, our Founding Fathers recognized that restricting the free exchange of ideas in the political arena is the tool of tyranny. The First Amendment ensures that a free exchange of ideas, not the forceful will of the government, will always dominate the political landscape. Currently, there are those who would obliterate the First Amendment in the name of ``campaign finance reform.'' Reforming our campaign finance system by limiting the ability of individuals and groups to express their views on issues and candidates is like trying to make a car run better by removing the engine. Time and time again, the Courts have held that the First Amendment protects the right of individuals and groups to speak freely about issues and candidates, free from the heavy hand of government regulation and restrictions. The American people do not need government speech police dictating what, where, when and how they can speak about issues that are important to them. the ``big brother'' reforms that are being proposed will trample on the fundamental rights of individuals in order to protect the interests of incumbent politicians. I commend the following piece by Mr. James Bopp, published by the Heritage Foundation, to my colleagues' attention. Mr. Bopp clearly explains the need for true reform that is constitutional and strengthens, rather than destroys, the ability of the American people to have a voice in their government. [From the Heritage Foundation, July 19, 1999] Campaign Finance ``Reform'': The Good, the Bad, and the Unconstitutional (By James Bopp, Jr.) Campaign finance reform soon will be debated in the U.S. Senate. The problems with the current campaign financing system that are identified by the most vocal reformers, however, are not real problems for Americans who want more of a say in who is elected and what policies public officials pursue. And although incumbent officeholders in Washington, D.C., may feel threatened by negative advertising and want to manipulate the campaign rules to their advantage, this does not justify imposing further restrictions on the freedom of speech and association. The U.S. Supreme Court already has addressed the remedies proposed by the ``reformers'' and found them unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court and numerous federal courts following it have struck down almost all laws that attempt to restrict campaign spending or campaign advertising by individuals or organizations (including corporations, unions, political action committees [PACs], and political parties). Pursuant to the First Amendment, the Supreme Court limits the regulation of political expression to a very narrow class of speech: explicit or express words advocating the election or defeat of clearly identified candidates--such as ``vote for'' or ``elect.'' But not every type of express or explicit appeal for votes is subject to regulation. For example, the Supreme Court has held that: A political candidate has an absolute First Amendment right to spend an unlimited amount of his own money expressly advocating his own election (unless he voluntarily waives that right in order to receive public financing). Individuals and organizations also have an absolute First Amendment right to spend an unlimited amount of their own money expressly advocating the election or defeat of particular candidates so long as there is no coordination between the individual or organization and the candidates. And governments may not presume that there is coordination under certain scenarios--unless there really is some. In addition, all other election-related speech that discusses candidates and issues (including their voting records or positions) but does not explicitly call for the election or defeat of particular candidates is protected as ``issue advocacy.'' Although it undoubtedly influences elections, issue advocacy is absolutely protected from regulation by the First Amendment. Consequently, ``reforms'' that attempt to redefine ``express advocacy'' to include types of issue advocacy, or to create new categories of speech subject to regulation, or that effectively would ban issue advocacy by corporations and labor unions are doomed to a court-ordered funeral. So is legislation that effectively would require any group engaging in issue advocacy to register and report as a PAC or that would impose burdensome disclosure requirements on issue advocacy. Political parties enjoy the same unfettered right to receive contributions for and to engage in issue advocacy. And there are even fewer reasons to fear their exercise of this important right because political parties have an interest in a broader array of issues than narrow interest groups do, and their donors know they exist to advance those issues. The Supreme Court also has found that proposed bans on political parties receiving and spending soft money cannot be justified on the ground that it might prevent corruption. Instead, the Supreme Court has determined such a goal is insufficient to restrict the discussion of candidates and their positions on issues. To adopt true reform, Congress first needs to recognize that today's perceived abuses are simply the predictable result of past ``reforms'' in which the suppression of free speech was the principal focus. Today's complex laws cause wasteful distortions in the electoral process and lessen transparency and public accountability. There are, however, constitutional measures that would correct these flaws. Specifically, raising or eliminating contribution limits, which have been eroded by inflation, would allow elected officials to concentrate more on their public duties than on raising funds, make the flow of campaign money more transparent, and improve public accountability. And removing barriers that prevent political parties from exercising a moderating influence on political campaigns would serve to reduce the weight of narrow interests. These reforms would encourage more direct citizen participation in campaigns, thereby reducing the incentive for indirect involvement through independent expenditures and issue advocacy. Such true reforms not only are constitutional, but they also reinforce the sovereignty of the people over government officials and decrease the threat of corruption by making it more likely that any influence will be exposed. Bearing this in mind, Congress should not rush to pass measures that would cause uncertainty in the short run and inevitably be struck down as unconstitutional. Because Members of Congress take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, they should pay special attention in the legislative process to any constitutional defects in pending legislation. Congress should not try to challenge the Supreme Court's rulings on the First Amendment, especially when the people's freedom to speak is at stake and Members self-interest in retaining office conflicts with those rulings. Instead, to enhance political participation and improve transparency and accountability in the process, Congress should: 1. Raise the individual contribution limit to at least $2,500, indexing it for inflation; raise the aggregate individual contribution limit; and raise the individual and PAC contribution limits to political parties from $20,000 and $15,000, respectively, to at least $50,000. 2. Remove the limits on coordinated expenditures by political parties with their own candidates.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and the ranking member for bringing this resolution to the floor. I wish we did not have to do it. I also want to pay my utmost respect to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), for he did lose a very, very dear family member, and he has shown great stature, as he always has in this House, and I appreciate him as a gentleman and as a man of character. History shows that America is great because of the goodness of our heroes. Today, we all gather to honor true American heroism. A year ago this week a lone gunman entered this very building. Standing at his post that day was Capitol Police Officer Jacob ``J.J.'' Chestnut, who was shot and killed as he valiantly stood his ground protecting all those who were working in and visiting this Capitol, the people's house. The gunman then continued his rampage and encountered Detective John Gibson, who selflessly placed his life between the armed attacker and numerous innocent lives in my office. After being shot, Detective Gibson was still able to bring the gunman down. His final act as a defender of the peace was what saved the lives of countless others that day. The Capitol building which these two brave men offered their lives to protect is far more than just a building, it is the monument of freedom. The Capitol is the embodiment of democracy and a beacon of hope to all the people of the world that cherish freedom. Like the men and women whose statues line the halls of this very building, Officer Chestnut, Officer Gibson, and Officer Eney deserve to be remembered for the sacrifice they made for their country. Like the heroes who line the halls, these heroes deserve to be memorialized within these hallowed halls. To the families of Private First Class Jacob Chestnut and Detective John Gibson of the Capitol Police Department: the Members of Congress, the staff, and thousands of yearly visitors all thank you for your sacrifice. To the family of Sergeant Christopher Eney and to his widow Vivian Eney Cross, who is here with us today, we remember that your loved one also gave his life in the line of duty while serving as a Capitol Police Officer, and we say thank you. To all the sons and daughters and wives and husbands who must watch their loved ones each day place their lives between the innocent and the dangerous, we thank you. To the men and women who wear the badge and leave their homes every day to protect us and this building, we say thank you. I want to say particularly to Mrs. Eney-Cross and to the families of J.J. and John, J.J. and John and Christopher were men of character who loved their job, loved doing their job, wanted to be the best at it. They married women that were very, very strong women, and they had kids that are very strong kids. That has been shown throughout this year. The courage that the widows and the surviving family have shown over the last year has been exemplary and extraordinary. I could go through so many different times and issues that they stood there, strong, showing that they had a tremendous and deep abiding love for their lost ones, yet, at the same time, understood how great they were and wanted to be courageous for them. Every time someone enters this building, the People's House, whether it is a Member of the Congress or a citizen of the United States or a visitor of another country, they are reminded of the job that our officers do and the sacrifices that our officers make to protect others and to protect this institution. I believe the wife of Sergeant Eney put it best when she said, ``It is not how these officers died that made them heroes, it is how they lived.'' Like the scores of Capitol Police Officers who wake up every day and come to their jobs not knowing what the day will hold, these three Capitol Police Officers ultimately gave their lives because they had chosen to dedicate themselves to protecting others. These men are true American heroes who I am sure God has called to guard a much more precious gate. They will never be forgotten.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my very strong opposition to the Rahall amendment. This amendment to me is nothing more than a cheap attempt to impose on the Congress the anti-mining political agenda of unelected bureaucrats at the Department of the Interior, an agency with a proven track record of hostility towards mining and the industries upon which they depend. In November of 1997, the Solicitor of the Department issued an opinion which concluded that our mining laws contain a limit upon the patenting of millsites, despite the fact that no previous solicitor has ever interpreted the law to do so, nor has any court of law and nor has Congress. This opinion reinterprets a longstanding provision of law that would require mines to drastically reduce the size of their millsites connected to mining claims. The opinion was not based in reality and neither is this amendment. Like many in this body, I seek to reform the mining laws of this country. But the 104th Congress passed significant amendments to our mining laws, including the imposition of a 5 percent royalty, payment of fair market value for lands and establishment of abandoned hardrock mined land fund. But President Clinton vetoed that bill because Congress refused to give the Secretary of Interior unbridled authority to ``just say no'' to mining. Do not be fooled by its proponents. This amendment is not mining reform. The Rahall-Shays-Inslee amendment is an attempt to cede legislative branch authority to a small group of unelected bureaucrats and lawyers working feverishly to impose their unorthodox views on mining before they pack up and leave office. It is just that simple. Reject this amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the American Psychological Association for clarifying its position on pedophilia. Without question, sexual abuse of minors is child abuse. Child abuse is a plague on this country that cannot be overlooked or obscured by pseudo-scientific doubletalk. In these times--with so much talk about victimization and harassment--it amazes me that there is any confusion regarding the patently perverse nature of sexual abuse of children. There simply can be no equivocation about the obvious emotional devastation that is caused when adults have sexual relations with children. Sexual activity between an adult and a child is always abusive and always criminal in all cases--period. The fact that this obvious reality has been clouded recently is an indictment of the liberal secularization of the culture. Too many of us today worship the self and the moment with no regard for future consequences. Well, our children are our future and both should be safeguarded. The days ahead will be dark indeed if our society turns a blind eye to abuse of innocent ones. There can be no compromises in the war against child abuse. We must all be eternally vigilant in this most important cause. Every so often, trendy social theories and politically-motivated psychological hypotheses creep into the mainstream. At first, such ideas go unchallenged because they seem too crazy to be taken seriously. But after awhile, the momentum shifts against common sense. Bad ideas have bad consequences and the damage to society must always be combated in every field. The American Psychological Association made a mistake by publishing a study that used pseudo-scientific jargon to advise that sexual relations between adults and children are not always abusive. Such a study by such a prestigious institution gives credibility and potential legal defenses to pedophiliac sickos. After the controversy was exposed, the APA admitted its error in publishing the report and underscored its position that pedophilia is harmful criminal behavior and that all sexual abuse of children should be exposed. Mr. Speaker, organizations, like people, make mistakes. The test of integrity is the ability to admit a mistake and correct it. The American Psychological Association has shown great courage in doing just this. In the battle against child abuse, the APA is fighting on the right side.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, in urging adoption of this rule, I want to just touch on two issues that may be troubling some of our colleagues. First, we are blessed in America with a greatly diversified financial services industry. Oftentimes, however, these financial institutions, their regulators, and Members of Congress find themselves at odds on important policy, business, and competitive issues. While some banks are a part of a very large, diversified holding company and can take advantage of sophisticated delivery systems, others are independent and must fend for themselves. Regulations are written chiefly to keep the large, complex organizations operating within the law, but then they are similarly applied to the same small, independent bank. This situation is made worse for the small community bank when we consider that their primary competitors escape the consequences of heavy regulatory and tax burden. This is wrong. Federal policies should not be implemented to create an unfair competitive advantage that benefits one industry over another, where they compete for the same customer base. We often overlook the fact that small banks are small businesses themselves. They serve as economic engines that drive the local rural economies, benefiting millions of consumers, small businesses, family farms, and local merchants. Having said that, however, and as a free market proponent, I must also add that I am sensitive to the community banks' concerns. Although I am sensitive to those concerns, I cannot agree with their position that we should act to isolate them from competition. No, I say to my colleagues, that is not a satisfactory answer to their concerns. Instead, let us work together in passing this rule and H.R. 10 today, and then work to pursue regulatory and tax relief for small community banks. It is crucial that we act to preserve the open market competition, rather than attempting to burden their potential competitors, and rather than attempting to turn back the clock. Congress should work to help unburden the community banks in this country. Mr. Speaker, my second point concerns the unitary thrift issue. H.R. 10 is designed to help increase competition and to benefit consumers, communities, and businesses. With those goals in mind, how can we justify reining in the unitary thrift holding companies? Mr. Speaker, for the record, I would like to clarify that the unitary thrift holding company is not a loophole. More than 30 years of experience and volumes of legislative history underlay the foundation of its structure. Congress acted specifically to bring both capital and management expertise into the thrift industry and to promote housing. Simply put, restricting firms from transfering ownership in an attempt to thwart competition disadvantages investors. In fact, some thrifts were created at the urging of the Federal government. I am strongly opposed to a legislative taking that might lead to significant costs to the U.S. Treasury. I feel strongly that investors should not have value taken from them through some arbitrary action of Congress. No evidence based on safety and soundness has been presented that would justify prohibiting unitary thrifts from being sold to other companies. Likewise, no evidence suggests that financial companies that buy unitary thrifts should not continue operating their commercial activities. Mr. Speaker, today we are focused on promoting economic efficiency and growth. Congress should do something positive for our independent community banks, rather than trying to do something negative to a group of potential competitors. I urge my colleagues to pass this rule and adopt H.R. 10, and let us send it to conference.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding me this time. I want this body to know and through this body the Nation to know that I support the troops. I think the job that they gave to us and did for us was outstanding. As always, our men and women in uniform have done an outstanding and admirable job. I would vote for this motion to instruct if that is what we were doing. But I have got to tell my colleagues, a declaration of success in Yugoslavia by the media and the White House does not mean that victory was actually at hand. This charade in the Balkans has gone on long enough. How can you call it victory when Milosevic is still in power? The agreement that they signed to end the bombing is an agreement that Milosevic would have signed before the bombing. How can you call it a victory when the reasons that we went to war are exactly the reasons why it cannot be called a victory. The President said that if we did nothing, there would be Kosovar Albanians destroyed and killed and refugees would flood the borders, there would be instability in the region, and that NATO's credibility would be undermined if we did nothing. Take a look at it. Thousands of Kosovars were killed, refugees had lost their homes, they are coming back to burned-out homes and areas that are absolutely devastated. Instability is still in the region. In fact, I contend there is even more instability in the region because we now have a partitioned Kosovo, including Russian troops reintroduced into Yugoslavia, something that we have been afraid of ever since World War II. And NATO's credibility has been undermined. NATO for the first time in the history of NATO changed its mission from being a defensive organization to being an organization that bombs and invades sovereign nations. I contend that their credibility is seriously undermined. On top of all that, our relationships with Russia and our relationships with China and many other countries in the region have been seriously undermined. That is a victory? Was it worth it? Was it worth it to bomb? Was it worth it to devastate and suck the very strength out of our defenses so that the fact that we had to move an entire aircraft carrier task force out of the Pacific and leave our troops in Korea at risk and move it to the Adriatic Sea? Was it worth it to take our stockpile of cruise missiles and reduce them from 1,000 that we need for a two-theater war down to what some people say is less than 45 and we do not have a production line to build any more? Was it worth it to put the United States in one of the weakest positions that it has been in many, many a year in its ability to fight a two-theater war? I think not. I do not think this House ought to be commending a President for his leadership, particularly someone like Sandy Berger, Mr. Speaker, whom many people on both sides of the aisle have questioned his leadership, in a motion to instruct. I think this is a terrible mistake to bring this kind of debate to the floor of the House. But it is here and we have to debate it. I reiterate, once again, that this body unanimously supports our troops and the job that they have done when asked to go. We have no question that they did the best, the job that they were trained to do, under very difficult circumstances. But for us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce. Therefore, I am going to vote against the motion to instruct and hopefully we can bring a resolution to this floor commending our troops.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) held its 108th Continental Congress this past April 19th. The DAR is committed to preserving the memory of our Founding Fathers who achieved independence for America and instituted our constitutional form of government. The members of the DAR passed the following commemorative and resolutions as part of their recent Continental Congress and I submit them for the Congressional Record. Commemorative--George Washington In commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the death of George Washington in 1999, it is appropriate to remember his words and deeds that still define and guide our country. George Washington said, ``To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.'' The Father of our Country surveyed the wilderness; was an officer in the Virginia militia during the French and Indian War; owned a profitable plantation on the Potomac with its trading schooners; was Commander-in-Chief of the Patriot forces in the American Revolution; helped create our nation as President of the Constitutional Convention; then became the first President of the United States of America. In an address to Congress in 1793 he said, ``There is a rank due to the United States among Nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it: if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.'' George Washington was indeed ``first in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen.''

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Private Activity Bond Clarification Act of 1999. This legislation, which will clarify existing law with respect to the use of tax exempt bonds, is needed to protect taxpayer dollars from being used to subsidize essentially private activities. The bill will also ensure a level playing field for other businesses which are excluded from, or do not seek, subsidies from the American taxpayer through tax-exempt bond financing. As most of our colleagues know, interest on bonds issued by State and local governments is generally exempt from federal income tax. The federal tax exemption allows the bonds to carry lower interest rates, which in turn lowers the cost of borrowing. State and local governments are then better able to finance schools, roads, public transportation and other public infrastructure projects. At the same time, federal tax law and regulations issued by the Treasury Department have been carefully tailored--as they should be--to ensure that this tax exemption is not abused for private gain. Tax- exempt bonds should not be used to give private individuals or businesses a preferential benefit at the expense of the American taxpayer. For example, under current law, if facilities financed with State and local government bonds are used more than 10 percent of the time directly, or indirectly, in a trade or business by a private person or business, the IRS may consider the bonds ``private activity bonds'' and interest paid on them generally will not be excluded from a bondholder's taxable income. For purposes of determining whether this 10 percent test is met, use of a financed facility is treated as a direct use of the proceeds, and any activity carried on by a private person is treated as a trade or business. When a financed facility is used by several private persons, use by all private entities is aggregated for purposes of determining whether the 10% private business use threshold is met. For the most part, private business use of a facility is only deemed to occur if a private person, group, or business has a special legal entitlement to the use of the financed facility under an arrangement with the state or local government that issued the bonds. Typically, such an arrangement would involve the ownership or lease of the facility, or a management contract involving the facility, that grants priority rights in using the facility. Although it appears that existing tax law, as interpreted by the Treasury regulations, may be adequate to assure that all businesses and members of the general public are treated fairly in matters involving the use of facilities constructed with tax-exempt bonds adoption of the legislation I introduce today to codify key elements of the regulatory rules will help to ensure that this valuable--and costly--tax subsidy is not misused for the benefit of private individuals instead of the taxpayers. I emphasize that the bill leaves the ultimate determination as to whether the law has been violated in a specific case up to the IRS as it is under current law. You see, Mr. Speaker, while tax-exempt bond financing is largely carried out in a manner consistent with the purposes set forth in the tax law and regulations, as with just about any federal program in which a tax subsidy is involved, there are always those who are looking for ways to ``push the envelope'' to gain the benefit of a tax subsidy for their own private business purposes. The impetus for this legislation was prompted by press reports of a proposal to build, with tax-exempt bonds, a massive new Convention Center in Las Vegas. However, my concern is not with that community per se, but rather with the potential implications for all American taxpayers, and the potential precedent which could be established, should financing of this facility go forth in the face of statutes and regulations which suggest it should be ineligible for tax-exempt treatment. According to press reports, a group of private businesses referred to as the Consortium, is currently seeking to take advantage of tax-exempt bond financing to promote construction in Las Vegas of a new 1.3 million square foot convention center, which when completed, will be one of the largest such facilities in the country. It will be larger than the Astrodome, the George R. Brown Convention Center, the Dallas Convention Center and even the Javits Center in New York. I understand that once ground is broken for this facility, the members of the Consortium who have worked with local authorities to develop this facility will be provided with preferential rights to lease the facility for the purpose of putting on money-making trade shows. These preferential rights will allow Consortium members to ``lock up'' more than 60 percent of the available rentable days for the new facility each year through 2009. Furthermore, from a business standpoint, the specific dates to be ``locked up'' by the Consortium are more valuable than those that will be left over for use by others. In effect, the benefits of the federal subsidy utilized in financing this facility are being largely transferred to the handful of businesses comprising this Consortium. The situation in Las Vegas raises the possibility that the lack of a specific definition of ``related parties'' may lead bond issuing authorities and their counsel to mistakenly conclude that only those business users related by law (e.g., corporations and their wholly- owned subsidiaries) are to be treated as ``related parties.'' Such a narrow, legalistic interpretation could result in bonds being wrongfully issued in instances where, as in this case, a principal purpose for which the facility is being financed is for the use of a group of private parties who are related in fact. Parties that are not related by law can nevertheless by agreement act in such concert that they should, and presumably would, be treated by the IRS as related parties. Mr. Speaker, allow me at this point to reiterate that my concern here is not Las Vegas per se. However, I will point out that the new facility financed with the use of these federally tax-exempt bonds will both compete with convention facilities in Houston, and ``lock in'' to Las Vegas through 2009 these trade shows, effectively denying Houston and other communities the opportunity to attract these conventions to our region. In any event, it should be obvious that Congress did not intend to provide carte blanche to private businesses to band together to facilitate construction of a tax-exempt financed facility--which would then be largely made available to those businesses for their own commercial purposes. The legislation I introduce today will protect the taxpayer's interest in this regard by simply clarifying the definition of ``related parties'' already found in the Treasury regulations that implement the ``private business use'' limitations in the tax code. My bill would enable the IRS, acting on a case-by-case basis, to determine that parties should be treated as ``related parties'' if they have at any time acted in concert to negotiate an arrangement to facilitate the financing of a property financed with tax-exempt bonds, and enter into preferential arrangements for the use of such property. The collective use of a facility by related parties would be aggregated when applying the 30 and 90 days safe harbors (and the 180 days general limitation) found in the IRS' current regulations. I will point out that local governments can of course continue to avoid any potential uncertainty about the rules on ``related parties'' by applying for an advance ruling by the IRS that the limitations on ``related parties'' do not apply to their particular proposals. To protect the interests of the American taxpayer, and to assure a level playing field for private business, it is important that Congress act to clarify the rules governing tax-exempt bond financing so that potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in of tax-exempt bonds are not mistakenly issued--whether in Las Vegas or elsewhere. So as to put the public on notice, and to help prevent any bond from being issued based on a mistaken interpretation of the rules governing private activity bonds, the legislation would apply to bonds issued after July 1, 1999.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama; and I am proud to stand here today with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen) and my other colleagues who have done an admirable job promoting the Child Custody Protection Act. There is a great injustice taking place as we speak. In 28 States minor girls are being taken across State lines for abortions just so parental consent or notification laws can be avoided. For a child to receive an aspirin at school or to be involved in a class field trip, they must gain prior consent from a parent. But for a dangerous and sometimes fatal procedure a child, yes, a child, can be transported across State lines without a simple notification of their parent. This is criminal, and this practice has to stop. We must remedy this injustice against States who have decided that parents have a right to know when their child's health is threatened. To add insult to injury, literally, the abortion industry actually encourages such interstate activity and most definitely profits by it. In many States, abortion clinics even advertise in the phone book of these nearby States, and they advertise no parental consent required. If that is not a criminal act, then I do not know what is. So I urge my colleagues today to vote for the Child Custody Protection Act. A vote for this bill is a vote to respect State law. A vote for this bill is a vote to ensure that parents living in those 22 States get to maintain their right to know about their child's welfare; and, most importantly, a vote for this bill is a vote for the safety of our children.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this bill. I cannot thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) enough for bringing this very, very important piece of legislation that will have a very strong impact on children in America. There is no better investment that a Nation can make than in its children, and it is time that the welfare of all of America's kids are furthered, all of them, including the abused and neglected and children in the foster care system. Approximately 20,000 young Americans are released from foster care every year, often without any previous experience with independence. This bill provides direction and assistance for these young adults struggling to make a new start. American youths are let out of the foster care system on their 18th birthday. Now, for many of those children this can be a bittersweet occasion. In many of the instances they have not graduated from high school, have never held a job, are unemployable for the near future, and they lack basic every day living skills, such as just cooking or keeping a checkbook. Leaving foster care translates into leaving the only security many of these children have ever had. Now, today, it is taken for granted a loving supportive family is important for youth. But all children are not so blessed. My wife Christine and I are foster parents and we know firsthand the struggles that confront these kids. It is difficult for the average American to understand just how scary it must be for a teenager to be alone. Add the necessity to be self-sufficient for the first time, and a strong recipe for defeat is concocted. But such despair can be avoided, and this pending foster care legislation sets foster children down the right path to adulthood. My foster daughter turned 18 yesterday. And she, by all rights, should be out on the street. But she is staying in our home, getting ready to go to college. And this bill gives new flexibility to States to develop programs that provide skills to foster children during and after they are in foster programs. It requires States to guarantee that everyone is either employed or in school when they leave foster care. It also lets them keep their medical benefits after they turn age 18, which now are stripped from them the day they turned 18. An old cliche relates that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This argument is even more compelling where young lives are concerned. Some early preventive measures save a lifetime of grief and trouble, partly because the failures in current foster care transition periods, the rates of crime, jail time, homelessness, and welfare dependency are very high among Americans formerly in foster programs. There is no reason to accept these costs to society and to the individual when they can be prevented. Mr. Chairman, imagine the hopelessness of a young person's world where there is no security, no comfort, and no one willing to help. We are sentencing too many of our kids to certain failure and chronic dependency if we do not arm them with the skills and the resources they need as they transition out of the foster care system. The Foster Care Independence Act simply offers a helping hand to those who desperately need it. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate this House. For the last 2 days, we have stood up in a bipartisan way and looked at the problems out of Columbine High School and recognized what those problems were and addressed them in many different ways. I am really proud of this House for doing so. What this motion to recommit does is undoes all of that and reasserts the notion that it takes a village to raise a child; add more cops, add more programs, add more counselors. It does not take a village to raise a child. It takes a mother and a father to raise a child. It takes a mother and a father that live in a village that is conducive to raising a child. The lesson from Columbine High School is that we have created a culture that raises children that kill children. We do not need more counselors. In fact, in Columbine High School, they sent the village to the high school. They sent counselors. They sent psychiatrists. They sent people from the village. What did the kids do? They went to church. The kids went to church. They rejected the village. What this bill does now is recognize that, and recognizes that there has to be structure and limits and consequences. There has to be enforcement of the existing laws. People have to be allowed freedom to exercise their religion. Barriers have to be removed to allow us to raise a culture that hopefully some day will eliminate kids killing kids. So if my colleagues vote for the motion to recommit, they undo some wonderful work that has been done these last 2 days in a bipartisan way. Vote no on the motion to recommit. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I just think it is sort of ironic that the very ones that wanted us to come straight from the Senate with a bill to the floor with no consideration are now complaining because there was not enough consideration. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that the truth will make us free if we admit what the truth is. Every once in a while, I read something or hear something that blows away all that smoke that clouds a particular issue. A letter written by a Mr. Addison Dawson to the San Angelo Standard-Times is just such a statement. In fact, after I make this statement, I do not think anybody else needs to speak. We just need to vote. The following is Mr. Dawson's letter, which Paul Harvey read on his radio show: ``For the life of me, I can't understand what could have gone wrong in Littleton, Colorado. If only the parents had kept their children away from the guns, we wouldn't have had such a tragedy. Yeah, it must have been the guns. ``It couldn't have been because half our children are being raised in broken homes. It couldn't have been because our children get to spend an average of 30 seconds in meaningful conversation with their parents each day. ``After all, we give our children quality time. It couldn't have been because we treat our children as pets and our pets as children. ``It couldn't have been because we place our children in day care centers where they learn their socialization skills among their peers under the law of the jungle, while employees who have no vested interest in the children look on and make sure that no blood is spilled. It couldn't have been because we allow our children to watch, on average, 7 hours of television a day filled with the glorification of sex and violence that isn't even fit for adult consumption. ``It couldn't have been because we allow (or even encourage) our children to enter into virtual worlds in which, to win the game, one must kill as many opponents as possible in the most sadistic way possible. ``It couldn't have been because we have sterilized and contracepted our families down to sizes so small that the children we do have are so spoiled with material things that they come to equate the receiving of the material with love. ``It couldn't have been because our children, who historically have been seen as a blessing from God, are now being viewed as either a mistake created when contraception fails or inconveniences that parents try to raise in their spare time. It couldn't have been because we give 2-year prison sentences to teenagers who kill their newborns. ``It couldn't have been because our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud. ``It couldn't have been because we teach our children that there are no laws of morality that transcend us, that everything is relative and that actions do not have consequences. What the heck, the President gets away with it. ``Nah, it must have been the guns.''

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to object, because I think it is very important to submit this kind of information, but for the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, to submit such information . . . to think that my amendment has anything to do with bad prison conditions, it has nothing to do with bad prison conditions. It does not limit anybody's right to claim there is bad prison conditions.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to retract the word ``misleading.''

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), for bringing this amendment. He has worked so hard on this, and it is very creative in trying to bring safety to our children. There is no better cause than the safety of our children. I rise in support of the amendment because it does protect America's children from predators. This amendment, better known as Aimee's Law, fights that plague of repeat offenders. Specifically, this law tracks criminals that have crossed state lines, guilty of murdering, rapists and otherwise assaulting children under the age of 14. Why are these monsters set free? Aimee's Law holds States responsible for felons they release who commit further violent crimes in other States. So, Mr. Chairman, our kids need to be protected from these violent criminals. States need to be encouraged to keep child molesters behind bars, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment in the form of a bill that passed overwhelmingly in this House last year. So I bring it to the House because I think it is so appropriate to put it on this bill at this time. Mr. Chairman, we have been talking about crime all day. I rise to introduce this amendment that seeks to cut at the very heart of crime. Early release of felons due to prison conditions puts all Americans at risk, and this practice should stop. All the talk about fighting crime and keeping children safe boils down to nothing if we are not willing to keep prisoners behind bars where they belong. Now, many States have tried to combat crime by assessing truth in sentencing laws. However, these noble efforts are countered by activist judges who side with predators over victims. Activist judges are accessories to crime. Every day, laws are ignored, misinterpreted, and overturned by radicals in robes who have stolen the role of legislative bodies. Article III of the U.S. Constitution allows the Congress to set jurisdictional restraints on the courts, and this amendment reasserts that right. Tragically, judges have used the excuse of overcrowding to empty prisons of violent offenders and drug dealers. These judicial magicians create prison caps out of thin air and then empty jail cells until they reach their arbitrary number. In Philadelphia, for instance, after some convicts complained, Judge Norma Shapiro created a prison cap that resulted in the release of 500 prisoners every week; 9,732 of these criminals onto the streets because of her own arbitrary caps. These criminals were released. They were later rearrested for new crimes, including murder and rape. Now, in recent years, 35 percent of all offenders arrested for violent crime were already on probation, parole, or pretrial release at the time of their arrest. Studies show that up to 76 percent of former inmates are rearrested within 3 years of their release. Even more criminals are released before their trial because activist judges claim that they have no room to keep them in custody. These people should not be let loose, and my amendment assures that they cannot be released due to the prison conditions loophole. We will not reduce crime until we stop letting criminals back onto the streets to continue to prey on innocent Americans. This amendment does not prevent any other methods to correct prison conditions. It simply stops judges from releasing dangerous convicts to alleviate overcrowding or other conditions. Justice may be blind, but it is and does comprehend common sense. This amendment makes neighborhoods safer by keeping convicts behind bars. Mr. Chairman, no American is free if he does not feel safe in his house or on the streets. Congress must act now to take back our streets. Congress must combat judicial activism. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeLAY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Is the gentleman not supposed to speak through the Chair?