Jim Ryun

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, flight delays and cancellations from Chicago yesterday June 26th caused me to be absent for several roll call votes. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on roll call vote 322, no on roll call vote 323, yes on roll call vote 324, yes on roll call vote 325, yes on roll call vote 326 and yes on roll call vote 327.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the House Committee on Armed Services does not oppose this. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the Chairman of the National Security Special Oversight Panel of the Department of Energy Reorganization, who has been a leader in this effort, watching over our nuclear secrets.

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

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

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, the National Nuclear Secret Administration was put in place by this Congress to be an independent agency within the Department of Energy; their sole purpose was to secure our most vital national nuclear secrets. My amendment does one simple thing, it requires the Secretary of the Energy to properly implement the National Nuclear Security Administration. It does so by prohibiting the practice of dual hatting that the Secretary of Energy engaged in to circumvent the law that this Congress passed and that the President signed last year. Dual hatting involves the giving of titles and responsibility for the National Nuclear Security Administration to current employees of the Department of Energy, thereby removing the independent status of the agency. Removing dual hatting is an idea that the Committee on Appropriations was leading toward in its own report. The report says that the committee encourages the new administrator and deputy administrator for defense programs to review the urgency for organization and management changes in the NNSA headquarters and field structure. It goes on to say that simply renaming the same employees to the same organizational structure, the same management culture will not address the fundamental program that Congress sought to address by creating this new entity. Finally, the committee strongly urges the new administrator and deputy administrator to use this opportunity to make bold and strategic improvements. Mr. Chairman, I, too, believe that we should not focus on the recent security failures within the current nuclear laboratories complex. Instead, I believe we should focus on strengthening the Department of Energy's ability to protect this Nation's national security. We must manage the risks associated with the development of the nuclear technology. Mr. Chairman, the other body recently approved a new administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration. I urge my colleagues to join me and give him the tools needed to effectively protect our Nation's most vital nuclear secrets. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4601, the Debt Reduction and Reconciliation Act of 2000. More importantly, I rise in support of paying down $14 billion of the debt that will otherwise be left to our children and grandchildren. The fiscal restraint we can show today by passing this legislation is critical to avoiding the tax and spend trap that brought us into deficit in the first place. Just five years ago, many in Washington, including the President, did not believe we could balance the budget by the year 2005, let alone 2002 or, as it turned out, 1998. But with the help of the American people and a strong economy, we did it. Last year, we made another commitment--to balance the federal budget without spending one penny of the Social Security surplus in the year 2000. Once again, we were able to accomplish that goal one-year ahead of schedule. Now, we have a new challenge--to find a way to pay back the mortgage of federal debt that we owe rather than leaving it to generations to come. We want to pay down the publicly held debt by 2013. Looking back at our track record, I think we can do it--maybe even ahead of schedule. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to join this effort to eliminate the publicly held debt and pass this bill today with an overwhelmingly, bi-partisan vote.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to express my thanks to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for bringing this bill before the Committee on International Relations and to the House floor today. House Resolution 259 recognizes the goals and ideals of the modern Olympic movement as propounded by Pierre de Coubertain, particularly the spread of a better and more peaceful world through sports. On June 23, the Olympic community will recognize this anniversary, so the timing of this bill on the House floor today could not be better. Mr. Speaker, in September, millions of Americans will gather around their televisions to watch our Olympians compete in Sydney. Who among us can forget the amazing feats of the Olympians throughout the years. While each of us has our own memories of the greatest Olympic moment, the Olympics gives this Nation the collective sense of oneness and pride that many times is lost in the worlds of professional sports and business and politics. Through the years, U.S. athletes have not only been outstanding standard-bearers of the Olympic ideal, but they have consistently been among the world's best in the athletic arena. I had the distinct privilege to represent my country three times in the Olympic games. Each experience was different, but each represented the opportunity to put on the uniform that read USA. Not long before I attempted to qualify for the 1964 games in Tokyo, I was a 17-year-old high school student who did not really know what the Olympic games were all about. While many remember the 1968 games in Mexico City, the unrest and the civil rights movement, I also remember the countless world records and Olympic records set during the track and field competition. In 1972, I watched in horror as Israeli athletes tragically lost their lives to the hands of terrorists. The games did go on, most importantly to show that terrorists would not break the spirit of the Olympic ideal of a more peaceful world. In 1972, I also had a personal tragedy as the favorite in the 1500 meters for the United States; and with the world watching, I was tripped and fell and was not knocked out of the competition. I cannot begin to describe the anger and disappointment I felt at that moment. However, I no longer feel that was a tragedy. Rather, I point to that event as a turning point that taught me there was more to life than running. It brought to new life the importance of God and family in my life. Every Olympian has their own stories to overcoming long odds and personal triumph, regardless of whether they stood on the podium and received a medal. It is my honor to stand on the House floor in their place. Mr. Speaker, as we look toward the next century of the Olympic Games, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring our Olympic athletes and coaches along with their families and supporters.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, when our time on Earth is done, we want to know that our families and loved ones have been provided for and protected; we want to know that our hard work and diligence over the years will continue to positively affect those that we really care about. Those who live the American dream, are successful in their profession, and have the ability to save a little money want to pass along the fruits of their labors on to their survivors. In Kansas and throughout the country, our farmers and business owners are being punished by the current tax system by following that dream. The current death tax is in fact killing our family farms and businesses. Less and less farmland and fewer and fewer businesses are being passed along to our children and grandchildren due to this unnecessary and unjust tax. It has been said that the deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded. If we look back at history, we are reminded that the unfair taxation triggered the revolution of 1776. We fought a war for freedom from such taxes. Mr. Speaker, we must cast a vote to end this oppressive taxation that falls heaviest on those who can least afford to pay it. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me to vote yes on the rule and vote yes on H.R. 8.

Mr. RYUN

Mr. RYUN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, May 22, I was unavoidably detained and was not present for rollcall vote Nos. 211, 212, and 213. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on the rollcall No. 211, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 212, and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 213.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4205, the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act. I would like to thank Chairman Spence and Chairman Hefley for including my amendment as part of the en bloc amendments, scheduled for discussion and vote later today. Mr. Chairman, over one thousand World War II veterans die every day. A final honor bestowed upon these veterans and their families is burial at a military or veterans cemetery. My amendment will enable the Secretary of the Army and the Kansas Commission on Veterans Affairs to agree to a transfer of property at Fort Riley, Kansas for the purpose of establishing a State-constructed, operated and maintained veterans cemetery. Mr. Chairman, Congress is here to work for the people of the United States. The veterans organizations of the 2nd District of Kansas have worked hard to establish support both within the state and here in Washington, D.C. to support veterans that have sacrificed for our freedoms. I ask my colleagues to support the passage of the en bloc amendments and continued support for final passage of H.R. 4205.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, last evening I was unavoidably detained and was not present for rollcall votes 111-114. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote 111, ``yes'' on rollcall vote 112, ``yes'' on rollcall vote 113 and ``no'' on rollcall vote 114.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3660, the partial-birth abortion ban. My position on this legislation is based on my concern for the health and safety of both the mother and the preborn child. The medical value of the procedure in question is often misrepresented. The truth is that this procedure poses a greater risk to the mother's health than a full-term delivery. Studies have only begun to measure the physical, the psychological, and the emotional tolls abortions take on women. We must not be fooled by the claims that partial-birth abortions are necessary to save lives. The truth is that the members of the American Medical Association have yet to find a single case where this procedure is medically necessary. In the words of former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, ``In no way can I twist my mind to see that the partial birth, and then destruction, of the unborn child before the head is born is a medical necessity for the mother.'' According to the abortion industry itself, the vast majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on completely healthy mothers and healthy babies. In fact, many of the preborn children aborted using this procedure would have a really realistic chance of survival outside of the womb. Thousands of infants are dying a painful, gruesome death every year. We have a grave responsibility to protect them from this inhumane treatment. I urge my colleagues to join me in eliminating this method of execution. The President, by his consistent vetoes, has demonstrated that he is out of step with the vast majority of Americans who have stated their opposition to this procedure. Mr. Speaker, we must demonstrate our commitment to the wishes of the American people by passing this legislation at this time in accordance with the wishes of the American people. I urge the President to sign this particular ban.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the accountability and responsibility to stop wasteful spending and mismanagement of wildlife and sport fishing funds. The impropriety of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in spending taxpayer dollars for slush funds and unauthorized programs and projects is an abuse that must come to a stop. The Service has failed to return leftover funds to the States for conservation purposes, funds paid by sportsmen and sportswomen. Even worse, the General Accounting Office has acknowledged that in its 106 years of experience, this is what it said, it said ``this is, if not the worst, one of the worst managed programs.'' That is a quote that they have given, and that is the way they feel. And I believe that that is accurate. We have an opportunity to provide oversight to a program in desperate need of reform. The Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act would return honesty and responsibility to the administration of the programs under the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell- Johnson Acts. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this measure that not only reduces bureaucracies but prevents waste, fraud, and abuse.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this nation's national security. Our United States military service Chiefs, under the current Administration, have consistently been forced to fund their services with inadequate budgets. This amendment will give our military service Chiefs the funding levels needed to succeed in supporting their troops and protecting this nation's national security interests. Mr. Chairman, according to recent reports, our military has been deployed on 48 overseas missions in the 1990s, costing $30 billion and costing far more than that in worn-out equipment and personnel. This increase in Operations Tempo, coupled with reduced defense budgets, has put increased strain not only on military equipment but also on the structure of the military family. Military personnel, often times at the request of their family, are choosing to leave the service at alarmingly high rates and our ability to recruit young people of this nation to serve in the military has fallen dramatically. As a Congress, we need to ensure that our military has the means to recruit, retain, equip and train the strongest and best-trained force in the world. Mr. Chairman, military families consistently cite problems with the military health care system and reductions in quality of housing as reasons for leaving military service. This amendment will direct close to $1 billion towards improving military quality of life with reduced out-of-pocket housing expenses and increased funding for the Defense Health Program. Mr. Chairman, the funding levels in this amendment have been driven by what the military service Chiefs have identified as their top unfunded requirements. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and give our quality military personnel the quality of care, support and equipment they need to achieve their goals.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Republican budget. I want to direct my focus to defense and to education in particular, because the Republican budget does support our military families, those that have been suffering from low morale. The quality of life in the military has been allowed to fall to historic lows over the last 8 years while deployments have risen to historic highs. The Republicans began to reverse this trend last year by following through with the first real dollar increases in defense in the last 15 years, and this year we will do it again. We are going to make those changes. I want to talk specifically about an issue that not only affects our Nation's defense but our education as well, and that is impact aid. Impact Aid provides funding to educate children of our military personnel. Impact Aid gives parents that are serving in uniforms the assurance that their children are being educated while they are deployed throughout the world. The fine men and women of our Armed Services deserve the assurance that while they are away doing their job their children are being taken care of. The Clinton-Gore budget wants to cut the funding by 16 percent this next year while providing for an overall increase in education spending. That cut is a slap in the face to the parents who are serving in the uniforms that serve our country. The Clinton-Gore budget wants to cut education programs like Impact Aid that provide flexibility in and local control of education. Instead, it wants to increase the number of Federal mandates that are often left unfunded. Republicans want to invest in education by prioritizing their funding in a way that directly benefits children and allows local educators to make those decisions as to how that money is spent; whether it is in a classroom, whether it is for teachers, or perhaps new computers. The Republican budget rejects new Federal mandates and prioritizes the best needs for our children. I urge adoption of the Republican budget.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a member of the Committee on the Budget who believes we can meet not only spending caps, but we can pay down public debt, and we can do better for our defense as well as provide for tax relief to our working families. This substitute provides enough tax relief to eliminate the marriage penalty, to provide greater access to health care, to expand choice in education, to give seniors relief by repealing the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits, and to give small businesses tax relief to keep our economy moving forward and to end the unfair death tax that penalizes savings. Unfortunately, there are those on the other side that would like to call this risky and irresponsible. I ask them to talk to the hard- working people of my district in Kansas who believe that they should have relief, and ask them also to tell this to the hard-working people in their district who deserve to have some additional tax relief. As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I have also seen the effects on morale caused by the years of neglect of our fine military personnel by this present administration. We have military families that are on food stamps; one family member is often deployed throughout the world on endless peacekeeping missions, with little time to spend at home. And there has been a failure to provide new equipment and spare parts as well as quality health services. This resulted in a dangerously low readiness, as well as serious problems with regard to recruiting and retention. We should never, never forget that providing for the common defense of our country is our first duty. For those who say this substitute cannot be done, I say you have not tried hard enough. I urge my colleagues to support the CATs substitute.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, we should stop the practice of using human fetal tissue for research and for commerce, and we should certainly stop subsidizing its industry. Although researchers profess to have the best intentions, this utilitarian view of human life cheapens the lives and dignity of all human beings. There has been substantial evidence to prove that some profit-oriented physicians have induced women to get abortions with the goal of trafficking those body parts of the deceased. Private companies, institutions, and even public universities are buying and selling baby organs. This business of trafficking human flesh includes order forms for specific organs, detailed dissection orders, graphic brochures, and price lists for whole-body parts. I feel that it is time to stop this appalling practice of human embryo and fetal tissue experimentation, and continue our legal role as protectors and healers of the born and pre-born. To make the destruction of our children's bodies into a money-making business is horrific and unconscionable and it must stop.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the 125,000 married people in the Second District of Kansas who are adversely affected by the marriage tax penalty. Kansas couples have been penalized just for walking down the aisle and saying, ``I do.'' As I've traveled across my district over the past three years and held town meetings, each individual I have explained this penalty to has said it is wrong. They are right, it is wrong, and today I can tell them that we finally did something about it. Returning $1,000 to the average working couple in Kansas will make a real difference in their lives. It may allow them to save for their children's college education, take a family vacation or make long overdue home improvements. More importantly, returning this tax overpayment will allow them to spend their money in a way that will most benefit their families. Mr. Speaker, we can look forward to as much as $1.8 billion in non- Social Security budget surpluses over the next 10 years. This bill will give back just 10% of the total projected non-Social Security surplus. I think we can say with confidence that the federal government is in a sound financial position to return some of the taxpayers hard-earned money. A yes vote on this important bill is not only fiscally sound, it will end the unfair practice of taxing the marriage license, and will put in place a tax policy that encourages marriage and families. Vote yes on the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I have heard over and over from the health care professionals and the Medicare patients in the 2nd District of Kansas about how devastating the unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act have been on the Medicare system. The BBA's attempt to reduce waste and fraud and prolong the life of Medicare by reducing reimbursements has unfortunately resulted in less care per patient, especially in rural Kansas. From 1997 to 1998 the average reimbursement per patient in Kansas dropped from $4,060 to $2,642 and the average number of visits per patient dropped from 65 to 42. We can be certain that these figures do not reflect a sudden dramatic increase in healthy seniors. Too many seniors have watched their rural hospital or home health clinic close or are denied care as a result of the budget cuts. In Kansas alone, 60 Home Health Agencies have closed their doors over the last two years. It's time for us to reverse the Balanced Budget Act's death sentence on Medicare and the Health Care Financing Administration's poor interpretation of the Act. I was particularly pleased when Chairman Thomas, the author of this bill, came to Kansas to hear first hand the concerns of health care providers in my district. I know the Chairman took these concerns and so many others from around the country into consideration when he drafted this legislation. The Medicare Balanced Budget Refinement Act is a positive step toward halting the closing of home health agencies and rural hospitals and will ensure greater patient access to quality care. Particularly significant to keeping the doors of home health agencies open is the delay of the 15% payment reduction until a year after implementation of the prospective payment system. The Act also recognizes the paperwork burden the OASIS questionnaire places on nurses and agency staff and provides a $10 payment for each patient requiring this paperwork. The Medicare cuts for home health agencies were deep, and we cannot continue to expect agencies to do more with less. More importantly, many seniors will be able to remain in their homes rather than checking into hospitals and nursing homes. Small rural hospitals have also suffered from the BBA as their limited budgets have been stretched thin. The Medicare Balanced Budget Refinement Act assists small rural hospitals with the cost of transition to the new prospective payment system through the availability of up to $50,000 in grants to purchase computers, train staff and cover other cost associated with the transition. The Act eliminates the requirement for states to review the need for swing beds through the Certificate of Need (CON) process. It also eliminates the 5 constraints on length of stay providing flexibility for hospitals with under 100 beds to participate more extensively in the Medicare swing bed program. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the Balanced Budget Act in 1997 largely because of the negative impact it would have on rural health care. I support H.R. 3075 because it goes a long way to correct the problems with the current system.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Madam Speaker, Payne Stewart's tragic death shocked the United States and the world just 2 short weeks ago. Today, the House honors him in a fitting tribute to his life. One does not have to be a golfer to know who Payne Stewart was. While his talent and distinctive style made him stand out on the course, his love of family and love of God, involvement in his community made him stand out as a wonderful human being. Payne Stewart's accomplishments speak for themselves. He was a member of five Ryder Cup teams, including September's winning team. He won 11 professional tournaments in the United States, including three major golf championships. He was having his best year on the tour; and in the last golf ranking, he was ranked eighth in the world. Just a few years ago, some golf experts began to write him off, that he was not going to be able to make it. They speculated his career was all but over after a number of years in the PGA without a lot of success. However, after winning this year's U.S. Open, which capped a 4-year return to the top of the golfing world, Payne gave insight into the real reason behind his turnaround. He spoke of a renewed faith in God that had given him inner peace and had led to a stronger family life. Payne Stewart also gave generously of his time and money to charity causes. He was actively involved in the First Baptist Church in Orlando, Florida. The Reverend Jim Henry, who was one of his pastors, said this of Payne, ``He was a wonderful Christian who had Christ in his life and somehow in his death.'' He was also a good neighbor. One of his neighbors summed it up by saying, ``Payne was an unbelievable person.'' Recent news reports said that he was even well-known among his neighborhood for fixing pancakes after his children's sleep-overs. Parents and fathers should be proud of that, and Payne was certainly a good example. In the world of sports today, Payne Stewart was every bit of a role model. May God grant us many more Payne Stewarts. By honoring him today, we express our thanks for his example, and we offer our prayers and condolences to his family for their loss.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1652, a bill to designate the Old Executive Office Building the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building. Dwight D. Eisenhower was a man that garnered respect and admiration from all those he came in contact with. Eisenhower excelled in everything, from high school sports in Abilene, Kansas, to the Supreme Commander of the Normandy invasion in 1944, and as two-term President of the United States. General Eisenhower's 4-decade, five-star military career included distinguished assignments as the chief military aid to the Chief of Staff of the Army, Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Forces in North Africa, Supreme Commander of the 1944 invasion of Normandy, Chief of Staff of the Army and Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces. Mr. Speaker, in his 8 years as President, Eisenhower's major achievements included sponsoring and signing the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 that established the current interstate highway system, ending the Korean War by persuading the Chinese to accept a mutual peace agreement, promoting peace during Cold War crises that may have broken the rational will of other Presidents, and something that this Congress is currently negotiating, he balanced the Federal budget three different times. Dwight D. Eisenhower served this country with sacrifices in war and his triumphs as President. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass S. 1652 and name the Old Executive Office Building after a man that deserves to be honored and remembered for his bravery and commitment to the freedoms of the United States.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for his leadership on this most important issue. Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks in this chamber, we have debated so many issues related to religious liberties. Opponents of public religious expression from across the aisle were very vocal in their opposition. It was difficult to listen to them rewrite history and the Constitution. Consider, for example, the assertions that they made when we were debating the Juvenile Justice bill shortly after the Littleton tragedy. One of the amendments to that bill offered by the gentleman that we just heard from recently who represents Littleton allowed the schools to erect memorials in honor of the slain and permitted religious symbols or sayings to be included in these memorials if desired by the citizens. That identical amendment, I want to say that again, this particular identical amendment already passed the Senate by an overwhelming majority of 85-13. That amendment contained Congressional findings stating, based on our investigation of the issue, that to include a religious symbol or saying in a public display would not violate the Constitutional prohibition against the establishment of religion. This Congressional finding caused opponents on the other side of the aisle to set forth a startling, dangerous document. They said, ``It is the Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution and says what the Constitution means. It is not the province of Congress.'' This is a very dangerous doctrine. If this doctrine is true, then this body is no longer an independent branch of Government, it has become a sub-branch of the Judiciary. In fact, if this doctrine is true, we should pass no law until we get prior approval from those who are apparently our bosses, the Judiciary. Are my colleagues proposing we should consult the Judiciary before we waste time passing a law with which they might disagree? Incredibly, this doctrine was set forth in the 1930s and 1940s by Charles Evans Hughes, who is the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Chief Justice Hughes declared, ``We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say that it is.'' Let me say that again. ``We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say that it is.'' His statement properly raised a fire storm at the time and was soundly refuted. It is no less dangerous today simply because it has been revived by those across the aisle. It is unbelievable to me that any Member of this body would support that particular doctrine. If the doctrine reported by those on the other side of the aisle is true that only 940 individuals in the Judiciary can understand and interpret the Constitution, then we should replace the teaching of the Constitution in our schools with the teaching of the decisions of the Judiciary. And although I say this facetiously, regrettably, this is already happening. A former member of this body out of the State of Georgia was shocked to find that the Government textbooks used in his State published by one of the national curriculum publishers had actually replaced the original words of the Bill of Rights with the court's interpretation of the Bill of Rights. If those on the other side of the aisle are right and only the Judiciary can understand and interpret the meaning of the Constitution, then the recommendations by Founding Father John Jay should be considered subversive. John Jay, coauthor of the Federalist Papers and who has been mentioned many times this evening already, who was one of the three men most responsible for the adoption of the Constitution, and the other original chief justices of the Supreme Court, he admonished America and he said, ``Every citizen ought to diligently read and study the Constitution of his country. By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated and be the better prepared to defend and assert them.'' Interestingly, this dangerous doctrine is not a new doctrine. Two hundred years ago, it was rejected by every one of the early statesmen who gave us this government. In fact, those who wrote the Constitution declared the doctrine exactly the opposite of what our opposing colleagues are setting forth. For example, they taught that the opinion of Congress was more important than the opinion of the Judiciary. For example, in the Federalist Papers, Federalist Paper 51, it declares this, under the Constitution, and I quote: ``The Legislative authority necessarily predominates.'' Let me read from the Federalist Paper 78. It declares this, and I quote: ``The Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.'' These declarations in the Federalist Papers were representative of the widespread feeling of those who gave us the Constitution. As an even further example at the Constitutional Convention, delegate Luther Martin declared, and I quote again, ``Knowledge cannot be presumed to belong in a higher degree to the judges than to the legislature.'' There are many more examples, but the point is established: the authors of the Constitution believed, and taught, that Congress had a responsibility to interpret the meaning of the Constitution for itself. So where did our learned colleagues on the other side of the aisle come up with this radical doctrine that only unelected attorneys are capable of correctly interpreting the Constitution? They said, and I quote, ``Everybody learns this the first week in constitutional law in law school or college.'' Great. Our law schools. Foxes guarding the henhouse. Should we really trust lawyers who teach students that only other lawyers, and especially lawyers that are on the Federal court, can interpret the Constitution? While the doctrine proposed by those on the other side of the aisle is a startlingly dangerous doctrine, I can understand why they propose it. It is evident in our recent debates on religious liberties. Some clearly do not like the plain, unambiguous words of the Constitution that guarantees the free exercise of religion. They do like, however, the decisions reached by a judiciary that has become increasingly hostile towards students and citizens and communities who simply want to express their religious faith. Many on the other side of the aisle are simply choosing the source with whom they agree, and, unfortunately, it is not the Constitution. For my part, I will continue to read and study and interpret the actual document and when the Constitution explicitly declares that citizens are guaranteed the free exercise of religion, I will support those citizens' rights to express their religious faith publicly. I choose to support the Constitution the way it was written rather than the way a bunch of constitutional revisionists want it to read.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, as the Declaration of Independence declares, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'' I believe that one thing that makes America great is our defense of those incapable of defending themselves. Proverbs admonishes us to ``Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves'' (31:8). It still is our duty to stand up for the weaker members of our society. Tragically, under current federal law there are no consequences for injury or death to an unborn child. Where is the justice for the smallest and most helpless members of our society? The intentional attack on a mother and her baby requires that justice be served. Our justice system is based on the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty. The attacker must take responsibility for his actions and make restitution to his victims. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would make the offense to the baby a separate crime because it's a separate person. In this situation there are two victims and both of their lives should receive equal recompense under federal law. Twenty-four states already have laws that recognize the unborn child as a victim. It is time that we agree with nearly half the states and provide grieving parents recognition of their loss. Mr. Chairman, with the passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act we will be able to proudly say we are ``one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all''.

Mr RYUN of Kansas

Mr RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, American military personnel and their families are making great sacrifices to protect the freedoms of this nation. The increased pace of peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, combined with declining defense budgets, is severely degrading the quality-of-life of our military personnel. Mr. Speaker, the current decline in the military's ability to recruit and retain quality personnel can be directly attributed to the armed forces' declining quality-of-life. S. 1059, the Fiscal Year 2000 national Defense Authorization Act Conference report attacks the quality-of-life problems of today's military personnel by: Providing a 4.8 percent across-the-board pay raise. Improving retirement benefits by reforming and enhancing the retirement pay benefit. Initiating a Thrift Savings Plan for active duty and reserve personnel. Reducing out-of-pocket costs for housing by adding $225 million to the basic allowance for housing (BAH) account. Ensuring that military personnel live and work in quality facilities by adding over $3 billion to the President's underfunded military construction programs. Mr. Speaker, America's military personnel and their families are suffering from too many years of ``doing more with less.'' Congress must help remove the pressures felt by America's military personnel who put their lives on the line everyday to protect this nation's freedoms. I urge my colleagues to vote Yes on the Conference Report to S. 1059.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to offer my support for the Smith amendment, and ask that my colleagues vote for the Foreign Families Protection Amendment. Mr. Chairman, until its removal in 1993 by President Clinton, the Mexico City Policy prevented foreign organizations from using American tax dollars to perform or encourage the termination of a child's life through abortion. Since 1993, over three billion American taxpayer dollars have been given to international population control groups. Many of these organizations provide and promote abortions, considering abortions a reasonable and convenient means to achieve their objective. That is why I support the Foreign Families Protection Amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. The amendment renews the Mexico City Policy that was in effect from 1984 to 1992. The Amendment will also prohibit funds from being given to organizations which lobby to change abortion laws in other countries. In keeping with my responsibility to uphold the Constitution, I cannot agree to lend U.S. financial support to organizations in other countries that seek to deny others their inalienable right to life. I would urge my colleagues to search their consciences and protect the rights of unborn children who have no voice to speak for themselves. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the Foreign Families Protection Amendment.