Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, NATO's purpose has always been a defensive alliance, not an offensive force going into nonmember nations uninvited. Once NATO starts meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, where does it stop? Think about this question for a moment. Outside of the questions of time and cost and objective, the Kosovo policy we are debating here today would have tremendous ramification on NATO's overall mission. We have to take a stand against these kinds of deployments now to ensure that we stop them before they ever get started. NATO is starting to resemble a power-hungry imperialist army. Originally designed to defend member nations from attack, it is now setting itself up to be the attacker. Despite the fact that the two parties in Kosovo refuse to negotiate even directly amongst themselves and have rejected a cease-fire, the administration threatens to bomb the Serbs to make them cooperate at the peace table. There is one major catch here. There is no peace table, just like there is no peace. The two sides continue to attack one another with a vengeance. It does not matter how many soldiers NATO sends over there, no number of troops can keep peace if there is no peace to begin with. The proposed Kosovo mission is just another bad idea in a foreign policy with no focus. As with all the recent failures in American diplomacy, the administration is trying to obscure its lack of a comprehensive agenda, and they are doing it with bombs. Bombing a sovereign nation for ill- defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly. We must stop giving the appearance that our foreign policy is formulated by the Unabomber. Mr. Chairman, sending U.S. troops to Kosovo is a lose-lose situation. No matter how we look at it, it is dangerous, it is costly. America has no strategic interests in the matter, and no one wants us to be there in the first place. Support the gentlewoman from Florida's amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my outrage at the President's continual raid on Social Security. While this Nation's elderly are worried that Social Security will not be there when they need it, the White House budget plan for 2000 robs $52 billion from Social Security surpluses. Mr. Speaker, this is a trust fund, not a slush fund. The President thinks he can dip into Social Security to finance any big government spending project he can dream up. Not only will the President take $52 billion for general spending from Social Security next year, he will continue to pilfer more than $247 billion from the Social Security surplus for the next 5 years. With this kind of scheme, it is no wonder Social Security is in trouble. Mr. Speaker, the Republican plan wants to lock up 100 percent of the surpluses in Social Security to save Social Security. The Republican plan wants to restore a sense of security to Social Security. In short, the Republican plan will maintain responsibility and discipline in government.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for the Mandates Information Act. We are a government by, for and of the people. This legislation simply informs the America people of the costs of their government. There are many ways the federal government spends the hard-earned money of American families. The most notorious of course is direct taxation. But just as burdensome are unfunded mandates pushed on businesses and state and local governments--and right now there is no consistent accounting for how much these cost. Unlike most bills that create and then hide expenses, this one simply satisfies the right to know what the government is forcing others to spend. This bill exposes all the hidden taxes of government. It is purely informational. There is no language in the bill that affects environmental laws, or health and safety standards. In short, it says to each and every Member of Congress: think before you spend. It has become somewhat unfashionable for congressmen to be spend- crazy. But rather than changing their ways, many simply vote to dump the cost on others. This bill makes congressmen think twice about voting for hidden government costs because it will chronicle those costs. Everyone likes to say that less control should be wielded by Washington and more work should be done on the private and local level. Even Bill Clinton claimed the era of big government is over. Now we need to do something about it. We need to get the federal government off the backs of businesses and state and local governments. I urge my colleagues to pass the Mandates Information Act without amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all the hard work that the gentleman from Indiana has done in trying to bring some reasonableness to the regulatory policy of this country. I think it is really interesting that some in this House base all their information and the veracity of that information on the New York Times. I would think that it would be more important to go straight to the agency itself and get the real truths from the agency, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) does, in supporting the claims that he makes. But Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very strong support of this very reasonable legislation, in support of what the Clinton administration has claimed all the time in reinventing government, to reach out and create partnerships with the private sector and work with the private sector rather than bring down the regulatory hammer on small business people, and this legislation does that. But in 1995 we passed a bipartisan Paperwork Reduction Bill that required a decrease in the Federal paperwork of 15 percent over the last three years. Do my colleagues know what the result of that legislation has been? Federal paperwork requirements have increased. Do we have to reinvent the reinvention of government? What part of ``decrease'' do the bureaucrats and the regulators and their supporters not understand? Mr. Chairman, the business of America is business; and over the last decade, American businesses have made huge strides to cut waste and improve the efficiency of their operations. But despite all these efforts, America's small businesses still have to spend too much time and too much money filling out unnecessary government paperwork, which prevents them from growing faster and creating new jobs and does not do anything to improve the health, safety, or the environment that the gentleman from California purports. Remarkably, one-third of all Federal regulatory cost is the result of paperwork requirements. One-third. That amounts to $229 billion of an albatross roped around the neck of the small business person every year. Over seven billion man-hours are being drowned in this sea of red tape. Mr. Chairman, Federal regulators need to start complying with the law. And this bill will list Federal paperwork requirements for small business on the Internet. It will assist rather than punish small businesses with their efforts at compliance. And it will create a multi-agency task force and an agency-specific paperwork czar to tackle this problem, and it is a problem. Above all, it is lenient on first-time offenders when there are no health or safety concerns involved, so the Federal Government does not have to strangle this economy's biggest job creator in red tape and regulations and unnecessary paperwork. This bill takes another step toward lending companies a helping hand with this paperwork morass. I urge that my colleagues support it.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I worked with Mr. Saxton, Mr. Salmon and now over 60 cosponsors to introduce a resolution calling on the President to clarify American policy with respect to a unilateral declaration of an independent Palestinian state. I did this because I feel the Administration's policy regarding Israel and the Middle East process has been confusing and misleading not only for the American people, but for the international community at large, and especially for the parties to the peace process itself. The United States has never endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state. After the signing of the Oslo accords, the U.S. made it clear that all questions of sovereignty and statehood were a matter for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. However, First Lady Hillary Clinton's public statement last May that ``it will be in the long-term interests of the Middle East for Palestine to be a state . . . and seen on the same footing as any other state'' put U.S. policy on this issue in severe and grave doubt. The First Lady's remarks came almost exactly one year before the scheduled expiration date in May, 1999 for completing the final status talks between Israel and the Palestinians under the Oslo agreement. Any unilateral declaration of statehood will constitute a fundamental violation of the Oslo accords because they were agreed to only after Chairman Arafat made an irrevocable commitment that, in his words, ``all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.'' Since resolving the political status of the Palestinian people while protecting the security of Israel is one of the central issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, any effort to act unilaterally on the issue will have the effect of destabilizing the current security situation not only in Israel but in the entire region. So it is of great concern that despite official denials by the United States State Department and numerous other officials in the administration, the First Lady's remarks were interpreted by many around the world, including Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, as ``a very important and clear signal'' regarding the Administration's position on the issue of Palestinian statehood. Arafat subsequently threatened to unilaterally declare an independent Palestinian state in May of 1999--which is now just three months away. Last July, subsequent to the First Lady's remarks, the United Nations voted to elevate the Palestinian observer mission at the UN to the status of a full observer mission, a status just short of that accorded an independent state. Then last fall, while speaking before the United Nations, Yasser Arafat called on world leaders to support an independent Palestinian state--though the U.S. State Department scrambled mightily to prevent him from also repeating his threat to declare such a state unilaterally. Mr. Speaker, what has been missing from this debate over the last year has been a public--and unequivocal--statement from President Clinton himself that the United States will never recognize the unilateral declaration of an independent Palestinian state. No amount of denials, statements, or clarifications by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and other functionaries down at the State Department can dispel the confusion and uncertainty about U.S. policy occasioned by the First Lady's remarks. Rightly or wrongly, the perception of many around the world and even in this country is that only President Clinton has the clout to override the influence of the First Lady within his Administration on this point. For the President to pretend otherwise is to hide his head, and America's, in the sand. The need for the President to personally act to clarify the U.S. position was brought home when Yasser Arafat stated last July that ``[t]here is a transition period of five years and after five years we have the right to declare an independent Palestine state. We are asking for an accurate implementation, an honest implementation of what has been signed in the White House under the supervision of President Clinton.'' Even after the conclusion of the Wye River agreement and the call for new elections in Israel, Chairman Arafat, his cabinet, the Palestinian legislature, and other officials continue to threaten to unilaterally proclaim the establishment of a Palestinian state when the Oslo accords expire on May 4, 1999. On January 24th, senior Palestinian official Saeb Erekat told the Voice of Palestine that May 4th ``is a day [which has] international legitimacy'' and that ``the Palestinian leadership can not postpone this date for even an hour in announcing an independent Palestinian state.'' The day before the Palestinian Minister of Planning and International Cooperation, Nabil Shaath, said that May 4th is ``a historic and vital day'' suggesting that the Palestinians will indeed declare a state on this day. We must remember that Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians demand the whole West Bank and has declared ``that there can be no permanent peace as long as the problem of Jerusalem remains unresolved.'' The Palestinian Cabinet, on Thursday, September 24, stated that ``at the end of the interim period, it (the Palestinian government) shall declare the establishment of a Palestinian state on all Palestinian land occupied since 1967, with Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the Palestinian state.'' It is way past time for the President to declare that the United States will never recognize a unilateral declaration of an independent Palestinian state, and that Israel, and Israel alone, can determine its security needs. This was made clear back in June, less than a month after the First Lady's remarks, when Palestinian National Council Speaker Salim al-Za'nun announced that, ``If following our declaration of state, Israel renews it occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza strip, the Palestinian people will struggle and resist the occupier with all means possible, including armed struggle.'' If the President fails to speak and the Palestinians do declare an independent state, what security there is currently prevailing in Israel and the region could dissipate overnight. This is a common sense resolution that clarifies United States policy toward Israel. We all hope that Israel and the Palestinian people can work out an arrangement that benefits both communities and the region as a whole. But we should never forget in the quest for peace that Israel is a proven friend and ally of the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to expedite its consideration.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a bill in this Congress that I first offered last April 23rd in the 105th Congress. The bill is simple--it ends forever, the early release of violent felons and convicted drug dealers by judges who care more about the ACLU's prisoner rights wish list than about the Constitution, and the safety of our towns, communities and fellow citizens. Under the threat of federal courts, states are being forced to prematurely release convicts because of what activist judges call ``prison overcrowding.'' In Philadelphia, for instance, Federal Judge Norma Shapiro has used complaints filed by individual inmates to gain control over the prison system and establish a cap on the number of prisoners. To meet that cap, she ordered the release of 500 prisoners a week. In an 18 month period alone, 9,732 arrestees that were out on the streets of Philadelphia on pre-trial release because of her prison cap, were re-arrested on second charges, including 79 murders, 90 rapes, 701 burglaries, 959 robberies, 1,113 assaults, 2,215 drug offenses and 2,748 thefts. How does she sleep at night? Each one of these crimes was committed against a person with a family dreaming of a safe and peaceful future--a future that was snuffed out by a judge who has a perverted view of the Constitution. Of course Judge Shapiro is not alone. There are many other examples. In a Texas case that dates back to 1972, federal Judge William Wayne Justice took control of the Texas prison System and dictated changes in basic inmate disciplinary practices that wrested administrative authority from staff and resulted in rampant violence behind bars. Under the threats of Judge Justice, Texas was forced to adopt what is known as the ``nutty release'' law that mandates ``good time credit'' for prisoners. Murderers and drug dealers who should be behind bars are walking the streets of our Texas neighborhoods--thanks to Judge Justice. Wesley Wayne Miller was convicted in 1982 of a brutal murder. He served only 9 years of a 25-year sentence for butchering an 18-year-old Fort Worth girl. Now, after another crime spree, he was re-arrested. Huey Meaux was sentenced to 15 years for molesting a teen-age girl. He is eligible for parole this September after serving only two years in prison. Kenneth McDuff was on death row for murder when his sentence was commuted. He ended up murdering someone else. In addition to the cost to society of Judge Justice's activism, Texas is reeling from the financial impact of Judge Justice's sweeping order. I remember back when I was in the state legislature, the state of Texas spent about $8.00 per prisoner per day. By 1994, when the full force of Judge Justice's edict was finally being felt, the state was spending more than $40.00 every day for each prisoner. That's a fivefold increase over a period when the state's prison population barely doubled. The truth is no matter how Congress and state legislatures try to get tough on crime, we won't be effective until we deal with the judicial activism. The courts have undone almost every major anti-crime initiative passed by the legislative branch. In the 1980s, as many states passed mandatory-minimum sentencing laws, the judges checkmated the public by imposing prison caps. When this Congress mandated the end of ``consent decrees'' regarding prison overcrowding in 1995, some courts just ignored our mandate. There is an activist judge behind each of the most perverse failures of today's justice system: violent offenders serving barely 40% of their sentences; 3.5 million criminals, most of them repeat offenders, on the streets on probation and parole; 35% of all persons arrested for violent crime being on probation, parole, or pretrial release at the time of their arrest. The Constitution of the United States gives us the power to take back our streets. Article III allows the Congress to set jurisdictional restraints on the Courts. My bill will set such restraints. I presume we will hear cries of ``court stripping'' by opponents of my bill. These cries, however, will come from the same people who voted to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts in the 1990 Civil Rights Bill. Let us not forget the pleas of our current Chief Justice of the United States, William Rehnquist. In his 1997 Year-end Report on the Federal Judiciary, he said, ``I therefore call on Congress to consider legislative proposals that would reduce the jurisdiction of federal courts.'' We should heed Justice Rehnquist's call--right here, right now. Mr. Speaker, this bill is also identical to an amendment I offered last Congress to HR 1252, the Judicial Reform Act. That amendment passed 367-52. That's right, 367-52. While that is an overwhelming victory, it is not enough. I am saddened that 52 Members so callously voted against protecting the families they represent. Despite the fact that the liberal legal establishment will fight against my bill and the families it will help protect, many of my liberal Democrat colleagues voted for my amendment last year. They couldn't afford not to. How can any member of this body go home to their district and face a mother whose son or daughter has been savagely beaten and killed by a violent felon--a felon let out of prison early to satisfy the legal community's liberal agenda. Judicial activism threatens our safety and the safety of our children, if in the name of justice, murderers and rapists are allowed to prowl our streets before they serve their time. It's time to return some sanity to our justice system, and keep violent offenders in jail. I strongly urge my colleagues, for the sake of the families they represent, to support my bill.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can make this speech, but I am going to try. Believe it or not, I have been very depressed about this whole proceeding. When I came to work yesterday, it really hit me what we were about to do. But after this morning, it made me realize even more what this is all about. I feel great about it, because no matter how low we think we are or depressed we are, this country shows us time and time again how great it is. There is no greater American in my mind, at least today, than the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Bob Livingston) because he understood what this debate was all about. It was about honor and decency and integrity and the truth, everything that we honor in this country. It was also a debate about relativisim versus absolute truth. The President's defenders have said that the President is morally reprehensible, that he is reckless, that he has violated the trust of the American people, lessened their esteem for the office of President and dishonored the office which they have entrusted him, but that it does not rise to the level of impeachment. What the defenders want to do is lower the standards by which we hold this President and lower the standards for our society by doing so. I cannot in good conscience, after watching Newt Gingrich put the country, his caucus, his House above himself and resign, and I cannot stand before you watching Bob Livingston put his family, and I hope you will think about his family, his friends, his House and his country above any ambitions that he may have. He thought he could do a good job as Speaker. I think he would have. But for some it is no longer good enough to make a mistake, confess that mistake and accept the consequences of that mistake and change the way you live your life and keep moving and make a contribution to this country. I think you ought to think about that, both sides. So, Mr. Speaker, we will proceed. We will elect another Speaker. This country will be better for it. I cannot say this strong enough: This is God's country, and I know He will bless America.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise certainly in support of this legislation and am very proud to support it. I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) because I went to the same ceremony just to honor not only the Capitol heroes that have fallen but police officers that have fallen around the country, just to support them. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) was very gracious in including me in the ceremony. It was a great honor for me to be a part of the ceremony and because of his graciousness and hospitality and thoughtfulness, I really appreciate what he did. This is a resolution that I am very proud that is coming to the floor. It is obviously on a day like today, when we are honoring all the fallen law enforcement officers around the country, and those that are still living, to pass a resolution like this, particularly in light of the fact that Christopher Eney, who died in a training incident, is also being honored along with Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. The Capitol Police have only lost three officers in its entire history. Christopher Eney was the first, and unfortunately on the same day we lost two more. The Capitol Police Officers want to name their headquarters for these three officers and I, like the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), think that is more than appropriate and certainly honorable that their fellow officers want to do so. Earlier this year, the body knows that my office was the scene of this tragic incident that shook the Nation and it was there that a gunman came into the United States Capitol and started shooting and he killed Officer Chestnut, wounded a tourist and then shot and fatally wounded Detective Gibson. Before he died, Detective Gibson was able to shoot the gunman, saving the lives of many innocent bystanders, including members of my staff. For that, my staff and I will be eternally grateful. We also are grateful to the families that sacrificed these officers. As most can expect, these families are having a very hard time but need to understand that the Nation is praying for them and their families; that they have a lot of support not only within the law enforcement community in Washington, D.C. and in the Metroplex area but in this House and around the country. The memorial fund that was set up for J.J. and John has been more than successful, although I would like it to be even bigger, but we are very encouraged by the kind of support that we are seeing coming from all around the Nation. Chestnut and Gibson and Eney are certainly American heroes, not only because they died in the line of duty but also because they exemplified the best of the American spirit when they were alive. All three were family men. All three were patriots. All three were dedicated to the proposition that America is the land of the free and the home of the brave. John Gibson served on my security detail and became a very close friend to me. We discussed many things in our time together. We talked about our families. We talked about our country and we talked about God. I continue to miss the professional manner, the uncommon wisdom and the wry sense of humor that John brought to our office every day, and I will miss him for the rest of my life. Both John Gibson and J.J. Chestnut died so that others might live. They gave their lives in the defense of the United States Capitol and they died as American heroes. Naming the U.S. Capitol Police headquarters after these three men, J.J. Chestnut, John Gibson and Christopher Eney, is an altogether, if insufficient, way to memorialize their contributions to the United States Congress and to this country, and I am honored to ask the Members to support this resolution.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I really appreciate the Dean of the New York delegation for taking out this special order for what is truly a trend setter and a person who has really turned this place into a dynamic institution. I appreciate the New York delegation. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who I think is one of the most energetic, the most enthusiastic, and the most effective Members Congress, my good friend Bill Paxon of the great State of New York. And for a gentleman from Texas to say that takes a lot to bring a New Yorker and a Texan together and to become as close friends as we are. Bill, as we all know, is retiring from Congress at the end of this year, and he is going to pursue some private sector opportunities. We wish him the best. Bill's departure, quite frankly, is a great loss to this institution. But it is also a great gain for his family and for the private sector, because Bill Paxon did more to reform this Congress than any other person in this House. He was the principal architect of the strategy to change control of this House, which had been in one party's hands for over 40 years. Once we were able to gain a majority, we were able to reform this Congress in so many significant ways. We were able to balance the budget for the first time in a generation. We cut the size of government. We made Members of Congress even follow the laws of the land. We reformed welfare. We cut taxes for the first time in 16 years and we reformed this Congress in ways that have improved its popularity with the people to its highest ratings in history. And this all happened because of the hard work of Bill Paxon. As we all know, Bill was first elected to Congress in 1988. And having accomplished all of this, one would think that he had been here forever. But we all know him as our own personal political junkie, because at the age of 23, he started his political career. Mr. Speaker, 23 years old is when he started in the Erie County legislature. He later went to the New York State Assembly before starting his distinguished career in the U.S. House. But Bill Paxon is a visionary. He sees America as a Nation of opportunity, a Nation with boundless optimism and a can-do spirit. And it was this can-do spirit that Bill Paxon took over to the National Republican Congressional Committee with the express goal of achieving the first Republican Majority in the House in 40 years. Nobody, other than probably Newt Gingrich, thought it could be done. Nobody thought that Paxon was serious in his efforts. And he took an NRCC that was pretty much broke, heavily in debt, demoralized, and pulled it together, showing his administrative skills as well as his political skills. Bill Paxon proved all the doubters wrong by using his energy to help Republicans win that majority. Now Bill Paxon has decided to leave the House and pursue other opportunities. Spending as much time as I have with Bill, I think I know his true motivation. It is to spend more time with his wife and our former colleague, Susan Molinari, and their fantastically beautiful Susan Ruby Paxon. We call her ``Suby,'' and who could blame him. Bill, let me just say we will miss your optimism and your spirit and your vision of the House of Representatives. As a matter of fact, we already miss them. We wish you the best of luck in the future in your future endeavors. But let me just say that those people that are about to meet Bill Paxon in the private sector, there is, when you develop a relationship with Bill Paxon, when you develop a friendship with Bill Paxon, you will have on your side one of the most loyal individuals I have ever run into. One of the closest friends that I have ever had. A person that will stand by you through the worst of times as well as the best of times. A man of incredible honor and integrity and character. A man that young people should look up to as a role model, as most of us have. We are going to miss you so much in this chamber, Bill. And we hope that you will continue to give us the counsel and the friendship we need, no matter where you go. I greatly appreciate your friendship and will cherish it forever. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for yielding to me.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. The gentleman is right. I think he has expounded on his premise of where he quoted Paul Greenberg, do not watch what the President says, watch what he does. The gentleman from Indiana, as he says, is on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. My question is, who is in charge? We do not know who to deal with anymore. We have been here all weekend. We are going into more negotiations tomorrow, and who knows how long we will be here. And again, I tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we will stay here until we get it done. But this whole notion of who is in charge and what he says and how he backs up what he says, we have already talked about the fact that having 100,000 teachers being paid for by the Federal Government would be as successful as the 100,000 cops that they have not funded yet. There are only 58,000 that have actually been put on the streets because nobody, most people do not want to participate. The gentleman is on the Education Committee. I seem to remember that along with that, the President wants to improve the technology, put computers in every classroom, those kinds of things. In fact, I think his quote was, the budget should also bring cutting edge technology to the classroom, the library. Does not the Department of Education have a trust fund and they have had a trust fund to bring technology to the classroom and it has been in place for over 2 years. And not one dime has been spent on improving technology in the classroom. So they have this bunch of money sitting out there. That was not good enough. The President of the United States got the phone companies to raise taxes on phone calls, we call it the Gore tax on long distance, to help fund this effort, and that was not even part of the agreement, when the bill was actually passed a couple of years ago. Another almost shutdown where the President demanded new programs and things like that. But there is money there. There is a trust fund set up, and they cannot even spend it. So they propose a program for rhetorical reasons. They get what they want by negotiating out the final outcome of spending, yet when they are given it, they cannot even implement it. They are so incompetent they cannot even implement those programs.

Mr. DeLAY. I might also add, you cannot spend the surplus on tax cuts for the American family, but it is okay to spend the surplus for all his government programs.

Mr. DeLAY. You are being magnanimous.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Arizona, sitting in the chair, for his endurance on a Sunday afternoon in listening to what has just gone on. I listened to the discussion all this day, and I find it rather fascinating. The shrillness of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle I think reflects their sense of denial. Most of what they have said is that they are trying to continue the policies so that they can continue to support their philosophy of government that has failed. We have tried their way for well over 50 years, and most of the problems that they describe, the problems with our public school system, with our government, with health care, most of that came from when they controlled this Congress. They have controlled most of the local governments, the state governments, this Congress, for the last 30 to 40 years, and the result are the problems that they have described. The problem is that their solutions are more of the same, more money, more big government. ``We know better.'' You heard just 15 minutes ago, the gentleman from New Jersey, talking about the fact that ``I know what my local school boards need more than they do.'' Well, he ought to run for the school board, because that is where the decisions ought to be made, not here on this floor and not by the President of the United States. For my colleagues and others, let me try to kind of put in perspective where we are today. I find it fascinating that the President of the United States showed up for the first time to talk to his budget people the day before the targeted date of adjournment, last Thursday. That is the first time that I have heard or read about that the President has met with his budget people about the spending and appropriations bills that we are trying to pass. That is the first time I have heard that this President has been engaged this year on anything that is going on in the Congress of the United States. The day of adjournment, on Friday, the President announces that he is not going to accept the work of this House or the Senate unless he gets his education package. That is the first time since his State of the Union message that I have heard that he has been engaged in the process. This President has been totally disengaged this whole year. In fact, I can contend that this year is nothing more than a reflection of what we have been going through for the last four years. This President's normal method of operation is he does not get engaged at all until the end, and then he comes in and demands more spending and bigger government and more programs. And, because he is President, he could shut down the government like he did in 1995. We have to deal with this President to get him to sign the legislation. Yet during the whole process, he is not engaged. The American people need to really understand what is going on here. The President himself today in a meeting with Democrat leadership, I find it very strange, he has not this entire year, in fact I think if we go back two years, has not called on the Republicans, the majority leadership, to meet with him at all. But today he meets with the Democrat leadership, and he announces that he has been engaged in this educational program all along. All he could cite was he talked about it in his State of the Union message and he sent it up in his budget. I defy anyone to bring to me one bill written that was initiated by this President this year. One bill. Just show me the bill. Show me the bill. This President has not initiated one thing. Now, he has taken credit for the economy, but I also challenge you to show me one thing he has initiated in this Congress and followed through on and got passed that was good for the economy. I deny anyone. The only thing I could think of was that he wanted Fast Track authority, negotiating authority for Fast Track. A little less than a year ago we tried to pass that. He could only deliver 32 of his Democrats to vote for fast track. I found out, because I am the Whip and working the votes, that many Democrats that wanted to vote for fast track did not trust this President, so they voted against it. But this year he has not lifted a finger for education, not a finger for education, yet on the targeted adjournment date, Friday, he stands up and says, ``I want my education bill,'' and he makes veiled inferences that he will shut down the government unless he gets what he wants. This is the same President that has not even met with his cabinet but twice this year. He has only met with his cabinet twice in this whole year. The first time he met with them was to explain to them that he had no sexual relations, and the second time he met with them was to apologize to them for having sexual relations. That is the only time he has met with his cabinet. Now, during these meetings he did not meet on the world economic problems with Secretary Rubin. In the cabinet meeting he did not talk with the Secretary of Education. Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

Mr. DeLAY. I apologize, Mr. Speaker. In cabinet meetings also he did not discuss his foreign policy, his failed foreign policy with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. He has only met with his cabinet twice this year. Now, he has been out on the campaign trail. He has been to 97 fund- raisers this year. He has been away from his office attending to other things rather than work 152 days out of the 280 days so far in this year. This President is not engaged in what is going on. I want to talk a little bit about what he is holding us up about. Mr. Speaker, I will talk about that in a minute. I am also going to try to put this in a little more perspective. Being in leadership, we have had to deal with this administration at the end of every year on these same things that we have always done, and it is just fascinating to watch. I remember in 1995 when the President of the United States vetoed the continuing resolution and shut down the government. The government shut down for a few days. I will never forget, I think it was November 19, anyway, it was a Sunday night, an agreement was made with this President to reopen the government, and the agreement was that he would work with us to balance the budget, to save Medicare from bankruptcy and some other issues. Within 15 minutes after opening the government, the President and his staff walked out, held a press conference, and reneged, reneged, on everything in that agreement. Now, we have had to deal with that for the last 4 years. In fact, just this weekend they sent staff over here to make an agreement on drug policy, and there has been a lot of work by the chief deputy whip, Dennis Hastert, and others in this House, to put together a very comprehensive antidrug policy, but the administration or the staff of the administration has fought us every step of the way. So they have been negotiating over last week, and finally came to some sort of an agreement. Of course, the President sent staff to make the agreement. And then after they had an agreement, the staff went back to the White House, we were informed that the staff that was negotiating with the majority leadership could not negotiate for the White House, and, therefore, reneged on the agreement. Well, how in the world are we going to do business when you have a President of the United States that you cannot trust his word to hold an agreement for longer than an hour? That is what we are going through right now. The other thing too, some of the sticky points with this administration is this President is fighting to the death for foreign aid to North Korea. That gives me an opportunity to talk about this administration's foreign policy. It is amazing to me that some people in this House commend the President for being such a great and effective President, but when you analyze his foreign policy, it is a complete disaster. He wants more foreign aid for North Korea. Now, this is the President that was concerned, as we all were, with North Korea building nuclear weapons and threatening that part of the world. So he went and made an agreement with North Korea to stop doing that, and if they would do that, then what we would do would be we would give them more foreign aid and we would build them electric power plants. Well, we have been giving them foreign aid. We find out that most of that foreign aid has gone to the military, not to the people of North Korea, and we are building their reactors for electricity, but the North Koreans are continuing with their building of nuclear weapons, and just this last summer shot a missile over the top of Japan. You look at the President's policies in Iraq. Now, the President of the United States sent aircraft carriers in January and February to stand up to Saddam Hussein. He told the American people he was going to be tough on Saddam Hussein. Yet this summer we find out that he has surrendered to Saddam Hussein. The President of the United States moved his trip from November to June to China, from November to June, and he goes to China and kow-tows with the communist leaders of China. He is accepted in Tiananmen Square where freedom fighters were gunned down, and he honored the troops that gunned down the freedom fighters in Tiananmen Square. And as he was leaving China, by the way, the trip costs about $50 million, while he was leaving China, he undermined the democracy on Taiwan and has never since then stood up and tried to support the democracy on Taiwan. In the Middle East, they now are having photo ops with Arafat and Netanyahu in the last few days and weeks, and they are about to have a summit on Israel. Well, he has not lifted a finger to enforce the Oslo Accords and make Arafat comply with the agreements. That is where the problem is. Now, all of a sudden, we find out we are going to pull everybody together, have a few more photo ops, but undermine what the people of Israel are trying to do. In fact, the President's own wife back in May said it might be a pretty good idea to have a Palestinian state in Israel, which would completely explode that part of the world. Yet the President of the United States has not emphatically stood up and said no, we will continue with our policy of opposing a unilateral move to create a Palestinian state in Israel. I could go on and on. Russia was a complete fiasco. Nothing came out of Russia. This President, who wants to be treated different than any other American in this country and undermine the rule of law, went to Russia and demanded that they institute the rule of law. He was laughed at by the world because of that. So part of the hangup and the reason we are here on Sunday afternoon negotiating with staff, not with the President, negotiating with staff, is that the President is holding us up. He could have come to us weeks ago and told us exactly what he needed and we could have been negotiating and probably would have met our targeted adjournment date. Another hangup is he wants us, us being the American people, to take our hard-earned taxpayer money and give it to the International Monetary Fund, a failed agency, an agency that has undermined the economies of Russia and Indonesia, now is trying to undermine the economies of Brazil, a failed agency, they want to continue their failed programs by funding the IMF, and they do not want any reforms. They want the American people to give up their hard-earned taxpayer money and give it to the International Monetary Fund with no reforms so they can make secret loans at below market rates to failing economies of countries that ought to be moving towards a free market system, and what they want to do is prop up the kinds of political systems that have failed, and that is part of the problem of the economy in the world. The other thing too that really grates on me a little bit, when we are trying to get our work done, you have the President sending out his attack dogs. Again, you know, we saw these attack dogs for eight months out defending this President, trying to destroy their enemies and misleading the American people for eight months. Now they are back out. I saw one on CNN late edition this morning, Paul Begala. And the misleading statements that Mr. Begala made were unbelievable. He said that we did not need a vote of inquiry in this House. He obviously does not know how the House operates. In order to proceed with impeachment proceedings you absolutely have to have a vote of inquiry to give the committee the right to proceed. He said that Ken Starr was undermining the process by sending a letter right before we voted on the inquiry inferring that there would be more referrals coming from Ken Starr and just berated Ken Starr and tried to once again destroy the Independent Counsel because of this letter. That letter was in answer to a bipartisan request coming from Henry Hyde, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the ranking member John Conyers, asking Ken Starr if there might be some referrals. Maybe this is a good time to talk about the 100,000 police officers that the gentleman from New Jersey was saying was such a successful program, because Paul Begala said that they had hired 100,000 police officers. Mr. Speaker, that is not true. It has been about 4 or 5 years now that the program, another failed program passed by the Democrat Congress, was signed by the Democrat president, creating 100,000 police officers. The person, Ken Avery, we checked with, who is spokesman for the COPS program in the Justice Department, says that the vast majority of our jurisdictions have plans in place to retain officers beyond the lines of their grant. This is a requirement of the grant program, that they agree, upon acceptance of the grant, and what that means is if they accept this money, it is only money for 3 years. Then the money is shut off and they have to keep that police officer on the payroll. In other words, they need to raise taxes locally, and that is the Federal Government causing local governments to raise taxes for a Federal program. Avery himself says that the COPS program has only placed around 58,000. In 4 years, they have placed 58,000 cops, of this great 100,000 cop program on the streets of more than 10,000 cities and towns. It is absolutely amazing to me that Members can stand here in this well and praise a program that not only has failed, because they do not, most of the police or law enforcement agencies around the country do not want the Federal Government, with their big sticky hands, in their business, and they think it is a poorly-designed program in the first place, and they do not want any part of it. Now the President is holding up the entire process of this Congress in order to put 100,000 teachers in. Do Members really believe a program designed by this president would actually put 100,000 teachers in the classroom? They could not, over 4 years, put 100,000 cops on the street. This whole notion of these little things in this education proposal by the President, that these will change the educational system and save our schools. It was brought up by my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) much earlier in the day, he was talking about the outlandish problems that he is seeing in East Texas about the school system. I need to remind the gentleman that part of the problem with the public schools in my great State of Texas is because the Democrats ruined them. I was there in 1984, and I will never forget it, I was in the State legislature, in the Texas House, when the Democrat Governor, Mark White, petitioned Ross Perot to design education reform in Texas. Take what I am about to say and extrapolate it to the Federal Government. Before Mark White and Ross Perot ruined education in Texas, Texas's local school districts controlled the education of their children. Texas, thank goodness, had set up funding for local schools way back when Texas was a Republic, and continued it when it became a State, so we had good, honest funds coming to our local school districts. But the school districts were in control of their local schools. What did the Democrat, Mark White, do? He took away local control and centralized it in Austin, Texas. He created the Texas Education Board. All decisions are made in Austin, Texas, for all the local school boards. The local school boards now are nothing more than administrators for State mandates. I submit that my friends on the other side of the aisle and the President of United States want to do the same thing. They constantly are trying to take away local control. They are trying to take away decisions made by parents, elected school boards, and teachers, and put them right here in Washington. They do it systematically, one little program after another over the years. I say to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas, they not only took away local control and put it in Austin, Texas, but in order so that they could not get to that board, they laid in another layer of bureaucracy called the Regional Educational Centers, so that local control, the local school districts had to go through one layer of bureaucracy before they could ever get to the State Board of Education. I just think that we have a very sad situation going on outside this Chamber. I think what the basic problem here is that we have two very different philosophies of government. I think the best example of their philosophy is in the school system right here in Washington, D.C. They have piled money on the school system of Washington, D.C. so high that it has collapsed under the weight. The school system here is bankrupt in ideas, bankrupt in substance. The children here, a little over 50 percent of them do not even finish high school. The teenage pregnancy rate is at an all-time high. If we talk about not being able to fix buildings, they have more money than any other school district in America, and they have crumbling schools in Washington, in our national capital. Why? Because the bureaucrats have the money, that is why. The teachers do not have the money. The students do not have the money. The bureaucrats have the money. They believe it is the government's money. I believe it is the American family's money. They have created a government so big that over 50 percent of the income of American families goes to government. If we add up State, local, and Federal taxes and the cost of regulations, 50 cents out of every hard-earned dollar that the American family makes today goes to the government. Would it not be incredible if we could do what we want to do and get a president to sign our bills to shrink the size of government, eliminate wasteful Washington programs, eliminate some wasteful Washington bureaucrats; not create more, eliminate them, so that the American family could have more money in their pocket, so that if they want better schools to be built, they will have the money to pay the taxes in their local school districts, empowered by them, to raise the taxes to pay for the schools that they need? No, we are going to keep the government growing bigger and bigger. We are going to keep it growing, and get more and more bureaucrats. We are going to get more and more of the Federal Government sticking their sticky fingers into our school districts, because that is what the President of the United States demands. But it is not their money. It boggles my mind all the time. It is the same pocket that all the money comes from, the American family's pocket. That is where this money comes from. But why would we take the money out of the families in Sugarland, Texas, send it up to Bill Clinton, so that he can send it back to Sugarland, Texas, to hire more teachers and build more schools? It does not make sense. And it fails, because it is a failed philosophy. It is a failed notion. We are trying to, to the best of our ability, trying to stop this president and we cannot, because he is president. If we are going to do the people's business, we have to negotiate with this president. I hope he stays home tomorrow. He is going on another one of those fundraising trips. I challenge the President to stay here and work on these issues. He is going down to Palm Beach, Florida, to have another fundraiser and pina colada with Greg Norman. Then after that he is going to New York City, and he is going to raise some more money in New York City for a person, by the way, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Charles Schumer) who happens to be on the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Speaker, I hope the President stays here. We are going to stay here. Many of my colleagues have said we are trying to get out of town and we are trying to rush this, and we want the President to give us what we want so we can get out of town and go home and campaign. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We know what we are about. We know what we are locked into. We will stay here all the way through the election. I will say it again, we will stay here gladly all the way through the election to get the people's business done. It is amazing to me that people are complaining about a Congress that is not getting its work done, that we are the do-nothing Congress. They are partially right, we are the do-nothing-that-the-liberals-like Congress. We are in the majority, and we do not buy into the minority's philosophy. All their bills that they want us to pass, we are not going to pass them, because we do not believe in their philosophy. The majority of this House does not believe in paying trial lawyers for health care. That is their Patient Bill of Rights. The President has not written a patient's bill of rights. We have not seen a bill from the President, but that is their Patient Bill of Rights. We have not seen a bill from the President on his education policies, but they say they have one. Mr. Speaker, what we are here to do is what the American people have sent us to do. I get a little weary of people speaking for the American people. The American people believe this, the American people believe that, the American people whispered in my ear this afternoon and told me this. I watch the American people, and the American people have rejected their philosophy. It is not by some poll, it is not by someone whispering in my ear, it is by election. The American people have rejected their philosophy all across this country. The Republican Party has gained over 500 State legislative seats since Bill Clinton has been president. It has gained 14 governorships. We now have 75 percent of the American people living under a Republican Governor. We have taken the United States Senate, we have taken the United States House for the first time in 40 years, and held onto it for the first time, back-to-back Republican Houses, in 68 years. We have even had over 370 Democrats switch to the Republican Party all across this Nation. That is the real American people speaking. Mr. Speaker, Members can say whatever they want to on this floor about who is at fault, back and forth, but we have tried it their way. We have tried it Bill Clinton's way. Let me just finish with this. It is amazing to me that the President of the United States would hold up spending that amounts to about $1.7 trillion over his little, small education program. The American people ought to think about that just a minute, because we know what this is about. This is another sham. This is another attempt to mislead the American people. This is another rhetorical outtake to try to win the election in November and take back the House, or give the President some sort of credibility and legitimacy. The American people have not bought it in the last 2 elections, and they are not going to buy it in this election.

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

Mr. DeLAY. I would just remind the gentleman it did not take the President 6 months to break this agreement. In his budget, and the only thing he has actually submitted to Congress was his budget, in his budget he broke the caps, he expanded government, he raised taxes, and created an incredible tax increase. What is worse, as the President, who is claiming to be the education president, in his own budget he cut the IDEA program. That is the program that has been discussed earlier, the mandate from the Federal Government on local schools to provide education for our disabled students through special education programs. Yet they promised they would provide 40 percent of that expense for IDEA. In the President's own budget, he cut IDEA.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on that just a moment, saying one thing and doing another. The President evidently wants to become the education President in the last week of the 105th Congress. He said on the day that was designated as the targeted adjournment day, the day that he started this effort, on the day that we had targeted to adjourn, ``Members of Congress should not go home until they pass a budget that will strengthen our public schools for the 21st century.'' The President, what he does, his record is, he has vetoed a D.C. scholarship bill to provide 2,000 of this capital's poorest children a chance to escape one of the worst school districts in this Nation. I described this school district earlier. He vetoed the education savings accounts this year to provide middle income families with tax relief for elementary and secondary education expenses. He vetoed a back to basics common sense literacy program. He vetoed lowering costs for school construction bonds. He vetoed incentives for teacher testing and merit pay. He vetoed safe schools, a safe school antigun provision. He vetoed a tax relief for employer provided education assistance and qualified State tuition programs. He vetoed seven pro-education bills. He was so sinister in paying homage to the National Education Association that he would take away 2,000 scholarships from the poorest of the poor in the Nation's capital and give those scholarships to the parents of those poor children so that they could take those kids and put them in a school and hopefully get them an education.

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from a Arizona (Mr. Hayworth). Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I think it is called the Clinton pivot.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the national tests, therefore, leads to involvement of the Federal Government in designing curriculum. The gentleman just before us, in the special order before us, was talking about, we do not want to get into the curriculum. Yet, the national testing is the back doorway of the Federal Government designing curriculum for our local schools.

Mr. DeLAY. Certainly, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, in fact, he is very good. He is trying to rewrite the dictionary.

Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman and his comments. I think he puts it so succinctly and directly that the American people can understand what is really going on here.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I say to my good friend from Connecticut that this is a do-nothing-that-the-liberal-likes Congress, that is for sure. But I am here working today. I do not mind. I was elected to do a job and I am going to do it. But what about the President, where is he? Maybe in Martha's Vineyard, Aspen, Camp David? Where is the President? I bet the American people do not know that he spent 152 days out of the 283 days this year fund-raising, traveling, and on vacation. On top of that, I bet the American people do not know that he had only two Cabinet meetings this year. We know what those Cabinet meetings were. He shows up the day before adjournment and starts talking about education. The day before adjournment. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is another workday, and alas according to reports the President will be in Palm Beach in the afternoon for pina coladas, for raising money, and then he will be jetting off to New York City for dinner for more fund-raisers. Enjoy yourself, Mr. President. We know how draining those two cabinet meetings were this year. But we will stay here as long as it takes and work on the budget. After all, the American people expect nothing less.