Jim Ryun

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, today Americans are feeling the heavy burden of very high tax rates. Federal taxes have grown faster in this economy since the 1990s. At the start of the 20th century, Federal, State and local taxes cost only 8 percent of America's income. Today that figure has grown to 35 percent. Americans are paying a record share of their income to the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, the American family needs tax relief. Reducing taxes will encourage the economy to grow by providing American families with an incentive to work, save, and invest. And these are qualities that should be promoted, not held back or punished by high tax rates. That is why it is time to seriously support the tax relief and support that will be offered during the Financial Freedom Act of 1999. Not only will this bill allow Americans to receive the largest tax reduction in history, over $860 billion, it contains several provisions that will relieve heavy financial drains upon the families caused as a result of tax pressures. In particular, this bill will help make health care more affordable. It will eliminate the death tax. It will provide a 10 percent across the board tax reduction. It will grant marriage penalty relief. Mr. Speaker, let us give these hard tax-earned dollars back to the American families who have paid their fair share.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of tax relief for all Americans. I also rise today to support American seniors and I applaud this Congress for the decision it made to protect the Social Security Trust Fund. The members of this House are committed to ensuring that not one penny of tax relief will come from our seniors' hard-earned Social Security benefits. Fortunately, America is working well. Our economy is booming, and Washington is finally showing some fiscal restraint. The result is that over the next 10 years, the federal government will take in enough revenue to fund all federal programs including Social Security and Medicare while setting-aside every penny of the Social Security Trust Fund. Still, there will be nearly one trillion dollars in surplus. I believe we should give that money back to the taxpayers. The hard working men and women of this country have paid more than their fair share and created the surplus; we in Washington should not spend it. The tax relief found in the Financial Freedom Act goes a long way to promote prosperity and savings so that more Americans will be able to retire comfortably, rather than living from one Social Security check to another. Among its many provisions, this legislation reduces income tax rates by 10 percent and provides 100 percent deductability of health insurance premiums. It also phases out the estate tax so that families will be able to pass family homes, farms and businesses on to their children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this reasonable approach to tax relief that protects our seniors' health and retirement.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 308, I was not able to be here due to a delayed airline flight. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 309, I was not able to be here due to a delayed airline flight. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 310, I was not able to be here due to a delayed airline flight. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment today because I believe its strong moratorium language will enable the Department of Energy to enact the previously debated and passed intelligence programs. Mr. Chairman, I have worked with the bipartisan group that wrote the Cox-Dicks amendment, and I voted for it. I agree with the series of strong security provisions that the amendment offers. However, I also believe putting these security provisions in place cannot be achieved overnight. Until a comprehensive counterintelligence program is up and running at each laboratory, access must be limited to ensure that enhanced security is functioning properly. Mr. Chairman, as you can see, I would have had a chart just a moment ago, but it would have shown that 16 percent of our foreign visitors from sensitive countries were not given any kind of background check between 1994 and 1996. Congress needs to make sure that every effort is made in our power to limit that access until we discover the full extent of the revealed security breaches. It is pretty extensive when you look at the numbers between 1994 and 1996. Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson in a letter written today to all Members of Congress states that the Ryun amendment ``effectively kills several important national security programs at the DOE laboratories.'' However, the amendment allows the Secretary of Energy to waive the moratorium for individuals deemed necessary to our national security, so we have a waiver provision in there with the moratorium that allows if we have a national security problem allowing necessary people to come in and be able to perform in those laboratories. For each waiver, the secretary must report which individuals were admitted, along with the justification for their admittance to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees on a monthly basis. Mr. Chairman, after the two-year moratorium is complete and after consultation with the Director of the FBI, the Secretary of Energy is required then to certify in writing that the new counterintelligence programs are running effectively before giving Congress a 90-day review period for the lifting of the moratorium. This amendment puts accountability and Congressional oversight back into the security process at our nuclear labs. We must establish procedures to ensure that the theft of our national security secrets never happens again. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is important to draw the distinction here, because while the Cox report allows for a moratorium, it is a very limited moratorium. It is a 90-day moratorium. In actually reading the report by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), who is a part of this amendment, and Mr. Cox, it is very clear to me that is a very limited period of time. My amendment allows for a two-year moratorium, which is sufficient time to put a counterintelligence program in place and ensure that we genuinely protect those national secrets. That is the reason for the length. Under the Cox report it has a 90-day period with a 30-day reporting period, so conceivably at the end of 60 days there would not be a need for any further moratorium. So I believe the extension is necessary if we are going to make sure that we have a counterintelligence program in place and to ensure our national secrets. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman who just spoke, we have a waiver provision that allows for national security, to allow certain scientists to come in if necessary. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and distinguished colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, but I would like to reserve the right to close.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on both sides, please.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), my friend and colleague.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the current administration has used words like unnecessary, overdramatize, and overreaction when discussing this legislation that tightens security at our nuclear labs. Security at the Department of Energy nuclear laboratories has been a systematic problem for over two decades. To blame one agency, one administration, or one individual would certainly be inappropriate. However, the discovery of all the thefts that have taken place in our most sensitive secrets does indeed warrant prompt and decisive action. The recent security proposals by the Department of Energy will leave visitors from China, Iran, Iraq, and Russia, many of these sensitive countries, back in the status quo. Congress must enter in and make the change so that we no longer have the status quo. I ask that my colleagues vote in support of this amendment and in support of the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), who intends to vote ``yes''.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, the United States military has been stretched to the point of breaking. Congress has had to increase the President's defense budget by $50 billion over the last five years just to add to important unfunded requirements. While operational commitments around the world have increased by 300 percent since 1989, the Air Force and Army have been reduced by 45 percent, the Navy, 36 percent, and the Marines, 12 percent. Mr. Speaker, these are frightening numbers. The conflict in Kosovo has revealed to the world the questionable readiness state of the United States military. Readiness of our military equipment goes beyond the state of hardware and encompasses the quality of life of our soldiers. Mr. Speaker, the United States military has been operationally deployed 30 times in the last 8 years. To retain our skilled military personnel, operation tempos must be reduced and readiness accounts must be increased. H.R. 1401, the Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act, adds much-needed funds to vital military readiness, personnel, procurement, construction and research accounts. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1401.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999; I like to call it, the ``Put the Social Security Money Where Your Mouth is Act.'' As I travel through the Second District of Kansas, there is a lot of skepticism that we in Washington will not be able to actually keep our fingers out of the social security cookie jar. They are asking for proof, not just political rhetoric. That is why I support this bill. It requires us to talk about budget numbers and surpluses without using social security money to balance the ledger. It also goes beyond mere truth in budgeting. The bill puts enforcement mechanisms into place to prevent future Congresses from raiding social security without any accountability. Mr. Speaker, the debate on this issue cannot be more timely, considering the current debate surrounding the appropriations process. In April, we passed a budget resolution. We stood in the well of this House, in the very place that I am standing now, and we gave our word to the American people that beginning with next year's appropriations, we would no longer spend social security money. We must keep our word to the people we represent. There are some very real structural reforms that we can make that will help support and bring about the changes for social security and Medicare. This Congress must exercise the fiscal discipline to set aside this money for requirement security only. We cannot, and I repeat, we cannot commit these scarce dollars to new spending or we will never be able to make the reforms that are necessary. I trust that the leadership on both sides of the aisle will agree to move forward with the debate on these critical reform issues in the very near future. Mr. Speaker, I encourage each of my colleagues to support the Safe Deposit Box Act, and it is my hope that the other body and the President will do the same.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the taxation amendment. By 1950, Americans worked until April 3rd in order to pay for the spending of government. This year, Americans will have to work until May 11th before they are able to take home money for their families. Mr. Speaker, that's 130 days since January 1 of this year. From New Year's Day to Mother's Day, working families are working for the government, not themselves. The average hard working American household pays nearly $10,000 in federal taxes alone. This year, those taxes, paid for by hard working Americans will amount to nearly 21% of our gross domestic product. Mr. Speaker, our taxes are too high. We have a chance today, the day our taxes are due, to make a statement to the American people. By our vote today, we can tell the American people that the money they worked so hard to earn is theirs, not ours. We can tell them that they best know how to spend their money, not us. Mr. Speaker, we have already spent our children and grandchildren $5.5 trillion into debt. We've already spent their tax dollars before they have a chance to earn them. We must stop this tax and spend mentality that has dominated the last quarter of a century. Yesterday we passed a balanced budget to stop easy spending. Today, we have the opportunity to stop the easy tax increase. By requiring a two-thirds super-majority vote in both houses of Congress we ensure true accountability, true consensus, and true bipartisanship on the need for any tax increase. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for the Tax Limitation Amendment.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer an example of the United States Armed Forces continually being asked to do more with less. Within the district I represent, the Second District of the great State of Kansas, resides the 190th Air Refueling Wing of the Kansas Air National Guard. This wing is responsible for a variety of support operations around the world. In the past year, under the stress of continued deployment, the wing has sent personnel and aircraft to Iceland, to Germany, to France, to Turkey, and to Alaska as well. However, Mr. Speaker, the newest KC-135 aircraft used by the 190th was built in 1963. 1963. The oldest aircraft was built in 1956. The President's budget forces the wing to use that aircraft until 2040. That would make the existing aircraft nearly 80 years old. Mr. Speaker, would my colleagues be comfortable flying into a military confrontation in an 80-year-old aircraft? I doubt that we would. So we must not ask our young pilots to go into combat in an aircraft that would be considered antique in any other area. We must increase defense spending to give our military personnel the equipment they need to remain the world's premier military force.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, most Americans believe the United States military has the ability to defend our country against a ballistic missile attack. However today the United States does not have the capability to shoot down one single ballistic missile. Mr. Speaker, I ask why have we failed to develop this capability? Is it because the threat of a ballistic missile attack disappeared with the fall of the Soviet Union? Absolutely not. Since the end of the Cold War, the threat of a ballistic missile attack against the United States has become more serious and more difficult to anticipate. Through the continued proliferation of key missile technologies by China and Russia, rogue nations around the globe have acquired long-range ballistic missile technology that now puts the United States in jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, in 1995 the current administration did not foresee a long range ballistic missile threat for at least a decade. The administration's opinion has now changed. General Lester Lyles, the Pentagon's Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, confirmed the threat to the American people by saying this, and I quote: We are affirming the threat, it is real today and it is growing. Mr. Speaker, these are not reassuring words, and they are disturbing words that relay a disheartening message to the American people. Detractors of a missile defense system spread the rumors and the myths that a national missile defense system would cost too much to deploy. It has cost this administration an estimated $19 billion over 6 years to support its peacekeeping missions. Compare that to the estimated $10 billion that it will cost the United States over the next 6 years to protect American lives from a long-range ballistic missile attack. Mr. Speaker, China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya have all acquired the technology to deploy ballistic missiles against the United States. H.R. 4 is the first step that must be taken if the United States wishes to protect its population against an existing ballistic missile threat. I commend the diligent work done by my colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, United States armed forces are being stretched too thin. They've been asked to take on peacekeeping missions in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and now possibly Kosovo. President Clinton told Congress and the nation that the United States' deployment to Bosnia in 1995 would be over in one year. However, the mission in Bosnia has continued for four years with no strategic exit plan in sight and at a cost to the United States of $10 billion. Not only are these peacekeeping missions costly, but they are degrading the overall readiness of our fighting force. Mr. Chairman, 2,200 troops from the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), currently stationed aboard Navy ships in the Mediterranean, will be part of the initial force moving into Kosovo as soon as an agreement is reached between the ethnic Albanians and the Serbian government. However, that unit is headed into its final month of a six-month deployment and scheduled to be home in North Carolina by May 13th. to be home by that time, the unit will have to leave Kosovo no later than mid-April. Mr. Chairman, that leaves the Administration with limited operations, the most prominent one being extending the length of the unit's deployment. How long will this unit be in Kosovo? How much longer will they be away from their families, beyond their already served six month deployment? Mr. Chairman, for America's armed forces to sustain this Administrations' peacekeeping pace, the force must be augmented by an increased amount of part-time Reserve and National Guard personnel. Not only are Reserve and National Guard personnel being forced to leave their families more often, but they are also losing an increased amount of training and technical knowledge from their careers here in the United States. These military personnel are being forced to explain open-ended deployments to their employers who are becoming less willing to continually lose their skilled employees. Mr. Chairman, we will not be able to keep these individuals in the Reserves and National Guard if we continue to send them into peacekeeping situations around the globe. In the future, when Reserve and National Guard personnel have the opportunity to leave military service, they will choose their family's quality of life and their career over serving our country. Mr. Chairman, a Kosovo peacekeeping mission will place a heavy burden on America's armed forces compromising their readiness levels, the quality of life of their families, and the national security of the United States. We cannot continue to ask our military to do more with less. Mr. Chairman, before the Administration decides to deploy troops to Kosovo, I ask that they lay out their plan in detail to Congress. The Administration should not be able to put the men and women of our armed forces in harm's way without explaining their reasons for doing so.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, the United States Armed Forces are being stretched too thin. They have been asked to take on peacekeeping missions in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and now possibly Kosovo. President Clinton told Congress and the Nation that the United States deployment to Bosnia in 1995 would be over in 1 year. However, the mission in Bosnia has continued for 4 years with no strategic exit plan in sight and, at a cost to the United States at $10 billion, not only are their peacekeeping missions costly, but they are degrading to the overall readiness of our fighting forces. Mr. Chairman, 2,200 troops from the 24th Marine expeditionary unit currently stationed aboard the Navy ships in the Mediterranean will be part of the initial force moving into Kosovo as soon as an agreement is reached between ethnic Albanians and the Serbian government. However that unit is headed into its final month of a 6-month deployment and scheduled to be home in North Carolina by May 1. To be home by that time the unit will have to leave Kosovo no later than mid April. Mr. Chairman, that leaves the administration with limited options, the most prominent one being extending the length of the unit's deployment. How long will this unit be there? How much longer will they be away from their families and beyond their expected 6-month deployment? Mr. Chairman, for America's Armed Forces to sustain this administration's peacekeeping pace the forces must be augmented by an increased amount of part-time Reserve and National Guard personnel. Not only are Reserve and National Guard personnel being forced to leave their families more often, but they are also being asked to increase the amount of time and technical knowledge taken away from their careers here in the United States. These military personnel are being forced to explain open end deployments to their employers who are becoming less willing to continually lose their skilled employees. Mr. Chairman, to be able to keep these individuals in the Reserve and National Guard we must continue to send them into peacekeeping situations around the globe. In the future, when the Reserve and National Guard personnel have the opportunity to leave military service, they will choose their family quality of life and their career over serving their country. A Kosovo peacekeeping mission will place a heavy burden on America's Armed Forces and compromise their readiness levels, the quality of life of their families and the national security of the United States. We cannot and must not continue to ask our military to do more with less. Mr. Chairman, before the administration decides to deploy troops to Kosovo, I ask that they lay out their plan and details to Congress. Mr. Chairman, before the Administration decides to deploy troops to Kosovo, I ask that they lay out their plan in detail to Congress. The administration should not be able to put the men and women of our armed forces in harm's way without explaining their reasons for doing so.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add some points with regard to national defense, offer an example of how our armed forces are continuously being asked to do more with less. Within the district that I represent, which is the Second District of Kansas, resides the 190th Air Refueling Wing of the Kansas Air National Guard. Now, this Wing is responsible for a variety of support operations, including air refueling of operations worldwide, support of the no-fly zones in Iraq, organizing disaster and humanitarian relief and various other community outreach programs. In the past year, under the stress of continued deployments, the Wing has sent personnel and aircraft to various places such as Iceland, Germany, France, Turkey and to Alaska. However, Mr. Speaker, the newest KC-130 aircraft used by the 190th was built in 1963. The oldest aircraft was built in 1956. The President's budget forces this Wing that has extensive activities around the world to use these aircraft until the year 2040. That would make the existing aircraft 80 years old. Now, I have had the privilege of addressing a panel of experts during a hearing in the Committee on Armed Services, and I asked them the question then, would you feel comfortable flying an 80 year old aircraft? In fact, would you feel comfortable putting your son or daughter in that particular aircraft and asking them to fly? They gave me the same answer if I had put one of my sons or daughters in there. No, they did not feel comfortable with that. We must make that change. We must not ask our brave pilots to go into combat into aircraft that would be considered antiques in any other area. We must increase defense spending to give our military personnel the equipment they need to remain the world's premier military force. So I know there is much we need to do.

Mr. RYUN

Mr. RYUN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the four articles of impeachment. Mr. Speaker, regretfully I rise today to speak in favor of the Impeachment of the President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton. Impeachment and removal of the President was the remedy given to Congress to address a chief executive who attacked the Constitution and resulting rule of law that governs our society. The Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton deserve serious consideration because they arose out of the efforts of the President to delay, deny, impede and obstruct (and later to cover-up that obstruction) the fair administration of justice in a federal civil rights sexual harassment claim. The President did so for personal exoneration and pecuniary gain. These actions constitute a direct attack on the Judiciary, the third branch of government set forth in our Constitution. Specifically, the President is charged with wilfully lying under oath on four specific occasions: on December 17, 1997, in response to written questions in a federal civil rights action; on January 17, 1998, in a deposition for a federal civil rights action; on August 17, 1998, in testimony before a federal criminal grand jury; and on November 27, 1998, in sworn responses to the House Judiciary Committee. The President is also charged with obstructing justice in a federal civil rights action during December 1997 and January 1998. I prayerfully considered each article and the supporting evidence. I have come to the conclusion that under my duties set forth by the Constitution, with conscience as my guide, I must vote in favor of Impeachment because there is clearer and convincing evidence that the President committed these offenses and should stand trial on these charges in the Senate. The Senate should be given the opportunity to exercise its Constitutional responsibility and hear evidence from both sides to determine whether the President should be convicted and removed from office. If we choose to ignore these charges, we would set a dangerous precedent that the President of the United States, the chief law enforcement officer, may wilfully ignore the rule of law that governs our society. The ruler cannot be above the rule of law. This is a somber time for our country. None of us, as citizens of these great United States, wants to see the Presidency under attack. Unfortunately, the attack against this Presidency came from within, and President Clinton must be held accountable for his actions. Mr. Speaker, I ask each Member of this House of Representatives to put partisanship aside, to look at the law, to look at the evidence, and to vote in the way our Foundering Fathers intended when they crafted our Constitution.