Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I too rise to pay tribute to a great American, Sam Johnson. He is a dear friend, and certainly a true profile in courage. Tomorrow marks, as has already been said, the 25th anniversary of Operation Homecoming, when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and 738 other American prisoners of war returned to the United States from imprisonment by the North Vietnamese. On this day in 1973, Sam Johnson boarded a plane in Hanoi's airport and returned home after having spent 7 years as a prisoner of war at the hands of the North Vietnamese. He endured unspeakable torture, lived in primitive conditions and suffered from malnutrition, and when one shakes Sam's hands, one can feel the torture in his hands. Two things helped him survive those awful years in North Vietnam: a very, very strong faith in God, and a deep, deep love of his wife, Shirley. For 2 of those 7 years Sam Johnson was imprisoned in that infamous Hanoi Hilton. It was there that he endured the worst of his torture. Communications between the prisoners as a well-known story was forbidden, but that did not stop the Americans from developing an intricate tap code that helped the prisoners maintain their sanity. Once, when Johnson and Commander James Stockdale were caught using this tap code, the Vietnamese retaliated with the worst kind of punishment. They put Sam in a cell about 2\1/2\ feet wide by 8 feet long. The Americans derisively called that cell ``The Mint'' after a Las Vegas hotel. It was in The Mint where Sam Johnson was set in stocks so tight he could not even move. The Vietnamese kept Sam in that cell in those stocks for 72 days, and on the 72nd day, a typhoon struck Hanoi Hilton. Water flooded Sam's cell. He thought he was going to drown. So he prayed, and he prayed that night like he had never prayed before, and when he awoke the next morning, he discovered that he had actually survived, thanks to God. Not only had he survived, but the typhoon had blown the boards off his cell and he saw the sun for the first time in 72 days. Sam Johnson serves as an inspiration of every Member of this House. He endured that pain of imprisonment fighting for his country. Nobody knows the value of freedom more than the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). We are all honored by his presence in this House, and I am honored and very proud to call Sam Johnson a friend of mine.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, as usual with this administration, the devil is in the details. The President's budget, carefully constructed by pollsters, is a hodgepodge of nice-sounding government programs. In fact, it expands government spending by close to $100 billion. Now, there are two ways to pay for this additional Washington spending. One is to increase taxes, and the other is to spend any surplus. Madam Speaker, my constituents have two messages for the President: Do not increase taxes and do not spend the surplus. The American people do not want more government programs; they want more efficient government programs. They do not want more taxes; they want lower taxes; and they do not want us to spend the surplus. I hope the President gets the message.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman for yielding. I want to rise in favor of this resolution because this resolution is quite simple. It says that the President cannot formulate a national test for our students unless the Congress specifically authorizes such a test. It is just that simple. It is not all the other things that we have heard. This might seem like a typical inside-the-Beltway type of squabble between the President and the Congress, but I say to my colleagues that there is a bigger principle at stake in this resolution: Who should control the education of our children? Should it be parents or should it be the Federal Government? The administration and its supporters in the Congress want more control over local communities and parents when it comes to educational policy. They want to expand the national bureaucracy at the expense of working families. They want to promote a one-size-fits-all education system, a system that dictates national standards and promotes a national curriculum and gives more power to Federal bureaucrats. We want to return power to families. We want to give parents more choices. We want our local communities to make the decisions, not some huge Federal bureaucracy. That is why we support the concept of school choice. That is why we believe working families should be able to use tax-free education savings accounts so that parents can have more options for their children. And that is why we oppose efforts by this administration to waste money on needless tests and wasteful national bureaucracies. So I ask my colleagues to support this resolution and support America's working families.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is one of the saddest motions I have ever seen. This is, to me, a personal insult to Ronald Reagan. I can understand voting against the bill if my colleagues do not want the airport named after Ronald Reagan. But to say that it is okay to name a terminal after Ronald Reagan is an insult to the name of one of the greatest presidents that has ever served this country, and I hope the Members will understand it that way. If they want to vote against the bill, vote against it. Or if they want to name this terminal after a congressman, go right ahead. In Houston, Texas, we named a terminal after Mickey Leland; and he deserved the naming of that terminal. But we named the entire airport after George Bush. And to name it after a terminal is just an insult. I hope our Members will vote no against this motion to recommit.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the gentleman.

Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman from Missouri. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I came down to the floor to take a special order to talk about another Ronald; but I am going to take this opportunity to talk about this Ronald that I have come to respect, a gentleman that, when he was Chairman of the then Arms Services Committee, was one of the most giving, open, and stalwart, a real stalwart man when he was Chairman. I was shocked this morning. I knew it was coming, but I was shocked this morning as I was sitting in that chair waiting for 1-minutes, and the Chair read the gentleman's resignation. It came home that the gentleman from California (Mr. Dellums) is actually leaving this House. We are losing one of its finest Members, a Member that I have great respect for, because he always did his homework, was so articulate and eloquent on this floor. He always got my attention when he stood up and took the microphone. He would stop every Member in their tracks to hear what he had to say, and there are very few Members that have served in this body that can claim the respect that both sides of the aisle had for the gentleman from California. And the incredible reputation that the gentleman from California (Mr. Dellums) has brought to this House; he has elevated this House. He has elevated the distinction of this House by serving here, and this House will greatly miss him when he leaves. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio. I yield to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), my dear friend.

Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman from California. For other Members on the floor, I came down to the floor to give another kind of special order, so I have agreed to two more speakers, and then I will go to Mr. Dellums. Then I have to, because I am running out of time, go to my special order. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, as usual, when we get on the floor, we have to yield to more Members, and I will yield to the other Californians that are here. But I warn anybody that may be on their way over to the floor, that in 5 minutes I am going to take my special order. So I will yield to the gentleman from California, (Mr. Farr).

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Engel).

Mr. DeLAY. And, Mr. Speaker, once again I apologize to the gentleman from New York, but well said. My last Speaker is the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dellums) for a response.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I can only say that it is indeed a tribute to have as many Members come down to this floor. It shows you what kind of man the gentleman is. He is a great American, as the gentleman from California says, and the House will remember him and revere him and he will go down in history and young people will read about him. So we say farewell, but we always want him to come back. I also rise to pay tribute to another Californian, another Ron, one of the greatest Presidents of this century, Ronald Wilson Reagan. Now, later this week the House will take up a bill that will name the National Airport after Ronald Reagan. This legislation will be a fitting tribute to the greatness of Ronald Reagan. It will signify the soaring spirit of this man who did so much to lift the spirits of the American people. Now, some people, especially my colleagues who occupy the far left of the political spectrum, disagree with this legislation. They say that we should not name the National Airport after Reagan because of his actions with the air traffic controllers. Well, let me just set the record straight. By breaking the PATCO union, Ronald Reagan struck a blow for the American people and for the American taxpayer. Let me quote President Reagan. ``I believe in the collective bargaining in the private sector. I do not believe in it for the public sector because I do not believe that public employees can be allowed to strike. Public employees are striking against the people, and the people are the highest sources of power, other than the Lord himself, that the government has.'' Ronald Reagan sat a very important precedent when he battled against that union. He established that no special interest could hold hostage the whole of the American people. Some Democrats may not appreciate that principle. After all, the Democrats are the party of the special interests. Ronald Reagan was a President of principle. That is why the American people still love him so much. That is why we will celebrate his birthday this week. They knew where he stood on any issue. They knew he believed in the American spirit and that he lived the American dream. Born in a small town in Illinois, Ronald Reagan came not from a background of wealth or privilege. He worked his way up from tough circumstance to become the President of the United States, a President we could all believe in. It was Reagan who said, ``Don't let anyone tell you that America's best days are behind her; that the American spirit has been vanquished. We have seen it triumph too often in our lives to stop believing in it now.'' Today, we need a President who stands for the best that America has to offer. Ronald Reagan was that kind of President. We still feel the impact of the vision of Ronald Reagan: It is a vision of hope, a vision of opportunity, a vision of faith and a vision of freedom. It was Ronald Reagan who said that the government was too big and it spends too much. It was Ronald Reagan who said the answer to government that is too big is to stop feeding its growth. It was Ronald Reagan who said raising taxes will not balance the budget, it will only encourage more government spending and less private investment; raising taxes will slow economic growth, reduce production and destroy future jobs, making it more difficult for those without jobs to find them and more likely that those who now have jobs can keep them. It was Ronald Reagan who campaigned so effectively for a line item veto, something that my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), worked so hard to get signed into law. It was Ronald Reagan's wife, Nancy, who led the fight against illegal drug use. Her campaign that urged children to ``just say no'' inspired the American people to take responsibility for their actions. It also inspired a 67-percent drop in illegal drug use. Now that is the kind of moral leadership that we need. It is leadership based on the principles of freedom and personal responsibility. Today we are working on an agenda that is inspired by the Reagan vision for America, and this agenda has four pillars: First, we want to make the Government smaller and smarter so that it takes up no more than 25 percent of the average family's income. Americans are overtaxed, overregulated and overgoverned. It is not right that most people spend half the year working for the Government. Mr. Speaker, I just challenge the American people who, during this week, look at today and tomorrow. Today, the American people are still working for the Government. Tomorrow, it will not be until after lunch that they start working for themselves this week. Over 50 percent of the American family's income goes to the Government. If we add up local, State, and Federal taxes and the cost of regulation, 50 cents out of every hard-earned dollar goes to the Government. No wonder it takes one parent to work for the Government, while it takes another parent to work for the family today. Washington confiscates too many of the hard-earned dollars, spends too much; it wastes too much and has too much power and authority over our lives. This was true when Ronald Reagan was president, and it is still true today. The only way to return power and authority from Washington back to the people is to limit the amount of money politicians get their hands on in the first place. Look at what is happening to the Clinton budget that was introduced just yesterday. All of a sudden, the President and the politicians have found what they think are surpluses in our budget. Because of a good, sound, fiscal policy, we actually may balance the budget and surpluses may flow. And what is their first reaction is to raise the size of government, start taxing and spending again. Think about it. Just think about it. The less that we send to Washington, the less Washington can waste. Hard-working Americans deserve a break today, and we are committed to keeping more of their money in their pockets and less in Washington. Our focus in 1998 will be to increase family income by cutting taxes and making Government more accountable for the way it spends the people's money. But tax relief is only the first step. The only way to ensure limited government and individual freedom is to eliminate the IRS as we know it today. We believe it is morally wrong for a free people to live in fear of any government agency. We believe it is morally wrong for citizens in a democracy to be assumed guilty until proven innocent. Yet even IRS reform is not enough. The real problem lies with the Tax Code itself. It is too long, it is too complicated, and it is simply unfair. It makes lawyers and accountants rich and the rest of us poor. It punishes achievement and discourages hard work and savings and innovation. Mr. Speaker, let us replace the Tax Code with a new system that is fair, consistent, easy to understand, easy to comply with, and less coercive and intrusive. We need a Tax Code that encourages savings and investment. Most importantly, we need a Tax Code that confiscates less for Washington and keeps more in the people's pockets. Now, that is a Ronald Reagan vision. A second pillar of our agenda is education. A philosopher once said that ``only the educated are truly free.'' Our schools have to improve if we are going to protect our freedom. Nothing is more important than the education of our young people. I have struggled with this issue. Because, while I believe that education should be a top priority for the American people, I also believe that this priority is best accomplished at the local and the State level. But I do believe that the Federal Government can play a role and that role should be in promoting greater freedom and greater choices for the parents of our children. Our education plan proposes fundamental change. Official Washington now has 760 education programs and 39 different bureaucracies, spending over $100 billion a year. It is mind boggling. That does not make any sense. It does not make any sense for Washington to tax the people's community and then graciously give back the money with all kinds of strings attached. We want to cut those strings. We want to remove outdated rules and restrictions that are holding back our schools from the future. Even the best teachers cannot get results when their school is a dangerous, violent place. We hope the President will stop his opposition to our proposal to give freedom of choice to low-income families in Washington, D.C. These families have children who are stuck at dead-end, drug-infested schools. We want those families to have the same option exercised by all of us, including the President and the Vice President, the option to choose the kind of education that best meets the needs of their own children. Republicans believe that American education should be the best in the world. The third pillar of our agenda is the war on drugs and crime. When a mother sends her son off to a foreign war, she worries ceaselessly about his safety. Yet every day, every day, millions of mothers put their children on the school bus and send them off into a domestic war zone. Ronald Reagan understood the plague of drugs and he stood firmly against illegal drug use. He was a role model for the American people. The leadership from the White House today is less clear, and that explains our current problems. Teen drug abuse has reached epidemic proportions, and there are no safe havens from this insidious modern plague. Overall, teenage drug use has nearly doubled in the 1990s; and, perhaps most frightening of all, nearly half of all 17-year-olds say that they can buy marijuana within an hour. The scourge of drugs and horrible violent crimes are reminders that a good economy is not everything. We have to guard against America becoming rich in things but poor in spirit, and that starts at the top with our police and our elected leaders of this country. Too often I think Government's well-intentioned programs have backfired, have led to dependency and illegitimacy and despair in the area of welfare, for example. We have some solutions to this problem. First, if we wish to solve the drug crisis, we have to start with the family and the school and in our churches and synagogues. Teens with families that eat together and play together and pray together are the ones that are least likely to try drugs. If the battle against drug abuse is waged at home, the war is half won. Ronald Reagan understood that fact, and his lovely wife Nancy's campaign to ``just say no'' was effective. We need that kind of moral leadership in the White House today. Second, parents must demand that their schools be made drug-free. We need to empower teachers so that they can kick drug dealers out of their schools. We have to demand accountability and zero tolerance by principals for any drug use on school grounds; and if those principals do not adhere to zero tolerance, we need to get rid of those principals and replace them with ones that will. Third, the Federal Government has an important role. We must do a better job in defending our borders, our national borders, from drug dealers. We have to be more diligent in our policing and arresting and prosecution of anyone who sells this poison. Next, we need to get as tough on these people as they are on us, ending parole for violent offenders, increasing prison capacity, mandatory penalties for crimes committed with a gun, cracking down on juvenile criminals, and making the death penalty a very real threat. If we are truly committed to protecting the innocent, we must do more to punish the guilty. Finally, we have to set examples for our children. For those who say that sin is not important, that morals are not important, that setting examples are not important, I say no wonder we cannot win this war. The fourth pillar of our agenda for the future is also a part of the Reagan legacy. Ronald Reagan signed the law that saved Social Security for the next generation. Now we have to take steps today to save and strengthen Social Security for the next century. Today, more young people believe in UFOs than believe that they will ever see a Social Security check; and we have to make this system one that all Americans can believe in. President Clinton's proposal to hold on to any surplus until we reform Social Security is just flat wrong. In fact, it does not even make any sense. I believe that this is just a sneaky way for the Government to keep more of the taxpayers' money. But we need to fix Social Security. Ultimately, it comes down to the question of control. Who should make these key decisions about the people's retirement? The people or the Federal Government? Now, we believe that the American people need to play a more active role in designing a retirement system that they can control, and I think we can design a better system that all Americans will believe in. A national commission or a national debate with the active participation of the American people will help us design such a system. Such a debate would be a further reflection of the Reagan legacy. According to press accounts, Bill Clinton is worried about his legacy once he leaves office. The legacy that a president leaves is not just the legislation he signs, not the programs that he proposes or even the speeches he makes. The legacy is also the vision he promotes for a better America. President Reagan saw the brighter side of an American dream. He saw a land of boundless opportunity and a people of boundless energy. He saw an America that served as a shining city on the hill, an America that served as a beacon of light for the rest of the world. He believed that a government that preserved freedom was a limited government that knew its role in society. He believed that freedom, coupled with personal responsibility, created wealth and fostered happiness. He knew that the world was a dangerous place and that an America was a force for good in making it a less dangerous place. He also knew that the position of the president of the United States was not only a job but also a symbol of freedom to people across the world. Reagan also knew that, as president, he did serve as a role model for the Nation's youth; and he did his best to bring dignity to the office and to the Nation. I knew Ronald Reagan. I served under Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine. President Clinton, you are no Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan had his enemies, but even his enemies respected his vision of America. They had no choice. I wanted to wish President Reagan a happy birthday, and I am sure that the current fight to name the National Airport in his honor bewilders him and Nancy. It bewilders me. But we should not let this partisanship get the best of us. We should adopt Ronald Reagan's good humor and push forward on this legislation. It will be the best thing we can do for the image of this city and the image of our capital.

Mr. DeLAY. I would love to yield to the gentleman that worked for Ronald Reagan in the White House, the gentleman from California and the Chairman of the Policy Committee, Mr. Cox.

Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman from California. His words are like a paintbrush, painting who the real Ronald Reagan was. Many of us that serve in this House serve in this House because of his inspiration, and getting us involved in politics and dragging us out of the private sector, and making us stand up, as he did, for freedom and personal responsibility. I appreciate the gentleman for coming down and helping me with this special order.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, it is often said that a leopard cannot change his spots. It must also be said of Bill Clinton that he cannot stop his bad habits, the most obvious of those habits being his propensity to tax and spend. The President's budget submission is a reaffirmation of this administration's commitment to a bigger government and a heavier tax burden for working Americans. The President's budget includes close to $100 billion in new taxes to pay for close to $100 billion in bigger government. The American people do not want new taxes and they do not want new government programs. They want a smaller and smarter government that takes less of their money and works more effectively for their families. This is not the time to increase taxes. This is the time to cut taxes. The President's budget is a disappointment, but not a surprise. One cannot expect a leopard to change its spots and one cannot expect President Clinton to embrace the concepts of a smaller and smarter Federal Government.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1836, the Federal Employee Health Care Protection Act of 1997. I want to commend the chairman of the Civil Service Subcommittee, Mr. Mica, and the chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Mr. Burton, for all of their efforts to bring this bill before the House today. Virtually everyone agrees that vigorous competition among providers and carriers has been critical to the success of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. While Congress has provided the Office of Personnel Management with the broad authority to referee this competition, we have wisely chosen to allow the marketplace to sort out many related issues. I was initially concerned that the original language in section 5 of the bill would have veered away from our reliance on the marketplace by imposing an unnecessary Federal mandate. This mandate would have unfairly tilted the playing field between directed and nondirected PPO's and resulted in significantly higher costs for the FEHBP. I am pleased that section 5 has now been rewritten so that OPM may continue to allow FEHBP carriers to seek out appropriate provider discounts in a competitive marketplace. I appreciate the efforts of Mr. Mica and Mr. Burton to redraft section 5 so that it accomplishes their stated goal of shedding light on silent PPO's without adversely impacting the program savings that both direct and nondirect PPO's have been able to achieve. I encourage my colleagues to support final passage of this bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Kingston]. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1836, as amended.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DeLAY. In order to accommodate Members' schedules, should Members try to make the votes as quickly as possible?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry in asking how long we hold the votes open, again.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, as I speak, the President of the United States is meeting with President Jiang of China. The people of the United States and the people of China share many interests and hopes for their futures. I voted for MFN because I believe that trade is one way we can influence the people of China to force their Government to give up its authoritarian ways. But as the President of China meets with the President of the United States, one message must be sent loud and clear: That the United States will not condone China's persecution of people for their religious and political beliefs. I am especially appalled by the treatment of Pastor Xu Yongze, who has been tortured and unjustly imprisoned simply because of his religious beliefs. Pasture Xu is a widely respected, mainstream pastor, often called the Billy Graham of China. He does not deserve this kind of treatment. So I urge President Clinton, Mr. Speaker, to convey this simple message to the President of China: If China wants to be a respected nation in the world, it must give up its persecution of innocent people who simply want a chance to practice their religion in peace.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to call attention to the plight of those persecuted for their religious faith in China, particularly Pastor Xu Yongze. This marks the third occasion on which I have taken to the floor to address Pastor Xu's imprisonment, and I will continue to speak out until Chinese authorities release Pastor Xu. Tomorrow morning, Mr. Speaker, I will be eating breakfast in my office by myself. As I announced earlier today, I have reluctantly but resolutely decided that I must boycott the congressional leadership breakfast with Chinese President Jiang Zemin. I fear that the Chinese Government's intransigence leaves me no other choice because for months I have engaged in quiet, respectful diplomatic efforts to secure Pastor Xu's freedom. Many of my colleagues have as well. Mr. Speaker, we have written to the Chinese leadership. We have discussed our concerns in meetings with Chinese officials and we have sent very clear, consistent signals about the importance of Pastor Xu and religious liberty in China. We are not alone. Many religious human rights and business leaders have also informed the Chinese Government of their concern for Pastor Xu. Pastor Xu is not the only one to be afflicted. I am told that at least 200 other Protestant and Catholic leaders are currently imprisoned in China simply for the peaceful practice of their faith. Thousands, perhaps even millions of other Christians suffer beatings, detentions, and severe fines if they do not submit their religious activities to government control. Mr. Speaker, I speak out for Pastor Xu because he is perhaps China's most prominent minister and because his plight symbolizes the suffering of so many other precious believers in China. Pastor Xu and the millions of other believers like him have no political agenda. Indeed, they only regard politics as a distraction from their true calling to preach the gospel and worship their lord. Now, I am baffled, Mr. Speaker, as why the Chinese Government continues to insist on imprisoning and mistreating Pastor Xu and so many other innocent believers like him. China has demonstrated admirable progress in economic reform and security concerns and several other areas, but when it comes to religious liberty, China has tragically regressed. I truly desire engagement with China and a positive relationship based on mutual respect. But on this matter, China has shown no respect for our concerns. And so, Mr. Speaker, I am left with no other choice. My principles as an American and my conscience as a human being and my convictions as a Christian will not allow me to meet with President Jiang Zemin in the morning. Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. I do not oppose dialog with China. I welcome such opportunities and I hope that my colleagues who do attend that breakfast find that the discussion is substantive and fruitful. But I also hope that I will have opportunities to engage in further dialogue with China's leadership myself, and I urge those who do meet with President Jiang to raise forcefully the plight of the suffering church. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me humbly but earnestly suggest to my colleagues and to the American people that we remember Pastor Xu and the believers in China in our prayers. And I pray that as Pastor Xu languishes alone in prison he will know that he is not forgotten. I pray that as Jiang Zemin returns to China, he will know that Pastor Xu will not be forgotten.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, we want those trains to roll.