Kay Granger

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues today in discussing the need for this Congress to help America's working women. I am proud to be a part of the Women's Caucus and I am proud that this caucus is committed to raising and addressing important issues concerning women. Today, more than ever, working women are no longer the exception, they are the rule. America's working women are redefining the workplace as we know it. They are learning how to balance their dual responsibilities of work and family. In today's business world, women own about 6.5 million companies. That is one-third of all the businesses in America. Today, women are creating businesses at twice the rate of men. In fact, it is estimated that by the year 2000 women will own 40 percent of American companies. These facts make it vitally important this Congress address the issues and the interests of this growing segment of our economy. Yes, it is becoming increasingly clear that women's issues are economic issues. Jobs, taxes and economic growth are the top issues for today's women. Since women are creating more jobs than men, they are disproportionately affected by burdensome taxes, rules and regulations, and too often it is too difficult for women-owned businesses to get started. Once started, it is often difficult for women-owned businesses to stay afloat. According to a 1995 survey of women-owned businesses, 84 percent of women entrepreneurs used their own personal savings to start their businesses. And once underway, women business owners often find themselves dipping into their savings to stay in business. Mr. Speaker, as a small business owner myself, I have made it a commitment to stand up and speak out and stay focused on the issues that face women-owned businesses. Female entrepreneurs are here to stay, and while it is true that Washington cannot create wealth, it is no less true that we have an obligation to make the business environment as conducive as possible for women. I believe that excessive government taxation, regulation and litigation hold back our working women by holding up production costs. Government taxes prevent female employers and employees from keeping more of their hard-earned money, and it has often been noted that today taxes consume more of the family income than families spend on food, education and shelter, or anything else. We need to make our tax system flatter and fairer so that our women will not have to work almost half the year to foot government costs. Working women need to be able to keep more of their hard-earned money. We also need to review our regulations as well. Each year over 100,000 pages of new rules and regulations are produced in Washington, and many of these guidelines overlap and they are repetitive. Moreover, it has been estimated that regulations cost businesses over $700 billion each year. These regulations impact every single business owned by women. And since businesses often have to raise prices to afford these new regulations, it is estimated that each American family pays an extra $700 per household to cover the cost of regulations. It has also been estimated that regulations add as much as a third to the cost of building an airplane engine and almost double the price of a new vaccine. Mr. Speaker, we need to be working on ways to increase, not decrease, the number of women in business, and adding cost is not the way to do that. Moreover, government rules and litigation often subject our small businesswomen to years of legal battles and legal costs. Let us let our working women spend more time in the board room and less time in the courtroom. Only then can we truly create a conducive business environment for women. Mr. Speaker, today's working women are the pioneers of tomorrow. As they struggle to create more jobs, growth and opportunity, let us make our government work for our women, not against them; stand by their sides, not ride on their backs. Mr. Speaker, we must never forget that working women have yet another job waiting for them when they get home at night. In our efforts to enhance and encourage the careers of women, I am afraid we sometimes lose sight of the fact that many of our working women are also working mothers. These working mothers need the opportunity to balance their schedules between work and home. After all, meetings with our children are more important than meetings with our staffs. I was a working mother of three, and I understand there is no price tag put on the time we spend away from our families. That is why when I became Mayor of Fort Worth several years ago, I took an active interest in ensuring our employees had the kind of schedules necessary to take care of their jobs and also take care of their families. One of the tools we used to help create a family-friendly city hall was comp time. This program allowed workers to choose time off instead of overtime pay. It is extraordinarily popular in the public sector, but it is still not available in the private sector. Let us help our working women by giving workers in the private sector the same choice. Mr. Speaker, the working women of America are essential to ensuring that our Nation continues on a path of economic growth and personal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support measures which promote and protect the dual role of American women as leaders in the office and leaders at home. I want to thank the Women's Caucus for raising awareness about the importance of women's issues.

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, there is an old axiom that says it is good to be forewarned and forearmed because preparation is half the battle. Today, as America stands at the threshold of a new millennium, we must prepare ourselves for a new century, new challenges, and, yes, new dangers. Today, America stands as the world's lone superpower; victorious in two world wars, several regional conflicts and a Cold War. Yes, America is winning the battles, but the war has yet to be won; the war against terrorism, the war to keep America safe from attack in an increasingly unsafe world. It is a war we cannot afford to lose. The single most important step we can take to ensure our national security is to make a full commitment to ballistic missile defense. So long as there is one nuclear weapon anywhere in the world, America must be prepared to defend herself. H.R. 4 takes an important step in the struggle to keep America safe and secure. This legislation simply states that it will be the policy of the United States to develop and deploy a missile defense system as soon as possible. No more delays, no more demagogueing. Fifteen years ago, critics told Ronald Reagan that a ballistic missile defense was not possible. Every time someone would tell President Reagan we were years away from having technology, he would say, let us get started.

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, there are many occasions when this body meets to consider important matters of national business. But none more important than this. To discuss and debate a resolution regarding the development of American troops in a foreign land is the utmost in constitutional and moral responsibility. It is one we do not undertake lightly. Yesterday during testimony before the House International Affairs Committee, former U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick was asked if she thought it was appropriate for this Congress to debate this issue at this time. Ambassador Kirkpatrick, who supports potentially deploying U.S. troops in Kosovo, replied that it is always the constitutional prerogative of the Congress to weigh in on grave matters of national security. And so we do. But we do so with caution and concern. I approach this issue from the perspective of preserving our national security and protecting our national interest. These are two essential principles that I believe must guide our policy as we work to guide the world toward peace. How will it affect our national security--and how is it in our national interest? These are two questions which must be decided-- before any troops can be deployed. As someone who has been at once an internationalist in foreign policy and an advocate for more defense spending, I do have to say I find it somewhat ironic that we continue to discuss deploying our troops overseas to provide protection for other nations while here in our own nation we fail to provide basic protections for our own troops like good pay, benefits, training, and equipment. I would urge this Congress to address the need to increase defense spending. Across the board. For every armed service. No more delays. No more broken promises. Beyond that, I want to state for the record in no uncertain terms-- that I believe the atrocities of Milosevic are despotic, demonic, and despicable. I need no clarification as to whether he is evil or whether he will do more evil. He is. And he will. We don't need to guess what he will do in the future--we have seen what he has done in the past. The prospect of another Croatia or another Bosnia can give us little comfort. Yet I remain deeply troubled by the possibility of deploying United States troops in Kosovo. Can we really make a difference in this far away land? At this point, I have my doubts. It's probably only wishful thinking, but it is tempting to think of what might have been. If only the administration would consult the Congress more fully and more openly. They haven't. If only Ambassador Holbrooke could outline a specific agreement with all parties involved. He can't. And if only we thought that an agreement would change Milosevic. It won't. But more importantly, I find myself returning to the two questions I raised at the beginning--how will this impact our national security-- and how is it in our national interest? On these two grounds, I cannot justify the deployment of U.S. troops. Sending American soldiers and sailors will impact our national security by placing American service men and women directly in the line of fire. For example, one of the often discussed goals of this mission is to take the weapons away from the Kosovo Liberation Army. Mr. Chairman, a situation the American Army is trying to take weapons away from another Army--is a situation ripe for American casualties. And how is this in our national interest? Supporters of the deployment tell us that Milosevic is a Hitler in the making. They argue that if we don't stop him now, he will continue to expand his sphere of influence into other areas of Europe. Admittedly, on the issue of our national interest, it is a much closer call for me. I do think Milosevic is a threat to the entire region. However, I am not convinced he is a threat to the entire world. But more importantly, I am not convinced that his actions in Kosovo warrant the sacrifice of our most sacred national asset--the men and women who wear the uniform. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to say that this has been a solemn and sobering process for me. The decision that I have reached has not been easy. It has been gutwrenching. I will oppose this resolution not because I believe there is nothing at stake in Kosovo or because I am unconvinced of Milosevic's evil. I do so only because I believe that the deployment of U.S. troops requires that we meet an extremely high threshold. We should seek peace throughout the world. But not at the expense of our national security and not in the absence of a national interest. We owe the world nothing more. We owe our troops nothing less.

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. Chairman, Mark Twain observed that the greatness of our Nation comes from the soundness of our schools. Today more than ever we need to rededicate ourselves to improving the lives of our children, and that is by enhancing the quality of their education. One way to do this, I believe, is Ed-Flex. This program allows States and local school districts to spend their share of Federal education dollars in the way that serves their needs. Texas is one of the 12 States with waivers today, so let me give an example of how this works in my hometown of Fort Worth, Texas. A few years ago the Briscoe Elementary School was the home of students who were not living up to their potential and teachers who were not meeting expectations. Thanks to Ed-Flex, this school was able to take Title I money and spend it in specific ways to specifically address their problems. A new principal was brought in, new teachers, set new standards for the children. The results: Well, test scores are up significantly. What was once considered a poor performance school by the State is now well on its way to becoming one of the best. I personally visited Briscoe Elementary and principal Dr. Jennifer Brooks, and I know that flexibility gives this excellent principal and her teachers the tools they need. Mr. Chairman, let us pass Ed-Flex legislation so that the schools all across America have the chance to do what the schools in my district in Texas are doing, and that is fixing their problems, finding solutions and fighting academic indifference. What a great investment in our future. Children may only represent 20 percent of America today, but they represent 100 percent of our future.

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). As a former mayor, I can tell my colleagues that the unfunded mandates law was one of the most important reforms that Congress has ever passed. It was important because it forced Congress to vote on new mandates that would be imposed on our State and our local governments, and by forcing Congress to vote on these mandates Congress would think before it mandated. Some predicted that the effect of this law would be to undermine health, safety and environmental laws. They were wrong. All that this law did was to make Congress think before it mandates. Today this bipartisan mandate reform legislation does the same thing. It makes Congress stop and think before it imposes private sector mandates. It will not stop us from imposing new laws to protect health, safety or the environment. It will not stop any new laws. But what it will do is require the Congress to vote on new private sector mandates that are imposed on our small businessmen and women. Like the unfunded mandates law, it requires us to think before we mandate. The Waxman amendment removes the most important part of this legislation, the requirement that Congress thinks before it mandates. It eliminates the accountability provision, and this is wrong. Mr. Chairman, as a mayor, a small business person and as a mother, I strongly support a safer, healthier America. I will always support laws that keep our air clean and our rivers healthy and our environment safe. But today I stand before my colleagues because I have another role. I am a representative, and I believe that all of us owe it to our constituents to think before we impose new mandates on them. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Mandate Information Act and against the Waxman amendment, and I will remind my colleagues the following groups are scoring this amendment and this final vote: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, The National Federation of Independent Business, The American Farm Bureau, The Small Business Legislative Council, Citizens for a Sound Economy, The National Restaurant Association, The National Retail Federation, The Associated Builders and Contractors, The American Subcontractors Association, The National Association of the Self-employed, The National Association of Manufacturers, and the National Roofing Contractors Association.

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the men and women of our armed forces. I thank them for their sacrifice and their patriotism and I pray for their safe return home. Saddam Hussein is not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement that ended the Persian Gulf War. He has consistently violated international law and he is insistent on development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. There is no question he needs to be stopped. However, I want to remind my colleagues that real support of our troops takes more than a resolution from Congress when they are sent into combat. It takes a real and serious financial commitment from this body. We need to increase the size of our annual defense budget. We need to address the military retirement system. We need to make sure our troops have the best equipment available when they are sent into harm's way. During the Persian Gulf War there were 18 active Army divisions. Today there are 10. During the Persian Gulf War there were 24 active fighter wings. Today 13. There were 546 Navy ships. Today 333. I do not want to belabor this point today, Mr. Speaker, but we need to address those shortfalls next year. Again let us pray for our troops and offer them our heartfelt thanks for their service to our country.

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 1999 National Defense Authorization Act conference report. While this legislation does not contain everything many of us would like to have funded, I do want to take a moment to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their very, very hard work to produce a bill that meets the needs of our Armed Services. A great American general once said, wars are fought with weapons, but they are won with soldiers. I believe our national defense policy should be based on this sound premise. Great weapons and great troops are what make America's military the best. However, I share the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence's) and the defense community's concerns that these funding levels are still inadequate to meet the increasing number of threats to our national security. We cannot continue to do more with less. We cannot continue to expect to get ahead by just getting by. So while I support this legislation, I urge my colleagues to recommit themselves to the cause of national security. That is why it is so important the committee included funding for the F-16, V-22, F-22 and continued R&D for the multi-service, multi-role joint strike fighter. These weapons make a statement about our commitment to national security, and they will make a difference in preserving our national safety. I am looking forward to working with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) in his commitment to continuing to make national security our number one national priority.

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Drug Demand Reduction Act of 1998. This common sense proposal has an uncommon approach to the battle against drugs. In the past we have focused our attention on stopping the supply of drugs but this legislation would reduce the demand for drugs. How does it work? It works by providing incentives to States to encourage teenagers to be drug-free before getting their driver's license. Who does it help? It helps parents by creating an 800 number that parents can call to learn about how to talk to their children about drugs. Why is it needed? Because approximately 80 percent of all crimes committed in this country are drug-related. And why will it work? Because we are empowering local communities to deal with their local drug problems in their own local way. When I was mayor of Fort Worth we mapped out a strategy for fighting drugs that worked in Fort Worth. But it might not work in Fort Wayne or Front Royal. Each community is different and each situation is distinct. The great thing about this bill is that it gives each community enough support to carry out the war on drugs but enough flexibility to fight their own battles in their own way. As I close, I remind my colleagues that Henry Kissinger once said of guerilla war, ``Your enemy wins if he does not lose.'' For too long we have been losing the war on drugs simply and only because we have not had the courage to win it. By attacking both the supply and demand side of this issue and by giving local officials the tools they need, we can win the war on drugs for our community, for our children and also for our future.

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in the 12th Congressional District, the people of Texas, and the men and women of the American aviation industry, it is my pleasure to express sincere good wishes to Mr. Webb F. Joiner, Chairman and CEO of Bell Helicopter Textron, on the occasion of his retirement. During Webb Joiner's 38- year career at Bell Helicopter Textron, the company has built a worldwide reputation for his commitment to the highest standards in customer service and manufacturing quality. I am proud to say that the Bell products that America's armed forces depend on to carry out airlift missions around the world are built in my district by the men and women of Texas. The OH-58D Kiowa Warrior is the Army's premier scout-attack helicopter, the modernized UH-1N utility helicopter, and the new V-22 Osprey tiltrotor to take the Corps into the 21st Century equipped with the most modern and capable aircraft in the world. Bell's commercial helicopters can be found all over the world, servicing offshore oil platforms, performing air medical rescues and carrying out humanitarian missions, and are known everywhere for their safety and reliability. Thanks to the standards of excellence in the U.S. aviation industry set by people like Webb Joiner, this country continues to be the world's leader in aircraft. Under Webb Joiner's leadership, those standards have remained especially high at Bell Helicopter and have kept this Texas-based company in first place in the international market. The men and women who work at Bell Helicopter and those people around the world who operate Bell's military and civilian aircraft join me in wishing Webb F. Joiner an active and enjoyable retirement. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to publicly recognize Webb Joiner. I want to congratulate him for his contributions to the American aviation industry and to American national security.

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the campaign finance reform of the freshman class. I am proud to be a part of that class. It is a class that vowed to work in a bipartisan way toward real solutions to problems. Now, while all the campaign finance proposals we are debating have the best of intentions, I am afraid some of them have not produced the best results. The freshman bill will have the most positive effect on campaign finance because it addresses the most profound problems. Not one of them, not just some of them, but all of them. It covers soft money. It covers issue advocacy. And it covers the rights of union workers. Mr. Chairman, if we truly are going to treat the patient, should we not treat all the symptoms, not just some? For this reason, I am proud to be a part of the freshmen bill and I certainly support it.

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, many times on many occasions we come to this floor in the hope of solving a crisis. Today we come in the hope of preventing one. H.R. 4037 is a simple bill with a simple premise, to protect the safety and security of America's workers. Let me give you an example of how this bill will make a difference in the lives of working people everywhere. Under current law, when a chemical is spilled in the workplace, the workers have to plow through a Material Safety Data Sheet to find instructions on how to clean up the spill and minimize danger. Unfortunately, these forms are, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) said, generally written in legal terms, not common sense terms, that can straightforwardly protect the safety of our workers. Our bill ensures that at the beginning of each MSDS form there will be an emergency overview that lays out in layman's terms what needs to be done in the case of a chemical spill in the workplace. Moreover, our bill allows these important forms to be kept through an electronic communication systems, like a fax-on-demand system, Internet service or CD-ROM. These will make them more convenient, more accessible, and, the most important thing, they will make them more effective for our workers. I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Ballenger) for his hard work on this issue and for his willingness to bring this bill to the floor. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), who cosponsored this legislation with me, and, as the Congressman said, in particular, we would like to thank our staff, in my case Lisa Helfman who worked on my staff and Ryan Dvorak on the staff of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), for their hard work in bringing this forward. We often speak of issues in terms of right or left. This is an issue that is truly right versus wrong. It is right to give our workers the protections they need, since it is always the right time to do the right thing. I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 4037 today.

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, many years ago a poet eulogized the sacrifice of hundreds of young men. The poet was Tennyson. The poem was the ``Charge of the Light Brigade.'' In this famous verse, Tennyson gave answer to those who wondered why so many young men would give so much. ``Theirs not to make reply,'' Tennyson explained. ``Theirs not to reason why. Theirs but to do and die.'' The price of freedom has never been cheap. But in America, there have always been those willing to meet the demand, bear the burden, and pay the price to keep our nation free. Mr. Speaker, I believe that America will remain the land of the free only as long as it is the home of the brave. Andrew Jackson once said that one man with courage is a majority. Last Friday afternoon, not one but two courageous leaders formed a supermajority--and thereby saved the lives of others. When the moment of crisis arose last week, Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson were not found wanting. They were there. They responded. And they gave their lives. The thin blue line held firm last Friday--thanks to two heroes. Like the men of Tennyson's tribute, their sacrifice was complete. It was theirs to respond. It is ours to remember. Mr. Speaker, I hope America never forgets that freedom isn't free. And I know that the prayers and thoughts of every American are with the Chestnut and Gibson family. May God Bless them. And May God Bless America.

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during the rollcall vote on the adoption of the conference report on H.R. 629, the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act earlier today. If I had been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4250, and I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and all of the members of the working group for their ability to listen and their desire to lead. It has often been said that there is a time in the life of every problem when it is large enough to see and yet small enough to solve. The issue of health care reform is one we can see and solve, and our bill does that. The Republican goal is to provide quality health care and peace of mind for every American. The Republican plan gives peace of mind when the nearest emergency room can mean the fastest care in the case of a heart attack. Our plan gives peace of mind for mothers because there is no barrier for care by a pediatrician. Our plan gives peace of mind for women because they can go directly to an OB-GYN for their health care. And our plan gives peace of mind for small businesses because they will have choices for their health plans through health marts and association health plans. Overall, our bill gives HMOs accountability to their patients, not their profits. Our bill says that doctors, not bureaucrats, will be authorized to make medical decisions. Our bill is the only bill that would provide affordable health care to millions of uninsured Americans. Even Senator Daschle agrees with us on that. In short, our bill, the Patient Protection Act, will ensure that all Americans have access they deserve to the health care they need at a price they can afford. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to engage the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Fawell) in a colloquy. Among the most important protections that this legislation affords to patients is the right to internal and external review of decisions made by HMOs. Those reviews will be made by qualified independent doctors. My home State of Texas has a law that allows HMOs to be liable in court. There is some uncertainty as to whether or not and the extent to which this Texas law is preempted by the ERISA law. In fact, this is a question that is before the courts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois regarding the possible effects of this new legislation's internal and external review procedures on whether the ERISA law preempts the State statute. As one of the authors of this legislation, the principal author of the internal and external review procedures, and one of the leading experts on ERISA, are these new procedures intended in any way to indicate congressional intent about whether the Texas State law is preempted by ERISA?

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, are the legislation's more explicit internal and external review procedures intended to in any way affect the outcome of any matters pending in court examining the extent or scope of ERISA preemption of State laws?

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for this clarification.

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this Defense Appropriations package. And let me publicly and personally thank Chairman Bill Young for his hard work on this important National Defense bill. It has been said that America will only remain the land of the free if it remains the home of the brave. Mr. Chairman, a few weeks ago I saw some of our brave young soldiers who are defending American interests in faraway places like Bosnia. After talking to them, I am reaffirmed in my conviction that our soldiers and sailors are the best and the brightest in the world. However, I believe that if we have the best troops, we should also have the best training, equipment, and benefits. After all, no first class nation can have a second class military. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the budgetary constraints of last year's balanced budget provide the kind of support that our troops deserve and our interests demand. When John F. Kennedy was President, 52 cents out of every Federal dollar spent was devoted to National Defense. Today, that number is 16 cents out of every dollar. Now before I go any further, let me be perfectly clear--I support this bill even though I believe we must do much more to invest in our National Security. But at least this bill stops the ten year decrease in defense spending. And it does so in large part because of the outstanding leadership of Chairman Young. In particular, I am pleased that this bill funds important priorities that are manufactured in my home district in Texas. Products like the F-16, the V-22, and the Kiowa Warrior are indispensable to our national security. Mr. Chairman, these projects are important for my district. But they are vital for our country. Once, again, I want to thank the Chairman for his hard work on this issue. And I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to do even more in the coming years for our national defense. And I would close by responding to a perennial question that we hear so often during national security debates. We hear the question, ``can we afford to pass this bill.'' Mr. Chairman, I would simply respond by saying, ``we can't afford not to pass this bill.''

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in support of this very important bill, and I want to publicly thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) for the work they have done and put into this legislation. We hear much today about family values, but I ask do we really value families? The bill I am proud to support today is one which values our families by protecting our children. The Child Protection Sexual Predator Punishment Act does two important things. It protects our children, and it punishes their predators. The goal of the bill is simple, to keep pornography out of the sight of children and to keep our children out of the reach of sexual predators. To do this the bill does several important things. First, it prohibits knowingly transferring obscene materials to a minor over the Internet. Second, the bill increases penalties for using a computer to entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity. This information superhighway must not be allowed to be used by sexual predators as a gateway to their prey. Third, the bill increases penalties for sending child pornography to any child anywhere by any means. Whether it is on the Internet or in person, this bill says child pornography in any form is ill-advised and illegal. Finally, the bill puts the blame on the criminals and the predators, and it puts the law on the side of families and their children. This legislation doubles the penalties for repeat sex offenders. It also requires the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review and amend the sentencing guidelines to increase penalties for sexual abuse offenses. In short, it protects our children by punishing their stalkers. Why is this strong legislation needed? Because cyberpedophiles have discovered that the information superhighway can be a path to a new victim. In the last 2 years the FBI and the Customs Service have arrested 600 people on Federal charges of trading child pornography on the Internet. Even scarier still, many of these predators use cyberspace to meet children and ask them out. Earlier this year a South Houston teenager ran away to see someone she never met before. That night Edward Dub Watson sexually assaulted her. And why did she leave home to see this person? Because she talked to him on the Internet, and she thought he sounded like a nice person. This is the issue we are trying to deal with. It is sick, and it has simply got to stop. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important bill to help protect our young people from those who misuse the Internet. It has often been said that the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. This legislation says that the indifference stops right here and right now. Let us help create the world our children deserve, our future demands and our values dictate. Let us pass the Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act for our children, for our families and for our future.

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 1999 National Defense Authorization Act. I particularly want to thank Chairman Spence, Procurement Subcommittee Chairman Hunter, and Research and Development Subcommittee Chairman Weldon for their very hard work to produce a bill that meets the needs of our armed services at a time when overall defense spending is in its fourteenth year of real decline. H.R. 3616 conforms to the defense spending limits established in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. However, I share Chairman Spence's and the defense community's concerns that these funding levels are inadequate to meet the increasing number of threats to our national security. If you question the need to strengthen America's defenses, just take a look around the world: Unstable and unfriendly nations around the world are developing medium and long range missile capabilities that directly threaten U.S. forces deployed abroad, and may pose a threat to the continental U.S. in the near future. India and Pakistan are engaged in a nuclear arms race that could destabilize all of South Asia. U.S. forces are still in Bosnia, with no end to that operation in sight. And, Saddam Hussein is continuing to ignore the terms and conditions that Iraq agreed to at the end of the Persian Gulf War. Moreover, serious personnel problems are emerging throughout the services. Readiness has been sacrificed as the size of our military has been reduced. Morale and retention are low as quality of life issues are ignored or postponed in order to pay for ongoing operations. Our military is nothing without our brave service men and women, and they need to know they have this Congress' strong support. Strong support also means the best weapons available. This is why it is so important that the committee included funding for two F-16s, eight V-22s, two F-22s, and continued R&D for the multi-service, multi- role joint strike fighter. Many members may not realize that procurement of new weapons systems have declined by 70 percent over the last decade. These are the very weapons that were crucial to winning the Persian Gulf War. This is why it is essential to maintain the F-16, which is the workhorse of the Air Force's fighter fleet, and to proceed with procurement of innovative new planes like the V-22 and the F-22. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support passage of H.R. 3616, and I want to thank Chairman Spence, and the other subcommittee chairman, once again, for all of their hard work on this legislation. But, I also want to warn my colleagues that our national security cannot be taken for granted. Current defense levels cannot be sustained at the funding levels contained in the budget, and we cannot wait for a crisis situation to revisit this issue. I am looking forward to working with Chairman Spence, and other concerned members, to improve the condition of our armed forces and to ensure that our military remains the best fighting force in the world.

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Speaker's Task Force For a Drug-Free America, I am proud to support the Drug-Free Borders Week. Our Nation's drug crisis is real and it is also rising, but I have always believed that what is wrong with America can be cured by what is right with America. That is why I am so pleased to be a member of this task force. We believe the war on drugs is one that can be won, must be won, and will be won if only we have the courage to dream of a drug-free America. Where can we begin? We can begin by bringing some order to our borders. Seventy percent of all illegal drugs found in the U.S. originally cross the U.S.-Mexican border. Eradicating drugs meanings interdicting them. Interdicting them means stopping them in Brownsville, El Paso and San Diego. The Drug-Free Borders Act stiffens the penalties for those convicted of smuggling drugs over the border. The bill says to drug smugglers all over the world: If you bring drugs into this country, we will bring you to justice. This bill acknowledges that only when we close our borders to drugs can we open the doors of opportunity for our children. In short, by working together, we can save America from the scourge of drugs.

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, almost sixty years ago, the most tragic event of the 20th Century began. In its early stages, it was hard to see. But it was there. It was a knock on the door late at night. It was a forced train ride to a far away place. Shamefully and secretly, the Holocaust began. Before it was over, more than six million Jews would give their lives. Yet the impact of this tragedy did not stop there. As the author and Holocaust survivor Elie Weisel once said, ``Not all victims were Jews. But all Jews were victims.'' And so while the world lost the Holocaust victims, the Holocaust victims' impact was not lost on the world. If nothing else, this horror awakened the world to the need for a Jewish nation. For too long, Jews were adrift in the world. Without any hope. Without any home. 50 years ago this month that changed. The descendants of Abraham and David once again created a nation called Israel. Against all the odds, the Jewish nation began. And survived. And grew. And conquered. Today, Israel is a thriving nation of almost six million citizens. It remains the only democracy in the Middle East. And it continues to serve as one of America's staunchest allies in the world. As we celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the birth of the modern Israel, we can take great pride in the role America played in helping to create this beacon of hope in the Middle East. And we can draw strength from the courage, conviction, and commitment of this Democratic nation. Yes, there have been struggles. But the suffering has increased the resolve of these heroic people. Yes, there have been tragedies. But the cost of freedom has never been cheap, and the Israeli people have always been willing to meet it. And yes, there have been all kinds of setbacks. But what does not destroy Israel makes it stronger. After 50 years, the nation of Israel remains. Proud. Prepared. And free. God bless this nation, their people, and their future. And may God preserve their special place in the world and in our hearts.

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on behalf of families, victims and law- abiding citizens everywhere to support the Judicial Reform Act of 1998, and particularly to support the amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). I do so because I believe there is a time in the life of every problem when it is large enough to see and yet small enough to solve. The problem of judicial activism is one which we can see and we can also solve, if only we have the commitment and the courage to make it right. According to the Bureau of Judicial Statistics, every day this year 14 people will be murdered, 48 women raped, and 570 robbed by criminals who have already been caught, convicted, and returned to the streets on probation or early parole. Mr. Chairman, this is more than a crisis, this is the crime. I believe the first order of our legal system is to protect the innocent, and one way we can do this is to punish the guilty. But we cannot protect the innocent or punish the guilty by putting criminals back on the streets. Yet that is exactly what some judges are doing. Under the guise of legal apologetics, many judges are giving felons and drug dealers get-out-of-jail-free cards. For example, a U.S. district judge in Philadelphia imposed a prison cap that had the effect of freeing scores of felons and drug dealers who are waiting trial in the prisons. In fact, 600 prisoners a week were released for over 1 year. What did they do when they got a new lease on life? They committed 79 murders, 959 robberies, 2,215 drug-related crimes, 90 rapes, and over 1,100 assaults. This type of judicial activism is crazy, and it is changing once we pass the DeLay amendment. Mr. Chairman, the American people want criminals to serve the sentences they are given. They do not want some judge overruling the law, the prosecutors who got them the conviction, or the jurors who sentenced them. Mr. Chairman, let us not confuse our wants with our needs. We all want to give everyone a second chance, but we absolutely need to ensure that crime does not pay. I urge my colleagues to support the DeLay amendment. It is simple, it is smart, and it is a solution.

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the tax limitation amendment. Ronald Reagan once said, ``We all work for the Federal Government. It's just that some of us don't take the civil service exam.'' The Gipper was making a joke, but he was not trying to be funny. He was referring to the fact that every American works from January 1 to May 9 just to pay his Federal income taxes. That is right, for over 4 months of the year, the income of Americans goes not to their savings account, not to their families, but to the government. For too long, Washington has taken too much money from too many people. The only way to stop this is to lower taxes and keep them lowered. How can we do this? With the tax limitation amendment. This amendment simply says if you want to raise taxes, you better have a good reason, and you better be able to convince two-thirds of the people's representatives in Congress. For the critics of this amendment, I have some questions. Do you really think the American people are undertaxed? Most Americans do not think so. Do you really think a tax increase automatically equals a revenue increase? History suggests otherwise. Do you really think it is such a bad thing to make it difficult to raise taxes? After all, it is not our money we are talking about; it is the hard-earned, hard-won money of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I would remind some of our friends on the other side of the aisle that Congress does not live on taxes alone. We have reached a budget surplus by controlling spending and growing the economy. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, I support this amendment because it is true to the spirit and the soul of our Nation. Before there was an American dream, there was the dream of America; a place where free people could raise a family, work for a living, and maybe own a home. A place where free people were busy making a living by making a difference. This is a story of America. Our greatness is found not in the halls of Congress, but in the heartland of the Nation. We have solved our problems not because of government programs, but because of our good people. Mr. Speaker, just think what the American people can do and will do when we let them keep more of their own money. Just think of the history that will be written in the next century, if only we allow Americans to have the resources they need and the freedom they deserve.

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2400. By funding important transportation projects, H.R. 2400 paves the way to economic growth. This bill is the right way to move our Nation forward by providing safer roads for our citizens. It puts trust back into the Highway Trust Fund. It helps restore fairness and equity to donor States like my own State of Texas, whose citizens pay more in gasoline taxes to Washington than they get back. It is forward-thinking legislation that addresses our Nation's evolving transportation and roadway safety needs as we advance in the 21st Century. Mr. Chairman, transportation is more than just planes, trains and automobiles. It is also about people, progress and public safety. Transportation is the only item that physically links our Nation together, and the American public has accepted Federal user taxes to pay the cost of keeping our Nation's highways and bridges sound. As a strong proponent of a balanced budget, I believe it is dishonest to tax the American public for the express purpose of improving our Nation's highways only to have the Federal Government redirect some of the taxes in the Highway Trust Fund to pay for other spending. H.R. 2400 provides fairness by introducing much greater funding equity to donor States and to the Federal highway funding formula. Like under current law, my home State of Texas receives only 76 cents back for every dollar in Federal fuel taxes that are sent to Washington. This bill will give 90 cents back for every dollar funded. I support H.R. 2400.

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, the poet Carl Sandburg once wrote that ``Nothing happens unless first a dream.'' Today, as we confront the issue of drugs, I urge my colleagues to dream of a nation without drugs. Imagine schools where our children are not told it is cool to be high. Imagine streets where drug pushers are nowhere to be seen. And imagine a world where the scourge of drugs has been eliminated for good forever. The issue of drugs deserves our immediate attention. In the 1990s, teenage drug use has nearly doubled. Nearly half of all 17-year-olds in our communities today say they can buy marijuana within an hour. That is not a problem. That is a crisis. The good news is that today communities all across America are beginning to dream again and families are beginning to hope again. Why? Simply because millions of American families are more determined than ever to win the war on drugs. I believe our dream of a drug-free America can become a reality if we pursue a strategy based on simple principles. First, face the reality of drugs. Principles such as empowering families to effectuate change. And principles such as protecting the victims and punishing the criminals. Mr. Speaker, the drug crisis is real and rising. But I have always believed that what is wrong with America can be cured by all that is right with America. And that's why I am so pleased to be a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug Free America. I believe the war on drugs is one that can be won, must be won, and will be won, if only we have the courage to dream of a drug-free America. Together, we can save America from the scourge of drugs. One day at a time. One neighborhood at a time. And one child at a time.