Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to me, and I appreciate all his hard work on this very important legislation. I rise today in support of it, and I really urge my colleagues it take a look at this legislation, and I hope they will vote for it. This is a small but yet a very significant step for small business. Basically, it says if we are going to put mandates on the private sector, we need to let the American people know that we are doing it. That is all it is. This is the same principle that we have used for the last 3 years for the mandates we put on State and local government. If we are going to make the businessmen and women of America pay for our good ideas, we should make certain that we have a debate on the floor about the merits of those ideas. This bill allows Members to raise a point of order against any bill that the Congressional Budget Office determines would cost the private sector more than $100 million a year. If after 20 minutes of debate the House decides that such a mandate is necessary, we can vote to consider the rest of the bill. I just think this is a commonsense piece of legislation, because it makes Members of Congress think about what they are voting for before they vote. It makes them think about the costs to the private sector. It makes them think about the potential job loss. It makes them think about the role of government in our society. It brings much needed transparency to our government. This is a very important piece of legislation that forces the House to understand what they are doing to the real people in the real world. I urge my colleagues to support this pro-small business piece of legislation.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, in 1861, Abraham Lincoln signed a proclamation that recommended * * * a day of public humiliation, prayer, and fasting to be observed by the people of the United States with religious solemnities, and the offering of fervent supplications to Almighty God for the safety and welfare of these States, His blessings on their arms, and a speedy restoration of peace. Then, strife and war were tearing apart the United States, and to many Americans, prayer was the only way to survive those difficult times. Times in America are better now. We are at peace. Our economy is booming, and things seem to be going pretty well. But, Mr. Speaker, today we need the power of prayer more than ever. Despite the appearance of good times, many Americans feel that there is a moral crisis in our Nation. Today is the National Day of Prayer, a time when all Americans can come together and reflect on our Creator and the blessings He has bestowed on this Nation. I think it is altogether fitting and appropriate that we continue the traditions of Abraham Lincoln and join together in this National Day of Prayer.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate that I have to come down to the floor again to try to put things in perspective about what is going on around the White House and now is infecting the House of Representatives and its committees. There is a lot of spin out there. The spinmeisters of the President are trying to keep the American people from the right to know the truth. We keep asking the question, is the President of the United States above the law? Yet the spinmeisters are pushing hard and pushing often with a concerted strategy. We all know what the strategy is. The strategy, Mr. Speaker, is basically to stonewall, drag your feet, hide documents, claim executive privilege, hide behind your lawyers. But the bottom line is that it is the spin, the whole spin and nothing but the spin to block the American people's right to know the truth. I took the well of the House not too long ago and asked for the President to tell the American people the truth. I guess he did not hear my speech and he did not want to do it. But it now has boiled over into the House of Representatives. I will talk about that in a minute, and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Mr. Speaker, I just ask the question, why are the Democrats trying to change the subject when it comes to the problems in the White House? Why are the House Democrats trying to cover up for the administration? Why do they not want a real investigation of the facts surrounding illegal foreign money in the Clinton campaign and possible charges of obstruction of justice in the Clinton administration? Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, Judge Norma Holloway Johnson threw out President Clinton's claim of executive privilege regarding the latest scandal in the White House. No wonder. The President had been taking indecent liberties with the concept of the executive privilege. He has hidden behind executive privilege in order to keep the American people from knowing the truth. According to press accounts, the White House may even appeal this decision, which fits into their strategy of use the courts and the system to stall, delay and stonewall. There is only one reason that the President would want to appeal this decision and that is to keep the American people from learning the truth. Why else would you claim executive privilege if you did not want the American people to know the truth? The whole idea of executive privilege is you do not want to tell the truth. So, Mr. Speaker, I just said no man is above the law. Judge Johnson's decision reaffirms that basic American principle. No matter what the strategy that the White House decides to employ, the American people have a right to know the truth. An appeal by the President on this case would amount to one more effort to stonewall the Starr investigation and to keep the truth away from the American people. What is that truth? Nobody knows for certain. But bits and pieces of the truth continue to leak out. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight recently released transcripts of conversations between Webster Hubbell and his wife that were recorded when Mr. Hubbell was in prison for a lying and fraud conviction, that he finally, after many months of claiming that he was innocent, finally admitted and pleaded guilty. He was in prison. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Hubbell knew that his conversations were being recorded. That is common practice in prison. There is a very large sign that is posted from the jail cell where he made the phone call that says that your phone conversations are being recorded. But even though he knew his conversations were being recorded and said so on the tapes, he made some statements that lead to some very serious questions. Now the Washington Post, certainly not a fan of House Republicans, had this to say about those conversations, and I quote: That said, however, the accurate transcripts are also damming and very nearly so. They make clear that Mr. Hubbell and his wife had a sense of themselves as being held on a kind of string by the White House to which they were beholden for badly needed income; that if Mr. Hubbell's silence was not being bought in the White House case, as the independent counsel's office suspects, at the very least he and his wife were sensitive to how their remarks and behavior were being received by the President and Mrs. Clinton, were anxious to please, and were carefully kept in that state of anxiety by the White House emissaries. The Washington Post goes on to conclude that the tapes still raise real questions. The President's use of executive privilege, for instance, also raises serious questions that need to be answered by this administration: Why did the President invoke this privilege when national security was not at issue? Was it an abuse of power? Does the President's use of the executive privilege now mean that the President of the United States believes that he is above the law? Now the New York Times, Mr. Speaker, a surprising new member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, has this to say about the President's use of executive privilege, and I quote: Properly construed, the doctrine of executive privilege exempts only a narrow band of presidential activities from the reach of legal inquiry. To invoke that privilege in a broad and self-serving way, as the Clinton White House has done to shield itself from Ken Starr's inquiry, is to abuse it. But this White House is not easily embarrassed. It has tried to invoke the hallowed attorney-client privilege, even when the attorneys are servants of the public, not the President's private lawyers. And in the past few weeks it has trotted out a brand new privilege, the doctrine of protective function to insulate President Clinton's Secret Service detail from questions about the behavior patterns of Monica Lewinsky, the former White House intern. All this legal inventiveness carries the implicit assertion that Mr. Clinton is somehow uniquely above the law and thus raises the kind of constitutional questions that ought to be exposed to public debate. That is the New York Times writing that. But where is this public debate, Mr. Speaker? When will the President come clean on the issue of executive privilege? In his press conference last week the President maintained his incredible public silence responding to question after question, and he responded to the question on this particular issue by saying, and I quote: ``I cannot comment on those matters because they are under seal,'' close quote. The only seal they are under is the presidential seal. He has employed the executive privilege as a defensive tactic to keep the American people from knowing the truth. That is a very troubling precedent, a precedent that I think should trouble the Democrat Party. But an eerie silence has emanated from the Democrat minority. When it comes to the President's use of executive privilege, the Democrats hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil, Mr. Speaker. Where is the outrage from the Democrats about this abuse of power? Do they honestly think that the President of the United States is right to cite executive privilege in these cases? If Ronald Reagan or George Bush had even dared to use executive privilege in this manner, I guarantee you that the Democrats would be out here on this floor every day demanding a full explanation, if not a resignation. Mr. Speaker, no man is above the law. This is a proposition that we hold very sacred in our representative democracy. The President does not have the divine right of a king. He must follow the law even if it may sometimes be uncomfortable for him, and his use of executive privilege is an affront to that concept. The American people also have the right to know the truth about the activities in the White House. The longer that the President's men stonewall this investigation and deploy the tactics such as executive privilege, the more damage that is done to our democracy. The longer that these allegations fester, the more damage is done to the office of the presidency. If our friends on the other side of the aisle think that the President's use of executive privilege is proper, then I urge them to speak up. Speak up, speak up. Silence, silence. Let us have a public debate on this very important issue. Let us hear from the President's allies about their reasons for supporting this very troubling precedent. Mr. Speaker, next week I plan to introduce legislation that will put some limits on the President's ability to claim executive privilege. Now my legislation is pretty simple. It has a reporting requirement. Anytime the President decides to invoke executive privilege, he must make a formal report to Congress. Now this would mean that Congress, the press, and the general public would be aware of executive privilege claims instead of wondering like they do now. My legislation also says that there is no Secret Service privilege for criminal proceedings involving the President's conduct. Because it deals with criminal proceedings and the President's conduct, it does not reflect on the security role of the Secret Service. Now, Mr. Speaker, no matter how many times the President tries to invoke executive privilege, this Nation holds dear these two principles: No man is above the law, and the American people have the right to know the truth. And let me just speak about the new strategy, actually it is not new, the strategy that is going on in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; the strategy of attack your accuser, change the subject, because if you do, it will become old news. That is what is going on here, and the American people know it, they understand it, they can see it. In order to keep us from getting to the truth, in order to keep us from getting the American people the truth because they have the right to know the truth, the Democrats and the administration are attacking the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). And why should we be surprised? Because it is their typical defense tactic; attack your accuser. We have seen this in the past. Who else have they attacked? Senator Thompson in the campaign finance investigation, Senator D'Amato in the Whitewater investigation, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) in Whitewater, Representative Clinger back during the Travelgate and FBI Filegate incidents, Ken Starr; they are attacking Ken Starr over Whitewater, FBI files, travel office and the Lewinsky matter. They are attacking FBI Director Freeh when he recommended an independent counsel for the campaign finance matter, some investigations. And they do all this so that they can change the subject, because by attacking their accuser the Democrats can change that subject. And what do they want to change the subject from? Put it back into perspective, Mr. Speaker. This is not a sex scandal. These are not scandals; these are crimes we are talking about investigating: Whitewater; the travel office affair; having over 900 FBI files on Republicans in the White House; the foreign campaign contributions to the DNC and others; Webster Hubbell who is also a convicted felon now indicted again; and it goes on and on. They are trying to make it old news, because once they have attacked the accuser and changed the subject, the original problem becomes old news and they do not need to address old news. But let us get back to the matter at hand, the investigation going on in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. What is going on here is we are trying to get to the bottom of the truth of what appears to be campaign finance abuses, and we are trying to get to the truth. You know, Mr. Speaker, there are over 92 witnesses that have either claimed the fifth, left the country, or refused to cooperate with this committee. I think the American people need to know that. Mr. Speaker, 92 witnesses; not 1, not 2, not 3; 92 witnesses that have either taken the fifth amendment, fled the country, or refused to cooperate. On April 23, the committee Democrats voted 19 to zero against immunizing four witnesses who had taken the fifth before the committee. Now these are witnesses that the Justice Department, the Clinton Justice Department, had okayed for immunity and it was all right to accept their testimony. Irene Wu. Wu was Johnnie Chung's office manager and has firsthand knowledge of Chung's fund-raising activities and ties to foreign nationals. Wu has already received immunity from the Department of Justice. Nancy Lee. Lee also worked for Johnny Chung and allegedly solicited conduit contributions that were made to the DNC. Lee has also received immunity from the Department of Justice. Larry Wong. Wong was a close associate of Nora and Gene Lum and has knowledge of the Lums' illicit fund-raising activities. And Kent La. La is the President of a company that distributes Chinese cigarettes and is a close associate of Ted Siong, a major figure in the committee's investigation. Now why? Why the Democrats' opposition to immunity? It is outrageous, Mr. Speaker. The President's own Department of Justice informed the committee that it does not oppose the granting of immunity to these witnesses. Some of the committee Democrats have admitted that they are opposed to immunity solely to punish the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). Granting immunity is often the only way that the congressional investigations can get to the truth. And many times witnesses are granted immunity. They were granted immunity in Watergate, they were granted immunity by Republicans in Iran Contra, and even Senator Thompson's fund-raising investigation granted immunity to witnesses. But by opposing immunity to these four witnesses, the committee Democrats have made it very clear that they would rather engage in political in-fighting than to get to the truth about foreign money in American elections. So, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we know what this is all about. What this is all about is to cover up the truth, to keep the American people from knowing the truth, and if we can just keep putting it off after each election, sooner or later they think it will go away. Well, sooner or later the American people are going to know the truth, whether they want them to have it or not. And sooner or later, either the media of this country or the Republicans of this House will get to the bottom of the truth, Mr. Speaker, because no man is above the law and the American people have the right to know the truth. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Judge Norma Holloway Johnson threw out President Clinton's claim of executive privilege regarding the latest crime or scandals in the White House. No wonder. The President has been taking indecent liberties with the concept of executive privilege. He has hidden behind executive privilege in order to keep the American people from knowing the truth. According to press accounts, the White House may even appeal this decision. There is only one reason to appeal this decision, and that is to keep the American people from learning the truth. Mr. Speaker, no man is above the law. Judge Johnson's decision affirms that basic American principle. No matter what strategy the White House decides to employ, the American people have the right to know the truth. An appeal by the President on this case would amount to one more effort to stonewall the Starr investigation and keep the truth away from the American people.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to a partisan attack launched by the minority leader on the Speaker of the House this morning. Once again, instead of focusing on the issues at hand, the minority leader has sought to change the subject. The Speaker has made two very important points regarding the White House and its continued ethics problems. First, the Speaker has stressed that no man is above the law. Second, he has pointed out that the American people deserve to know the truth about the activities in the White House. The minority leader has decided to divert attention from those very basic points. It is the hope of the White House and of the minority that this diversion will keep attention away from the very real ethical problems of this administration. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the truth will come out. It may be sooner, and it may be later, but, someday, the truth will come out. I urge the President to preserve the dignity of the office that he holds by coming forward about the facts. The longer that these allegations fester, the more damage is done to the presidency. Unfortunately, the White House has rejected that advice. Rather than being candid with the American people, the White House hides behind executive privilege. In fact, the Clinton/Gore administration has invoked executive privilege 12 times. They have used executive privilege almost as often as they have used the veto pen. Throughout their administration, they have vetoed only 20 bills. They have employed executive privilege for campaign scandals, for travel office scandals, for memos regarding drug policy, for Filegate, and for other scandals. That is a very troubling precedent, a precedent that should trouble the Democrat Party. But an eerie silence has emanated from the Democrat minority. When it comes to the President's use of executive privilege, the Democrats hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil. I have yet to hear one member of the minority leadership admit that they are troubled by the White House scandals. Where is the outrage from the Democrats about these allegations? The one time that the minority leader has spoken out on this issue has been to condemn the Speaker of the House, the one time. The Nation has been preoccupied by White House scandals all year, and the minority leader's only response has been to blame the Speaker. That fits in very nicely with the White House strategy of spin, the whole spin, and nothing but the spin. Clearly, they are testing the proposition that you cannot fool all the people all the time. Mr. Speaker, you cannot fool all the people all the time. And the American people have grown very weary of this White House's efforts to distract them from the truth. We are all damaged by the White House efforts to delay this investigation, to destroy the investigator, and to deny everything to the media. The minority leader said in his speech today, and I quote, ``Ideally, we are able to put aside our partisan interests and consider `the people's business,' if not with a blank slate, at least with an open mind.'' Can the leader really believe that he has approached these issues with an open mind when the only person he blames in the very White House scandals is the Speaker of the House? I urge the minority leader to join us in finding out the truth. He should be calling for the truth. Let us put this partisanship aside and look soberly at the very serious allegations that have beset this White House. No man is above the law, and the American people deserve to know the truth.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding again and would say that if we have the kind of cooperation we got today from his side, we possibly may not have votes on Friday. But I think Members should anticipate that we could have votes on Friday. We are going to work as hard as we can to avoid that, but we cannot guarantee that that will not happen. Right now we are telling Members that we will have votes on Friday up until about 2 p.m.

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), chairman of the Democratic Caucus, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that we have concluded legislative business for the week and that the House will next meet on Monday, May 4, at 2 p.m. for pro forma session. There will be no legislative business and no votes that day. On Tuesday, May 5, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and at 2 p.m. for legislative business. On Tuesday we will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules, a list of which will be distributed to the Members' offices. But Members should know that we do not expect any recorded votes before 5 o'clock on May 5. On Wednesday, May 6, and the balance of the week, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Tuesday evening we could resume H.R. 6, or we could pick it up again on Wednesday, but we do hope to continue consideration of H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. Also on Wednesday and throughout the balance of the week the House will consider the following legislation: H.R. 1872, the Communications Satellite Competition and Privatization Act of 1997; H.R. 10, the Financial Services Competition Act of 1997; and H.R. 3694, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. Mr. Speaker, we hope to conclude legislative business for the week by 2 p.m. on Friday, May 8. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, Wednesday and Thursday could be late nights. But we do not like late nights, so we are going to discourage them as much as we can.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman again yielding, I just want to say that we are trying to work that out with the gentleman's side of the aisle. Certainly, we will come to some sort of agreement before we move on the Riggs amendment. We want to cooperate with everyone and make sure that everyone has an opportunity to debate that bill. As soon as we know what the gentleman's side wants and what we agree to, then we will announce it to the membership.

Mr. DeLAY. I hope we can work it out.

Mr. DeLAY. We want to make sure that this is an open and honest process, an honest debate. So your side will be consulted, even before we go to rules. The Committee on Rules chairman has been charged by the Speaker to write an open rule so that every Member, both Democrat and Republican, will have an opportunity to address the issues that are important to them. We want to make sure that the gentleman's side is as happy with the rule as we are, and that we have an open rule.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, it was Theodore Roosevelt who said in his third State of the Union address: No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right, not asked as a favor. President Clinton should have kept that quote in mind before he invoked executive privilege. When Janet Reno appointed Ken Starr to investigate the various scandals that have beset the administration, he promised to follow the rule of law. He has done so despite the best efforts of the President's attack dogs to discredit him. The American people have a right to know the truth about the actions of the President and all the President's men. They have a right to know that the rule of law is still being followed in the White House. No man is above the law, no matter how often the President invokes executive privilege.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, an ancient Greek philosopher once said that only the educated are truly free. To a remarkable extent, that is still true today. The state of our education system pounds that point home. In many of our communities our children get the best education in the world. They are free to become lawyers, doctors, astronauts, engineers or whatever they want. They are free to live the American dream. But in other communities, those communities that are not so well off, those communities that are ravaged by crime and drugs, the schools very often fail the children. They fail to give the children the necessary tools so they can realize their dreams. They fail to provide the children the safe and secure environment where they can learn. They fail to provide teachers who have the knowledge and the ability to teach. They fail to use their resources wisely to ensure that money is spent on teaching children, not on padding the wallets of bureaucrats. And as a result of these failures, the children in these communities are trapped. They are not free to live their dreams. They are trapped in a system that ensures mediocrity, that inspires despair, that instills failure. The District of Columbia has many examples of failure in its education system. It has amongst the highest illiteracy rates of any school system in the country. It spends more money per student than most schools. The question today is pretty simple: Do we take the steps that will instill accountability and responsibility and quality into the school system, or do we let the status quo continue unabated? Well, in my view we need to shake this system up, and I cannot think of a better way to do that than to establish scholarships for children who want to break out of a failing system. I have heard most of the opponents today; and a lot of opponents in Washington, D.C., including half the teachers in the school system, send their children to schools other than the government school system. I have heard many complaints from those people who oppose the proposal offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) to establish this scholarship program. They say it means that we are abandoning the public school system. Nothing could be further from the truth. If we wanted to abandon the public school system we would offer legislation that would give every student in the D.C. system a scholarship, every student a scholarship to the private or public school system somewhere else. And my guess is that that proposal would be a cheaper alternative than the current system and wildly popular with most of the residents in the District of Columbia. But the majority leader is offering his proposal to inspire a rebirth in the D.C. school system. There is nothing like a little competition to get a system to change for the better, and we know that in business and we know it in life. So some teachers' unions are fighting this proposal and other school choice proposals, and half of them send their kids to private schools, and they fight them with every ounce of energy that they can muster. Apparently the unions are scared of the concept of accountability and responsibility and quality. I know many teachers who are as frustrated with the current system as we are. They want the best for these students. But the bureaucrats and the union leaders want the best for the bureaucracy and the union and not for students. And what is best for the bureaucracy and for the union is often the worst for the student and the parents. Giving families the opportunity to choose where their children will attend school is an innovative way to inspire competition and improve our public school system. Many low-income families cannot afford to send their children to private school or even the means to take them to another public school in a better area. The D.C. Scholarship Opportunity Act would give a low-income family in the District a choice, a chance, the power to provide their children with a better education. The D.C. Scholarship Opportunity Act is an important way to begin to affect our communities, to show them that we in Washington are committed to improving the educational system. So, Madam Speaker, I applaud the majority leader for his commitment. Improving this system will help more children to realize the American dream.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, May 4, 1998, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 5, for morning hour debates.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to trade my 5-minute Special Order time with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, just before adjournment last year, Congress passed the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Conference Report directing the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to ``exercise appropriate discretion'' and ``not impose unreasonable monetary penalties for minor, unintentional violations'' of record keeping requirements. Unfortunately, in January of this year, the DEA either failed to take that directive seriously, or they have a serious problem interpreting the definition of the words ``appropriate discretion'', ``unreasonable penalties'', and ``minor, unintentional violations.'' In Wichita Falls, Texas, twenty-five pharmacies received letters from the DEA asking them to pay fines up to $400,000 for record keeping mistakes that were not even their fault. Mr. Speaker, it appears we may have another federal agency out of control. I only hope we don't have another IRS-type fiasco on our hands. At the very least, we have a flawed statute if it allows any federal agency to fine a business $25,000 per paperwork mistake. If the shoe was on the other foot, and taxpayers were able to deduct a sum of that size from their taxes for unintentional errors generated by bureaucrats in federal agencies, the government would be dead broke. Mr. Speaker, we should not take lightly or tolerate a federal agency's disregard or neglect of a very clear directive by the Congress. I plan to pursue this matter further and will solicit the support of my colleagues to come up with an appropriate solution.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, hypocrisy is a very tough word, so I will not use it in the context of the President's stance on tobacco. But let me just say that the President has his priorities wrong when it comes to his policies regarding children's health. While he spends much of his time bashing tobacco, he has turned a blind eye to the skyrocketing problem of drug abuse in this country. Over 20,000 children a year die as a result of illegal drugs in this country, but the President's response has been to throw in the towel when it comes to the war on drugs. In fact, last week he not only condoned, but endorsed the free distribution of needles to heroin addicts. While the President is taking a cigarette from a teenager, he is giving them a condom and a needle to shoot up with heroin. I think the President needs to get his priorities straight, Mr. Speaker. We should stop children from smoking, but first, we need to stop children from using illegal drugs.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I want to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules; my chief deputy whip, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert); and most importantly, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) for showing leadership, for showing leadership when it comes to the war on drugs. I have the utmost respect for the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and her position, and I do tend to understand her position, but it has been said so many times here on this floor during this debate. I just feel very strongly that the best science is on our side and refutes the science that the gentlewoman is putting forward. I also understand because she is a beautiful mother and a loving mother and a grandmother, although she does not look like a grandmother, the gentlewoman from California understands what ``enabling'' means. Enabling your children to do bad things by bailing them out, say, if they got in trouble at school and one goes and beats up on the principal and makes sure there are no consequences, or enabling an alcoholic by giving them a drink does not free them from alcoholism. Enabling a drug addict by giving them a clean needle, it enables that drug user to continue their habit. So I just say, if we are really, really serious about the war on drugs, and everybody seems to be for it, then I would urge that side of the aisle to join us tomorrow in a major show of rededicating this Congress and this House and this government to a real war on drugs. But I have to tell my colleagues, we understand that there is an effort going to pull the Democrats away from this bipartisan effort to rededicate ourselves. The lack of leadership here is really frightening. Clearly, this Nation needs leadership in the war on drugs. Sadly, the President has already given up on that fight. By condoning and embracing the concept of giving free needles to drug addicts, President Clinton has raised the white flag of surrender. He is sending the wrong message to the youth of this country. He is saying that we cannot end drug abuse in this country, so we might as well mend it. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the wrong approach. Drug abuse continues to be the top concern of parents across this Nation. Mothers and fathers are rightfully worried that the ravages of drug abuse may victimize their children. Over 20,000 young people die as a result of illegal drug trade in this country every year, and thousands more are victimized by drugs in countless other ways. Illegal drug use really is not a laughing matter, and the President and the President's press secretary can make all the jokes they want about their own drug use, but their casual attitude encourages a new generation of drug abusers in this country. It is no coincidence that teenaged drug use has skyrocketed, skyrocketed during the Clinton Presidency. The Nation expects leadership from its President when it comes to an issue like drug abuse. Instead of leadership, we get a dead-head President who supports a program that gives free needles to drug addicts. Well, Mr. Speaker, let us send a message to this President. Let us vote for this legislation, and let the American people know that this Congress still wants to fight the war on drugs.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman does not know what unified budgeting is. The gentleman obviously does not know. I agree with the gentleman that we have a huge surplus that we are spending on government spending. But if we take all the spending and all the tax revenues, then we are in surplus. I want, as the gentleman wants, I am sure, I want to make it a true balanced budget by taking the Social Security surplus and not spend it on government spending. If the gentleman will work with me, I guarantee we will come up with a budget that will accomplish that. I think I have the credibility to do that.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have the time, and I am reclaiming the time and I am going to answer the gentleman's statement.

Mr. DeLAY. Well, the gentleman reads a different budget.