Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to this bold attempt to ground the International Space Station. Now, this program, in my opinion, is vital to developing new technology and new medicines for the next century. This great land was discovered because of the courage of explorers who refused to let obstacles get in the way of their vision. Today, 500 years later, we talk of cutting exploration to the last frontier at a critical time when our budgets and our vision are already shrinking. Such a miscalculation not only cuts away at the future, it is a direct attack on the American spirit. At its very core, the American spirit is based on adventure and fighting adversity despite the odds. We should thank God that Christopher Columbus was not tied to the short-sighted constraints of a U.S. Congress afraid of risks and shy of discovery. Discovery of new cures for disease is only one field of many fields where space exploration has paid off. Medical innovation and further experimentation in space cannot be allowed to wither away. Instead of allowing our imagination to fade, we should raise our sights to the expectation of new strides in science and new leaps in technology. We have come so far, there is absolutely no excuse to turn around now. With over $20 billion already invested, there is simply no justification for wasting funds that have been spent developing this Space Station to this date. Despite what the adversaries of this program contend, this Space Station is actually on schedule and within its budget. Now, not so long ago, a president of the United States challenged Americans to test their dreams and wagered that America could reach the Moon by the end of the decade. Well, Mr. Chairman, almost 40 years later the same country is trying to cut its losses in space because it is afraid of failure. Well, we cannot be afraid to fail. We cannot be afraid to experiment, and we must be determined to stick with this program. So I just urge my colleagues to continue to support the International Space Station and vote against cutting and killing the Space Station.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I insert the following speech for the Congressional Record. Mandatory Penalties for Exposing the Identities of U.S. Intelligence Agents Mr. Speaker, I commend Congressman Sweeney for bringing this subject to our attention. The nation is being confronted every day it seems with graver and more alarming revelations about breaches of our national security at our weapons labs and other facilities. It should not be overlooked that it was due in large part to the efforts of our intelligence agents that these breaches were first suspected and then subsequently investigated by the FBI and others. So, it is appropriate at this time to increase the protection for both current and former covert intelligence officers around the world by increasing the criminal penalties for those who willfully divulge their identities to the world. Anyone who deliberately puts American agents' lives, those of their families, and America's security at risk should face a minimum sentence in prison as well. Mr. Sweeney's amendment does that by establishing mandatory minimum sentences for willfully identifying covert agents. As many of us recall, the current law, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, was passed after the CIA Station Chief in Greece, Richard Welch, was assassinated after Counter Spy exposed his identity. Ex-CIA agent Phillip Agee was also responsible for repeated disclosures of the names of intelligence personnel and the Supreme Court held that such disclosures are not protected under the First Amendment. The amendment also addresses the absurdity in the law that allows people to obtain information about former U.S. intelligence activities under the Freedom of Information Act, but does not prohibit people from turning around and identifying intelligence agents who have retired. To address this shortcoming, the amendment expands the law to include former covert agents under its protections because identifying former agents, their activities and locations not only compromises on-going intelligence efforts, but exposes the former agents and their families to danger and retaliation from our nation's adversaries. Any individual who has served our country at considerable risk to themselves and their families deserves all the protection we can provide under the law--not only while they serve, but when they retire as well. In this day of vicious, global terrorism, exposing current or former intelligence agents should be subject to severe and mandatory criminal penalties. The amendment does that and I urge members to vote for it.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a very important piece of legislation together with Representatives Andrews, Gilman, Deutsch, Rohrabacher, Wu, Cox, Jefferson, Diaz-Balart, Lowey, Chris Smith, Hunter, Burton, Cook, and Dave Weldon. This bill gives Taiwan a fighting chance to defend itself from a potential Chinese invasion. The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act we are introducing today also stabilizes Taiwan by strengthening U.S.- Taiwanese cooperation. The Far East is no less pressing than the Middle East or Eastern Europe, where we are heavily involved now. Stability of the entire Asian region is predicated on a balance of power that keeps China in check. The May 24, 1999, issue of Defense News reports that China could be planning a new round of military exercises and missile tests across the Taiwan Strait in response to American bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Typically, no U.S. action has been undertaken in the past to discourage these movements because the Administration's Taiwan policy has been missing-in-action for years. Habitual appeasement of China has grown into an addiction that now seriously threatens global security. Despite President Clinton's claim a few weeks ago that the People's Republic is not a threat, Chinese intentions to the contrary are clear. 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 Straits has served as a constant threat. Waiting for the next shoe to fall before acting would be a costly mistake. The image of Red Army tanks rolling into Hong Kong should not be forgotten. Neither should the threat by a high-ranking Chinese general to nuke Los Angeles if we interfere in Taiwan. Adding legitimacy to these loose lips, the Chinese military held practice missile attack exercises against mock U.S. troops just six months ago. Ever since the annexation of Hong Kong and Macau, consuming Taiwan has become a pressing goal for the expansionist communist government in Beijing. An ounce of prevention now will save a ton of band-aid cures after-the-fact. There will be no way to oust the Chinese should they ever take Taiwan. The Taiwanese are not asking us to send troops. They are not asking us to bomb other sovereign nations. They simply need strategic military advice, technological expertise and access to purchase appropriate American defense systems so they can defend themselves. United States policy must bolster the independence of this little nation. A few reasonable measures of cooperation would go a long way for the island's defense. For example, the United States should sell diesel submarines to Taiwan, which is outnumbered in the seas 65 to 4 by the mainland's forces. Likewise, there is a dire need for air defense that could be rectified by the sale of American-made AIM 120 missiles, long-range radar and satellite warning data. Enhanced military exchanges would forge a cohesive defense plan between our nations. But, acquiescing to pressure from Beijing, the Clinton Administration refuses to sell these systems and take these steps despite a massive Chinese military buildup. The Defense Intelligence Agency reports that the People's Liberation Army is currently deploying approximately 650 new short-range missile systems directly across the straits. There are 150 such missiles aimed at Taiwan already in addition to fevered construction of new fighter planes, warships and subs. Under the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States committed to providing a defense capability to Taiwan based upon their defense needs. The need is pressing--the time to act on this promise is now. Appealing to the chivalrous instincts of Americans, the Clinton Administration plants troops all over the world under the guise of defending the proverbial little guy from aggressive bully nations. Supposedly, that is what we are doing in the Balkans--but bombs flying on Belgrade do not erase American responsibility elsewhere. The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act honors our commitment to stability in Taiwan by increasing cooperation between U.S. and Taiwanese militaries, and increasing sales of defensive technology and weaponry while prohibiting reductions in arms sales. Mr. Speaker, American prestige is not only on the line in the Balkans. We must honor our commitments in the Taiwan Strait. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule. The emergency defense appropriations bill is vitally important to our national security, whether we agree with NATO's involvement in Kosovo or not. I have not been shy in stating my own opposition to the manner in which the President has handled this situation, but this bill is about supporting our troops and making sure they have the tools and the training that they need to return home safely. This bill is about making sure that our interests are secure on a global basis, and right now I am disheartened to say they are not. In fact, the Pentagon has told us that there will be a readiness crisis if they do not get this funding by Memorial Day. If we ever had a military emergency, it is right now, and that emergency reaches much farther than the endless air raids going on in the Balkans. Since we started talking about this bill a few weeks ago, I have heard story after story from my colleagues about the terrible situation our military is facing, about soldiers who have never trained with live rounds and pilots who are not getting flight time because there are no spare parts to repair their planes. This kind of readiness crisis means that our national security is presently at serious risk. Now, this rule gives us an opportunity to mitigate that risk. We have an obligation to support our troops and refurbish the military that is currently being hollowed out to fund this war effort, and we have the responsibility to do this as expeditiously as possible, which is exactly what this rule does. Let me say to my friends that I understand they may not agree with the emergency nature of this bill. My colleagues may object to the war in Kosovo on its face, as I do, or to using this kind of vehicle to refurbish our stripped-down Armed Forces. But the process must not be undermined. I heard a lot last week about the votes we had on the floor over Kosovo. Some folks said that we sent the wrong message to Milosevic. Well, make no mistake about it, while I object to the President's handling of this situation, I know our troops need our support now more than ever. The Congress cannot abandon our troops just because the President deploys them unwisely. We must support our troops even as we disagree with the President. This rule and this bill will convey exactly that message to Serbia and to the Americans stationed there. Mr. Speaker, our troops are in harm's way. Our national security is at risk. We have an obligation to give our sons and daughters everything they need to protect themselves. We have an obligation not to abandon our troops in the field. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to state that our Armed Forces have been neglected for too long. It is time we give our troops the supplies and the support that they need. Without any coherent international blueprint, the White House has bombed its way around the globe, while dropping troops far and wide for ill-defined peacemaking duties. This policy has gutted the American military, which now must be rebuilt. Last week a bipartisan Congress voted against President Clinton's undeclared war in Yugoslavia. Both Republican and Democrat members are reluctant to commit U.S. forces to a mission that has no strategic plan, no timetable, no definition of victory, and no clear national interests to defend. While there are many reasons for that vote, lack of support for our troops was not one of them. To the contrary, the leadership in this Congress supports our troops, but does not support President Clinton's frivolous deployment of them and haphazard waste of military resources. The last 6 years of focusless military use, combined with defense spending cuts, have stretched our forces to the point where serious gaps in our national security are developing. Not only have we left the Pacific without a single carrier to defend our allies and troops stationed in the region, but the carriers we are sending to combat in Yugoslavia and Iraq are drastically undermanned. For example, the Teddy Roosevelt is 418 sailors short, and the Enterprise is lacking an alarming 495 sailors. In total, the U.S. Navy is 18,000 sailors short, and those that are there are at risk because of it. Such shortfalls in recruits and equipment have reached crises level. This Congress wants to rebuild our depleted defense and make sure that our troops have the supplies they need while they are deployed wherever they are deployed. President Clinton has only proposed to cover the basic costs of his war in Yugoslavia. This Congress wants to take this opportunity to bolster our hollowed out military. This emergency spending will provide much needed munitions, spare parts, construction, training, recruiting, and pay increases for our military. Amid reports that the United States is running out of cruise missiles and cannibalizing some planes for parts, America must not forget that military weaknesses only challenge our enemies to take costly and dangerous risks. Mr. Chairman, the time is now to deter our enemies by bolstering our military. We have to send a very clear message that while we may not support the President's ill-advised war, we do support our troops wholeheartedly.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, hypothetical quandaries always elicit interesting answers. Over two hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson wrote that if he had to choose to have a government without the press or the press without a government, he would without hesitation prefer the latter situation. This position reflects that great founder's understanding of the important role of journalism in the American experiment. Sylvan Rodriguez also understands this role and has dedicated his life to making both journalism and the country better together. Sylvan Rodriguez is a giant in the world of Houston broadcasting. Since 1977, he has graced the city's airwaves with crack reporting on politics and a special focus on space operations. His coverage of the space shuttle program and the exposure from the tragic Challenger explosion opened up many doors for him, including a stint as a Los Angeles correspondent for ABC News. His expertise has been sought by David Brinkley for the This Week program, by Ted Koppel for Nightline, by Peter Jennings for ABC World News Tonight and for Good Morning America. Such a lion of the press did not start at the top however. Rather, Sylvan Rodriguez is an American success story whose love for journalism struck in early age and was nurtured over time. This boyhood love for the industry matured and was honed while attending the University of Texas at Austin where he tirelessly scribed for several newspapers and a wire service. At this time, his appetite for big news was wetted by covering the powers that were in Washington as an intern for the United States Information Agency where he learned the ins-and-outs of the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department and Capitol Hill. This foundation was bolstered by experience as a reporter and photographer covering state and national politics in San Antonio and Houston. But the passion for reporting was not all consuming for Sylvan Rodriguez. Throughout his life, he has understood that a balance must be made between giving and taking. He has given much to the community and to his profession to match all the opportunities he earned for himself. While his list of philanthropic activities is a book long, he has given particular attention to foundations that give opportunities to children and fight cancer, diabetes, arthritis, Tourette Syndrome and Cerebral Palsey. A great example to any budding journalist, he is a founding member of the Houston Association of Hispanic Media Professionals. Journalism has been described as an ability to meet the challenge of filling space. This definition does not only apply to column inches or airtime. It also touches on the space within ourselves where our heart and love of country should rest. Through his dedication to his profession and to others, Sylvan Rodriguez has filled all of these spaces for many years. Today, it is my honor to ask Congress to pay tribute to Sylvan Rodriguez for being such a hero to journalism and to the community.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Bankruptcy reform must be allowed a chance to work. The bankruptcy reform bill that is before us today is simply trying to jump-start a sense of personal responsibility in the area of consumer financial transactions. Today's bankruptcy system has made it too easy for irresponsible people to pass on the burden of their financial debt to responsible people. The greatness of this country is based on freedom. But with this freedom comes responsibility for your actions. Because the stigma that was once associated with bankruptcy has disappeared, we see too many people using bankruptcy as a financial planning tool. And, too many lawyers are getting rich selling that tool. Gone is the notion that bankruptcy is to be a last-resort solution to a personal financial crisis. Gone is the chance of receiving a fresh start only after agreeing to a repayment plan. Instead, we see debtors routinely expecting others to pick up their tab. That in fact is what happens when the creditor passes on his or her losses to other borrowers--everyone pays a portion of that debtor's bill. Mr. Chairman, the bankruptcy bill under consideration today is based on the premise that those debtors who can afford to repay their debt should do so, rather that have it forgiven. To accomplish this seemingly simple goal, an income-based means test is employed to determine if a debtor could do one of three things: have debt forgiven; reorganize and enter into a repayment plan; or refrain from filing for bankruptcy at all. In order to differentiate amongst debtors and to end the abuses of the bankruptcy system, objective standards are needed to replace today's vague and ambiguous subjective guidelines in use by the bankruptcy courts. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us will undercut the basic objective of reforming the bankruptcy system by allowing judges to continue to make the same subjective decisions about repayment--the very same decisions that have not prevented recent abuse of the system. The decision before us is clear: Vote ``yes'' only if you feel that the majority of your constituents should continue to pay the costs of these abuses. But better yet, vote ``no'' to give bankruptcy reform a chance to instill a sense of personal responsibility in consumer financial transactions. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the leadership of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Tubbs Jones) in bringing this legislation to the floor. As people honor April as Child Abuse Prevention Month by wearing blue ribbons, listening to speeches, mourning innocent lives lost or damaged, and celebrating the valiant efforts of those who have made a difference, my prayer is that we as a Nation would recommit ourselves to this issue. We as parents and Americans must realize our collective responsibility for the well-being of our children. Their future is, indeed, our country's future, and therein lies a moral imperative that we cannot afford to ignore. The numbers are daunting. In 1997, there were 3 million cases of child abuse and neglect. Today, at least 500,000 American children are in foster care and institutions because they cannot live safely with their own families. Unfortunately, costs of government programs skyrocket, while there are more broken families, more abused children, more teenaged parents, and more foster children getting bumped around for years without being adopted. This resolution expresses the sense of Congress that current statistics merit our commitment to intervene in the vicious cycle of child abuse. It says that we need to marshal Federal resources in order to maximize their impact on the prevention of child abuse and neglect. Sometimes it is clear that the most effective reform by the Federal Government is to simply cut red tape and empower local communities. As with most social problems, government can only do so much to solve them. Local communities, families, and individuals must join together with government agencies to fight and to address the needs of children in the system. My wife, Christine, and I have two foster kids in our home, and have had over the past 2 years. We have also been involved as volunteers for the Court-Appointed Special Advocates, CASA, and child advocates of Fort Bend County for almost 5 years. We have only recently talked publicly of our family life, in the hopes that others might be encouraged to become involved with the children at risk in their own communities. The strength of America, the true greatness of America, is not only in the moral fiber of her people and in the integrity of her leaders, but also is revealed by how we treat those who are the most vulnerable. There are none more vulnerable in our society, none heard less, than the children that suffer from abuse and neglect. We must be their voice. We must speak loudly and speak out with our time and our resources and our love. Get involved. No effort is too small and no child beyond our reach. Let me just close by commending my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Deborah Pryce), one of the best mothers and legislators I know. I so appreciate her efforts on behalf of our Nation's children, and I am honored to join her as an original cosponsor of the child abuse prevention and awareness resolution, as well as the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult speech for me to give, because I normally, and I still do, support our military and the fine work that they are doing. But I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. But before we get deeper embroiled into this Balkan quagmire, I think that an assessment has to be made of the Kosovo policy so far. President Clinton has never explained to the American people why he was involving the U.S. military in a civil war in a sovereign nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian reasons, a new military/foreign policy precedent. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today. Instead of sending in ground troops, we should pull out the forces we now have in the region. Many who argue we cannot pull out say we should stay to save face, if for no other reason. I would like to ask these people, was it worth to stay in Vietnam just to save face? The root of this crisis is centuries old, and no occupation by foreigners can craft a peace where no desire for it exists. Unless you are willing to commit your sons and daughters into a war indefinitely, you should not vote to keep troops overseas simply because we do not know what else to do. The President said that if we did nothing, there would be instability in the region, there would be a flood of refugees, Kosovars would die and the credibility of NATO would be undermined. Well, Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode; in addition, has made the Russians jittery, and has harmed NATO's standing in the world. In Lebanon, Ronald Reagan cut his losses and withdrew our troops. We should do the same thing before the body bags start coming home. After all, what good has been accomplished so far? Absolutely nothing. What long-term good will be accomplished by keeping our troops there? None, unless you are willing to occupy all of Yugoslavia. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should send ground troops to Kosovo, and I do not think we should be bombing in the Balkans, and I do not think that NATO should be destroyed by changing its mission into a humanitarian invasion force. I support the Campbell resolution.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to state that no defense funds should be used for ground forces in Kosovo unless authorized by Congress. The Secretary of Defense last year, just last year, opposed sending troops to Kosovo, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned that our military strength has already been compromised. Since all the whereas clauses have been struck from this resolution, I will add my own whereas clauses: Whereas fighter planes are being cannibalized for parts to repair other aircraft, Whereas we are running out of cruise missiles, Whereas the Navy is undermanned by 18,000 sailors and the Air Force will be 1,300 pilots short within a year, Whereas to pursue bombing campaigns in Iraq and Serbia, the administration has played musical chairs with aircraft carriers and left the Pacific without a single carrier to defend our allies and our forces there, Whereas this is the reality of a downsized force, cutting military budgets has direct consequences, and vulnerability and trouble spots are a very real problem today. Despite these growing military deficiencies, the administration is considering sending ground forces for an open-ended, peacemaking mission that would further erode military readiness. Bosnia has already cost the United States over $10 billion. The administration has projected that Kosovo will cost $5 billion just this year, but has already admitted that it is impossible to determine how long the NATO mission will take. Considering that two withdrawal deadlines have already been broken in Bosnia, and considering that the President thought this would only take a week or two and now has extended it to open endedness, it is clear that any deployment to Kosovo will similarly drag on and go enormously over budget. So sending troops and carriers to the Balkans only makes a weakened military even weaker. If nothing else, Kosovo shows us that we have to rebuild our forces and not hollow them out even more. And before sending troops to Yugoslavia, Macedonia or Albania, the President is obligated by law to report to Congress on the cost, and the funding, the schedule and the exit strategy for deployment. He has not done this, and so today we should vote to forbid any deployment without congressional approval. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans in support of Bush were actually consulted and listened to and advised, and President Bush came to Congress for those votes. This President has given us briefings and then gone and done what he wanted to do in the first place. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to bar defense funds from being spent on ground forces in Kosovo unless Congress actually allocates such funding.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. I hope Members will think very seriously about this resolution, because what this resolution says is that this House is about to take ownership in what the President has put us into since he started bombing Kosovo. So I think we should think very, very seriously whether we are going to take ownership of the bombing of Kosovo. Let us go back a little ways. Let us go back to even the negotiations in Rambouillet. I do not think many Members of this House have even read the provisions of the peace agreement in Rambouillet. One of the provisions of the peace agreement was that Milosevic had to agree to allow foreign troops, the peacekeeping troops, to have free reign over the entire country of Yugoslavia, not just Kosovo, but the entire country of Yugoslavia, which put Milosevic in a very untenable situation. No wonder he was not going to sign this agreement. Then the Secretary of State, who believes in bombing to support her diplomacy, decides that we are going to bomb him to the peace table and make him sign something that would actually slit his throat with his own people. Then after trying to force him with bombing, and I remind Members of the briefings that we had with this administration, the first briefings, that frankly scared me to death because those briefings with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told us that this was no big deal, that we were going to bomb for a couple of days, 48 hours, and then stop bombing and Milosevic would come to the table. When asked the question, what if he does not come to the table, they said, well, we will go to Phase 2; and Phase 2 is that we will bomb for a few more days. Then he will be going to the table, by crackie. And when we asked, ``Then, what?'' then they said, well, we will bomb for another week and that will force him to come to the table and this will be all over with. And then when we asked, ``Then, what?'' there was silence. This administration started a war without a plan farther along than 2 weeks. And Phase 3. That is what brought us to the bombing, my colleagues. Once they started bombing and found out that Milosevic was a pretty tough customer and that the Serbian people were pretty tough people that have been through these kind of things before, and some people have said that the Germans had something like 20 divisions in Yugoslavia trying to route the Serbians out of those mountains and those caves, and they could not do it. So what they are doing here is they are voting to continue an unplanned war by an administration that is incompetent of carrying it out. I hope my colleagues will vote against the resolution.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, it is amazing to me that the name of the Constitution is invoked when it is convenient, and protecting the Constitution is invoked when it is convenient, but for the last 40 or 50 years, members of the minority have come to this well, and I have seen them even in my short time of being in this House and talking about it, the Constitution is irrelevant. It has been said here in this Chamber that the Constitution is a living document. Therefore, we should read between the lines, that when the Constitution gets in the way, we just disregard it and throw it aside. Now when the majority is trying to make a statement about the fact that the Constitution has been totally disregarded over the last 40 or 50 years, we are all willing and able to come down here and protect the Constitution from assault. Madam Speaker, it is days like this that never cease to amaze me in serving in this House. This day of all days is when millions of Americans will rush to the post office, rush to the post office, in order to get a postmark on an envelope so that they can get their taxes filed on time. While these hardworking taxpayers scurry to comply with our cumbersome, antiquated Tax Code, we are here on the House Floor today to debate a very modest bill, in my opinion, that they would love for us to pass. It is designed to make it a little more difficult for Uncle Sam to reach into the pockets of the already overtaxed and extract even more of their hard-earned money. Listen to just a few of the dramatic statistics. Since this administration took office, Federal tax receipts have risen from 19 percent of the gross domestic product to an all-time record of 21.7 percent. Over this period of time, the Federal tax burden has risen to a staggering 45 percent per person, 45 percent per person, from $4,600 in 1992 to $6,700 today, according to the Tax Foundation. Including State and local taxes, the average taxpayer shelled out over $9,800 last year. In fact, the average American family today, if they take the cost of government, that is, the taxes of State and local and Federal Government, and add to that the cost of regulations imposed upon them, over 50 cents out of every hard-earned dollar that the American family makes today goes to the government. No wonder they are squeaking and yelling and screaming. Madam Speaker, what really astounds me is that there are actually people opposed to this proposal. Requiring just a two-thirds majority vote to raise taxes, I think, is a very common-sense idea. Raising taxes should not be easy. The problem is, this town is still full of people who mistakenly believe that big government is the answer to all of our problems, and they fail to recognize that the surplus is not, is not, the property of the United States Government. I have a message for those big government bureaucrats and others who would want tax hikes to be easily accomplished: It is not their money. Madam Speaker, a two-thirds majority is required for all of our most important decisions in America, whether it is amending the Constitution or ratifying treaties. Is not taking the hard-earned money out of the pockets of the American family important enough to require a two-thirds majority? The Federal Government operates under this mentality of what is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine, too. Well, this has to stop, so Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this tax limitation amendment. Let us really put a stop to this era of big government and high taxes, not just pay it lip service when it is convenient.

Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DeLAY. I also carry one in my pocket.

Mr. DeLAY. By the way, I carry this to constantly remind me that there still is such a thing. I keep sending them to their offices, but I do not know what happens to them.

Mr. DeLAY. How dare the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) actually read from the Constitution on the Floor of this House?

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I came down to take this 5-minute special order because I read in the Washington Times this morning an excellent article by Elaine Donnelly that so aptly puts where we are today and puts things in perspective as it relates to Kosovo, that I wanted to come down to the floor and read it on the floor because it puts so well what I had been thinking. It goes like this, and I quote: ``As President Clinton continues the bombing campaign over Kosovo, confusion abounds. Former `doves' are cheering but traditional `hawks' appalled by Mr. Clinton's command blunders, don't know what to say. Concerned Americans want to support the troops, but they are flummoxed by a President who is misusing authority over them. ``To make sense of what is happening, it helps to recognize Mr. Clinton is not conducting a serious, traditional war. If he were, the first wave of NATO planes would have reduced the palace of Slobodan Milosevic, Rembrandt painting and all, to smoking smithereens. ``The Kosovo operation is different and oxymoronic. It is a `peace war' waged by `peace hawks' pursuing a dovish social agenda. Peace hawks are global idealists and former anti-war activists, including the youthful Bill Clinton, who used to `loathe' the military because it uses lethal force. Now that he is commander in chief, Mr. Clinton can use the troops for more virtuous purposes. ```Doing good' on a worldwide scale appeals to peace hawks, who are motivated by altruism, not patriotism. The sight of uniformed peacekeepers distributing food in faraway places makes their hearts sing. As columnist Paul Gigot wrote: `It's as if liberals feel better waging war when U.S. interests aren't at stake.' ``The Kosovo peace war is all about good intentions and grand social objectives. President Clinton said so in a speech before a public employees' union on March 23, rambling on about a vision of `diversity, community, belonging, and wanting our neighbors to do well,' the President rhapsodized, `This is why I devoted so much time,' quoting the President, `to that initiative on race and why I keep fighting for passage of the Hate Crimes legislation, the Employment Nondiscrimination, gay rights legislation, all these things, because I am telling you look all over the world--that's what Kosovo is about. People are still killing each other out of primitive urges because they think what is different about them is more important than what they have in common,''' close quote. ``Mr. Clinton conceded that the people of Yugoslavia had been battling off and on for hundreds of years, but exulting in his own enlightened insight, Mr. Clinton said, `It is an insult to them to say that somehow they were intrinsically made to murder one another.' ``Deriding those who would say, `They're just that way' to excuse violence in Northern Ireland or misbehavior among children, the President added, `Well, if every parent said that, the jails would be five times as big as they are. That's not true. I just don't believe that. And I know what happened in Bosnia, where we found the unity and the will to stand up against the aggression, and we helped to end the war. And later, to make sure the peace would last, we agreed to send troops in with our allies. And I think it was a good investment.' ``So there you have it--victory, as defined by Bill Clinton. Like a parent disciplining an unruly child, our peace-war commander in chief is saying to Kosovo, `Can't you just get along?' NATO is supposed to continue the bombing, in order to pacify warring factions in Serbia and Kosovo. The ultimate goal is to duplicate the edgy silence of Bosnia, and enforce it with NATO peacekeepers for years, perhaps for decades. This is the `it' we are `in', and there is no way Americans can win. ``The entire operation was conceived and launched by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who once said to General Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, `What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?' General Powell wrote in his autobiography that Mrs. Albright's outburst, made during a briefing on Bosnia, almost gave him an aneurysm. The general tried to explain that `American GIs are not toy soldiers to be moved around on some sort of global gameboard.' ``But Mrs. Albright is finally getting her way, despite reported warnings from the current Joint Chiefs of Staff. Once again uniformed leaders are being ordered to make war and peace simultaneously.'' As the late Army Gen. Creighton Abrams, Vietnam-era Chief of Staff used to say, ``Fighting in the name of peace is like seeking virtue in a bordello.'' It is time to start over, before a bad situation gets worse. The deployment of land troops for combat--daintily described by Mrs. Albright as a ``nonpermissive environment''--will not bring peace to a Kosovo that no longer exists. Why not follow the president's lead, and do something to make everyone feel better about the situation? There are lots of creative ways to achieve the president's stated goals--diversity, community and belonging--without passing bad legislation or needlessly putting combat soldiers at risk. For starters, Mr. Clinton's Hollywood friends could stage a remake of that memorable soft-drink commercial--the one featuring a hillside of children folk-singing about apple trees, honey bees, and buying the world a Coke. With help, Balkan refugees could participate in the production. Perhaps the International Monetary Fund could take the $5 billion loan that Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov recently passed up, and divert it to Albania and other neighboring countries that are willing to provide clean clothes, food, and safe, temporary housing. Forget the usual presidential photo-ops with deployed soldiers in fatigues. Let Bill Clinton risk his own neck for a change. To burnish his legacy, he could fly into Belgrade on an Apache helicopter, and play the saxophone at one of those rock concerts. Even with bulletproof glass, it would make a great picture for the history books--just like the ones of John F. Kennedy in Berlin and Ronald Reagan at the Wall. Then the belligerent Balkan leaders could be flown back to the White House for some friendly attitude adjustment. They could even shake hands in front of a beaming president, arms outstretched in a striking freeze frame that would make everyone feel good. So all together now . . . let's join hands, light a candle, and sing ``Kumbaya.'' We can win the peace war in Kosovo. Just keep our soldiers out of it.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the 5 minute special order of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing how all we can talk about is the budget in 1981. This is 1999, and I just remind some of my colleagues that the budget since 1981 was controlled by a Democrat House and a Democrat Senate that refused to cut spending. The difference, as I answer my colleagues, is this is a Republican Congress that has brought fiscal discipline to the process. In fact, the Democrats are running as fast as they can away from the President's budget that he submitted this year. The Senate voted down yesterday by a vote of 97 to 2 the President's own budget. Why can they not even support the President's own budget? And by a vote of 99 to nothing, 99 to 0, could not even get one person to vote, the Senate rejected the President's proposal for the government to invest Social Security funds into the stock market. Over the past 4 years, Mr. Chairman, the Republican Congress has worked very hard to balance the budget; the President took credit for it. Cap federal spending; the President took credit for it. Provide much needed tax relief to American families; the President took credit for it. The Republican budget plan for the year 2000 continues this shift to restore a solid American common sense to American government. Now American families know how to balance their checkbooks, and they know how to stay within a budget. American families know the value of a dollar. There is no reason why this Federal Government cannot be as responsible as the average American family. Over all, the Republican budget returns control to the American family by taking less of their money, setting very strict fiscal priorities and respecting spending caps. The Republican budget locks up 100 percent of Social Security surpluses for the first time since Social Security became a program. We are being honest about the Social Security Trust Fund. The Republican budget bolsters national defense by nearly $10 billion, and the Republican budget plans to reduce the national debt by 1.8 billion over the next decade. And the Republican budget cuts taxes by $800 billion over 10 years. Right down the line the Republican budget trumpets that fiscal responsibility is the wave of the future. This budget says loud and clear that Republicans want American families to keep more of their hard-earned money and send less of it to Washington forever. When the Republicans took over Congress 4 years ago, the budget predictions had red ink spilled as far as the eye could see. Today, because of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that we pushed through and the President took credit for, there are nothing but surpluses as far as the eye can see in the future. Now some budget decisions are very difficult to do, and what we did not show with the Democrat Congress after 1981, discipline is hard, discipline is not always easy. But at the close of this century the Republican budget does it all. It cuts taxes, it reduces the debt, it saves Social Security, and it bolster defense. So, Mr. Chairman, if we stick to our guns, America will be freer, it will be richer, it will be safer into the next century than ever before, so I urge my colleagues to vote for the Republican budget.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the antitrust division of the Department of Justice for approving the SBC-Ameritech merger. As the telecommunications industry continues to evolve in the aftermath of the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996, the promise of that act can be fulfilled only if regulatory agencies remove the eye shades of New Deal regulation and begin to view the competitive landscape of tomorrow with a fresh look. This is precisely what the Department has done this week. However, I was not pleased to learn that, unlike mergers in other competitive industries, telecommunications mergers such as the SBC- Ameritech venture must jump through several hoops before the deal is done. Not only does the Department of Justice conduct its traditional antitrust review, these mergers often must receive the blessing of multiple local and state agencies as well as the Federal Communications Commission. A reasonable person might assume that once the Department of Justice has issued a clean bill of antitrust health for a proposed merger, that venture has passed the smell test. I hope that same reasonable person would share the concern that I have after reading this week that the FCC may hold this merger, and others like it, hostage under some ransom-guided interpretation of the so-called ``public interest'' standard. Mr. Speaker, the underlying premise of the Telecommunications Reform Act we passed in the 104th Congress was to break down the artificial barriers of regulation so that the marketplace would choose the winners and losers in this vital industry. We appear to be a long way from the realization of that promise when regulatory bodies handcuff the invisible hand of our free market system. I would strongly urge the FCC to follow the lead of the DOJ and quickly approve this merger.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the following remarks given by Paul Harvey in a radio broadcast on March 16, 1999 to my colleagues. [Excerpt from Paul Harvey News, March 16, 1999] When Communism was threatening to take over the world there were Americans with divided allegiance. Communists had infiltrated some high places into the United States. A lean young traitor was able to walk out of the Supreme Court building with two character references in his briefcase. In Hollywood individuals suspected of communist sympathies were blacklisted. Some were denied employment for years. Less well known is the Hollywood blacklist of ANTI communists and this one still exists. March 21, next Sunday; in Los Angeles, California at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion there will be a ceremony of support for the actors and actresses who have been blacklisted because they dared oppose communism. Adolph Menjou, Elia Kazan, and recognition for his red-white and blue colleagues: Writer Jack Moffitt, Richard Macaulay, Morris Ryskind, Fred Niblo, Junior. Albert Mannheimer who dared fight communists within the Screen Actors Guild. Most of these who opposed communism never worked in Hollywood again. They represent the ``other blacklist.'' And it is not limited to Hollywood. All media include some whose patriotism is diluted and to whom anybody consistently on the right is anathema. They hated Reagan and still do. Such is the ``new discrimination'' a new organization has taken root to protect the civil rights of the American right. The American Civil Rights Union chaired by Robert Carlson and with a board comprised of Bob Bork, Linda Chavez, Ed Meese, Joe Perkins, Ken Tomlinson. In my professional experience there is less--left-right-- polarization in our nation than ever in this century. But what it is is insidious, entrenched, tenacious. Until the day when there will be need for an ACLU or an ACRU . . . it is constructive that we now have both.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this week marks the second anniversary of the imprisonment of Pastor Xu Yongze by the Communist authorities in China. Today also marks the fifth time I have come to the floor to urge the Chinese Government to release this decent man of God. Last week, I met with the Chinese Ambassador to once again raise my disappointment with China's refusal to release Pastor Xu, who is often called the ``Billy Graham'' of China. Unfortunately, the Chinese still cling to the belief that Pastor Xu is a cult leader because he believes in a judgment day. But, Mr. Speaker, the belief in a judgment day is a basic tenet of Christianity, a belief held by billions of Christians around the world, including myself. Now that would be one big cult. Pastor Xu is a respected and honorable man and one incredibly brave Christian. So once again I ask President Jiang Zemin to release Pastor Xu, as I humbly ask my colleagues and fellow Americans to remember Pastor Xu in their prayers.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. I understand why some Members are in support of this bill. But, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully rise today to voice my opposition to this steel quota bill. The choice facing us is clear. Either we want protectionism or we want free markets. Protectionism not only stunts this country's growth but also hurts the very industries it tries to protect. Steel is no exception to that rule. America's steel industry leads the world in productivity and quality today because of competition, not protection. Since 1982, the amount of man-hours it takes to produce a ton of steel in America has dropped from over 10 hours to less than 4 hours. America's steel companies still supply nearly three-quarters of the steel consumed in America. Even if they produce steel at full capacity, we would still have to import steel in order to meet America's needs. Will America really be better off by meddling with this market? The United States is the world's largest exporter. We are inescapably linked to markets all around this globe, and most American industries depend on some imported materials. It is doubtful that the capacity of some American industries could be sustained by American suppliers alone. Setting tariffs on steel only comes at the cost of other sectors of the U.S. economy. There is also a great danger to slapping tariffs on goods when the world economy is already unstable. All nations and all consumers are losers in trade wars. If we close our markets, the markets of the world are then closed to us. No doubt such anti-trade developments are the real threat to our economy and to thousands of American jobs. Protectionism hurts American workers. When we limit the ability of our trade partners to access our market, we destroy the very framework that is the foundation of vibrant, dynamic trade and cooperation. Tariffs and quotas only tie the hands of American businesses by limiting our business partners and destroying markets for American products. Mr. Speaker, we should have no barriers to American ingenuity and no obstacles to American prosperity. Simply put, protectionism is an obstacle to our freedom. We cannot close ourselves off from the world. Trade is not a four-letter word. It is a fact of life. Mr. Speaker, no nation was ever ruined by free trade, but many nations have collapsed because of failing trade. I urge my colleagues to vote against this anti-trade bill.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing this resolution to the floor, and I particularly thank the gentleman from Arizona not only for bringing this resolution but for his courtesy. I rise to state that the United States position on the Middle East peace process must be made perfectly clear. Unilateral announcement of an independent Palestinian state cannot be accepted. Yasser Arafat's plan to announce Palestinian statehood when the Oslo Accords expire is nothing more than an attempt to shatter a fragile peace in the Middle East. Israel is an island of democracy surrounded by hostile enemies. Defending this lone democracy in the Middle East should be nothing short of a crusade for America. The Clinton administration tries to govern with words only, typically talking on both sides of every issue. A successful foreign policy cannot be built upon equivocation and confusion. It is no wonder that the Israelis are worried about U.S. support. Every time peace talks stall, it is Israel that is expected to surrender more territory and concede more diplomatic ground to come to the negotiating table. Mr. Speaker, peace depends on the willing participation and agreement of both parties. Any unilateral declaration of an independent Palestinian state must be clearly condemned for all time by the United States. American silence now will spell chaos in the Middle East in the future. I urge my colleagues to support the Salmon resolution and send a very clear message not only to Israel but the world that we stand beside Israel.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my complete opposition to sending American troops to Kosovo. There is simply no vision to this mission. Even the casual observer can see that the proposed Kosovo initiative has no timetable, no rules of engagement and no greater strategic plan for that region. Unfortunately, the undefined Kosovo mission is symbolic of the lack of direction of our recent American foreign policy. There is a 6-year trend to send American troops anywhere for any reason, but there are no consistent goals that tie all of these missions together. Ronald Reagan once said that changing America's foreign policy is a little like towing an iceberg. You can only pick up speed as the frozen attitudes and mistakes of the past melt away. America needs to quickly change directions and leave behind the chilling comedy of errors that has defined our recent foreign policy. Ronald Reagan is a statesman. During his administration, the United States was the dominant force on the world's stage because there was no mystery to American foreign policy. During that time, America boldly told the world that we would bring peace through strength. Ronald Reagan stood up to the tyranny of communism and said that the American way would triumph, but not through conciliation and not through appeasement. The United States won that Cold War because of the truth of our principles. In every corner of the world we pushed for freedom and democracy. Oh, how American policy has changed since the days of Ronald Reagan. Today there is simply no cohesion and no consistent principles that form the basis for everything we do on any spot of this map of the world. American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy. This feel-good foreign policy tears us away from peace through strength and it has resulted in creating chaos through weakness. This administration makes threats and never follows up on them. They set deadlines that are broken and reset, just to be broken again. American foreign policy failures over the last 6 years litter the international landscape. Mission-creep in Somalia cost the lives of American soldiers. North Korea continues to flaunt international law by speeding ahead with their nuclear program with no consequences whatsoever. Haiti is still not the beacon of democracy, despite sending U.S. Marines there. Afghanistan and the Sudan were bombed in the blink of an eye. Yet Osama bin Laden still represents a threat to thousands of American lives. We continuously bomb Iraq, without any clear goals, and without getting any closer to our ultimate objective of Saddam Hussein being removed from power. Russia, with its massive nuclear capability is coming apart at the seams and selling weapons and technology to scrape by, and we do nothing. China is walking all over us, pure and simple. Currently we are stuck in a never-ending peacekeeping mission in Bosnia that was proposed as a 1-year commitment. That promise was made 4 years ago. And now we have Kosovo. Kosovo is not a hopeful nation aspiring to democracy. It is a big dangerous quagmire. The ethnic Albanians wanted total independence, and the Serbs do not want to give up any important parts of their country. Both parties have consistently rejected any chance of a real cease- fire. Mr. Chairman, American soldiers are trained to be warriors, not baby- sitters. The administration has no plan to do anything but just go to Kosovo, hold the hands of both sides and hope that they will behave when we leave. But of course they will not. The killing and mayhem will continue as soon as NATO pulls out. So how long does the President plan to keep our troops there any way? No occupation can or should last forever. There is a litany of reasons why we should not send troops to Kosovo, but the most compelling are the new power and responsibilities the mission unthinkingly gives to NATO. There are serious concerns about this new peace making direction for NATO. Its purpose is always to be a defensive alliance, not an offensive force.