Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, we have an exciting opportunity to give our States greater control over the minimum wage so they can continue to help those struggling to make ends meet. In 1996, we gave the States the responsibility to move people off of welfare and into productive jobs. Today, States need the freedom to tailor the best wage rates to fit the needs of their communities. Mr. Speaker, State flexibility gives security to those who need it and opportunity to those who want it. It allows each State to choose the minimum wage increase that is in the best interests of its workers and those struggling to find jobs. More importantly, State flexibility recognizes that our governors and State representatives are no less compassionate or committed to improving the lives of our most disadvantaged citizens. I ask my colleagues to send dollars, decisions and freedom home. Let us support State flexibility for the minimum wage.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I will remind the other side that they have had a chance to vote for tax cuts and they voted against them already this year. Mr. Speaker, as a first-year congressman, I have been amazed at how many times I had have seen the President and Vice President say one thing in front of cameras and then step away from the cameras and do the exact opposite. When the President talked about his budget this year, he said that his first priority was to protect Social Security and Medicare. But when he sent his budget to Congress, we saw that he was spending Social Security funds on other programs and even cutting Medicare. He even proposed new taxes and fees on the American people. Democrats and Congress joined him in talking about this great plan. So Republicans called their bluff. We put the Clinton-Gore budget on the House floor for a vote. This time the cameras saw the truth. Only two Members of the House would vote for the President's budget. Republicans have balanced the budget and begun to pay down the public debt without spending one dime of Social Security and Medicare money this year, and we are going to secure the future for every American by doing the same thing next year and every year after that that Americans allow us to lead this Congress. But the President, Vice President, and Democrats are at it again. They want more spending, including $4 billion more for foreign aid. Instead of reducing Washington waste, the President and Vice President have proposed $240 billion in new taxes and fees over the next 10 years to pay for more government programs. It is time we keep the promises to our own citizens and stop taking more of their hard-earned money for more Government waste. The President is in front of the cameras again defending his spending plans, and his friends in the House are there with him. We are calling their bluff again. We are putting the President's proposed tax increases on the floor for a vote today so the cameras can see the truth. I will vote ``no,'' because these taxes and fees hurt farmers, they hurt students, they hurt needy families, and they hurt all Americans. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution that shows what the President is really trying to do.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership and for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this House of Representatives recently passed a bill sponsored by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) which was related to the Ten Commandments. This measure is now part of the juvenile justice bill that along with other value-focused provisions will make our schools safer and our communities better places to live for everyone. Surprisingly, several misguided objections about the Ten Commandments bill were raised by some of my colleagues here in the House, objections which were clearly based on a misunderstanding of the bill and of the Constitution. Tonight, I would like to set the record straight. The misinformation promoted by the critics of the Ten Commandments bill includes the false idea that the bill would force schools to post the Ten Commandments. It does not. The bill will only transfer power away from the Federal Government and back to the State governments where it belongs. It simply allows each State and their schools to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to display the Commandments. This measure wisely corrects the failed one-size-fits-all Federal Government restrictions on religious freedoms. Furthermore, the bill does not violate Thomas Jefferson's separation of church and state as a few Members have charged. Rather, it complies totally with Thomas Jefferson's intent. Jefferson believed that this issue belongs to the States, not the Federal Government. Jefferson forcefully argued, and I quote, ``No power to proscribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the Federal Government. It must, then, rest with the States.'' Jefferson repeated this argument on numerous other occasions, explaining that the issue belongs to the States, not the Federal Government. For example, in 1798 he declared, and I quote, ``No power over the freedom of religion is delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution.'' And in his second inaugural address in 1805 he declared, ``The free exercise of religion is independent of the powers of the Federal Government.'' Very simply, according to Jefferson, the purpose of the first amendment was to keep religious issues from being micromanaged at the Federal level. As Jefferson explained to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson, and I quote, ``Taking from the States the moral rule of their citizens and subordinating it to the Federal Government would break up the foundations of the Union. I believe the States can best govern our domestic concerns and the Federal Government our foreign ones.'' The Bill of Rights was specifically designed to leave decisions on things like posting the Ten Commandments in the hands of the States. Consequently, the Ten Commandments bill passed by the House does not violate Jefferson's separation of church and state concept. Rather, it confirms Jefferson's clearly stated design. However, even if some were to assert that the decisions on the display of the Ten Commandments should be a Federal issue, we can still strongly defend the people's freedom to display the commandments. Consider the words of President John Adams who signed the Bill of Rights as he links the Ten Commandments with our laws protecting individual rights, and I quote: ``The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God and that there is no force of law in public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `thou shall not covet' and `thou shall not steal' are not commandments of heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.'' And President John Quincy Adams, a legislator and legal scholar whose famous cases before the Supreme Court are well known, also declared about the Ten Commandments: ``The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal code as well as a moral and religious code. These are laws essential to the existence of men in society and most of which have been enacted by every Nation which ever professed any code of laws. Vain indeed would be the search among the writings of secular history to find so broad, so complete and so solid a basis of morality as the Ten Commandments lay down.'' And Noah Webster, an attorney and constitutional expert declared, and I quote: ``The opinion that human reason left without the constant control of divine law and commands will give duration to a popular government is as unlikely as the most extravagant ideas that enter the head of a maniac. Where will you find any code of laws among civilized men in which commands and prohibitions are not founded on divine principles?'' end quote. Clearly, those present at the formation of our government saw no problem with the public use of the Ten Commandments. In fact, they saw grave consequences of any country that did not follow them. Nevertheless, despite what some Members and some in the media have claimed, the bill would not force anyone to display the Ten Commandments. The bill simply transfers the decisions on voluntary posting of the Ten Commandments back to the States and communities where the decisions properly belong. Those who argue that the Constitution says otherwise need to recheck the wording of the Constitution for themselves, rather than simply embracing the arguments of the constitutional revisionist who wished the Constitution said something other than what it really says. This House has taken a commendable step toward securing the future for every American by returning more decisions and freedoms back to the States and back to our schools. I urge my colleagues to support the juvenile justice conference report that includes the Ten Commandments provisions when it comes to a vote.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I am real curious about the facts and statistics that we just heard, because I have been in about 20 schools over the last couple of months, and what I have heard does not bear up to teachers who even yesterday were telling me that they were spending so much of their time dealing with paperwork. In Ohio, it is estimated that 50 percent of the paperwork burden was generated by Federal education programs, though the Federal resources provided only 5 percent of the funding. In Arizona, Lisa Graham Keegan, the State superintendent for public construction, says that while the Federal programs only account for 6 percent of the education spending in the State, 45 percent of the staff in the State Department of Education work with or manage Federal programs. I was in a dilapidated school yesterday that would like to renovate, but they cannot because of Federal regs. If they touch one bit of that building, they have to bring the whole building into compliance with ADA, which means it is cheaper to tear it down and build another one than it is to renovate to make it a better building. The things we do here in Washington, while well-intended, have a stranglehold on our schools. A special education student that is profoundly affected still has an education plan that is six pounds that a teacher has to use. There are only two pages they actually use for that student, but there are six pounds to cover themselves from lawsuits that come from the Federal level. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 303, which urges that 95 cents of every Federal education dollar be spent in the classroom. I am a cosponsor of this important resolution because I believe it sets forth the vision that many of us have for education in this country, a vision in America where all children are achieving their fullest potential because they are taught by well-trained teachers in disciplined classrooms filled with educational resources. Our children's education is most secure when the dollars and decisions are controlled back home by parents and teachers and local school districts. Spending 95 cents of every Federal dollar in the classroom is a worthy and attainable goal to improve education in our country. Our students deserve to have the money that we are setting aside for them actually work for them in the classroom. The statistics that we hear here by whatever government agency are a far cry from what teachers and principals and people are telling us back home. Let us take our hands off of it and let the system work. Let teachers teach and principals take care of their schools.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehner substitute. As an employer myself for 15 years, I am angry too that folks would stand up today and punish small employers as well as any size employers who try to provide health insurance for their employees. I am angry at this idea that we can take health insurance out of the hands of employers and put it in the hands of the trial lawyers and expect to get better health care. I am angry that yesterday I was in this room and this same group who is arguing for more liability today would try to keep individuals from owning their own health insurance so they could protect themselves by making their own health care decisions. And I am angry today that now they are back making it harder for employers to buy that health insurance for individuals who cannot buy it for themselves. I am angry because there is no one here suggesting where they are going to go when they cannot buy it for themselves, yet we do not want employers to buy it any more. Because the question is not whether people will have good health care, it is whether the health care system will be run by attorneys or will be run by physicians.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson said, ``To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.'' I think it is something we should remember in this debate. I need to remind my colleagues on the other side that New York can do whatever it wants with its funds. We are trying to save Americans from using their money to pay for pornographic art. It is interesting that in the religious arguments we have heard about the laws we make in this room that we hear arguments from the other side of the aisle that there should be no religious displays in the public sector. We take away all mangers from the public square, any religious materials from government schools, yet it is okay to have religion displayed in public facilities as long as it is perverted and pornographic. I think we have a double standard. We talk about censorship. We try to censor all religious materials from our culture, yet we call it censorship if we try to take away pornographic and perverted art. To sit here and say this is not relevant at a time when we look across America and wonder about the loss of values, the loss of the value of life, the violence that we see and then say that the denigration of everything sacred is not important to this institution is forgetting a lot about what made this institution and this whole country. We see a total disregard for all that is sacred. I am thankful for the sponsors of this resolution and all who have spoken for it. It reminds us and all Americans that we do not need to sponsor from this organization this type of perversion.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 191) expressing the sense of Congress that the Brooklyn Museum of Art should not receive Federal funds unless it cancels its upcoming exhibit feature works of a sacrilegious nature, as amended.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have this opportunity to bring House Concurrent Resolution 191 to the floor. This resolution was submitted by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney). Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, the Brooklyn Museum of Art opened a controversial new art exhibit, despite strong objections from civic and religious leaders. As many know, the exhibit includes a desecrated portrait of the Virgin Mary, decaying animals, and a depiction of a child molester. These are just a few of the offensive items in an exhibit recognized and celebrated for its shock value, an ``over the edge'' flaunting of decay, defamation, and death. It is a show intended to ``cause shock, vomiting, confusion, panic, euphoria, and anxiety,'' and those are the words of the Brooklyn Museum. Mr. Speaker, beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but I believe most American taxpayers do not have the stomach to support the display of this type of exhibit. No matter what we think of this exhibit, we can all agree that the American taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize any exhibit that denigrates the beliefs and values that they hold most dear. Ten years ago, after the NEA funded Andres Serrano's defilement of the crucifix, Congress directed the chair of the National Endowment of the Arts to take into account ``general standards of decency and respect'' in awarding Federal grant money to artists. Many artists protested that this was a violation of free speech rights. In June of 1998, however, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the decency clause. It was upheld because the court recognized that the right of free expression does not include the right to force others to pay for your expression. Mr. Speaker, the Brooklyn Museum is a great institution celebrating and displaying great works of art for over 176 years. It has been a gift to our children, encouraging them to explore the depths of their own creativity and imagination. If there was ever a time when we needed to encourage our children to honor beauty, it is now. If there was ever a time to teach our children about great works of art, of great painters, sculptures, and designers, it is now. But the Brooklyn Museum's current exhibit is so extreme that children are not allowed to view it unless they are accompanied by a parent. It seems to me that our public art institutions should be a safe haven for our children, a place that honors the highest standards of beauty, not the lowest common denominator of human depravity. Hard working Americans help support the Brooklyn Museum of Art through the National Endowment of the Arts, the National Endowment of the Humanities, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. In the past 3 years, taxpayers have paid over $1 million to help fund the Brooklyn Museum. In a time when our communities are desperate for more art classes, local art museums, and children's workshops, the Brooklyn Museum exhibit seems inconsistent with our priorities to foster a greater appreciation of the arts. This debate is about whether or not taxpayers should subsidize the housing and promotion of objectionable exhibits. American taxpayers have paid for the brick and mortar of the Brooklyn Museum, a museum that should reflect the best of the American people. This exhibit, sponsored and hosted by the museum, clearly does not reflect the values we hold dear. This resolution will protect American taxpayers from funding the Brooklyn Museum showcase of a denigrating exhibit. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this important resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), a member of the committee.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), a cosponsor of this resolution.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley).

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Concurrent Resolution 191.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the meaning of minimum wage State flexibility. State flexibility means admitting that we in Washington do not always know what is best. It means trusting our local leaders to govern their own citizens and protect their own workers. State flexibility means giving our local leaders the freedom to make wage policies that are specifically tailored to help those individuals find jobs who are still struggling on welfare. State flexibility means giving our State officials the tools they need to meet their welfare-to-work goals so they can continue to receive Federal funds that help them train the most disadvantaged citizens in our community. State flexibility means creating laws that protect the wages of a waiter in Hollywood, California, and also create new employment opportunities for a cashier in Union, South Carolina. I urge my colleagues to support State flexibility so that we can continue to secure the future for all Americans by returning dollars, decisions, and freedoms back home.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, as we begin to debate raising the minimum wage, we must take into consideration the most significant change in our social, economic, and workplace laws in American history. We must remember welfare reform. Federal law currently places immense responsibilities on State governments to move people off of welfare and into productive jobs; but if we are not careful, another one-size-fits- all Federal minimum wage could harm our efforts to create good jobs for every American. Mr. Speaker, we have trusted our governors with the responsibility to move welfare recipients into jobs. Now they need all the tools to do that job, including more control over the minimum wage. It is time we trust our State leaders to determine increases that best complement their successful welfare policies. I urge my colleagues to secure the employment future for American workers by sending these decisions back home.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, as we begin to talk about the minimum wage in the coming weeks, our first priority should be to improve the lives of American workers. Although we may disagree on how to do this, we should all recognize the important role that States play in this debate. Our States are all different. Nearly every economic measure that we track varies by State: The cost of living, unemployment rates, tax burdens, welfare caseloads, and average wages. Yet the Federal Government still has a one-size-fits-all wage policy that supposedly works as well in Arkansas as it does in New York. Mr. Speaker, a State flexibility approach to the minimum wage would address these differences by allowing each governor and State legislature to play a role in determining the appropriate increase for their State. State flexibility is not about whether or not we raise the minimum wage but it is about who raises it. I urge my colleagues to help secure the future for American workers by sending these decisions back home.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, when we get past all of the rhetoric, the legislation, and the debate, our job here in Congress is to try to secure the future for every American. There are no Americans more deserving than our senior citizens who have put into this Social Security system all of their lives. The reason we have this resolution today and the reason I support it is that we are having difficulty in this budget process bringing one side of this room to the table to work in good faith to solve our budget differences without spending Social Security. I rise in strong support of this resolution so that we can all go on Record that we are committed not to spend any Social Security surplus, and we will work out our budget differences aside from that.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, I have introduced a resolution in the House honoring ``Shoeless'' Joe Jackson for his baseball accomplishments. I know most baseball fans are familiar with his story. It has been portrayed in recent movies, including Field of Dreams and Eight Men Out. Most sporting shows and magazines, including Sports Illustrated, ESPN and Fox News, have done stories on it. The people of my district are very familiar with Shoeless Joe, since he grew up playing baseball in the mill leagues of Greenville, South Carolina, and he spent the last years of his life there as well. Throughout his life, he never tired of teaching kids to play the game he loved. There is even a baseball park named after him in Greenville, where kids play today. For those unfamiliar with Shoeless Joe, let me briefly outline his legendary accomplishments. Of his hitting, Babe Ruth once said, ``I decided to pick out the greatest hitter to watch and study and Jackson was good enough for me.'' Joe Jackson batted .408 in his rookie year, a feat which has never been equaled. He has the third highest batting average of all time, behind only Ty Cobb and Roger Hornsby. Over a 10- year period, he never hit below .300. His fielding skills in the outfield were legendary. His glove was named ``the place where triples go to die.'' My colleagues probably also know that Shoeless Joe Jackson is famous, or infamous, for allegedly taking part in the fix of the 1919 World Series. In that series, a group of New York gamblers bribed a number of players on the Chicago White Sox team to throw the series to Cincinnati. When the news came out in 1920, the new commissioner of baseball, Commissioner Landis, acted swiftly. In a summary judgment, without an investigation, the commissioner banned eight players on the White Sox team from ever playing baseball again. Shoeless Joe was included in the ban. I am not going to debate whether or not the commissioner's verdict was the right thing to do. Jackson was acquitted of participating in the fix twice, once in 1920 by a friendly Chicago jury and once in 1924 by an impartial jury in Milwaukee. In fact, the jurors in Milwaukee were asked in a special interrogatory whether Shoeless Joe conspired or participated to fix a Series. The jury answered with an emphatic no. I am also not going to debate if Jackson was given money. According to the story, Shoeless Joe's roommate Lefty Williams left $5,000 for Jackson on his bed. Whatever the debate, there are four things that are very clear. First, Shoeless Joe tried to give the money back before the Series started, but was rebuffed. Second, Shoeless Joe tried to inform the owners of the White Sox of the fix, but the owner refused to see him. Third, Shoeless Joe offered to sit out the Series but was again rebuffed. Fourth, and most notably, Shoeless Joe played to win. He led all players by hitting .375, and he had the only home run of the Series. His fielding was flawless, throwing out five men at home plate. He set a World Series record with 12 hits and combined with Buck Weaver, the other player who was unfairly punished, for 23 hits, a record which has stood for 60 years. I have no doubt of Shoeless Joe's innocence. While it is to his discredit that he took the money, he did nothing for the money. In the end, he came clean the only way he could, with his bat and glove. In July, Ted Williams, Tommy LaSorda, and Bob Feller filed a petition with Commissioner Selig. That petition does not ask major league baseball to exonerate Shoeless Joe or to endorse his candidacy. To quote, Those issues are moot at this point as he served a very difficult sentence over a long period of time. The commissioner of baseball is merely asked to acknowledge that Shoeless Joe has fully paid his debt to society and the game, that he satisfied the sentence of the first commissioner with dignity and humility and without rancor. Because he has fulfilled his sentence, baseball has no further call or jurisdiction over Shoeless Joe. I rise in strong support of this petition. It provides major league baseball with a graceful and dignified way to finally let the issue rest and let Shoeless Joe receive the honor he has long deserved. In closing, Mr. Speaker, on his death bed, Shoeless Joe said, ``I am about to meet the biggest umpire of them all and He knows I am innocent.'' Fifty years after his death, it is time for baseball to restore the honor of this good man. I invite all of my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring House Resolution 269 honoring Shoeless Joe for his outstanding accomplishments in baseball. Let us do our part.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced a bill to honor Keith D. Oglesby, the late Postmaster General of the Greenville, South Carolina Post Office. I am joined by the entire South Carolina delegation in this request to honor Keith Oglesby by renaming the Orchard Park Station of the Greenville Post Office as the Keith D. Oglesby Station. Mr. Oglesby was a tireless worker, community activist, and beloved boss. His involvement with charitable organizations aided those in the Greenville community, the state of South Carolina, and the nation as a whole. Mr. Oglesby was the chairperson for Greenville County's Combined Federal Campaign, hosted the First-Day of Issue ceremonies for the Organ & Tissue Donation Stamp, filled Christmas stockings for the Salvation Army, coordinated postal blood drives, participated in March of Dimes WalkAmerica and the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life. Additionally, he received the Greenville Family Partnership's Volunteer of the Year Award in 1997. As a supervisor, Mr. Oglesby always told his workers to ``Do the right thing,'' and this motto permeated his actions and expectations. Local postal customers, employees of the Greenville Post Office, and higher management of the United States Postal Service recognize the contributions of Keith Oglesby to his community and his faithful service to this nation. He was honored posthumously with his second Benjamin Award--the Postal Service's top public relations honor given to recognize community outreach accomplishments. The unexpected death of Mr. Oglesby shocked and saddened the community of Greenville, South Carolina. As we grieve his loss, we would like to pay tribute to Mr. Oglesby by renaming a facility in his honor. The Keith D. Oglesby Station would be a permanent memorial of his steadfast service to our community and the United States Postal Service.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, this is a true story. In 1908, a textile mill worker from Greenville, South Carolina, who learned to play baseball on mill teams, made his minor league baseball debut for the Greenville Spinners. He could not read or write, but he could sure play the game. His name was Joseph Jefferson Jackson. And in my town and in my State and in baseball circles around the world, he is a legend. During a game in his first year in the minor leagues, Joseph Jackson's feet began to hurt because of his shoes, so he took them off. He then proceeded to hit a triple, sliding into third. One of the fans in the crowd heckled him, saying he was a shoeless son of a gun. The nickname ``Shoeless'' stuck. Shoeless Joe Jackson had one of the most mythical careers in baseball history. He is mentioned among the greats: Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Lou Gehrig. His 356 lifetime batting average achieved over a 13- year career is third only behind Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby. In 1911, in his first major league season with Cleveland, Shoeless Joe batted 408, the highest batting average ever by a rookie. Traded to the Chicago White Sox in 1915, he led the team to victory in the 1917 World Series against the New York Giants. Yet, while his name is mentioned among the greats, Joe Jackson is not with them in the baseball Hall of Fame. After the infamous 1919 Black Sox scandal, Jackson was suspended for life from the league by the commissioner of baseball. Madam Speaker, this was a bad call. In 1919, a New York gambler allegedly bribed eight players of the Chicago White Sox, including Shoeless Joe, to throw the first and second game of the 1919 World Series. When the news came out the following year, the case was brought to criminal court. A number of individuals, including local sportswriters and White Sox owner Charles Comisky, all testified to Jackson's innocence. After the trial he was acquitted. However, the new commissioner of baseball, Judge Kennesaw Landis, decided to ban all the players who were allegedly involved without even conducting an investigation. If Commissioner Landis had taken some time to review the evidence, I believe he would have found that Shoeless Joe played no part in throwing the Series. It was obvious by the way he played. In the 1919 World Series, Shoeless Joe Jackson batted 375, the highest of any player on either team. He set a World Series record with 12 hits. His fielding was flawless. He had six of the White Sox's 17 RBIs, and he hit the only homerun of the series. A number of people from Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa to the great Ted Williams have called for Commissioner Bud Selig to review the judgment made in haste 80 years ago. I would like to add the names of every Member of this House to that list. Shoeless Joe was undoubtedly one of the greatest to play America's favorite pastime. He worked his way up through the textile mills of South Carolina and lived the American dream. He loved the game of baseball. The time has come for the commissioner to review the record and give Joe Jackson his rightful place of honor. When the heros of today, McGuire, Sosa, Ripken, Griffey, and when the heroes of tomorrow who are still dreaming their dreams on little league fields and school playgrounds, when they all come to Cooperstown to be enshrined with the other greats in the baseball Hall of Fame, they deserve to be alongside one of the greatest players who ever played the game. I think they would all want Shoeless Joe there with them. The people from my district and people from all over the country have been working for years to have Jackson's good name cleared and his honor restored. I want to do whatever I can to give him the honor that he is due and to honor the people who have been inspired by his memory to rebuild and revitalize his hometown, West Greenville, to honor his name. On behalf of the people of my district who have worked so hard to uphold the memory and the honor of Shoeless Joe Jackson and along with the entire South Carolina Congressional Delegation, last Friday I introduced a resolution calling for Shoeless Joe to be appropriately honored. I believe this resolution is an opportunity to pay respect to one of the all-time great players of America's great national pastime. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to restore the name of Shoeless Joe.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Greenwood amendment. Sometimes in Congress it is hard to tell one bill from another. We just passed the Smith-Barcia foreign families protection bill. The Greenwood amendment looks very much like it. As we wade into this, we need to recognize that this is not just another pro-choice, prolife debate. Because that is really not the issue. And the issue is not cutting funding for family planning abroad, because we certainly support family assistance abroad. The bill we have passed does not cut that. The main issue here today is will we force American taxpayers to undermine the values of families and other countries and to try to change their laws. Approximately 100 countries already have laws restricting abortions. These are countries like Ireland, Brazil, and Mexico. Now, we can debate and argue about whether or not we like the way they restrict abortion. But, hopefully, all of us would agree that we should not ask American taxpayers to fund an organization that is working to change those laws when here at home we have not agreed about that issue. That is really the crux of the issue. Because while we talk about funding, we need to understand how the Greenwood amendment would fund these activities. The Greenwood amendment would allow our taxpayer money to go to organizations that lobby to change or undermine laws restricting abortions. The way the amendment is written, it says these funds cannot be used for those purposes. That is kind of like giving soft money to a political party and telling them not to use that to support candidates. We are supporting the lobbying to undermine organizations abroad if we vote for the Greenwood amendment. I have got the wording here. And so, if we need to debate it, it is constantly use funds to promote abortion while it would allow organizations to receive this funding who promote abortion and lobby against the laws. There is a clear distinction here if we read it. And I ask my colleagues on both sides of the prolife, pro-choice issue to vote against the Greenwood amendment and allow the Smith-Barcia foreign families protection amendment to stand.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the child survival protection amendment. After hearing the debate tonight, I wonder if maybe we should integrate the whole foreign operations appropriation bill into family planning. I just have to say to my colleagues, we spend so much time on these appropriations bills identifying needs in foreign countries and we put them in the categories that are important to us as a Nation; and now we are saying this does not matter what category we put it in. There are 1 million children that we know could be saved each year if the vitamins and nutrition and the medicine and the IVs would only be used for what we appropriate them for. All we are asking is to do what we say we are going to do, to have some honesty in the appropriations. I urge my colleagues to vote for the gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment.