Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentlemen from Arizona and Indiana participating in this special order. The insight was very valuable.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, over the last year or so I have been appalled at this administration's foreign policy--or more accurately its lack of a foreign policy--with respect to North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. I am also joining with Congressmen Saxton, Salmon, and others today in introducing another resolution concerning the Administration's policies regarding Israel. Since agreeing to help find the financing and necessary technology to build two nuclear reactors for North Korea in 1994, the Clinton administration has done everything it can to give Americans the impression that its diplomatic efforts have ``frozen and stopped'' North Korea's efforts to develop a nuclear arsenal. However, Newsweek reported last week that when Secretary of State Albright testified to that effect before a classified Congressional briefing 2 month ago she was quickly refuted by the Defense Intelligence Agency. The DIA testified that it had concluded months earlier that the North Korean program to develop nuclear weapons was and is still under way. Subsequent intelligence and press reports continue to bear out the fact that the administration's policy of appeasement has not dissuaded the North Korean drive to develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. For instance, the North Korean's have an ongoing effort to bury their nuclear weapons program underground. Their launch on August 31, 1998, of a three-stage ballistic missile--parts of which landed off the coast of Alaska--make such a conclusion undeniable. The Central Intelligence Agency's senior intelligence officer for strategic programs was recently quoted by Washington Post as saying that the three stage configuration of that missile could well give North Korea the ability to send warheads across the Pacific. To counter the misimpression that has often been given the American people on this issue, I am introducing a resolution that calls for the suspension of the $4-6 billion agreement to build two light-water nuclear reactors and to provide other assistance to North Korea until the President certifies that the North Korean government has agreed to cease its efforts to build nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Mr. Speaker, the administration has also been pursuing a failed and misleading foreign policy with regard to Iraq. Earlier this year, President Clinton warned that if Iraq were to break the weapons inspection agreement signed with U.N. Chief Kofi Annan and the international community failed to act, then Saddam Hussein ``will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.'' United States Secretary of State Madeleine Albright also stated at the time that if Hussein ``reneges on this deal, there will be no question that force is the only way to go.'' Of course, the American public now knows the truth. Scott Ritter, a UNSCOM inspector team leader in Iraq, recently resigned from his post because of what he termed ``interference and manipulation usually coming from the highest levels of the [Clinton] administration's national security team,'' including Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. That interference undermined UNSCOM's ability to inspect potential weapon sites in Iraq even as the administration was telling the world that it supported the U.N. inspectors' right to unfettered and unannounced access to Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons programs. During his recent testimony before Congress, Mr. Ritter stated that such public statements of support in conjunction with the secret interference from the United States and the United Kingdom gives the appearance that UNSCOM is conducting unhindered weapons inspection checks when in fact such inspections are not occurring. Mr. Ritter's warning to Congress that it would take Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein only 6 months to reconstitute his chemical weapons capability and the ballistic missiles to deliver them--and his subsequent statement to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy that Iraq has three ``technologically complete'' nuclear bombs that only lack the missile material to make them operational--is sobering to most Americans. The administration's reaction to these brave revelations has been to attack Mr. Ritter's credibility, reputation, and professionalism. The administration instead should be acting to bring Saddam Hussein into compliance with the numerous agreements he has made as a result of the Persian Gulf war. To that end, I am introducing a resolution that calls on the President to take the necessary steps to bring Iraq into compliance with the international agreements it has signed with respect to its weapons program, including the United Nation's right to unfettered and unannounced inspections of suspected weapons sites or facilities. The resolution also states that official U.S. policy should insist on the removal or destruction of Saddam Hussein's chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons capability. Most importantly, for the sake of the United States foreign policy credibility, the resolution calls on the President not to renege on the warnings he issued this past spring that the United States is committed to using military force if necessary to punish Iraq for interfering with or obstructing the U.N.'s weapons inspections. Finally, Mr. Speaker, in the face of intelligence estimates earlier this year that Iran will have a missile capable of targeting Israel within a year and Central Europe within 3 years, President Clinton vetoed the Iran Missile Sanctions Act. The President's continued refusal to use existing law to its full extent to impose sanctions against countries and organizations that help Iran develop and modernize its ballistic missile program is yet another failure on the part of this Administration. While failing to obstruct the on-going ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs in Iran, North Korea, Iraq and other nations, this administration has not been bashful in obstructing the efforts of many of us in Congress to build a defense for the United States against ballistic missile attacks by our potential enemies. The third resolution I am introducing calls on the President to impose sanctions against countries and organizations that assist Iran in obtaining advanced missile technology to the fullest extent permitted under existing law. The resolution also calls on the President to expedite the development of U.S. anti-missile defense systems and to assist Israel in responding to the new long-range ballistic missile threat from Iran in order to protect all of Israel's territory. Mr. Speaker, this administration's continued failure in foreign policy arenas affecting the national security of the United States must cease before our Nation's credibility and determination to defend our interests is irreparably compromised. It is foolhardy to issue threats and then fail to carry through on them as this administration has done time and time again. While it may play well in the short term, it has real world consequences as our potential enemies gradually lose respect for our resolve and our might. I urge my colleagues to support the resolutions which I intend to reintroduce in the next Congress as well.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be here today. I wish I could just ignore all of this and make it go away. But I have a responsibility to answer a question today and that question is: How will history judge our actions that we take today? I believe that this Nation sits at a crossroad. One direction points to the high road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant. This path relies on truth, justice, and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law. Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us; when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth. Shall we follow the rule of law and do our constitutional duty no matter how unpleasant, or shall we follow the path of least resistance, close our eyes to the potential law breaking, forgive and forget, move on, and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system? No man is above the law and no man is below the law. That is the principle that we all hold dear in this country. The President has many responsibilities and many privileges. His chief responsibility is to uphold the laws of this land. He does not have the privilege to break the law. The American system of government is built on the proposition that the President of the United States can be removed if he violates his oath of office. This resolution simply starts that process of inquiry. Did the President break the law? And if he did, does that lawbreaking constitute an impeachable offense? Closing our eyes to allegations of wrongdoing by voting ``no,'' or by limiting scope or time, constitutes a breach of our responsibilities as Members of this House. So let history judge us as having done our duty to uphold that sacred rule of law.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I worked with Mr. Saxton and Mr. Salmon 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 Oslo accords, the United States made it clear that all questions of sovereignty and statehood were a matter of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. However, First Lady Hillary Clinton's public statement this 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. Despite official denials by the U.S. 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. He subsequently threatened to unilaterally declare an independent Palestinian state in May of 1999-- after the expiration of the scheduled date for completing the final status talks between Israel and the Palestinians. The United Nations then voted this past July 7th to elevate the Palestinian observer mission at the United Nations to the status of a full observer mission, a status just short of that accorded an independent state. Media reports in the Middle East indicate that the government of French Premier Lionel Jospin may be prepared to recognize an independent Palestinian state immediately after the end of the interim Oslo accords in May 1999. Just last week in speaking to the United Nations, Yasser Arafat called on world leaders to support an independent Palestinian state--though the State Department had to scramble mightily to prevent him from repeating his threat to declare such a state unilaterally. Mr. Speaker, what has been missing from this debate over the last several months 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 Madeline 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 reception 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. 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 on July 15, 1998 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.'' We must remember that Yasser Arafat demands 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, 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 its 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.'' I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to expedite its consideration.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse).

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, fast track would pass tonight if the President would honor his commitments and get his party to vote for it. Who said, ``I will also renew my request for the fast track negotiating authority necessary to open new markets and create more new jobs, which every president has had for two decades?'' Who has traveled across the world promising to support fast track? Who said in Santiago, Chile, earlier this year, that ``The benefits for American workers and companies and consumers for expanding trade should make, in my judgment, a clear case for fast track authority. I will continue to work hard with Congress to build support for fast track''? Bill Clinton. President Clinton was once the strongest supporter of fast track. Now, for political reasons, he has withdrawn that support. It is troubling that Bill Clinton has already concluded that he does not have the strength to win this vote, and it is astounding that he has withdrawn his support for this measure. I think that is a shame. I believe that every president must have the tools to do the job. Our workers need trade agreements that create jobs for Americans. Our businesses need them so they can sell their products overseas. Our consumers need them so they can spend more money on their family and less money on border taxes. The only way we can get these trade agreements is to give the President fast track authority. It is a shame that so many Democrats have played politics with trade. It is sad that so many Democrats have relied on the politics of fear and isolation. It is a scandal that the President has misled the American people about his commitment to support fast track, when negotiating trade agreements is one of his most important responsibilities. A vote against fast track is not only a vote of no confidence in this President, it is also a vote of no confidence in the world economy. A vote for fast track is a vote for free trade and continued engagement with our trade partners. I ask Members to vote for fast track.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, let us dispense with the notion that Congress can punish the President, punish either by a so-called censure, a fine, or any other punishment. Such a deal is unconstitutional, and anyone who believes in that kind of deal believes not in the rule of law but the rule of man, and needs to read the Constitution. Impeachment is a process of deciding whether a President is fit for office. The Founding Fathers did not give Congress the authority to punish the President. That is for the judicial system to decide. The question before the House is, is this President fit for office? Has he disqualified himself to continue to lead this Nation? The decision for the House is whether to impeach or not to impeach. The decision for the Senate is to remove from office or not to remove. Any action to punish this President, any deal cut that short-circuits the constitutional process, is unconstitutional, and I will fight for the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, this is not the time to abandon our Constitution. I urge my colleagues to read the Constitution, to support the process, and resist the temptation to cut a deal with the President.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the money. I am rising in support of this common sense legislation and urge my colleagues to vote for it. Today we have a simple choice. We can give more money to teachers and classrooms to help students learn, or we can give more money to the Washington bureaucracy. So if my colleagues are in favor of improving education in this Nation, they will vote for this piece of legislation. If my colleagues are in favor of expanding the Washington bureaucracy, they will vote against this legislation. The American people believe that education is best handled at the local level, not in Washington. This legislation gives our teachers and school boards help without giving them unfunded mandates. Make no mistake about it. This legislation is a winner for our Nation's schools. Under this bill, no school districts would lose money. This bill signals and shows how Federal education dollars can be delivered to our Nation's schools. It will send more dollars directly to the classroom while giving States and local educators more funding options. School districts could choose to put greater amounts of Federal money into priorities such as school technology, teacher improvement, and school reform. Madam Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote for this legislation and vote to really improve education in this country.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing more signs of the White House's scorched earth strategy. Allies of the President are now dishing dirt on the most respected Member of this House. This is a direct assault on the United States House of Representatives. And do not be under any illusions that this is a partisan affair because, according to reports, allies of the President's are investigating Members of both sides of the aisle. Now, Mr. Speaker, making a mistake is far different than, for example, obstructing justice. Abuse of power is far more serious than having an affair 30 years ago. I just urge the President of the United States to stop his allies from engaging in this kind of disgusting conduct, and all of those who are blindly supporting this President ought to be ashamed of themselves. This is a very sad day for democracy.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, we have arrived at a point in our history where we will be called upon to make decisions and judgments that will deeply affect the integrity of the government and our society, the kind of society that we leave to our children and our grandchildren. That decision now before us is fundamental to our system of government. This country grew to be great because the Founding Fathers provided for the rule of law and not the rule of man. They enshrined this principle forever in the Constitution. Now, some would ask us to be judged by the rule of man. They are trying to convince us to abandon the principles of our Constitution and the rule of law. They are trying to convince us that public opinion polls are more important than the principles on which our government was founded. They are trying to advocate censure as the only appropriate course of action. Well, Mr. Speaker, anyone who considers censure, and makes decisions based on the polls, believes in the rule of man, not the rule of law. We, the Members of the House of Representatives, have been entrusted by our fellow citizens to uphold and preserve the rule of law for all Americans. The basic tenet of the rule of law is that it applies to every American equally. Laws cannot be applied selectively based on some whim or some public opinion. The very strength of our system of law and government is that every American is evaluated by a common standard, without exception. One set of laws should not apply to high officials and another set of laws apply to the rest of the country. If we begin to make exceptions based on some expediency or some convenience, we reduce ourselves to little more than a loosely organized mob. Those who advocate censure believe that Congress can resolve this matter by making its opinion a matter of public record. Let me say to my colleagues that I would hope that the people of America already know where we stand on this issue, because Members of Congress have been unambiguous in their condemnation of this type of behavior, and I believe every American, no matter where they stand on the ideological spectrum, shares this view. A resolution of censure would do nothing more than to allow Members of the House to record their disapproval. While such an approach might appeal to some, the time for that is well past. It may be that the House decides at some point not to move forward. That is a decision that must be made by the House Committee on the Judiciary and ultimately by the full House. But for now, the House has no choice but to proceed with an impeachment inquiry. We cannot selectively apply the rule of law in the face of such a serious allegation. The Constitution does not bow to polling data and it leaves no middle ground. Censure establishes the rule of man at the expense of the rule of law. We must never allow America to go down that road. It is the road to ruin. Anyone who doubts that the rule of man gives rise to chaos only needs to look at Russia. There is a country with no rule of law. Mr. Speaker, I pledge to the Members of this Congress as Majority Whip of the House to fight in no uncertain terms the scheduling of any vote on censure, and I will fight to ensure that censure never sees the light of day in this chamber.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I really commend the leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman, for putting it together. I was very much moved by the statements of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, a gentleman that we all know will do an incredible job in keeping this from being a partisan process. This resolution starts the process of examining the report of the independent counsel. We demean the job, the office and the law of the independent counsel when we call him a prosecutor. This counsel is charged to exculpate the President as well as to investigate the President, not to distort what he finds. The President of the United States has had over 8 months knowing what is coming in this report. In fact, if he started back in January and told the American people the truth, we would not be here today. So he has had his spin-meisters and his attack dogs out for 8 months. He knows what is in this report, because he probably debriefed everybody that appeared before the Grand Jury. The President's spin- meisters have tried to hold him above the law, the rule of law that the chairman was talking about. Now he wants 48 hours to be informed before the American people. The President is no better than any other American, and every American will see this as soon as possible. But we cannot get there until we pass this resolution. We could not even give it to the President for 48 hours unless we passed a resolution saying so. We have to accept the report. In order to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities and the only way to uphold the wisdom and the structure and the stability of the Constitution as so ably outlined by the chairman is to have the American people to have a moral foundation to support that Constitution. This is a moral crisis, a moral debate that we are about to enter. If the President is going to force us to go through this trauma, every one of us here must accept that responsibility. We must understand that there is an age-old remedy for wrongdoing that is exhibited actually by the Constitution. But philosophers, religious people as far back as we know man goes has exhibited that remedy, and that is contrition, confession, and cleansing. We are at the cleansing part. Contrition is when you recognize that you have done wrong, humbled yourself by knowing that you have done wrong. Confession is when you tell the truth about what you have done. The cleansing part is accepting the consequences for your actions and being honorable enough to accept those consequences rather than the spin, the whole spin, and nothing but the spin. We are forced to fulfill the cleansing part of the Constitution. I think every Member in this House, Democrat and Republican, will rise to the level that the oath of office that we took exhibits and honor that oath and fulfill our responsibilities to the Constitution of the United States. This is a wonderful institution. It will rise above everything that is going on outside this chamber. It will exhibit what the Constitution gives us the responsibility to do.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, obviously I rise in support of the Doolittle substitute. The question today is really simple. Should we trust the American people and support the first amendment, or should we trust the government and gut the first amendment? The Doolittle bill puts its trust in the American people. It opens up the system, allowing more participation by more people. The Shays-Meehan approach puts its trust in the government. It rachets down political expression, making the system more complicated and more dangerous for the average American. It does not sound like reform to me. Mr. Chairman, the people should not have to consult their lawyers before they contribute to a political campaign. The Doolittle substitute represents the only true and honest effort to reform our campaign system. I am amused by all the contortions of some of my colleagues who complain about the evils of soft money on one hand and who work very hard to raise that same soft money on the other. For example, just a few nights ago, the House minority leader worked overtime to pass the Shays-Meehan substitute. He spoke of the menacing nature of soft money, how it corrupted the political process. But on that same day, the minority leader personally worked the phones raising millions of dollars in soft money for his party, the money that he has repeatedly condemned and voted to ban. Now, this is a case of one hand not caring what the other hand is doing. If the minority is so concerned about soft money, it should put its mouth where its money is. Mr. Chairman, money will always be spent in support of campaigns and candidates and causes. The Shays-Meehan bill will drive that money underground. The Doolittle bill will require the light of day to shine upon it. The Doolittle bill makes a number of improvements to the current system of disclosing contributions. First, the bill requires electronic filing of campaign reports, instant filing, including 24-hour filings during the last three months of the campaign. It is time for Congress to recognize and to utilize the advances in technology that have enabled campaigns to communicate information to the Federal Election Commission much more efficiently than in the past. The Doolittle bill is needed to make elections more competitive. The Doolittle bill is needed to level the playing field so that millionaires are not given free rein to purchase congressional seats. And the Doolittle bill is needed to give working Americans a chance to participate in our democracy. Every other reform proposal is based on the faulty premise that we can limit spending and limit speech. These big government reformers propose more government regulations and more government power, more big brother in order to stifle debate and suppress speech. The effect of all this Federal regulation is to chill free speech and political participation. This new government power will make people think twice before they participate in this process. But the Doolittle bill will encourage political participation in our democracy. The Doolittle bill will encourage more speech in our political system. The Doolittle bill upholds our Constitution. Let us really reform the system. Let us pass the Doolittle substitute.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hefley amendment and urge my colleagues to support it, and because I only have 1 minute, I am going to try to condense my points as quickly as possible. This is not really an issue, in my mind, of sexual orientation or not. There are two basic issues here: One is this President of the United States is legislating by Executive Order. He has instructed the entire bureaucracy to promulgate regulations that have no authority in law, and he is writing executive order after executive order against the Constitution of the United States and the concept of checks and balances. Under our Constitution, the President cannot legislate by executive order, and he is doing so. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) is trying to strike down some executive orders to bring attention to the American people that he is doing so. It is, therefore, conceivable that the implementation of this particular executive order might require that the Federal Government inquire into the private lives and practices of Federal employees to accurately assess their sexual orientations. Now, most Americans believe that every human being has basic rights, and the American people stand for fairness, not for special breaks or special interests. I support the Hefley amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I have to rise in opposition to this amendment, and the question today is quite simple to me: Do we decide to use polls to conduct the census, or do we actually count the people as required under the Constitution? Can we trust this President to do what is right? Now this amendment makes it easier for this administration to use polls to conduct the census. As the President said in Houston, if I can have that brought over here: Most people understand that a poll taken before an election is a statistical sample, and sometimes it's wrong, but often, more often than not, it's right. So, every time the Mollohan amendment supporters say ``sampling,'' have the word ``poll'' in mind, because, Mr. Chairman, this is taking polling to a very new level. What is next? Should we poll to see if the Clinton campaign broke the law in the last election? Should we poll to see if Ken Starr is doing his job? Well, Mr. Chairman, the President is a master when it comes to manipulating the polls, but sometimes polls are not enough. Sometimes the American people need to know the truth. And when it comes to the census, the Constitution requires that we know the truth. The most amazing thing about this polling scheme is that it will delete real people who happen to be members of a demographic group who are overrepresented. Can my colleagues imagine that? Deleting real people? Do my colleagues think that the Founding Fathers ever imagined a census count that actually uncounted citizens of this country? That is what they are proposing: uncounting citizens of this Nation. So, Mr. Chairman, we have to defeat this amendment and stop this polling madness. The Constitution requires a count of the people, not a poll of the people.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, as everyone knows, I am opposed to this Shays-Meehan fiasco. It is not reform. This is just another example of big government picking winners and losers, and in my opinion the winners are the Democrats and the losers are the Republicans. It is amazing to me that Republicans would support this disarmament bill. It just violates our most precious freedom, the freedom of speech. It tilts the campaign playing field in favor of incumbents, and it creates a shield between voters and the Congress that is supposed to represent them. Many of my colleagues have taken the House floor to denounce what they say is too much money in American political campaigns. Well, such cries are rhetorically effective but factually deficient. Congressional candidates in 1996 spent less than $1.25 per citizen during the course of the campaign. Is that too much money to spend on democracy? Americans spend twice as much per year on yogurt than they spend on political campaigns. But do we have the will in this Congress to actually change the Constitution and limit freedom of speech in order to reform our campaign laws? Most of the Members of this Congress said ``no'' in voting against a constitutional amendment that would actually limit it. What you are talking about is limiting the speech of our constituents and hiding behind the name ``reform.'' Any casual observer of this debate will have noticed the true reason why many Members support this bill. It is an incumbent protection bill. The bill itself bans photoguides and score cards, and it bans these so-called sham ads that Members hate to see run against them because it makes them uncomfortable when their voting report is brought before the American people. The American people have a right to know where their elected officials stand on the issues of the day, and this bill turns that principle on its head. When we debated the right to third party groups to send out issue alerts, to rally their supporters, the supporters of Shays-Meehan called those ads a sham. One Member even said an ad that says ``Congressman Smith voted against a tax cut'' should be banned and that we should manage free speech. Of course, we have the views that we just heard from the distinguished House minority leader, who happens to have over $3 million in his campaign account and wrote the laws that we are living under today. He said, ``What we have here is two important values in direct conflict: freedom of speech and our desire for healthy campaigns and a healthy democracy. You can't have both.'' That is the minority leader of the House saying that you cannot have freedom of speech and healthy campaigns. Madam Chairman, we must have both. Whether they want to admit it or not, the supporters of this bill believe there is such a thing as too much information about our government and that Americans are too stupid to sort out what is true and what is false. These free speech prohibitionists want to restrict Americans' political dialogue and debate. To me, I cannot think of anything more self-righteous. My friends, we are talking about core political speech that is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The First Amendment is at the very core of what our Republic stands for. It allows any of us to criticize the politician who governs us, to voice unpopular ideas and to engage in debate. This bill does the opposite. It shields Members of Congress from public criticism by the very people who elect us. I do not think Americans need Washington restricting and censoring the information that we have access to. Why should Washington be able to judge what speech is good and what speech is bad? But that is what this bill does. It does just that. I have been told privately by a number of our Members that they know that the bill is unconstitutional but they want to take a free vote. They have told me they know that the bill gags citizen groups and voters. They have said they want to vote ``no,'' but their local editorial board supports the bill, and because the Senate will never take up the bill, they can safely vote ``yes''. Well, Madam Chairman, to those Members, I plead with you, do the right thing; uphold your oath of office; do not violate the First Amendment of the Constitution. My friends, this is not a free vote. There are over 100 citizen groups that have written you to urge you to oppose this bill. Many of those groups will score your vote tonight. To my Republican colleagues, let me just simply say that this is not reform. This is not good government. This is political disarmament. It does nothing to protect union members from forced union dues, while putting a shackle on our traditional supporters who use voter guides and score cards and independent expenditures to keep the American people informed of what goes on in this House. You do not have a free pass to violate our Constitution. Support free speech and vote down Shays-Meehan.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that Amendments 27 and 28 offered by me be withdrawn and my amendments 25 and 26 in the order of July 17 on H.R. 2183 may be considered in the sequence at this point and that 26 be modified by the form at the desk.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the unanimous consent, and I have Amendment No. 25 at the desk.

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendments Nos. 27 and 28 offered by me be withdrawn, and my amendments Nos. 25 and 26 be considered one after another, immediately after amendment No. 19, and the text of amendment No. 85 as submitted to the desk today be substituted for amendment No. 29.

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's questions. What I am attempting to do is to group three amendments together. The first amendment would deal with what we call issue alerts, or what I call issue alerts. The second amendment deals with background music. And the third amendment deals with coordination. And in order to do that, in my unanimous-consent request I am withdrawing completely amendments Nos. 27 and 28. Then I am taking Nos. 25 and 26 and moving them up to this point in time. Mr. Chairman, amendments 25 and 26 are the background music and the coordination amendment. I am taking the text of an amendment way down below, No. 85 as pointed out in the rules, and submitting that language and substituting that language for amendment No. 29, which was my limit express advocacy communications. So, I would take out the limit advocacy communications amendment completely and substitute the amendment that deals with issue alerts, if that makes any sense.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, if I could withdraw my unanimous consent request and make a new one. That would be that I would ask unanimous consent that amendments 27 and 28 be withdrawn completely, and 25 and 26 be considered one after another immediately after amendment 19. To save confusion, I will go on to amendment 19 and we will work it out with the Parliamentarian. Amendment Offered by Mr. DeLay to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substiute..

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to place in the Record further tributes to the police officers who died protecting the United States Capitol last Friday. susan hirschman, chief of staff to the majority whip John Gibson made the ultimate sacrifice last Friday defending us. John's professional skills saved each of us. We will always remember John's sacrifice. But we will also remember the many other contributions John made to our lives. John's official duty was protecting Tom, the role that ultimately cost him his life. However, I will also remember that John had a quiet way of helping each of us do our job better. For example, as the person who spent more time with Tom than any of us, he was usually the first person to see when things weren't working right. Often, as I walked into the office passing his desk at the back door, he would look at me and simply say ``Have you talked with the boss yet?''-- gently letting me know that something was on Tom's mind. As we have gathered over the past few days to discuss how much we will miss John, I was not surprised that he had a similar way of helping each and every person in the office. John was a friend to each of us and he made our entire team work more effectively. monica vegas kladakis, majority whip staff I got to know John Gibson better during the Republican Convention in 1996. I remember squeezing into a cab with him and a bunch of other staff people as we drove from place to place, and I thought, ``He must really hate this.'' I had thought he was reserved and maybe even a little distant, but after that week I not only realized that he had a lot of patience to deal with all of us raucous staff people, I also discovered what a great sense of humor he had, how kind he was, and how much fun he was to be with. And now he has saved my life. I feel an overwhelming sense of gratitude toward him, from a depth which I don't know if I've ever reached before. We can never thank him properly for what he did for us, but I hope he knows that we will never forget it. I'll miss him. special agent bob glynn and detective doug shugars Detective John M. Gibson and Officer Jacob J. Chestnut are American heroes. Their heroic actions and personal sacrifice was responsible for saving numerous lives and ensuring the freedoms which all American enjoy continue. Officer Jacob J. Chestnut was a very professional member of the United States Capitol Police. The polite and friendly manner in which he did his job will always be remembered. Every evening as Congressman DeLay and his security would leave the U.S. Capitol, Officer Chestnut would always extend a friendly, ``Have a good evening sir.'' This remark always made for a nice ending to a very long day. Detective John M. Gibson was a cop's cop. Anytime John was working and there was some police action happening on Capitol Hill, John would be there. It might be standing in an intersection wearing a suit and directing traffic, assisting with the evacuation of a Congressional building that was on fire, or providing a backup for a fellow officer. John was always there. It was no surprise that John was involved in this kind of heroism. He would have had it no other way. John loved working the security detail for Congressman DeLay and took great pride in the assignment. John was considered to be a part of Congressman DeLay's staff and a very close friend to the DeLay family. John's unselfish actions and personal sacrifice ensured the safety and the lives of Congressman DeLay, his staff, and the public. John was an excellent police officer, a great partner and a wonderful friend. You will be missed. There is an inscription on the National Police Memorial in Washington, D.C. by Vivian Eney, another survivor of a fallen Capitol Police Officer. This inscription is a fitting tribute to both Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson: ``It's not how these Officers died that made them heroes. It's how they lived.'' kelly Potter, a trustee for the D.C. Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police I keep this poem on my refrigerator at home, which I thought was appropriate: a part of america died Somebody killed a policeman today, and A part of America died. A piece of our country he swore to protect Will be buried with him at his side. The suspect who shot him will stand up in court, With counsel demanding his rights, While a young widowed mother must Work for her kids And spend alone many nights. The best that he walked was a battlefield, too, Just as if he'd gone off to war. Though the flag of our nation won't fly at half mast, To his name, they will add a gold star. Yes, somebody killed a policeman today. It happened in your town or mine. While we slept in comfort behind our locked doors, A cop put his life on the line. Now his ghost walks a beat on a dark city street, And he stands at each new rookie's side. He answered the call and gave us his all, And a part of America died. shawna barnett, former delay staffer May John's kind nature and selfless acts remind us always of our fallen hero. He is out of our grasp but so very close to our hearts. tom vincent, de lay staffer The biggest thing I remember was his sense of humor. I keep thinking of John taking a special effort to joke and tease Shawna Barnett and keep a smile on her face when she was down. It wasn't just Shawna he kept smiling, he made us all smile. Willy imboden, de lay staffer When I reflect on John Gibson, I remember a man of quiet dignity, integrity, and resolve. He possessed a calming presence about him, his steady bearing lending a tranquil air to the constant chaos of Capitol Hill. In many ways, his 18 years of patient service to Congress and to the American people culminated finally in the greatest and noblest sacrifice, the laying down of his life for others. I am reminded of the Apostle Paul's words in the Epistle to the Philippians: `Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves, which was also in Christ Jesus . . .' John Gibson's life and final sacrifice personified this ethic, and we are all humbly and eternally indebted to him.''