Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague, the distinguished majority leader, has decided to take out this special order regarding our efforts to improve the education system of this Nation. A famous philosopher once said that only the educated are free. Our system today is doing a very poor job of promoting that freedom. I believe that our education system fails because it lacks accountability and subverts responsibility. Rather than focusing on the quality of the education, the system all too often focuses on preserving the status quo. The status quo is simply not good enough. We need to bring greater choices to parents. We need to put them in the driver's seat when it comes to improving our education system. Sadly, the President and the Democrat leadership have fought us on education every step of the way. What are they afraid of? Why do they refuse to change the status quo? They are so beholden to labor unions they have forgotten the real reason we have an education system in the first place: to prepare our children for their futures. We will continue to embark on an education agenda that stresses local control, greater choices for parents, greater accountability for teachers, and higher quality for students. And we will resist efforts by the administration to bring greater control to Washington, that emphasizes bureaucrats over parents, and that wastes money in schemes that ultimately do not help the children. We've put together a bold education improvement agenda designed to help kids, parents, teachers, and local officials strengthen and reform our Nation's education system: We will send Federal education dollars to the classrooms, not to Washington bureaucrats; We want to return control over education to parents and local communities; We want to strengthen our commitment to basic academics; We want to give the working-class and poor parents new education choices--public and private--to educate their children in safe and nurturing environments. When it comes to school choice, I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, what are you afraid of? I was especially disappointed by the debate that we had over the D.C. scholarship program. This was a modest program that would have given 2,000 students in Washington, DC, a better chance to go to a better school. The costs were minimal but the principle was pure. Give parents a choice and they will make the right decision for their children. This drives the liberal establishment crazy. They want the power. They want to make the decisions. They want to avoid accountability and competition and responsibility. So they fought this modest program with every ounce of their strength. The President has threatened to veto the bill, while the Democrats voted in lock step against it. Why defend the status quo? Too many D.C. schools have failed. They have failed to provide their students the kind of education that will help them succeed. They have failed to provide their students an atmosphere where they can learn. They have failed to prepare them for the future. The system has failed. Let's change the system. But too many of my colleagues don't want change. They want to protect the status quo. They want the money to continue to flow to a bureaucracy that wastes money. For example, since 1979, the D.C. school system has lost 33,000 students. But in that same time period, the size of the bureaucracy has doubled. What have the residents of the District of Columbia gained with this bigger bureaucracy? Lower test scores, more dangerous hallways, and more closed schools. The time has come for school choice. The time has come to give parents the opportunity to have a greater role in choosing the right school for their children. The time has come to inject accountability into a system that has avoided accountability for too many hears. Today, we voted on legislation that would give parents in middle- class families greater opportunities to prpare their kids for the next century by giving them education savings accounts.

Mr. DeLAY

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman asking the question. It seems that we have a lot of conflicting schedules going on after 6 o'clock, and at 6 o'clock, and we felt it was such an important issue that we would put it off and bring up the debate on finalizing the bill on reauthorization of Amtrak the first thing in the morning starting around 9 o'clock.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I am not advised but I would assume, as is usually the custom on the end of the week, if we have any 1-minute speeches they will be severely limited.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, as much as anybody can assure anybody of anything around this place.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the Rolling Stones are in town and several members were going, but there are other events also. There is a Habitat for Humanity event going on and there are also many Members who have their spouses in town and there is an event honoring the spouses and the Members at the Kennedy Center.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, we have a simple choice today. We can vote to support schools and public education or we can vote to support corruption and Washington union bosses. Let there be no mistake about this amendment. This is an amendment that protects Davis-Bacon, which is a giveaway to Washington union bosses. Precious education dollars are being siphoned off from classrooms, from supplies and other needed repairs. They cannot even open the schools in Washington. All because big labor wants to get their pound of flesh. I have got to tell my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, essentially Davis- Bacon requirements result in wasted dollars, reduced funds for students and fewer job opportunities. I do not see any reason why we should not give local officials the option to waive these onerous requirements. A vote for this amendment is a vote against the children of Washington, DC and a vote to pad the pockets of Washington union bosses.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, this is an incredible debate. As I sat here listening to the debate it was obvious to me that this is a defining issue between liberals and conservatives. This debate is about empowering the people of the District of Columbia and parents or empowering bureaucrats. If we listen to the words of the gentleman from Virginia and the gentlewoman from Texas, just listen to what they are saying: Let the Democrats work. Let the bureaucrats make the decision. Keep the power in the hands of the bureaucrats. Do not let people in D.C. make these decisions, do not let parents decide what schools their children would go to. So I rise in opposition to this amendment, which strikes a number of very important reforms in this bill, but the one I want to focus on that is defining in this debate is the fact that this Moran amendment strips the ability of D.C. parents to choose where their children should go to school. Now, I ask my colleagues, what are they afraid of when it comes to school choice for parents in D.C.? The D.C. school system has failed. Those bureaucrats have failed. It has failed to provide the children of this city the kind of education that will help them succeed. It has failed to provide its students an atmosphere where they can learn. Those bureaucrats have failed to prepare the students of this city for the future. The system has failed, the bureaucrats have failed, and we need to change the system. But some of my colleagues do not want any change. They want to protect that status quo. They have those bureaucrats aboard, in place, and they have done a wonderful job getting those bureaucrats there. They want the money to continue to flow to a bureaucracy that continues to waste money. Since 1979, the D.C. school system has lost 33,000 students, but the bureaucracy has doubled in that period of time. In 1996, the Board of Education allocated $1.4 million for itself. That is more than five times the amount Fairfax County's board has spent, and more than twice the amount that Montgomery County's board has spent, the two counties right next-door to Washington, DC. Over and over again the school officials have broken the law in order to save their jobs. They are paying tens of millions of dollars to administrators who have been ordered to be laid off by these bureaucrats. They keep paying them. What have the residents of Washington, DC, gained with all this bigger bureaucracy and this wonderful board? Lower test scores, more dangerous hallways, and schools that cannot even be opened. They cannot even open up the schools. The bottom line is, who is more capable of choosing a child's education, the child's parents, or the bureaucrats of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]? Who are we trying to protect, the child in Washington, DC, or that school administrator's job that keeps getting paid, that was supposed to be laid off by the bureaucrats of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]? The time has come for school choice. The time has come to give parents the opportunity to have a greater role in choosing the right school for their own children, and not have bureaucrats make that decision. The time has come to inject accountability into this system that has avoided accountability for too many years. The time has come to stop the bureaucrats. Vote against the Moran amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, now and then an occasion will occur to shatter our complacency, stir our indignation and seize us with outrage. Too often we take our priceless freedoms in America for granted, but a recent event in China symbolizes the stark contrast between liberty and tyranny. On September 25, a court in China sentenced Pastor Xu Yongze to 10 years in prison. Pastor Xu, the leader of a movement of more than 3 million Christians in China, was charged with the so-called crime of disrupting public order. Mr. Speaker, this charge would be laughable were it not so cruel. Pastor Xu is often described as the Billy Graham of China, and he is one of the most well known and widely respected pastors in China. The Communist authorities first arrested him back in March and engaged in a vicious smear campaign. Their propaganda described Pastor Xu as an evil cult abettor who plays evil tricks on his parishioners. In reality Pastor Xu is a sincere, devout believer who only seeks to serve his Lord and spread the gospel. We have seen this so many times in Communist countries, whether it be Cuba or Nicaragua or Russia, but it is particularly gruesome in China. Persecution and imprisonment are nothing new for Pastor Xu. In 1988, on the day before he was scheduled to meet with Dr. Billy Graham in China, Pastor Xu was arrested and spent the next three years in prison. Following his release, he courageously resumed his ministry activities. Reliable reports indicate that Pastor Xu has been beaten and tortured while in prison, and from what we know of the heinous conditions in China's prison labor camps, I fear that his treatment may only worsen. Mr. Speaker, I believe in a comprehensive, balanced and sophisticated approach in American policy towards China. I believe in trade engagement, a patient dialogue with China. But I also believe in liberty and justice. The time has come to speak out with force against China's outrageous assault on Pastor Xu, human dignity and religious freedom. The values that America stands for and my own conscience demand nothing less. Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that my words today may upset some members of the Chinese government. Let me tell my colleagues, I do not care. Let me remind them that I and many others in America have been very patient, and our patience has worn thin, worn very thin. In May, I quietly wrote to the Chinese Ambassador to politely express my concern over Pastor Xu's arrest. He remained in prison. In June, I led a bipartisan coalition of 44 of my colleagues in writing to President Jiang Zemin, further politely expressing our concern about Pastor Xu. Again, he remained in prison, and we never even received the courtesy of a reply. In July, August and September, I sponsored and encouraged quiet discussions with Chinese officials about Pastor Xu's situation. Not only did Pastor Xu remain in prison, but the Chinese regime has now given him a 10-year sentence, which I am told is the harshest sentence handed down to a Christian in China since 1982. Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, President Jiang Zemin will be arriving in the United States in just a few weeks. I really look forward to the Chinese President's visit. I believe it presents me with an opportunity for dialogue, strong dialogue, and cooperation on issues of mutual interest and concern to the United States and to China. But I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I am so upset and puzzled by this horrific sentence on such contrived charges that were given to Pastor Xu. Such brazen disregard for American concerns causes me to question China's commitment to a positive, constructive relationship with the United States. As China modernizes its economy, refines its political system and seeks to fully participate in the marketplace of nations, I frankly do not understand why its leadership continues to insist on persecuting innocent people of faith. I guarantee my colleagues, I personally will make sure that President Zemin's trip here to the United States will not be a happy one. So, Mr. Speaker, China finds itself at a crossroads. Pastor Xu has been sentenced, but reports indicate that his case may come up for appeal. On the eve of President Jiang Zemin's visit, I believe that the Chinese government has a valuable opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to the rule of law and to positive relations with the United States. As Pastor Xu's case comes up for review, I believe it would be a very meaningful gesture if the Chinese government were to guarantee that Pastor Xu's constitutional rights are respected, that his personal welfare is ensured, and his situation is favorably resolved. Mr. Speaker, let me close by simply quoting an earnest plea from Pastor Xu's son: Dear friends, I hope that you can help my father. For God and for the church he has sacrificed all that he had. The church in China needs him.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the Clinton White House and its intentions at the Kyoto Conference regarding global warming. Most Americans are not aware that there will be a conference in Japan. Protecting and preserving the environment is a goal shared by all Americans. We all want to drink clean water, we want to breath clean air, and we want to pass on a cleaner America to our children. We could get there by taking common sense steps to clean up our environment, by encouraging smarter partnerships between State and Federal governments, and by relying on sound science while resisting media scares, but we cannot get there by increasing regulations, increasing taxes, limiting freedom, slowing economic growth, and hurting our Nation's competitiveness. We cannot get there with policies that encourage abortions worldwide. Sadly, the Clinton administration has embarked on the second path. They have promulgated clean air regulations that will strangle economic growth and affect every American family's lives. They have floated an energy tax that will hurt American consumers, proposing as much as a 60-cent increase in the cost of a gallon of gas. They have publicly supported policies that will lead to a worldwide assault on unborn children, and they may even sign off on a global warming treaty that will hurt our competitiveness at the expense of other nations, cost Americans thousands of jobs, all for a cause that makes, frankly, Chicken Little seem rational. Today I want to focus on the Global Warming Treaty that will be discussed at the Kyoto conference later on this fall. Asthmatic children will be victimized by this treaty. Just look at what is going on today. In order to stay in compliance with its provisions, the Environmental Protection Agency has embarked on a crusade to ban inhalers used by asthmatic children because they contain chlorofluorocarbons. Though CFC-powered inhalers account for less than 1\1/2\ percent of the world's CFC emissions and although these same inhalers are the best and cheapest way for inner city children to get relief from asthma, and I do not know if Members know, but inner city children are six times more likely to die from asthma attacks, these inner city children get relief by these cheap and good inhalers, but the EPA wants to eliminate these products from the market. Dozens of medical groups have petitioned to bring some common sense to the EPA, but those pleas, unfortunately, have fallen on deaf ears. The regulations will go forward, no matter what will happen to the children of this country and around the world, for that matter, because many countries follow the lead of the EPA. But it is not just asthmatic children who will be victimized by this treaty. Unborn children will also be victimized. Just last week the Vice President, Al Gore, implied that overpopulation fosters global warming and suggested that expanding abortion programs in developing countries would help protect the environment. According to Washington Times, the Vice President said, and I quote, The Vice President, warning that the overpopulation fosters global warming, yesterday suggested expanding birth control and abortion programs in developing countries to help reduce the environmental threat. Mr. Speaker, killing children is no way to protect the environment. Children will not be the only victims of this Global Warming Treaty. Our Nation's economic health is also at stake. At the Kyoto meeting the United States and other developed nations may enter into an agreement that will force them to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That agreement, however, will let developing nations off the hook. In fact, developing nations such as China, South Korea, India, and many others, will not face any emissions reduction requirements. These nations will benefit at the expense of the United States and retroactivity of the developed world. The United States will be forced to raise taxes and impose harsh emissions restrictions and regulations, causing U.S. companies to ship jobs and factories overseas to those nations not bound by the Kyoto treaty. Mr. Speaker, I think the real environmental disaster is this administration and its attitude towards our world's children and for America's working families.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, let us go to the videotape. There we can see President Clinton schmooze with John Huang and Roger Tamraz at fundraisers held at the White House. The White House staff has videotaped 44 or more of these events, probably to help secure President Clinton's place in history. I hope the White House has videotaped other history-making scenes by this administration, like when President Clinton supported the Internal Revenue Service over the taxpayers by threatening a veto of commonsense efforts to reform the IRS. That gesture will be remembered by every taxpayer in America. I hope the White House has videotaped the Vice President's claim that there was no controlling legal authority when he described why he broke campaign finance laws. Some Members of this House might want to keep that videotape really close at hand. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to this White House, I say let us go to the videotape.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, for any democracy to work, it must have fair and honest elections. To have fair and honest elections, the people running for office must follow the law. Some people want to change those laws despite overwhelming evidence that they were broken during the last campaign by the Clinton-Gore reelection team. Madam Speaker, I support efforts to make our elections more fair and honest. I support giving the American people the best information possible about candidates. I support full disclosure, so that the voters know where the money is coming from. And I support the current laws that have been broken with regularity by the Clinton-Gore campaign team. But I will not support any so-called reform effort that limits the freedom of American citizens to participate in the political process. We must not compromise freedom in the name of reform.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, the White House has threatened to keep the Congress in session until it brings up legislation to reform the current campaign laws. Well, that is fine with me. It will give both the House and Senate more time to examine in detail every campaign law that this administration broke during the last election. There are laws on the books against soliciting campaign funds from Federal property. There are laws on the books that prohibit campaign contributions from foreign services, especially the Communist Chinese. There are laws on the books that prohibit campaign events from occurring at Buddhist temples. These are just some of the abuses that we have already found in the Clinton-Gore reelection campaign. The President can keep us in session as long as he wants. It will give us much more time to examine in detail the emerging Clinton-Gore campaign scandal.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say if this were a pay raise, as so many have portrayed it, I would oppose it, what we are talking about here today. This is not a pay raise; this is about an inflation adjustment. It is about upholding a law that was passed in 1989. I know Members have deep feelings on this issue. I just disagree with them. What is really sad to me in the press reports, because many journalists have gotten it wrong and they got it wrong mainly because they were told wrong. I was on the floor the entire time this bill was debated last week, and there were Members who were against the COLA that were on the floor and did not offer an amendment, even though it was germane, and chose not to use the procedure by which they could as Members of the House effect what they want. This bill does not even speak to inflation adjustment. No appropriation bills do. In fact, to the gentleman from Montana, if you want to use procedure, you have to use procedure in order to have an amendment to change the law of 1989. So I just say that if Members want sunshine and they want a vote on the law of 1989, then learn the legislative process. Introduce a bill and repeal or amend the 1989 law that set up the pay process that we go through. The 1989 law that we passed, as many have said, is a law that tried to deal with this terrible issue of making sure that Members of Congress have a standard of living by which they can raise their families and live decently while they serve. No outside income is allowed. We eliminated outside income, except in certain cases. Now, millionaires that serve here and people with previous businesses are able to supplement their income when they find out that they cannot live on this salary. Well, I challenge them to live on this salary and then come down here and oppose a cost of living adjustment. We eliminated honoraria, which was a terrible practice, and instituted a pay raise that brought us into parity with the kind of purchasing power that Members had back in the 1970's. We did not have this huge pay raise. We just came back to that purchasing power. Mr. Speaker, do you know what the purchasing power of the pay for Members of Congress was in 1969 if you use 1997 dollars? It is $186,676 in today's money. Yet we raised pay to $133,600. Now, where is the pay raise in that? So if you are going to be on this floor and talk about pay raises, at least get it in perspective about what we are talking about. We passed a constitutional amendment, the Madison amendment, that was ratified in 1992, that said no pay raise would go into effect until there is an intervening election. I think that is the kind of reform that we should have done. Now, where we shot ourselves in the foot is constantly allowing procedure to be used in order to bring an amendment to the floor nongermane to the bills, so we could all stand up and beat our chest and say ``I am going to refuse the cost of living adjustment.'' Mr. Speaker, I will tell you something: Members of this House have families. They have two homes, in most cases. Some Members are living in their offices, because they cannot afford a second residence. The Members of this House are at the age when they have their children in college, and I have to tell my colleagues, and I am not making excuses or apologizing, it is difficult to raise a family and serve in Congress under these conditions, not to speak of the times that we spend away from our wives and children and the sacrifices they make to allow us to be here. Well, I tell my colleagues, my wife, and my children sacrifice enough. They deserve a decent living, and I am going to give it to them, because I am going to vote for the previous question and vote for the motion to instruct.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and those that have brought this amendment because I rise in support of this common-sense amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. We do not need the Federal Government and national organizations getting involved in our local school districts. There are many problems with our educational system. Parents need more choices when it comes to sending their children to primary and secondary schools. We had a proposal that would have given parents greater opportunities to make these choices, but the President turned it down. Clearly the President was frightened by the power of the teachers' union, and I think that is a shame. We do not need to legislate merely to please the teachers' union. We should legislate to improve the quality of our children's education. This amendment says that we should not waste our precious resources by identifying problems through more tests administered by Washington bureaucrats. We know the problems. Our kids are not getting the kind of quality education that they need to compete into the next century. We do not need a national test to figure that out. We need to improve our schools by promoting competition and by giving parents more choices to provide better opportunities for their kids. We need to move our precious resources out of Washington and away from the NEA and other national associations and send those resources to our schools where they belong. Let us send a signal to this administration: Improve our schools, not our tests.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I appreciate the work of Mr. Riggs and Ms. Northup in working out this compromise that will give greater education resources to local and State agencies. This amendment goes to the heart of the debate over our Nation's education system. Shall we waste taxpayer's money on untested programs or shall we return money to State and local agencies that will give parents the resources they need to educate their children? Shall we return to the days of new math and open classrooms, where untested theories from so-called education experts confused countless school children? Or shall we give parents the tools they need to educate their children for the next century? Mr. Chairman, I believe that all of us, on the right and on the left, share a desire to improve our Nation's education system. But we disagree on the best way to achieve that result. Liberals believe that money can best be spent at the national level. That is why they support increased funding for the Department of Education, national testing, and this program establishing whole school reform. Conservatives believe that education reform can best be achieved at the local level, with maximum parental involvement. We believe that each child deserves the best education possible and that sacrificing some children in the name of reform is a terrible mistake. Whole school reform has had some success at the local level, especially in Kentucky, as my colleague, Ms. Northup, has explained. But it has had some notable failures as well. To now invest millions of dollars on a reform program that has had mixed success at best is a risk I am not willing to take, and I am pleased that we have succeeded in replacing this provision with one that favors State flexibility. Why am I reluctant to fund the whole school program created in this bill? Let me give you two reasons. First, the program comes disguised as a carrot, but it would act as a stick that would force local school districts to try this untested theory. School districts struggling to make budgets, buy books, and pay teachers would look at this pot of money as manna from heaven. But actually this money would prove to be fool's gold for school districts that are reluctant to try one more Washington-backed education theory. I would much rather return this money back to States and local agencies, through block grants, and let them improve education as the see fit. Second, Congress would again be spending money without the necessary oversight and review process. We have had no hearings on this program in the authorizing committee. In fact, this program was authorized in 1994 with one line in the Improving America's Schools Act. That's it. One line. Now, 3 years later, this bill proposes to fund such a program, with little debate or scrutiny. Has the whole school reform approached worked? The jury is still out. In Kentucky, public school enrollment has decreased dramatically and some schools have actually had to advertise to attract students. And some of what I have read makes me nervous. In one model, ``staff, parents and students find their own way to transform themselves.'' In another, a purpose for a fourth grade class was defined as ``we work for good health.'' One expert describes Kentucky's experiment this way: ``Kentucky's restructured education system frowns on such things as memorization, drill and review, textbooks, desks in rows, structure of any sort, lectures by teachers--they are now called `guides' and `facilitators'-- and basic academic skills which are now disdainfully referred to as `lower order thinking skills.' '' In my view, the reasons our schools are in their current mess is because too many students haven't mastered the lower order thinking skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe the Federal Government should be promoting new age education at the expense of traditional approaches. Reforming and improving our schools is an ongoing process, based on common sense and parental involvement. The Whole Schools Reform Program in this bill is a poster child for big government, full of untested theories, and unnecessary Federal mandates. I am pleased that we are rejecting this approach, and urge my colleagues to support the Riggs amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, what has been going on at the White House? First, we had ``Travelgate.'' That is the scandal where the First Lady wrongly fired hard-working civil servants because she wanted to hire cronies from Arkansas. Next we had ``Goregate.'' That is the scandal involving the Vice President and his questionable fundraising activities in the White House. Now we have ``Chefgate.'' Apparently the First Lady did not like the French chef who cooked at the White House, so they not only fired him, but also gave him $37,000 in hush money. This chef can barely speak English, and they paid him hush money. So even if he would talk, most Americans would not know what he was saying. Mr. Speaker, $37,000 is a lot of souffles. I urge the White House to go on a fiscal diet. In this era of balanced budget, we simply cannot afford to pay hush money to chefs that can hardly speak English.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. I was just informed that Mother Teresa passed away. I would ask that we suspend for a moment of silence in the memory of Mother Teresa, who has done so much for so many people around the world.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman that I support the international family planning that is included in this bill with the Smith amendment added to the bill.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I really thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] for all his hard work in these areas. There is no greater champion for the unborn than the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. Mr. Chairman, as the world's last remaining superpower, the United States plays a very important role in international affairs. Everything it does is scrutinized and interpreted, and in many cases, our country is looked up to as a role model. Therefore, we have to take everything very seriously, and the decisions that we make we have to take seriously, especially those decisions about the kinds of policies we want to pursue in other countries. In this particular case, the debate is about the kinds of family planning organizations we want to assist with funding. According to the State of World Population, 1997, compiled by the U.N. Population Fund, the United States is the largest donor to international family planning programs, contributing about 47 percent of all the external population control moneys worldwide. So, therefore, it is even more important that we in the United States pursue international family planning principles that are consistent with the kinds of values we want to represent and promote. Now, President Clinton has already made very clear the kinds of values he would like to promote abroad. In 1993, the Clinton administration abandoned long-standing pro-life policies because of his belief that legal abortion is, and I quote, ``a fundamental right of all women and part of the overall approach to population control.'' Mr. Chairman, I disagree with those values. I do not believe population should be controlled by abortion, and that is why I stand in strong support of the Smith amendment and strong opposition to the Pelosi amendment. The Pelosi amendment, and we all know what it is, it is a killer amendment and we have to defeat it. It provides, in my opinion, a lesson in ambiguity, as its prohibition on funds going to organizations that promote abortion as a method of family planning is open to all kinds of interpretations, particularly from this pro-abortion White House. The Smith amendment is very clear. No mistake about it. No United States funds will go to organizations that provide or lobby for abortions at any time for any reason. Now, that is not vague. There is no vague issue regarding the intention of an organization's participation in abortion or the reasons for providing it. Other than in cases of protecting the life of the mother or forcible rape or incest, the intentions are irrelevant. Intentions are irrelevant. What is relevant is the position the United States is going to take as the largest provider of funds to the international population control programs. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the United States should stand for life. And as the Reagan-Bush years proved, there are hundreds of organizations that are willing to agree to the conditions that they neither perform nor actively promote abortion in order to receive America's taxpayers' dollars. These organizations are perfectly capable of providing the family planning services called for by the proponents of the Pelosi amendment that are so valuable to the poor throughout the developing world, and these are the ones that we should be supporting. So I just urge my colleagues to separate the issues and look very strongly at what the two amendments do. One is the Pelosi amendment, an amendment of ambiguity. And there is no mistaking what the Smith amendment does. So I urge my colleagues to support the Smith amendment and oppose the Pelosi amendment.

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

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means for all the hard work he has done to bring this to the floor. I have to tell the Members, I rise in support of the Archer tax cut. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. Mr. Speaker, sometimes history is made by bold strokes and sometimes history is made with small steps. Today we are taking a small step toward a smaller and a smarter Government. This tax cut legislation represents only the beginning of our agenda that will give the American taxpayer real relief from an oppresive Tax Code. A Government that takes over 50 percent of the average family's income threatens liberty and needs serious reform. But in our system of government, reform is best achieved through bite-sized bits that are easily digested, I believe, by the voters and easily understood by popular opinion. This is the first bite of a seven-course tax-cut meal. Some of my colleagues will say that this tax cut is not enough to tide them over. I agree. But I promise the Members that this first tax cut in 16 years will not be the last tax cut in 16 years. This bill is a good start. It contains necessary relief for families with children. It will spur economic growth by lowering taxes on investments, savings, and job creation. It starts the process of phasing out that punitive death tax. To those liberals who complain that this tax cut goes too far, let me just simply say that in my view we can never go too far in allowing the American family to hold on to more of its hard-earned money. I urge my colleagues to start the process to cut taxes for all Americans and vote for this sensible bill.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation that finally balances our Federal budget. It is about time. I have waited my entire adult life for it. Some Members of the Democrat minority just still do not get it. Indeed, if they were in charge, we would not be cutting taxes or cutting spending at all. If the Democrats still ran Congress, this deal would have contained more Government spending and tax increases instead of tax cuts. We need to look at the big picture, and the big picture shows how we are moving toward smaller, smarter government and greater freedom for our citizens. We have to give President Clinton some credit. He has rejected the left wing of his own party and publicly embraced conservative common-sense values of lower taxes and smaller government. But this budget is only a first step. We still have a lot of work to do. We need to come up with a long-term plan to fix entitlements. If we do not, our children's future might be miserable. We still need to reform spending. The Federal Government today is not as small or as smart as it could be. We still have too many stupid, harmful, and counterproductive Federal regulations. The Federal bureaucracy is still too big and still spends too much money. But this legislation is a very, very good start. It will balance the budget by the year 2002 or even sooner. It will slow the growth of spending for some entitlements and for some discretionary programs. But this is a compromise with the President, who wants to spend more money. He has consistently and persistently fought for more Federal spending programs. This legislation reflects the President's desire to spend more money. We have tried our best, and for the moment our best is only good enough. But this budget is not the end of the line. It is simply another landmark on the road to fiscal responsibility. Next year is another budget and more tax cuts. I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, and I want to clear up the confusion between the two names and ask the gentleman a question. If our side of the aisle wanted to help our newest Member from New Mexico, Mr. Bill Redmond, we should vote for the Fazio substitute to the DeFazio amendment.

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