Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, every community has citizens that strive to improve the way of life for all those around them. They serve others because they want to, not because they have to. One such man was Reverend Booker T. Sears of Spartanburg, South Carolina. Last week Reverend Sears, a pioneer civil rights leader and respected community leader, passed away at his home. Reverend Sears was pastor of Thompson Street Baptist Church for nearly 50 years. His efforts within the community helped integrate public schools, desegregate public transportation, and develop many community improvement projects. Reverend Sears will be remembered as a man who truly cared about all those around him. During his career, he was a mentor to young pastors and a servant to everyone in the community. Reverend Sears is a testimony of one man making a difference in the lives of thousands, Mr. Speaker. We will miss Reverend Sears. It is now our time to carry on his mission off love and service.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, some in Washington and some in the media say disagreements in Congress are between the right and the left, liberals versus conservatives, Republicans versus Democrats. They say the debates are about which party is for Social Security, Medicare, education, or the environment. But we know that we are all committed to find the best solutions to these important issues. The real debate on the floor of the House and the Senate and in all of our committees is about who is going to control one's life, one or the government. There are some in Washington who believe one is better off if many of the decisions about one's life and the lives of one's family members are made here in Washington. Their intentions are good, and many times their programs sound good, but the evidence over the last 40 years is undeniable. When Washington takes our money and makes the important decisions about our lives, we not only lose our freedom, but we lose the security which comes from having control of our own lives. The Republicans in Congress believe that one is most secure when one is most free. That is why we call ourselves the GOP, the government of the people. We believe our job is not to manage one's life, but to provide a framework of freedom so one can manage one's own life and have equal access to all the opportunities this country has to offer. We believe in securing the future for every American by returning dollars, decisions, and freedoms back to the people, back to individuals, families, communities, businesses, and back to our States. The GOP believes, just as my colleagues do, that we can best secure the future for every child by returning dollars and decisions for education to parents and to local schools. There are some here in Washington that think we can run our schools better from the White House. We tried that, and our test scores and the quality of our schools declined since the Federal role expanded in the 1960s. Today, Republicans in Congress have passed legislation that allows States to use Federal money without all the red tape and to decide how the money can best be used to help their schools. We worked to give teachers and principals the flexibility to restore common-sense discipline in our children's classrooms. We are working to return 95 percent of all Federal education dollars back to the classroom, where the money belongs and is needed for new books, supplies, and school repairs. We all know that our children get the best education when parents, teachers, and principals have the flexibility and resources they need. We are making progress in education. The GOP believes that we can best secure the future for every family by letting Americans keep more of what they earn. It is not fair to ask both parents to work harder and longer and then to take up to half of everything they make. High taxes create stress in our families and make it almost impossible to save for the future, for new homes, for education. Republicans in Congress have already passed tax reductions that include child tax credits, education savings accounts, and less taxes on savings. Tomorrow, the GOP will pass legislation that will reduce the tax penalty on married couples, eliminate the earnings limits on senior citizens, lower capital gains tax, eliminate the death tax, and begin to lower taxes for everyone. In addition to bringing tax fairness and relief, we are going to make sure that taxpayers' hard-earned money is wisely used. We know Americans work hard for every penny that they earn, and they should expect their government not to waste or abuse their money. Americans can be sure that we are making progress on tax relief and tax fairness. The GOP believes that we can secure the future for every senior citizen by not spending one dime of Social Security and Medicare for other programs. No matter how good these other programs sound, taxpayers have worked hard to secure a retirement for themselves, and they should expect their retirement money to be there when they retire. To safeguard American taxpayers' money, Republicans have created a lock box that will protect Social Security and Medicare and guaranty the benefits. And unlike some proposals that come out of Washington, we are going to stick to this pledge to the end. And we are glad that the AARP and the President have endorsed our lock box plan. But we also know that Social Security and Medicare need repair. We are working hard to make sure Social Security and Medicare are there for future generations so all Americans can rest easy in their retirement knowing they have more control of their retirement income and health care. In 1994, the American taxpayer trusted the GOP to lead Congress and make progress towards a more free and secure America. Since then we have balanced the budget and reformed welfare, putting over 4 million people to work. We have repealed some taxes passed by the President, passed tax credits and the largest tax relief package in 16 years. We stopped the practice of spending Social Security and Medicare funds. We have given local schools the control and resources they need to succeed. And we have begun to rebuild our military. The American people and our economy have responded. And while we still have much work to do--we are on the right path towards securing the future for every American. In the months to come, you will see us continue to return dollars, decisions and freedoms back home--back to you, your family, your businesses and your communities. Back to where it belongs and where progress begins. We are Republicans, the government of the people, and we believe that Americans are most secure when you are most free, when you keep more of what you earn and make your own decisions, when you are in control of your life. We are committed to secure the future for every American by giving you that control, and we hope that every American will reach out for the freedoms and opportunities that come with being an essential part of the government of the people. Mr. Speaker, we are Republicans, and the American taxpayer can trust us to make sure they are in control of their life instead of government.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in favor of the Teacher Empowerment Act and against this proposed replacement bill that will reverse all the good that the Teacher Empowerment Act will do for our children and our schools. One of the most important responsibilities of this Congress is to secure the future for every child in America. Some say we can accomplish this goal best by running our schools from the White House or some congressional committee. Republicans believe that we can secure the future for every child in America best by returning education dollars, decisions and flexibility back home to parents, teachers, and local schools. The Teacher Empowerment Act does just that. It provides much-needed funds to schools, but it does not tell them how to spend it. It just tells them to get results. Schools can hire teachers and reduce class size; they can focus on innovative programs for math and science; or they can help train teachers. I am on the Committee on Education and the Workforce and I have heard countless testimonials of educators who have said that if we just give them back the flexibility, the decisions, and the dollars that they can secure the future for our children. Mr. Chairman, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for the Teacher Empowerment Act and against the Martinez substitute.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Okay, but it does not address, reclaiming my time, this does not address what this organization is doing around the world, and it does not send a signal to the organization that we want accountability to this horrendous treatment of women. We must strike at the heart of the issue, we must do whatever we can to send a message to the world that while we appreciate the good things that this organization does, we expect them to stop this inhumane treatment. Please join me in sending a clear message to the Chinese, the United Nations, that we do not condone this behavior.

Mr. DeMINT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. DeMINT. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith- Barcia amendment and in opposition to the Campbell-Gilman amendment. Mr. Chairman, there have been many efforts to make the Campbell amendment look reasonable and rational and easy for a cross-section of Members to support. However, this amendment merely masks support for the inhumane treatment of women in China and all around the world. We cannot overlook the horrendous treatment of women because the United Nations Population Fund provides some needed services. Just recently, the world was confronted with the reality of China's forced abortion policy when a woman who was deported from Australia to China was forced to go to the People's hospital just 10 days before she was due to give birth, and she was forced to undergo a mandatory abortion. Fellow Members of the House, this is totally unacceptable and intolerable, yet the organization we are talking about funding today, the United Nations Population Fund, does not even acknowledge a problem with China's policies. We should not add $20 million in funding to this organization. Mr. Chairman, China is not the only place where the United Nations Population Fund is active in implementing questionable and sometimes outrageous policies. Peru's population program has violated the human rights of women by coercing them into sterilization. This may include offering poor women food in exchange for sterilization or pressing health workers to reach sterilization quotas and women being sterilized without their consent. The U.N. Population Fund is also active in Vietnam and North Korea which have been credibly accused of coercive practices. They have not only turned a blind eye to forced abortions and sterilizations, but have even given China an award in its population control program. I believe we must stand up and say this is enough. We should not fund the United Nations Population Fund until the organization has reformed and renounced coercive and abusive policies. The United States of America should not give the United Nations Population Fund $25 million in taxpayers' money until they stop these practices. According to the Campbell amendment, we will give 25 million to the United Nations Population Fund, and we will take it away if we can prove that they are involved.

Mr. DeMINT. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DeMINT. As I understand it, the gentleman's amendment does fund.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the DeLauro amendment. As Members of Congress from across the country, we come representing various positions on the life issue, but the fundamental question presented to us by this amendment is should the Federal Government be in the business of subsidizing abortions. Make no mistakes. Taxpayers do pay for the salaries and benefits of Federal workers. The taxpayers are our employers, and they do have the right to decide what benefits that they offer. This amendment is supposedly about fairness, being fair to women who choose to have an abortion. I ask my colleagues this: How is it fair to ask millions of Americans who oppose abortion because they believe it is the taking of human life to pay for the very procedure they oppose? In addition to taxpayers' funds paying for abortion, insurance premiums contributed by all Federal employees would also be used to subsidize abortions on demand. In a 1994 poll published by the Journal of American Medical Association, only 4 percent of the respondents answered that they thought the government should pay for the expense of an abortion. A New York Times poll indicated that 72 percent of poll respondents said the cost of abortion should be paid for directly by the women who have them, not by a national health plan. And, remember, we are not taking the choice away. All we are saying is do not ask taxpayers to pay for it. Regardless of one's position on life issues, it is frankly surprising that there would be a push to ask taxpayers of America who subsidize 72 percent of the purchase of Federal employees health insurance to pay for abortions. In fact, this amendment would create a situation in which Americans, both Federal and others who are struggling to make ends meet, are asked to subsidize the abortion decision of a Federal worker who may make five times as much as they do. Regardless of the salary level, it is fundamentally unfair to ask Americans to subsidize a procedure which ends with the taking of a human life. To conclude, I ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, both sides of the issue, to oppose this unfair and unreasonable amendment.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in favor of the Child Custody Protection Act. This bill would make it unlawful to transport a minor across State lines to circumvent a State law requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision. South Carolina is one of several States that have laws requiring one parent to approve an abortion of a minor. Let me make it clear that this law does include any legal guardian. It is not excluding grandparents who are legal guardians. The Child Custody Protection Act would not impose a similar parental consent law on States neighboring my State but, rather, would simply ensure that the laws of my State would be respected. Laws requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision confirm the essential role of parents in key decisions for our children. For the sake of children, these laws should not be circumvented. The Supreme Court has observed, ``The medical, emotional and psychological consequences of an abortion are serious and can be lasting. This is particularly true when the patient is immature.'' All across this country our children cannot take an aspirin at school without parental notification or authorization. They have to have a signed permission slip to go on a simple field trip. Yet in many places in our Nation, a young girl does not have to tell a family member before she has an abortion. Some States have rightfully acted to give parents the responsibility for decision-making for their minor children. The parental consent notification laws of States like South Carolina should not be bypassed. This bill would simply enforce our laws and reassert the importance of children. Mr. Speaker, I have two daughters. It is very hard for me to believe that some in this room think that they should have the right to secretly take one of my daughters across the State line to get an abortion without telling me. We cannot tolerate that in this country. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Child Custody Protection Act.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of myself and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) to introduce the Start-Up Success Accounts Act of 1999. The purpose of this legislation is to give small businesses an additional tool to manage finances and retain capital. Small businesses account for almost all of the net new jobs in our economy today, with minority and women-owned businesses making up two of the fastest growing categories of new businesses. Starting a business represents the hopes and the dreams of many Americans. But there is a problem. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, over 99.9 percent of all business failures are small firms. With all the promise of small business and the entrepreneurial spirit in this country today, only about half of the businesses that were started in 1992 are still in existence today. Many small businesses fail in the first few years for lack of capital. As a small businessman myself, I have appreciated firsthand the difficulty of acquiring and retaining capital both to start a business and to keep it going. The problem is caused in part by our tax system. When I started my business over 15 years ago, I was surprised when my accountant told me that we needed to make sure that I did not show a profit at the end of the year. Our tax system discourages capital retention. The problem is if I report a profit at the end of the year, I pay corporate taxes, and then when I pay myself a salary the next year, I am taxed again on the same money. The accountants call it double taxation. Every incentive of the tax system is to reduce profits and to reduce the amount of money in your company so that you can reduce taxes. I would like to change that. The very first dollar of new businesses is taxed and businesses are encouraged, just as I was in my business, to allow any excess capital to pass through. The ultimate result is less growth and less staying power for many small businesses. An April 1999 Dun & Bradstreet survey confirmed, and I quote, cash flow is the pervasive financial management issue for small business owners. It manifests itself in ongoing capital, managing inventory, extending credit to customers, all kinds of problems related to finances. The DeMint-Baird Start-Up Success Accounts Act begins to alleviate some of this problem. What it does is it will allow companies in each of their first 5 years of business to set aside 20 percent of taxable income into an account that will last for 5 years. So the span of these accounts can last up to 10 years when you put all 5 years together. What this does again is encourages small businesses to save money and to leave money in their company so that they can use it to create growth and opportunity. So 20 percent of taxable income each of the first 5 years for start-up savings accounts. This will help businesses stabilize and grow. In addition, small businesses could draw down on the funds of the accounts in lean years. That is many times the problem with small businesses. They will have one good year, they will take money out to avoid double taxation, the next year is a lean year and they have difficulty staying in business. This gives new businesses and small businesses the flexibility to keep capital in their company so they can invest it for the future. Small businesses are the engine to our economy today in this country. More small businesses that can find stable footing in those first few years will mean more jobs and more opportunity for many Americans. We must return dollars, decisions and freedom to our Nation's new small businesses. I believe the Start-Up Savings Accounts Act is a good step in that direction.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and to point out that we just heard a very good example of what I call faith phobia. This faith phobia has taken over the country, that anyone with values and beliefs is a problem. I support this resolution, not just to recognize what nonprofit community organizations, faith-based organizations are doing, but to point out that they are doing our work all across America better than we are. There is an organization in my district called Mobile Meals. Every day, people from throughout the community rise at about 4:00 in the morning and feed about 1,700 people every day. They do it for one reason, to share the love of God with people in the community. They spend less than a million dollars a year. It compares with the federally funded group that does the same thing that spends over $6 million a year. If we look around my community and I am sure my colleagues' community, the people that are feeding the hungry, that are clothing the poor, that are freeing those enslaved to drugs, that are building homes for the homeless, and providing a place for people to live who need it all across the community, these are faith-based organizations working side by side with community organizations. If, as a government, we are going to say that, because there is some faith involved, that we cannot use these organizations to help Americans, then we are going way down the wrong road. We need to recognize that we have been making a mistake. We have not been separating the State from religion. We have been separating religion from America. It is time that we stop that at the Federal level and recognize that, if we want to help Americans, let us let faith-based organizations work side by side with community and local governments to really help America.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for this opportunity to rise and speak in favor of keeping the youth of America safe and secure and out of the juvenile justice system. I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), many Republicans and Democrats have worked many long hours for many years to put this good legislation together. The Goodling amendment contains important core principles, such as maintaining the separation of juveniles and adult criminals when they are held at the same facility. But the most essential thing of this amendment addresses how to keep youth out of the juvenile justice system. How does this amendment do this? We enable schools and community organizations to identify the needs of at-risk youth and to give these organizations the resources they need to craft solutions which best address these specific needs. This requires communities to work together on behalf of their children. Parents, teachers, schools, community leaders, businesses can band together to address the unique challenges presented to their teams. We should not live in a society in which schools are separated from the communities around them. The most important prevention programs, whether in schools, community centers or other locations, should take into consideration the needs of the youth in the communities. We already know the best deterrent to youth violence: family involvement. The National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health has some amazing but predictable findings. One of the most stabilizing factors in a youth's development is strong family involvement. It keeps them from getting into troublesome activities such as drugs, alcohol, sex or violent behavior. Some of the programs that communities can put into place as a result of the Goodling amendment encourages family involvement and provides a positive role model as well as positive activities for youth in our Nation. I support and trust parents, school officials, and local community leaders to craft strong juvenile delinquency prevention programs and, as I stated earlier, the primary goal of this amendment is to keep teens out of the juvenile justice system. Again, I support the adoption of the Goodling amendment, which returns dollars and decisions to communities.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler). (Mr. Hostettler asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DeMINT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, just a quick clarification. Congress created this exemption, and it is certainly within our right to change it. This is an exemption. All we are asking for is a level playing field when two parties go to court. Right now, it is set up that if the schools lose, they pay both. If they win, they pay their own. There is no way for them to win. They are under a threat that is too big a risk. We just want it to be the standard normal practice.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my freedom of expression in schools amendment is to ensure that a student's First Amendment right to freedom of religious expression is protected. This amendment is important to school safety, because what we value and believe, as children and adults, directly impacts how we act. It is, therefore, essential that students not be discouraged from participating in positive, faith-based activities or exercising their freedom of religious expression. As many of us know, public schools are being intimidated into suppressing religious expression by the threat of costly litigation. This litigation often arises from a confusion between a school allowing religious expression by a student, which is protected, and a school sanctioning and endorsing religion, which violates the establishment clause. Only a few weeks ago, with graduation exercises having been completed around the country, there were valedictorians and class presidents who were actually physically removed from the stage, their speech censored, not because it contained vulgarity or obscenity but because it contained constitutionally protected, student- initiated religious expression. This has taken place in both California and Minnesota this year. The Indiana Civil Liberties Union wrote a letter threatening to sue any high school or college in the State if they allowed prayer at graduation ceremonies. The letter said, you will pay your own and our attorney's fees, an amount that could run as high as $250,000. How can schools take this risk? It is much easier just to tell the students not to pray than to risk spending this amount of money. In cases from Michigan to Maryland to Indiana, so-called civil liberties groups have threatened principals and school boards with lawsuits because of legitimate student religious expression. This is happening because such cases were made exempt by Congress from the common legal practice of each side paying its own attorney's cost. Schools that are accused must face the additional threat, if they lose, that they must also pay the other side's legal fees. This provides a perverse incentive for schools to silence the speech of students rather than to face a punitive lawsuit. Congress created the one side loser pays exception to the normal practice in order to encourage the defense of civil liberties. However, this exception is now being used as a weapon to suppress these very liberties. The current incentive is for schools to silence student religious expression rather than fight for student constitutional rights. My amendment simply corrects the mistake and returns such cases to the normal practice of each side paying its own fees. Such cases should be decided on the merits, on a level playing field, not by threats and bullying. Mr. Chairman, Congress has set a clear precedent for this amendment. In 1996, Congress passed and the President signed the Federal Courts Improvement Act. This bill included a provision that exempted certain cases brought against judicial officers from the attorney's fees requirement. It amended the identical section I am amending. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent, was brought to the House floor by unanimous consent and passed on a voice vote. Let me quote a portion of the rationale provided by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary report on the bill. The risk to judges of burdensome litigation creates a chilling effect that threatens judicial independence and may impair day-to-day decisions of the judiciary in close or controversial cases. The same risk of burdensome litigation is threatening our public schools and more. It is threatening the First Amendment rights of our students. I urge my colleagues to support this reasonable and well-crafted amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, because I think it is important for this Congress to change the culture of this country by renewing our commitment to the value of life. This is not the time to send a signal to all Americans that abortions of convenience are a way to solve the problem of promiscuity and recreational sex. It is a hoax on the American people and women, in particular, to suggest that this is a healthy way to handle an unwanted pregnancy. We must not send the signal that it is easy as a pill to end an unwanted pregnancy. This is one of the most important issues facing our country today, because as we look around at the violence and the apparent disregard for life in every walk of life, we have got to question if this type of ease in ending life is contributing to that. This amendment will do what it needs to do in stopping the approval of a way of life in America, in restoring value to life to all ages in America.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I presented to Mobile Meals of Spartanburg, South Carolina, the first Spirit of Freedom Award. Every day Mobile Meals volunteers deliver as well as prepare over 1,700 meals to needy people in my district, all without government funding. The people at Mobile Meals have shown me that freedom comes from the able hands of local people, people who take responsibility for themselves and their communities. Here in Washington, we can either protect or take away those freedoms. I believe it is our role in Congress to be the guardians of freedom. That is why we are working to return dollars, decisions and freedoms to the hands of local people. I thank Mobile Meals for showing us that freedom begins at home.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Winston Churchill once said, ``Men occasionally stumble upon the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.'' Yesterday, the House Select Committee on U.S. Security and Military/ Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China released their report on Chinese spying. We now know the truth. The Chinese communists have obtained virtually all of our nuclear secrets. And today, brand new American-designed Chinese missiles are aimed at our homes. Mr. Speaker, we know the truth and we are not going to hurry off as if nothing had happened. The security of our Nation depends on how we respond to this report of Chinese espionage. It is not too late to pass a Nation that is safe and secure to our children. Through a strong defense, more decisive leadership, and a renewed vigilance in protecting our secrets and prosecuting spies, we can make sure that every citizen lives in freedom and security.