Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. I would like to answer the gentleman's question. Doctor after doctor, including C. Everett Koop, who was the surgeon general, says that there is no reason whatsoever, even for the life of a mother, that this particular procedure must be used, where a baby is nearly born and then they suck the brains out of its head before it is fully born.

Mr. DeLAY. We do not have to use this procedure.

Mr. DeLAY. Unless it is for the life of a mother and a decision must be made between the baby and the life of the mother. Then that decision should be made. But, no, I do not believe that at any time an unborn child should be murdered just for convenience. No.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to leave that chart, because I think it is very important. I appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee showing us all the good reforms, and they are good reforms. The problem is, even with all of these reforms, we still have a bad NEA in place. That is the problem, and that is why I rise in opposition to this amendment to add funding back for the National Endowment for the Arts. I am not under any illusions about this amendment. We are going to have a tough time defeating it. But I think there are very important principles at stake here, principles that supporters of the NEA simply gloss over. Fiscal responsibility of course is one principle. Is it fiscally responsible to give taxpayers' dollars to some artists who produce art that offends many of the taxpayers? Time and time again, even with all of the reforms, NEA money trickles out to so-called artists who go out of their way to offend the sensibilities of working Americans. Is this a fiscally responsible use of taxpayers dollars? I do not think so. Another principle is censorship, and I contend that the NEA censors artists by doling out money only to those artists that know how to work the system. The NEA picks winners and losers, just by the very virtue of being a government agency. It thereby censors those who do not meet their particular tests. Artists need to have the freedom to produce their art and they should do so in a free market setting. By allowing the continued government interference in the arts, we risk compromising the artistic freedom of this country. The Federal Government has no business in an agency like this. The Federal Government is producing art, culture through the Smithsonian, through the museums, through our art galleries and things like that. Those are legitimate concerns. But this is the National Endowment for the Arts that, in my opinion, does nothing to promote artistic freedom. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Federal Government should get out of the arts business entirely, so I urge my colleagues to vote for fiscal responsibility and against government censorship.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the gentleman from Virginia bringing this because it is amazing to me only the supporters of Shays-Meehan can define what reform is. Anybody else that brings anything to this bill are not supporters of reform. Well, I say that we just think reform is maybe a little bit different than the supporters of Shays-Meehan, and this is a perfect campaign reform bill. Let us just get rid of all the red herrings that have been put out in this debate. This is not national ID cards. This is not using Social Security numbers to vote. This is not even a poison pill. What this is talking about is that just like if you were getting a driver's license, you have to prove that you are a certain age. You have to bring a birth certificate. You have to prove that you know how to drive to get your driver's license. For the most important act that Americans can do, the right to vote, you would think that it would be an honor to bring proof of citizenship to the table when you are registering to vote; not every time you vote. When you do go vote you pull out your driver's license or whatever to show that you are indeed the person that you say you are standing in front of the voting election judge and proving that you are that person. What is wrong with that? It is very simple. Since enactment of the motor voter law, we have seen an increase in voting fraud across this country, and much of the increase is due to the provisions of the bill that prohibits States from removing registrants who fail to vote or who are unresponsive to voter registration correspondence. Because of the lack of fraud provisions in the motor voter law, we have the modern world's sloppiest electoral system, according to political scientist Walter Dean Burnham. The year-long investigation of the Dornan-Sanchez House race established 624 documented cases of noncitizens voting, noncitizens voting, in American elections; another 124 voters cast improper absentee ballots; an additional 196 votes may well have been legal but only circumstantial evidence existed. As of 1994, in Houston County, Alabama, a man who has been dead for 7 years has been recorded as voting regularly by absentee ballot. In Washington, D.C., an astonishing 1 of every 6 registered voters cannot be reached at their address of record. The city has lost 100,000 people since 1980, but registration has shot up to 86 percent of eligible voters from only 58 percent. Felons, dead people, nonresidents and fictitious registrations clog the rolls in Washington, D.C., where anyone can walk up and vote without even showing an ID. The Miami Herald has found that 105 ballots in last year's undisputed mayoral election was cast by felons. Last month, a local grand jury concluded that absentee ballot fraud clearly played an important part in the recent City of Miami elections. This called into question the legitimacy of the results. Nine dead San Franciscans in 1997 were recorded as casting votes from beyond the grave in the June 49ers Stadium election, according to an analysis of city voter files and death records. Everyone supports the right to vote, but an equally important right is the guarantee of elections that are fair and free of fraud. Without the Goodlatte amendment, a growing number of States cannot guarantee the integrity of their results and that inevitably will lead to an increasing cynicism and disenchantment with the process. Let us help end voter fraud in America and adopt the Goodlatte amendment.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my friend from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. This amendment includes several anti-fraud provisions targeting both illegal registration and illegal voting. Since enactment of the Motor Voter law, we have seen an increase in vote fraud across the country. Much of the increase is due to the provisions of the bill that prohibits States from removing registrants who fail to vote or who are unresponsive to voter registration correspondence. Because of the lack of fraud provisions in the Motor Voter law, ``We have the modern world's sloppiest electoral systems,'' according to political scientist Walter Dean Burnham. The yearlong investigation of the Dornan-Sanchez House race established 624 ``documented'' cases of non-citizens voting. Another 124 voters cast improper absentee ballots. An additional 196 votes may well have been illegal, but only circumstantial evidence existed. As of 1994, in Houston County, Alabama, a man who has been dead for seven years has been recorded as voting regularly by absentee ballot. In Washington, D.C., an astonishing one of every six registered voters can't be reached at their address of record. The city has lost 100,000 people since 1980, but registration has shot up to 86% of eligible voters from only 58%. Felons, dead people, non-residents and fictitious registrations clog the rolls in Washington, where anyone can walk up and vote without showing I.D. The Miami Herald has found that 105 ballots in last year's disputed mayoral election were cast by felons. Last month a local grand jury concluded: ``absentee ballot fraud clearly played an important part in the recent City of Miami elections.'' This ``called into question the legitimacy of the results.'' Nine dead San Franciscans in 1997 were recorded as casting votes from beyond the grave in the June 49ers stadium election, according to an analysis of city voter files and death records. Everyone supports the right to vote, but an equally important right is the guarantee of elections that are fair and free of fraud. Without the Goodlatte amendment, a growing number of states can't guarantee the integrity of their results, and that inevitably will lead to an increasing cynicism and disenchantment with the democratic process. The Goodlatte amendment will help end voter fraud in America. I urge its adoption.

Mr. DeLAY

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 3 to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I offer this amendment in order to clarify some comments made by the Vice President last year. For Richard Nixon it was, ``I am not a crook.'' For Bill Clinton it was, ``I didn't inhale.'' For Al Gore it was, ``No controlling legal authority.'' Sometimes our leaders say things they wish they would not have said. I am guilty of such at times. The Vice President's comments, though, regarding the various campaign abuses of the Clinton-Gore campaign, will be forever etched in the memory of the American people. This amendment is very simple. It says that when it comes to our campaign laws, there is a controlling legal authority. It is called ``the law''. At least 3 criminal statutes address the use of the White House for political purposes. Section 600 of Title 18 prohibits the promising of any government benefit in return for any kind of political support or activity. Section 607 of Title 18 prohibits solicitation or receipt of contributions for Federal campaigns in Federal buildings. Section 641 of Title 18 prohibits the conversion of government property to personal use. According to the White House and the author of this so-called reform bill, these laws do not apply to Mr. Gore because he was raising campaign funds for the Democratic National Party and not the Clinton- Gore Re-election Campaign. Well, that argument has no controlling logic. None other than Abner Mikva, the President's own legal counsel, issued a legal admonition that said, ``campaign activities of any kind are prohibited in or from government buildings,'' he wrote. ``This means fund-raising events may not be held in the White House; also no fund-raising phone calls or mail may emanate from the White House,'' he continued. He did not contend that the White House or Members of Congress can raise soft money on government properties. But even if that is true, the facts are that Gore also raised hard money from the White House. The Associated Press reported that around the time that the Vice President was making fund-raising calls from the White House last year, Gore was advised that the Democrat media fund for which he was soliciting was spending hard money. Mr. Chairman, the law, the controlling legal authority on this matter, prohibits the use of Federal property to raise campaign funds, period. But that did not stop the White House from holding the infamous White House coffees. During January of 1995, President Clinton also authorized a plan under which the Democratic National Committee would hold fund-raising coffees and sleepovers in the White House. During 1995 and 1996, the White House held 103 of these coffees. 103. To quote the New York Times, ``the documents released by the White House themselves make explicit that the coffees were fund-raising vehicles.'' They also make clear that the Democratic National Committee was virtually being run out of the Clinton White House despite the President's initial efforts after the election to draw a distinction between his own campaign organization and the committee. These reports make it obvious that the coffees, which President Clinton directly authorized, were nothing but fund-raising events. According to the New York Times, the Democratic National Committee raised $27 million from 350 people who attended White House coffees. What about the Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers? Is that not Federal property? President Clinton also entertained 938 overnight guests in the White House during his first term. This, too, became a means of fund-raising. When the original plan to hold coffees was suggested to the President, he not only approved it but also originated the idea of the overnight visits. On the memo suggesting the plan, he wrote, ``Ready to start overnights right away. Get other names at 100,000 or more, 50,000 or more.'' The New York Times reports that these guests donated over $10 million to a Democratic Party from 1992 to 1996. The controlling legal authority, known as the law, prohibits the use of Federal Government property from raising campaign funds. The American people do not buy the argument that there is no controlling legal authority. So, Mr. Chairman, there is a controlling legal authority, no matter what Mr. Gore believes. It is called the law. And the Vice President has the responsibility to follow that law no matter how old or inconvenient it may be. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise again in support of the Pickering amendment. Last week I rose to support this amendment and I understand that some of my comments at the time caused some concern in some quarters. Of course, I had the Clinton scandals in mind when I first spoke in favor of this amendment. Evidence shows that the Clinton-Gore reelection effort and the Democrat National Committee purposely sought foreign money in an effort to bypass our election laws. As far back as 1992, the Clinton-Gore campaign was raising money from foreign sources. It was in this context that I made my remarks last week. In no way was it my intention to suggest impropriety on the part of anyone other than those persons working for the Clinton-Gore campaign and the Democrat National Committee, and involved in the solicitation of illegal foreign donations. Let me take this opportunity to once again offer my sincere apologies to anyone whom I may have inadvertently offended. I would like to note, however, that it was the height of hypocrisy for the DNC to attack me for reading the names of those who funneled illegal money into the DNC and the Clinton-Gore campaign. After all, the DNC was the ones who broke the law and they have never offered anything other than arrogant, evasive justifications. There have been seven people charged by the Justice Department for laundering illegal campaign funds from foreign sources to the DNC, and the DNC has returned millions in illegal contributions since the 1996 elections. Mr. Chairman, at some point during the debate on campaign finance reform I am going to offer a sense of the Congress amendment that an independent counsel should be appointed to investigate the abuses by the Democrat National Committee. I hope the Members will support my amendment. In the meantime, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) and urge its adoption.

Mr. DeLAY. Just very quickly, I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan bringing this amendment. Normally I would have a little heartburn over this amendment, but I have to say that since we seem to be moving towards Shays-Meehan, with more regulations, more laws, and more ways to break the law rather than opening up the process, as we suggested in the Doolittle substitute, if we are going to do this, then we ought to do it with very strong, tough penalties. The gentleman from Michigan has brought an amendment that imposes some very, very tough penalties for egregious violations of the law. I just appreciate the gentleman for bringing this amendment and I support the gentleman's amendment and ask our colleagues to support him.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I really appreciate the gentleman from Nebraska and all the hard work that he has done in putting this resolution together. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my voice to the chorus of protest that has grown out of President Clinton's public repudiation of our friend and ally, Taiwan. The United States has always insisted that the future of Taiwan be resolved by peaceful means with the full participation of the people of Taiwan. In short, we believe that the Taiwanese people have a right to determine their own future without the threat of outside influence or the use of force. Taiwan is a shining example of freedom and democracy in a part of the world sorely in need of role models. It should be the strong and fast policy of the United States to encourage democratic societies, particularly in the face of repressive authoritarian regimes. Unfortunately, President Clinton went beyond the ``three noes,'' virtually foreclosing the option of Taiwan's self-determination. The insistence of the Clinton Administration that it merely reiterated long-standing U.S. policy is simply wrong. No President has ever used words like the words used by President Clinton while he was in China. The United States now finds itself in a position of selling offense missile technology to the People's Republic of China while denying defense weaponry to Taiwan. This, in my opinion, is a dangerous policy. President Clinton has upset the balance of power in one of the most sensitive areas of the world. The United States must do everything in its power to ensure that the People's Republic of China knows that we will not tolerate the use of force in the Taiwan Strait. By introducing this legislation with the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Snowbarger) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), I hope to send China's leaders a very clear message: Taiwan is our friend and ally. We will not tolerate the use of force in the Taiwan strait. The people of Taiwan must determine their own future. I urge the Members of this House to support this resolution. If the United States does not stand by its friends and promote democracy, equality and freedom in the face of oppression and the illegitimate use of force, we cannot expect the rest of the world to do the same.

Mr. DeLAY

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I was down in my office meeting with some constituents and I noticed that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) got up and spoke, and so I turned on my television. I have got to tell my colleagues, I came down to the floor to associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Maryland in many ways, maybe not all of them. But I do love this institution, as the gentleman from Maryland does. I think that there is too much attack on this institution and its Members. It greatly disturbs me when Members and the media and otherwise claim that there is corruption in this Chamber. I have many times come down to this floor and challenged people that said there is corruption in this Chamber to show me and name the corruption that is in this Chamber. And I, too, have voted for cost-of-living increases, and I am for them, and I think it is very important. In order to maintain the integrity of this body and making sure that Members can take care of their families in a reasonable way that reflects their abilities, we should be very, very careful when we attack this institution in this regard. So I appreciate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for bringing this special order. It is high time we started talking about these issues, particularly the issue of workers having the right to, the freedom, to pick whether they belong to a union or not. Compulsory unionism is an archaic concept that no longer belongs in the economy of the United States, and it is being exemplified, quite frankly, in what is going on in the strikes in Michigan where we have people in Texas who are being laid off because two different plants in Michigan have decided to strike and the plants in Texas have no right; a right-to-work State by the way, have no right to decide their fate when their fate is being decided by the union. I just want to take just a minute, if the gentleman will allow me, to sort of relate what we are doing and what we have been doing for the last couple of weeks in campaign finance reform and how compulsory unionism affects people's right to participate in the political process. I am a co-sponsor of this Right to Work Act and would like, I personally would like, to see a floor vote on this legislation. Nobody, nobody questions the right of labor unions to participate in our democracy. We have all been targets of their advertising campaign, but so-called campaign reform legislation that has been authored by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) while restricting the first amendment rights of all Americans does not deal with the root issue. The root issue is compulsory unionism that we are trying to get at. The authors of Shays-Meehan legislation like to claim that they have a provision in the bill, for instance, that codifies the Beck decision to protect union workers from compulsory unionism, having their dues taken from them and used in political activities that they may not agree with. What the authors of this bill fail to tell anyone is that the way they drafted this provision does not even apply to union workers, it applies to nonunion workers. In other words, in a compulsory union State that does not have right- to-work, one's dues is taken and used not only for collective bargaining practices, but they are also used for political activities, even if one does not agree with those political activities. How they disguise things all the time around here and will try to disguise what the gentleman is trying to do in bringing H.R. 59 to the floor is disguising it in such a way that says that we are going to protect workers' rights and freedoms to decide whether they are going to be involved in political activities or not, because we are going to codify a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States; but at the same time they say, one has to resign from the union in order to stop the union from using one's dues for political activities. My question, number one, is what if one is in a compulsory union State and one loses their job if one resigns from the union? So what the gentleman is bringing to the attention of the American people and to this House is a bill that basically gives the right of workers back to them. So, Mr. Speaker, this provision in Shays-Meehan is a fig leaf that comes woefully short of covering the problem. The root problem is forced union dues authorized by Federal law. It is this coercive power that allows union officials to funnel union dues into their political machines without the consent of their memberships. Shays-Meehan, by amending the Labor Relations Act, will actually act to cement compulsory unionism in place while failing to eliminate the many problems facing America's working men and women, and for these reasons alone, Shays-Meehan deserves our opposition. But, Mr. Speaker, there is more. The curious wording of those that want to protect compulsory unionism through even the Shays-Meehan campaign reform, so-called campaign reform, would even authorize union officials to charge for political activities related to collective bargaining, which union bosses contend is just about everything they do. Now, this provision not only is a perversion of the Beck decision, but it ignores the Beck decision's holding that workers may object to any dues payment for any union activities not directly related to collective bargaining activities. So if this language was adopted, union officials would be able to force, force workers to pay 100 percent of their dues to the unions. So the language that the pro-union people are trying to put forward, for all practical purposes, destroys existing legal procedures that provide protection, albeit minimal protection, to workers who must pay union dues to work, must pay union dues to work. In other words, under this bill, these sponsors, whether intentional or not, would actually enlarge the scope of expenses that union officials could charge workers, and for independent-minded workers, passage of the Shays- Meehan proposal is clearly a step backward and a major victory for big labor. Only this bill, H.R. 59, would return a basic right to millions of Americans, a right that they should never have lost in the first place. The American worker deserves more than just the right not to be forced to pay for political policies that they disagree with, they deserve the right not to be forced to pay dues or fees to a labor union just to keep or just to get a job. We are in America. If the unions of America are viable representatives of the workers of America, then they ought to be able to compete in the marketplace just like anybody else, and they should not have to have laws on the books that forces someone that may disagree with their practices to belong to that union to keep or get their job. That is what H.R. 59 is all about. It is giving freedom back to Americans when it has been taken away from them. I thank the gentleman for holding this Special Order.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. That is not my point. My point is that the administration and the DNC knew exactly who these people were, had known them for many, many long years, knew their contacts and I guarantee the gentleman, knew where this money came from, and walking into a Buddhist temple knowing that it was a fund-raiser and then walking out and saying, oh, well, I just really did not know it was a fund-raiser and I did not know I was getting foreign nationals is not a defense against the guilt of breaking the law, and the gentleman from Mississippi is making sure of the fact that you cannot claim blindness when there is a high probability you know that you are breaking the law.

Mr. DeLAY. No, I am not saying that.

Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate that. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeLAY

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

Mr. DeLAY. The gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) fails to continue reading the language that concerns us the most. And the language says, it does not contain words that in context can have no reasonable meaning other than to urge the election or defeat of one or more cleared identified candidates. This is where the rift is, where reasonable meaning. And we say that big government gets to decide, according to the language of the gentleman from California, what ``reasonable meaning'' is. And if I pass this out in a church, my opposition could very well say that, under reasonable understanding, that they are trying to sway the people in that church with this voter guide towards the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) on this voter guide. Therefore, they would have to come under Federal regulations.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the American people may not all agree on the issue of abortion, but all Americans should agree that parents have a right to know when their children are having an abortion. Should a person be able to take a minor girl across State lines to obtain an abortion without her parents knowing about it? Well, 85 percent of the American people say no. Mr. Speaker, this is not merely a question for the pollsters, it is a question of propriety. Mothers need to know when their daughters are having an abortion. A family needs to know when their children are in trouble. It does no good to keep parents in the dark. Parents need to have the peace of mind to know what their children are doing, and they have the right to know when their daughters are having an abortion. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution does not confer a right upon strangers to take children across State lines for secret abortions. I urge my colleagues to support the Child Custody Protection Act. It is the right thing to do for America's families.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.