Jim Ryun

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I have very fond memories of Floyd Spence. As a freshman on the Committee on Armed Services looking for direction, he was always there as a friend, and he was willing to give counsel. I particularly remember when I asked him to come to Fort Riley in my district to visit the soldiers and see the installation and meet the people. As I visit with people back in the district, they still remember him as being very warm, very committed, very sincere, and a great leader. Mr. Speaker, most people have a birthday every year in their life just to celebrate life, but the one thing that always interested me with Mr. Spence was, the Committee on Armed Services had a birthday to celebrate his lungs because he had been given a special gift as a result of complications he had in his life. My family and I loved him very much. He was always very kind to them. He was willing to give time whenever he could provide it. He was a man who had knew he had been given a great gift from God. He fought for what was right for this country, even if it meant going against Members of his own party because he had that kind of commitment. Debbie was a great contribution to his life. Mr. Speaker, I want to finish by saying, Mr. Spence, will be missed, and we thank him very much for his great contributions to this great Nation.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present on July 23, 2001 to cast recorded votes for Rollcall No. 257, 258 and 259. If I had been present, I would have voted yea on No. 257, 258 and 259.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues have recently called for Federal funding to destroy human embryos for research. They cite the fact that stem cells obtained from these embryos could give life. They are forgetting two vital facts: One, stem cells can be acquired from adults; and two, these human embryos are life and deserve our care and protection. There are thousands of embryos in existence, each one waiting in what some called frozen orphanages for a chance at life. For them, I support alternatives that do not destroy them, alternatives like Snowflake Adoption Program. Embryo adoption affirms life while providing a family the opportunity to welcome a child into their family. Some say these human embryos can give life, if only we could use Federal funds to destroy them. We must remember that these embryos are already life, and I applaud the Snowflakes Adoption Program for giving many of them a chance.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of ethical stem cell research and in opposition to the destruction of human life. I firmly believe that we have a responsibility to respect and protect life at every stage. The issue we face is not whether we allow this research. Both the ethical adult stem cell research that I support and the controversial embryonic research will continue on. However, we must now decide if we are going to force taxpayers to fund this controversial embryonic research. Allocating Federal dollars for research that retires destruction of human embryos would require many Americans to fund something that they morally oppose. I urge the President and my colleagues to join me in supporting responsible and ethical stem cell research and standing for what is right and moving ahead with this research.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, President Bush has outlined what I think is a sound energy policy that is both forward thinking and sensible, but opponents of his plan sound like a broken record, accusing the President of being anti-environment. The assertion that we must choose between sound energy policy and healthy environment is simply not true. As an example, we need to look no further than the clean air standards set up in the early nineties. Regulations for fuel resulted in refineries using additives that produced clean air, but polluted the groundwater. That is, until the development of ethanol. Ethanol is a biofuel that is produced from corn and grain sorghum. It protects our quality of air by reducing tailpipe emissions and greenhouse emissions. And as an added bonus, ethanol can provide help for our economy, especially our American farmers, and not for OPEC. I, for one, would rather depend upon the good graces of a Kansas farmer than foreign oil producers. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the President's sound energy policy.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, today we speak of ``no child left behind'' in our education system, and providing our children with the highest quality education is a value that we all hold very dear. Unfortunately, for years African American children remained in substandard facilities without updated textbooks and insufficient supplies. These children were denied admission to all-white schools based on the ``separate but equal'' doctrine entrenched in public education. Fortunately, the landmark Supreme Court decision of Oliver L. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka would forever change this inequity. On May 17, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a definitive interpretation of the 14th amendment that would unequivocally change the landscape of American public education. The High Court stated that the discriminatory nature of racial segregation violates the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws. This decision effectively ended the long-held ``separate but equal'' doctrine in U.S. education. Prior to the Brown v. Board of Education decision, numerous school integration cases were taken to courts between 1849 and 1949. In Kansas alone there were 11 cases filed between 1881 and 1949. In response to these unsuccessful attempts to ensure equal opportunities for all children, African American community leaders and organizations across the country stepped up their efforts to change the education system. In the 1940s and 1950s, local NAACP leaders spearheaded plans to end the doctrine of ``separate but equal.'' Public schools became the means to that end. In the fall of 1950, members of the Topeka, Kansas, chapter of the NAACP agreed to again challenge the ``separate but equal'' doctrine governing public schools. Their plan involved enlisting the support of fellow NAACP members, personal family and friends as plaintiffs in what would be a class action suit filed against the Board of Education of Topeka Public Schools. A group of 13 parents agreed to participate on behalf of their children. Each plaintiff was to watch the paper for enrollment dates and take their child to the school that was nearest to their home. Once the attempt to enroll was denied, they were to report back to the NAACP. This would provide the attorneys with the documentation necessary to file a lawsuit against the Topeka school board. As we all know, 4 years later, on May 17, 1954, Topeka parents and children received a final victory before the U.S. Supreme Court. Brown v. Board of Education inspired and galvanized human rights struggles in this country and around the world. The national importance of the Brown decision had a profound impact on American culture. It has affected families and communities and governments by outlawing racial segregation. Legal scholars and historians agree that this case is among the three most significant judiciary turning points in the development of our country, yet it is largely misunderstood. For example, many students never learned that the Brown v. Board of Education was a combination of cases originally filed in Delaware, South Carolina, Virginia, the District of Columbia, in addition to Kansas, and that the final legal challenge occurred in Massachusetts. None of these original cases succeeded in the district court, and all were appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. At this juncture, they were combined and became known jointly as the Oliver L. Brown, et al., v. The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas, et al. The High Court decided to combine the cases because each sought the same relief from segregated schools for African Americans. We should also remember that Thurgood Marshall served as a legal strategist and counsel for the school segregation cases. Marshall later became the first African American to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Brown v. Board of Education is undoubtedly the most revolutionary case striking down segregation, and as we approach the 50th anniversary of Brown v. The Board on May 17, 2004, it is only fitting that we commemorate this decision by ensuring that our Nation fully understands the case and the responding effects that it has had on our Nation. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2133 will establish a commission to help education Americans on the history and ramifications of this landmark cases in preparation for the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision. The Commission will work in conjunction with the Department of Education to disseminate print resources to schools, plan and coordinate public education events, including public lectures, writing contests and public awareness campaigns. Working in cooperation with both the public and private sector, the Commission will be comprised of representatives from the Committee on the Judiciary, the Department of Education, as well as the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the Brown Foundation. In addition, individuals chosen from the States in which the lawsuits were originally filed, which were Delaware, Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and from the first State that had the first legal challenge, Massachusetts, will also serve on this Commission. Equal opportunity is granted by our Constitution, but making equality a reality for all Americans requires real struggle and sacrifice. We must not forget the sacrifices made in order to give equality to all Americans. The U.S. Supreme Court offered us this reflection in the opinion rendered in the Brown case, and I quote: ``It is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity for an education.'' Education is the metal that holds the framework of our democratic society together. Brown v. Board of Education guarantees this opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague to join me in honoring this historic and far-reaching Supreme Court decision and support H.R. 2133.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on all of us to work together to find long-term solutions to our energy problems. The energy crunch affects all of us from the farmer who pays more for diesel fuel to families who are on summer vacation. After 8 years of neglect towards our national energy policy, we find ourselves trying to deal with higher costs, at the same time looking for long-term solutions. President Bush's plan for our energy policy is forward thinking and sensible. His plan focuses both on our need for conservation and our need for increasing energy sources. Best of all, the plan addresses these needs without sacrificing our way of life or the environment. As we move forward, let us look to what John Foster Dulles once said, ``The measure of success is not whether you have a tough problem to deal with, but whether it is the same problem you had last year.'' The sooner we act on a comprehensive energy policy, the sooner we will find relief.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for recognizing Alan Webb. It is an honor to be a part of this, and I want to congratulate Alan's parents as well, Steve and Catherine; his brother, Chris; his coach, Scott. They have all participated in a plan that has been very successful. I met Alan about 3 years ago for the first time when he broke my then-sophomore record, and continued to watch his improvements along the way. He has developed his God-given talents to the fullest. He has a bright future, and he has also given our young people a role model. He has shown that hard work and dedication, those principles work, and with the right planning along the way, you can achieve great things. I had the opportunity to visit with Alan almost 3 years ago. I encouraged him at that time to surround himself with those people who believed, as he did, that it could be done. There are always people that say it cannot be done. He took my advice. My congratulations to him.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, tax relief for American families has been one of my top priorities; so when George Bush ran for President, he made the promise to bring relief to families, and that was like a breath of fresh air. This year, President Bush laid out specific proposals for tax relief. Some scoffed at the idea of tax relief. Many actively worked to keep Americans from keeping more of their hard-earned tax dollars. Mr. Speaker, we have now passed tax relief for American families, and later this summer every American who pays taxes will actually get a tax rebate check. These checks come as a promise kept to the American people and are only the first installment of a long-term tax reduction. When this tax plan is fully implemented, a typical family of four will see their taxes nearly cut in half. Soon American taxpayers will be keeping more of what they earn. This truly is a victory for American families.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, as we approach Memorial Day, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the sacrifices that our veterans have made to keep us free. This Freedom does not come without a price. It has been earned through the blood sweat, toil and tears of our military servicemen throughout history. Many of these men and women have paid the ultimate sacrifice on battlefields around the globe. Now we must fulfill our promises to them. We must fulfill a promise of honor, respect and dignity today as we observe the sacrifices to services members. I urge every American to pause and recognize that all of our liberties have been earned by thanking a veteran for their sacrifice. Countless soldiers have died for our peace and stability. They knew the threat to their lives when they answered the call to stand up and fight for liberty. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to this dedicated group of heroic Americans. Let's honor them by giving them our thanks and praise this weekend.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for his amendment, because if we truly want to measure objective improvements, then testing must be done on an objective basis. Is it not common sense to require test questions which measure what a student knows, rather than how he feels? Requiring a student to share personal opinions, attitudes, and beliefs does little to measure how he is doing and what he has learned in school. Most troubling is that subjective test questions lack a verifiable right answer. Who determines what the correct answer is? Here is an example: After reading a paragraph on a test, how would one answer this question: ``Do you think this is a good story? You have three choices. A is yes, B is no, and C is I don't know.'' Would we get the right answer? This question actually took place on a test, and it tells us nothing about the student's knowledge or understanding of the subject. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and require testing to cover only objective knowledge.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, a distinguished visitor, President Chen Shui Bian of the Republic of China will be stopping briefly in New York before heading to Central America later this month. This is the first visit by Mr. Chen to New York as a head of state. President Chen has just completed his first year in office as the Tenth President of the Republic of China on Taiwan. As the former mayor of Taiwan's capital, President Chen has served as a dedicated leader to this island democracy. President Chen's visit will undoubtedly serve to strengthen the warm friendship between the United States and the Republic of China. I hope my colleagues will join me in extending a word of welcome to President Chen during his visit to the United States.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, today as we consider a bill to authorize funding for foreign relations, I find it puzzling that some of my colleagues would wish to include language to repeal President Bush's Mexico City policy. The issue of abortion as a method of family planning is one of the most divisive and controversial that we face as a Nation. Why should we be thrust into that debate in other countries? President Bush was right to remove the United States from promoting abortions in developing nations. After all, abortion is legal only in a fraction of these countries. Those who want American taxpayers to fund abortions overseas should consider the destructive impression that it gives others about the United States. As a Nation, the image we promote to the rest of the world should be one of life, health, and hope. The Mexico City policy allows the U.S. to support overseas family planning programs without tying those dollars to abortion. I urge my colleagues to support President Bush's Mexico City policy.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, as we observe the National Small Business Week, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize an outstanding small businessman from Kansas. Fred Willich is the founder and president of an interior design company in Manhattan, Kansas, called Hi-Tech Interiors. Fred has exemplified the true character of an entrepreneur. When he started his business, Fred utilized Kansas State University's Small Business Development Center as a resource in his community. Then Fred gave back to his community in times that were difficult. Because of this, Fred has been named the Kansas Small Businessman for the year 2001. Our country was founded by entrepreneurs who believed in hard work, creativity, and the free enterprise system. Fred has built on this American spirit of success through his ownership of an American small business. He should be a role model for all of us.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, one thing that makes America great is its longstanding tradition to defend those incapable of defending themselves. Our Founding Fathers acknowledged the proverb to ``Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.'' It is our duty to stand up for the weaker members of society, and I believe the Unborn Victims of Violence Act does just that. Currently, when someone commits a crime in which a woman and her preborn baby are harmed, the accused can only be prosecuted for harm to the mother. This sends the wrong message. It says there is only one victim in this situation, and nothing could be further from the truth. There are two victims harmed in this crime, the mother and her preborn baby. My colleagues who oppose this bill want to offer a substitute that would recognize the mother as a victim, but not the baby. I would like to remind them again that half the States do not agree; fully 24 have homicide laws that recognize unborn victims. Furthermore, and I know we discussed this today, I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention a similar act that took place in the House last year. It was in July of last year that we voted 417-0 to deny Federal funds to execute pregnant women. This bill specifically protects a ``member of the species homo sapien at any stage of the development who is carried in the womb.'' If we are willing to protect preborn babies from Federal execution, why would we let a criminal harm an innocent life without facing specific penalty? Let me say it again: If we are willing to protect preborn babies from Federal execution, why would we let a criminal harm an innocent life without facing specific penalties? Those who say they believe in choice should be the strongest advocates of this bill. After all, any criminal who harms a preborn baby has interfered with a woman's choice to carry that baby to term. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to defend those who cannot defend themselves.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of a bill that will protect the inalienable rights of pre-born children. This week I will be voting to pass H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I urge my colleagues to join me on this vote. Under current Federal law, when someone commits a crime in which a woman and her pre-born baby are harmed, the accused can only be prosecuted for harm to the mother. This sends a message that there is only one victim in this situation. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are two victims involved in this crime, the mother and her pre-born child. Twenty-four States already have laws on the books protecting unborn life from criminal acts. This bill would simply extend the protection to the Federal level. We must not ignore the fact that when a criminal harms a pregnant woman, there is a small defenseless life that is also a victim. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to protect life, both born and unborn.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Madam Speaker, the dedication of our military spouses is invaluable, and I want to ensure that they are treated right with respect to health care. Currently, military dependents who use one of the military's choice- related health plans do so believing that they can choose their doctor. But when they become pregnant, they can be forced to change from a civilian provider to an on-base doctor even for delivery. It is essential that a woman be comfortable with her doctor for this experience. To force a woman to change doctors at a time as critical as pregnancy is unacceptable. That is why I am introducing legislation to eliminate burdensome red tape and to put women back in charge of their pregnancy-related health care plans. If we want to continue to attract the high-quality people for our armed services, the people who defend this country and are defending us now, we must make sure they have all the health care provisions they should be entitled to.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the power to tax is the power to destroy. When one considers this fact, it is a travesty that married couples are taxed at a higher rate than the rest of society. We can all agree that marriage is a sacred institution. What message are we sending to young couples as they get married? Because of an unfair Tax Code, when a bride and groom walk down the aisle they lose money with each step they take. Nearly 62,000 families in my district are adversely affected by the marriage tax penalty. I have spoken to many of them on this subject and they agree that it is wrong. They are right; it is wrong. Today I want to be able to tell them we are doing something about this. It is time to put common sense back into our Tax Code. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to end the marriage tax penalty because saying ``I do'' should not mean that one is saying I do to an additional $1,400.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, providing help to families is one of the biggest reasons that I ran for Congress. I look forward to voting this week and eliminating the unfair marriage tax penalty and doubling the per-child deduction, but I believe we should do more to help families with tax relief, and I go one step further. Mr. Speaker, that is why I have introduced the Family Care Tax Credit Act, which would lessen the tax burden on families who care for children or loved ones. Currently we give tax credit to families who pay for day care and other services, but families who have a parent taking care of their children are left on their own. My plan gives a fair and balanced approach to child care tax credits by giving help to all middle-income families with children. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with parents in Kansas who tell me that they would like to stay home with their children, but they simply cannot overcome the economic barriers caused by the current Tax Code. My plan would simply remove one of those barriers. I am thankful that this week we will have the marriage penalty as a past memory, but believe that we can and should do more to help families.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Madam Chairman, as my colleagues can see from our budget, some of our priorities are listed; and one of those is a stronger national defense. That is one of the reasons that I support the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution. Not only have the Republicans once again balanced the budget without dipping into Social Security and Medicare, we have met important priorities that continue to provide for the commitment of our men and women who are willing to stand in harm's way to give us a strong defense. When I visit the soldiers that are at Fort Riley and Fort Leavenworth and our guardsmen at Forbes Field in my district, I know we need to do more for them. They have done a great deal to defend us. This budget does provide for that. After years of neglect and a series of overdeployments under the previous administration that left our defenses stretched thin, the defense budget faced serious shortfalls. For too long we made the motto of the military ``do more with less.'' Between 1997 and 2001, the Republican-led Congress added $34.4 billion to make up for that inadequate funding. I am proud to say that, with this budget, the Republican budget, we are adding another $14.3 billion to fulfill our first duty under the Constitution, and that is to provide for the common defense. Our military personnel deserve the 4.6 pay raise that we are providing for in this budget. They deserve the $400 million committed to improve military housing, which is a very big issue for them, quality of life issues. They deserve the $2.6 billion down payment on the $20 billion technology program to improve the equipment that they use when they go out on a mission. More importantly, they deserve to know that, when Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld completes his military-wide, top-to-bottom review, that we stand ready, in the Republican initiative, not in the minority's initiative, that we will provide the necessary resources should there be more money needed to help make sure our troops are best trained and well equipped. For those who have already served, this budget provides $3.9 billion to expand TriCare benefits for our military retirees from the age of 65 up, and it provides another $1.7 billion increase in veterans' health care, things that we have made commitments to that we are following up on. Madam Chairman, this is a responsible budget. We are passing the budget on time. It is a budget that meets the priorities, as my colleagues can see from here. It is a budget that allows room for the appropriate adjustments, should they come, for unseen emergencies and for reform. I encourage all of my colleagues, my friends on the other side as well, to join me to vote for this resolution. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to share a story about a friend of mine who has overcome great adversity. His name is Eddie Timanus. Eddie has been completely blind since he was a toddler, but he has chosen not to let this disability stop him from realizing his goals. Eddie has dreamed of being a contestant on the TV game show Jeopardy. After years of trying to make the cut, he was selected in 1998. The producers of Jeopardy agreed to make accommodations for him, namely, giving Eddie a list of the categories in Braille. Eddie went on to win five, count that, five episodes of Jeopardy, and nearly $70,000. I know how much tenacity it has taken to accomplish these kinds of dreams in spite of the hardships. Eddie deserves our admiration, not just because he is a Jeopardy grand champion, but because he is a testament to the principle that enduring trials produces endurance, which helps people bring the best out of themselves. I want to thank Eddie for showing us what people who are visually impaired can do, and actually each one of us can do, when given the opportunity.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the rededication of the Elmer Jackson Bridge in Topeka, Kansas, to take place on October 21, 2000. On June 15, 1920, in Duluth, Minnesota, three young black men were lynched by a mob numbering in the thousands. One of those men was Elmer Jackson, from Topeka, Kansas. Leading newspapers throughout the North vilified the Duluthians for having stained their city's good name and castigated them for being evil, murderous racists. The governor of Minnesota, J.A.A. Burnquist commissioned his adjutant general to launch a formal investigation. Three dozen men were indicted for taking part in the mob action. And one year later, in reaction to the event, the state legislature enacted an anti-lynching law. Michael Fedo, a former journalist, has written an account of the incident entitled the Lynchings in Duluth, based on newspaper accounts, court records and state files. The account of the lynchings shows that the mentality necessary for such events was not particular to any region. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Mr. Fedo and the various individuals and organizations involved in this effort for raising our consciousness by recognizing a painful time in our nation's history.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this, and I am wondering why we are even dealing with this. I know the wonderful values that the Boy Scouts represent.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, with the Olympic Games scheduled to begin shortly in Sydney, Australia, now is an exciting time for all Americans, and we all have high hopes for our U.S. Olympic team. As I can attest through personal experience, these athletes have been working for many years to arrive at this point in their careers and we certainly wish all of them the best of luck. As these talented and dedicated men and women travel across the world to Sydney they should be reassured by the recognition that they have the complete support of all of us back here in the United States, including a number of major U.S. companies. These companies are the official Olympic sponsors who have invested millions of dollars to ensure that the United States can fully participate in the Olympic Games. However, these companies have been plagued in the past by a problem that is expected to rear its ugly head again in Sydney. The problem is ``ambush marketing,'' a practice in which companies with no relationship to the Olympic Movement never-theless deceptively portray themselves as being associated with it, thus diminishing the value of an authorized sponsorship, and ultimately depriving American athletes of the necessary funds to prepare for Olympic competition. The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act places with the United States Olympic Committee the responsibility for providing the financial support for American athletes, and for developing all athletic activity in the U.S. related to international competition. All funds for the training and preparation of our athletes for competition in the Olympic, Pan American, and Paralympic Games are generated through private sources, such as Olympic sponsorships, rather than from a government appropriation. Indeed, the USOC is the only National Olympic Committee from throughout the world that receives no government funding, and it is for this reason that the USOC declares with a degree of pride that ``America does not send its athletes to the Olympic Games, Americans do.'' Apparently the act that gave the USOC the tools to fund its athlete programs privately needs strengthening to ensure that they are not devalued through deceptive practices of ambush advertisers. Congress should consider improvements to the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act to prevent harm to the Olympic movement, legitimate official sponsors, and, most important, America's Olympic athletes. I look forward to monitoring the activities surrounding the Summer Games and exploring ways in which we can ensure that the intent and spirit of the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act are followed.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the anti- Mexico City policy amendment and in support of the rights of United States citizens to refuse to subsidize the taking of lives of millions of unborn children throughout the world. This amendment has nothing to do with the intended purposes of the international family planning. It has everything to do with promoting United States taxpayer-funded abortions. Mr. Chairman, last November, President Clinton accepted a compromised version of the Reagan-Bush Mexico City policy, which followed the precedent that taxpayers' funds should not be used to pay for abortion services. The compromise capped population assistance at $385 million and allowed $15 million to be used for abortion services or given to agencies that conducted abortion services. This year's Foreign Operations appropriations bill contains the same language that was agreed to last year. More importantly, it reinforces our overseas population assistance efforts to the original intent, to teach individuals the concept of responsible family planning so we could reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies. This compromise is not perfect. It does not honor our long-standing tradition of not forcing United States taxpayers to subsidize abortion services for others when they have a moral or religious objection to it. It did, however, move us back in that direction. Now some Members want to undo the compromise that took 7 years of an administration to achieve. Some of us would like to see all funding for foreign abortion services zeroed out. I am strongly pro-life and believe that every life deserves protection. I do not believe the taxpayers should ever be forced to pay for abortion services. But I am now here today to offer such an amendment because we believe we should honor the spirit of the compromise we reached last year. Mr. Chairman, not only would this amendment strike the compromise of population assistance, but it would strike the transfer of $12.5 million to further child survivor programs should the administration choose to fund abortion services. I urge a no vote on this amendment.