Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, as a longtime critic of the manner in which we finance our nation's military, I had intended to oppose the legislation being considered today. This year's defense budget contains a number of deficiencies, the most glaring of which is this: it is not designed to equip our military for the task at hand. Written prior to the attack of September the 11th, this legislation continues the mistakes of the past decade. It is designed to fight the cold war, but that war ended years ago, and as we saw all too brutally in New York and Washington, the world is a far more dangerous place. Furthermore, this bill leaves our military, on the eve of an epic undertaking, with a number of acute needs that have yet to be adequately addressed--needs we've known about for many years. As the chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, which has oversight jurisdiction over the entire Department of Defense, I have seen first hand the needs of our military. We need to do a better job attracting new enlistees and maintaining the necessary level of reenlistment. Our training has suffered in recent years. We lack the necessary munitions for new encounters. We are cannibalizing existing planes, tanks and other equipment for their parts, in order to make other equipment operational. Our soldiers, sailors, pilots and Marines are overworked and underpaid. At least this last part we have begun to address. And I strongly support the military pay raise included in this legislation. Regretfully, like its predecessors, this year's National Defense Authorization Act fails to cancel the procurement of expensive, unnecessary weapon systems; close unnecessary bases and depots, at home and overseas; and require our allies, particularly Europeans, to pay their fair share of stationing U.S. troops in their countries. So why will I vote for this bill? Because I strongly support the President of the United States and the campaign against terrorism on which we've embarked. And I don't want anyone, particularly our enemies, to misunderstand a No vote. Unlike the climate in which we debated past budgets, today our country is entering a new, uncharted period. In these trying times, I want to be certain we're providing the brave men and women of our military with every resource they will need in the difficult days, months and years to come. The Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security has conducted 19 hearings on our preparedness against terrorist threats, chemical and biological defense programs, the Defense Department's role in homeland security, and proposals to reorganize our terrorism programs. We know waging the war on terrorism will require not only enormous expenditures, but also a fundamental reexamination of our changing national security needs. Unfortunately, this legislation provides the funding, but not the reforms. I pray future defense bills address these glaring needs, but mostly I pray for the brave men and women going into battle.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Criminal Alien Visa Denial Act of 2001 to ensure the State Department and Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have access to U.S. criminal databases before they let aliens into the country. The State Department and INS currently lack the ability to access the FBI's National Criminal Information Center's Interstate Identification Index (NCIC-III) database. That means an alien can come into our country, commit a crime, leave, and get a reentry visa from our State Department or cross the border without being stopped. There is evidence this has already happened. Between 1998 and 1999, serial killer Angel Maturino Resendiz, the ``Texas Railroad Killer,'' a Mexican with a lengthy criminal record in the United States, was allowed to cross the border because the INS didn't know he had a record. And when he got here, he killed at least six people before his capture. And just last week, we heard unconfirmed reports one of the terrorist hijackers may have been allowed to cross the Canadian border even though he too had a criminal record in the United States. Strengthening national security, particularly border security, against dispersed but deadly criminals and terrorists requires interagency cooperation and coordination on an unprecedented scale. Data matches between federal agencies today are often the product of good luck and the happenstance of personal relationships. The modern threat demands a more systematic collection and dissemination of the information needed to identify suspects or prevent known criminals from entering the United States. The gap in data-sharing between Departments is no longer simply a matter of bureaucratic inertia, but a threat to national security. In 1996, the FBI and State Department issued a joint report recommending the State Department receive limited access to the NCIC- III database so the State Department could better identify aliens with a criminal background in our country and prevent their entry. Nevertheless, for four years this report lay dormant while the Departments could not find a mutually agreeable way to institute their recommendations. The language in this bill should meet with the approval of both the Justice and State Departments. Last year the House Committee on Government Reform's Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations, began a series of meetings and briefings to discuss data-sharing. On July 24th of this year, the Subcommittee held a hearing on Federal Interagency Data Sharing and National Security. That hearing taught us effective border security begins with our embassies, where U.S. visas are issued.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans' Affairs, and International Relations, I rise in strong support of repaying our debt to the United Nations. Make no mistake about it. While this bill is being considered on the suspension calendar, it is one of the most important foreign policy decisions Congress will make this year. Since the brutal terrorist attacks of September 11, our Nation has been working as never before to build an international coalition for the war against terrorism. Yet, at the same time, the administration is reaching out to nations from every corner of the globe, the United States remains the biggest debtor nation at the U.N. This is not only unacceptable, it is a gigantic impediment to our diplomatic efforts and clearly endangers our national security. Mr. Speaker, S. 248 is necessary because the 1999 Helms-Biden agreement, which I supported, authorized the repayment of our Nation's $926 million debt to the U.N., but contained a number of benchmarks the U.N. was required to meet. Last December, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke reached a landmark agreement with our U.N. member nations on reductions in regular budget and peacekeeping contributions by the United States. The agreement received the subsequent endorsement of Senators Jesse Helms and Joseph Biden who drafted this legislation to adjust certain statutory requirements so they would conform with this agreement and permit the long overdue payment of the U.S. arrears to the U.N. The Cold War is over, but on September 11, we saw in very plain terms that the world is a far more dangerous place. Today, there is considerable uncertainty, both at home and abroad, about the period we are entering and how we will wage the war against terrorists. During this period of less clearly defined global politics, we will, we must, increasingly rely on the United Nations as a forum for resolving the varied interests of autonomous nations. Yet, every day we fail to pay our debts to the U.N., we make our work far more difficult. Countries all over the world are looking to the United States for leadership, yet what they see is a very powerful and wealthy country refusing to live up to some of its international commitments. Why, as a nation, would we want to unnecessarily complicate our diplomatic efforts at a time when we need every ounce of leverage? I want to conclude by stating that S. 248 enjoys broad bipartisan support. It passed the Senate earlier this year by a vote of 99 to 0, and Secretary of State Colin Powell has called it a needed step in repaying our arrears. I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the committee, for bringing this legislation to the floor in a way that will allow us to avoid a protracted conference with the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S. 248 so we can get it to the President's desk immediately.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, earlier today Congresswoman Capps and I introduced bipartisan legislation to create a postal stamp to honor the memories of those lost in the September 11th terrorist attacks and raise money to help their families. The outpouring of support from across the country following last week's tragedy has been truly remarkable and speaks volumes about the capacity of Americans to join together to help those in need. It is in this spirit of compassion that we are introducing this legislation. The September 11th Families Stamp Act authorizes the U.S. Postal Service to issue a semipostal stamp, similar to the breast cancer research stamp which has raised $20 million. Money raised from the stamp will assist the families of the victims from the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and United Airlines flight 93. Mr. Speaker, our first responsibility as a nation is to console the families who have lost loved ones and heal the wounded. The legislation we are introducing will allow us to celebrate the lives of the victims and provide much needed support to their families. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the September 11th Families Stamp Act.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this supplemental appropriations bill. This assistance will save lives and lay the foundation for the long, arduous process of rebuilding New York City and the surrounding communities affected by Tuesday's cowardly terrorist attack. Make no mistake about it: this legislation is a down payment for what we'll need to put lives back together and restore a shining city that is a beacon of freedom to people all over the world. I'm told that after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Congress passed 10 separate appropriations bills, so our work won't be done tonight--not by a long shot. But in passing this legislation, we'll be sending an important message that the American people stand together and that their government will do everything it takes to help in this hour of need. We are all part of an extraordinary American family--we must seize the opportunity and take care of each other in this time of crisis.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I have prepared remarks, but I would just like to speak from my heart that when you go to the Pentagon and when you go to see ground zero in New York, you see an incredible contrast, the carnage of the buildings and the hope and vitality of the people. When President Bush was there today and he stood up to speak to some of the rescue workers, some of them could not hear, and they yelled out, ``We can't hear you.'' And he turned around to them and said, ``But we can hear you. The whole world can hear you. And soon, those who committed this dastardly, cowardly act, will hear from us.'' I am voting for this resolution so that they will hear from us. If I have one regret, it is that we did not give a President, our President, this power a few years ago to respond to terrorism when it first struck. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people I represent, I rise in strong support of authorizing the use of our Armed Forces against those responsible for the carnage in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Acts of war have been committed against innocent men, women, and children going about the daily business and routines that are American life. After a decade of peace, we are reminded in the harshest way that the United States has violent and cowardly enemies--that while the cold war is over, the world is a more dangerous place. A decade ago, Congress considered a resolution authorizing another President George Bush to use all means necessary to liberate Kuwait, a resolution I strongly supported. To this day, I consider the vote on that measure to have been the most important vote I cast during my service in the House. Today, we face a far more daunting task. This time, our enemy is faceless. It hides in the shadows. Its mission is morally and spiritually bankrupt. It's united only in its hatred for our democratic ideals and peaceful way of life. The path that lies ahead is a dangerous one. Defeating this enemy won't be easy, and it won't come quickly. Yet I am confident that authorizing force will save lives by preventing future acts of terrorism, and so I cast my vote without reservation. Mr. Speaker, this is a defining moment for our nation. After consoling the families who have lost loved ones and after healing the wounded, our duty as a free people is to support, with all the resources available to us, the many men and women waging the war against terrorism. I pray for the wisdom of our leaders, the courage of our Armed Forces, and that we will prevail over the evil that attacked us this week.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Yesterday's events forced us to confront as never before the barbarism and cowardice of terrorism. We grieve for the victims, our fellow Americans, and we pray for their peace. May we seek our peace with this painful horror by offering solace and comfort to their families, friends, colleagues, and all those affected by this tragedy. Acts of war have been committed against innocent men, women, and children going about the daily business and routines that are American life. Lives have been lost. Life in America will never be the same. Yet, while we react and respond to the attack, we must not succumb to the terror. It is the weapon of an uncivilized, spiritually bankrupt enemy who dares not confront us openly. In the face of utter irrationality, rational people feel defenseless, but we are not defenseless. The very freedom that made us vulnerable yesterday remains our impenetrable bulwark against the massacre of innocents that is terrorism. It is our freedom they target, our freedom they envy. We are not a Nation defined by tall buildings, a strong dollar, or a powerful military; we are a Nation of free people who will not surrender. After consoling the survivors and healing the wounded, our task as a free people is to support the many men and women trying to prosecute the war against terrorism. All those sworn to protect our national security and our public safety, from the President to the paramedic, need our support and our prayers. We are free to mourn, we are free to rebuild. Our freedom is our strength, and we will endure. Terrorists are slaves to their hate. They will be caught. They will be punished.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Thomas-Cox amendment. As one who has long supported reforming our medical malpractice laws, I am pleased to support this amendment. This amendment is similar to legislation Mr. Greenwood and I introduced, the Medical Malpractice Rx Act, which will help prevent frivolous, excessive lawsuits that are driving up the cost of health care, forcing doctors to practice defensive medicine, and making access to affordable health insurance more difficult for the average American. Only 40 cents of every dollar paid to litigate and settle malpractice cases is ever paid to the actual victims. Lawsuits impose unnecessarily high litigation costs on all parties and these costs are then passed along to consumers. The rate of malpractice cases has doubled in the past ten years and on average 120,000 lawsuits are filed against America's 500,000 physicians at any one time. That's one lawsuit for every four doctors. It is imperative we adopt the Thomas-Cox amendment to discourage abuse of our legal system and curb the unsustainable growth of medical costs in our country. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, we will not have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways. Apologists for the automobile industry are going to kill America if they keep it up. Two-thirds of all the oil used in the United States is consumed in the transportation sector. If SUVs and other light trucks were held to the same efficiency standards as today's cars, we would save more gasoline in just 3 years than is economically recoverable from ANWR, and these drivers would save $25 billion a year. Higher mileage standards promise cleaner air and water, less oil imports, and billions and billions of dollars saved to the consumer.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to speak tonight because, being in politics for 24 years, I know after 10 o'clock at night it is difficult for some in the Chamber to be tolerant but I believe deeply in the issue, and, therefore, I want to speak about it. I believe we will not have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways. I believe that with all my heart and soul. But earlier today this House continued these neglectful ways by refusing to hold SUVs and other light trucks to the same efficiency standards as today's cars. If we had taken that simple step, we would have saved more gasoline in just over 3 years than is economically recoverable in ANWR, and yet people say we need to drill in ANWR. I find it unconscionable that we would now consider despoiling one of North America's last great wilderness areas, when we are unwilling to take even the smallest steps towards slowing the growth in demand for energy resources. Mr. Chairman, drilling in the Arctic Refuge will make Japan very happy, because that is where this oil is ultimately going. It is not going to the United States, it is going to Japan. The bottom line is, we are not resolving our energy needs, because we are not conserving. We'll just continue to consume more and waste more, consume more and waste more, and act like it doesn't matter. We are on a demand course that is simply unsustainable!

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I thank him for his courage and service to our country, and frankly his courage tonight. This is not a pleasant thing that the gentleman is having to do. He is having to basically oppose his friends. He is having to ask for time in opposition. He is doing it because I believe when he got elected to Congress, he wanted us to be honest with each other. I believe when he got elected to Congress, he wanted us to tell the truth. The truth is quite simple. Rail management and unions came to an agreement. It is a wonderful agreement. It is also bipartisan, Republicans and Democrats. It is a great plan: increase the benefits, reduce contributions to the fund, and have the taxpayers pay for it. What a system. Why would management oppose that? The taxpayers pay. Why would the beneficiaries oppose? They will get increased benefits, and they will contribute less. It is a wonderful plan, so why are we not all for it? There are over 300 for it, and why would they not be for it? They are going to have everybody call them up, all their railroad workers, and we all have them, and they are saying increase my benefits, take care of my needs. So that is logical. Let us take care of their needs. It is just dishonest. It is blatantly dishonest. It is asking the taxpayers to pay for something that is, in fact, a private benefit. We are going to reduce the contributions to the fund, we are going to increase the benefits from the fund, and we are going to ask the taxpayers to pay for it, and we all should just fall in line, fall in step. There is a problem with that. The problem is, we have a responsibility to run the government. We have a moral obligation to run this government. We reduced taxes in this government. I did. I was happy to reduce taxes, because it seemed very clear to me why we should do it: if we leave the money on the table, it is going to be spent, and this is one of the great examples. We beat our chests and say how we are protecting the Social Security trust fund, but we are not, because right now we are going to raid it. And we say we are going to increase the age of retirement for beneficiaries from 65 to 67, but we are allowing railroad workers to retire at age 60 using Social Security trust fund money. Give me a break. I do not get it. I do not understand why we do it. I just thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) for exhibiting the same kind of courage he exhibited when he was in Vietnam, to say this is wrong, we have got to stop it, and we should not do it. He was a hero for me for many years. I read his book, and I am just proud to be fighting the same cause.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, during recorded vote 248, on final passage of H.R. 2500, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002, a technical error resulted in my vote not being recorded. I had intended to vote ``yes'' on this measure.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me this time. I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 36, which would amend the Constitution to allow Congress to pass laws banning the desecration of the flag. I find it absolutely abhorrent that anyone would burn our flag, and that is why I voted for the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which the Supreme Court overturned in a 5-to-4 decision in 1990. If I saw someone desecrating the flag, I would do what I could to stop them at risk of personal injury or even incarceration. For me, that would be a badge of honor. But I think this constitutional amendment is an overreaction to a nonexistent problem. Keep in mind, the Constitution has been amended 17 times since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1791. This is the same Constitution that eventually outlawed slavery, gave blacks and women the right to vote, and guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Mr. Speaker, amending the Constitution is a very serious matter. I do not think we should allow a few obnoxious attention-seekers to push us into a corner, especially since no one is burning the flag now, without an amendment. I agree with Colin Powell, who at the time was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and is now the Secretary of State. General Powell wrote that it was a mistake to amend the Constitution, ``that great shield of democracy, to hammer a few miscreants.'' When I think about the flag, I think about the men and women who died defending it and the families they left behind. What they were defending was the Constitution of the United States and the rights it guarantees, as embodied by the flag. I love the flag for all it represents, but I love the Constitution even more. The Constitution is not just a symbol, it is the very principles on which our Nation was founded. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I know we have the right to close, but I would be happy to use my time and then yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) if he would like to close this debate. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time and commend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for introducing this resolution. I also thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization, as well as the ranking members of the full committee and subcommittees, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from Illinois Mr. Davis), for expediting consideration of the resolution. Obviously, I urge all Members to support this resolution. I was reading the Emancipation Proclamation during part of this debate, and while I will not read it at this time, let me just say that it is a powerful piece. And when read in conjunction with General Granger's General Order Number 3, this paragraph, I can imagine what the impact must have been. General Granger comes into Galveston and he reads the following: ``The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with the Proclamation of the Executive of the United States, all slaves are freed. This involves an absolute equality of rights,'' he continued, ``and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and free laborer.'' It is a powerful piece and, obviously, Americans have much to be grateful for. We can be very proud of our country that, in spite of all the terrible things that may have occurred during parts of our history, we are a Nation that moves forward, not backwards. I think all of us are so proud to be Americans, but it is a work in process. The freedoms that were guaranteed under the Emancipation Proclamation and under the General Order Number 3 are still unfolding. It is an exciting time to be an American, and I just am grateful to have the opportunity to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to serve our country and to serve our great people of all races. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the very capable gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to our distinguished leader, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Concurrent Resolution 163.

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 163, and commend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for sponsoring this important resolution. The resolution recognizes the historic significance of Juneteenth Independence Day, and encourages its continued celebration so all Americans can learn more about our past. The resolution also expresses the sense of Congress that knowing our history helps us understand our past and solve challenges we face in the future, and it expresses the sense of Congress that the celebration of the end of slavery is an important and enriching part of the history and heritage of the United States. Madam Speaker, Juneteenth has long been recognized as the day to celebrate the end of slavery in the United States. Juneteenth is the traditional celebration of the day on which the last slaves in America were freed. Although slavery was abolished officially in 1863, it took over 2 years for news of freedom to spread to all slaves. On June 19th, 1865, U.S. General Gordon Granger rode into Galveston, Texas and announced that the State's 200,000 slaves were free. Vowing never to forget the date, the former slaves coined the nickname Juneteenth, a blend of the words June and 19th, actually today. This holiday originated in the Southwest, but today it is celebrated throughout the Nation. This resolution underscores that the observance of Juneteenth Independence Day is an important and enriching part of our country's history and heritage. The celebration of Juneteenth provides an opportunity for all Americans to learn more about our common past and to better understand the experiences that have shaped our great Nation. I urge all Members to approve the resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 163) recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day and expressing the sense of Congress that history be regarded as a means of understanding the past and solving the challenges of the future, as amended.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong, strong, strong support of the Armey-DeLay-Watts-Lipinski amendment to H.R. 1. Given the importance of education to our Nation's future prosperity and security, I think it is vital, absolutely vital, to try new, competitive approaches to improving the education of all schools, but particularly public education in this country. If we want to be sure we are leaving no children behind, we must at the very least research the effectiveness of school choice programs. We need to study whether they improve the academic performance of low-income disadvantaged students; or whether they do not. In my judgment, instituting a national school choice pilot program is a modest but important step. This program in no way reduces our current commitment to public education. I believe it enhances it. For years Congress has debated the benefit of school voucher programs, yet there is insufficient evidence on the cost-benefit of these programs. Today we have an opportunity to establish five demonstration programs that allow us to measure the performance of students who receive these choice scholarships. Why would anyone oppose an opportunity to scientifically measure choice benefit programs? Why would we oppose it? Measure it. We may be right; we may be wrong. Measure it. We need this amendment to pass in order to have this opportunity.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to address an issue of great importance to the Peace Corps and its many fine Volunteers serving around the world--the potential application of the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act to require Peace Corps to ``collocate'' its offices with embassies abroad. More than 7,000 Peace Corps Volunteers are currently serving in developing countries around the world. Volunteers give two years of their lives to provide assistance to, and learn from, the people of some of the poorest countries in the world. Living and working with ordinary people, volunteers contribute in a variety of capacities to improving the lives of those they serve. They also seek to share their understanding of other countries with Americans back home. For 40 years, Peace Corps offices have existed separately from U.S. embassies in their host country. Volunteers generally reside outside capital cities, often in remote villages at the same economic level as the people to whom they lend their energy, skills, and friendship. There is a critical security aspect to this arrangement. When Volunteers are recognized as development workers serving a community's needs, they are embraced, supported and protected by the community. If, on the other hand, a perception arises that Volunteers are serving U.S. political objectives or are possibly connected with intelligence activity, the protection the Peace Corps has traditionally relied upon will erode. Mr. Chairman, my amendment expresses the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State should give favorable consideration to requests by the Peace Corps and exercise his waiver authority in order to permit the Peace Corps to maintain offices separate from U.S. embassies abroad. I offer this amendment because I know first-had that Volunteers are able to meet their goals only to the extent they are accepted into and trusted by their communities. Significantly increased reliance upon, and contact between, Peace Corps Volunteers and the embassy--an inevitable result of collocation--would compromise that trust. I would like to thank Chairman Hyde and his staff for their assistance in drafting this amendment and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. In 1960 there were 3 billion people that lived on this Earth. Today, there are 6 billion people who live on this Earth; and in 40 years, without worldwide family planning services, it will rise to nearly 9 billion. Without worldwide family planning, abortions will be more prevalent. We need to defeat the Hyde-Smith amendment. There is no funding in this bill for abortions. U.S. law already prohibits family planning funds from being used for abortions, and nothing in this bill permits organizations to break the laws of their host countries or those of the United States. We need to defeat the Hyde amendment.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, I am not a big gun, but I do realize there is life after the Committee on the Budget, but there are pains I still have after 10 years. I just express my admiration for what the Committee on the Budget has done and the camaraderie from both sides of the aisle, but as I listen to this debate, I ask this question: Why would anyone think that they are more fiscally responsible when they want to spend more? Madam Chairman, I realize this is not a debate about tax cuts versus paying down more debt, this is a debate about spending more money or not. What our side of the aisle wants to do is spend 4 percent more. There are really three things you can do with the surplus. You can spend it, and we are going to spend 4 percent more. We can pay down debt. We are going to pay down $2.3 trillion worth of debt. We can reduce taxes. This is a debate of spend more or maybe have more in tax cuts. Now, I think that what has happened in the last so many years, we have had deficits from 1969 to 1998, 29 years of deficits, and those have ended. We have had 35 years of using Social Security reserve funds. We no longer have deficits. We no longer use Social Security reserves for spending. We paid down $500 billion of debt and, by the end of the year, $620 billion. What scares the heck out of me, though, is this is a steep line of 587 to 635, which was last year; and it seems to me my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think it should remain steep. All I have heard about is more spending. We are going to spend $635 billion now to go up to $661 billion, which is what the President wants, a 4 percent increase in spending. That is a lot of money. But we also wanted a tax cut, and it is a responsible tax cut. We are taking one-quarter of the surplus, and we are going to have a tax cut with it, one-quarter of the surplus. Someone said it is not going to the right people, it is going to the people who pay taxes. Five percent of the American people pay 50 percent of the taxes, and 50 percent of the American people pay 95 percent of the taxes; and they are going to get a tax cut with our proposal. I am eager to vote for it. People have then said, well, this tax cut is irresponsible. Kennedy had a tax cut that was twice as large as ours, and he did not have a real surplus. Reagan had a tax cut which was three times as large, and we had a deficit. We want a tax cut, and we have a surplus, and we only want to take a quarter of it. So this is the debate I look forward to having in the months to come. I hope that we do not make it smaller than the $1.6 trillion; and I hope it goes to the people who deserve it, the people who pay taxes. Again, I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It has been an interesting debate. I am happy we are on the right side on this one. We do not want more spending, at least not more than 4 percent. We want to return some of it back to the American people because they are the ones who pay the taxes. We do not want to make government larger than it already is. We want to make it consistent with our needs.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the tax reduction legislation before the House. We've heard a number of our colleagues come to the floor today to brand this tax cut as irresponsible. Let me state nothing could be further from the truth. We need to put this legislation in perspective, not simply in terms of the enormous surplus projections for the next 10 years, but also in terms of federal revenue and spending over that same period. Consider the following: over the next decade, the U.S. Government is anticipated to collect $28 trillion in taxes. We are asking that $1.6 trillion be returned to the American people. Of the $28 trillion in revenue, total federal spending is already expected to be $22.3 trillion over the next 10 years, unless, of course, Congress finds new ways to spend taxpayers' money. When we compare the $1.6 trillion tax package to our other commitments over the next 10 years this tax cut seems rather modest. We anticipate spending $3.6 trillion for our military; $4.2 trillion for discretionary non-defense programs; $5.8 trillion for Social Security; $3.0 trillion for Medicare; and $2.1 trillion for Medicaid. We've heard today, like a broken record, that this is a tax cut for the rich. The reality is this is a tax cut for those who pay taxes. If you pay taxes, you will receive a tax cut. In fact, 6 million of the lowest income earners will be taken off the income tax rolls by this legislation. They will pay no income tax. Some of my colleagues don't want you to know that the top 5 percent of taxpayers pay more than 50 percent of personal income taxes, and the top 50 percent of taxpayers pay more than 95.8 percent. That's a very progressive tax system, and if the president's tax package is enacted, the tax code will become even more progressive. A married couple who both work making $55,000 with two children would receive a $1,930 tax cut. Yet a similar household making an additional $20,000 would receive only $120. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line for me remains this: if we don't return some of the $5.6 trillion in tax surplus that the U.S. Treasury is estimated to collect over the next 10 years, it will be spent and the growth in the size of government will increase. I am convinced the natural tendency to spend more money will only worsen with annual surpluses rolling in every year. The President's proposal is very consistent with my long-standing efforts to limit the growth of government, cut wasteful federal spending and move power, money and influence out of Washington and back to local communities where it belongs. I am pleased to support this bill, and urge my colleagues to do the same.