[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 158 (Monday, November 10, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2306-E2307]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E2306]]
              EXPLANATION OF VOTES DURING MEDICAL ABSENCE

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. BOB RILEY

                               of alabama

                    in the house of representatives

                        Sunday, November 9, 1997

  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, for medical reasons, I was absent during the 
following rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have been 
recorded in the following manner.


                        Tuesday November 4, 1997

  On rollcall No. 572, a bill to require the Secretary of the Interior 
to exchange certain lands located in Hinsdale County, CO, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 573, a bill to establish nationally uniform 
requirements regarding the titling and registration of salvage, 
nonrepairable, and rebuilt vehicles, I would have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 574, a bill to reaffirm the Federal relationship of 
the Burt Lake Band as a distinct federally recognized indian tribe, I 
would have voted ``nay.''


                      Wednesday, November 5, 1997

  On rollcall No. 575, a motion to approve the Journal, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 576, a quorum call, I would have voted ``present.''
  On rollcall No. 577, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to restructure and reform the Internal Revenue Service, I would 
have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2676, legislation 
that will once and for all establish a taxpayer bill of rights. Our Tax 
Code has grown from 11,400 words in 1913, to 5.5 million words in the 
current code. Enough is enough. The Tax Code is too complicated and too 
hard to understand for most Americans. Each year, Americans spend more 
than 5 billion hours and $157 billion preparing their tax returns.
  It is time to reign in the IRS, which too often seems to operate as 
if it's above the law. Recent hearings in both the House and Senate 
have shown that the IRS will stop at almost nothing in its harassment 
of law-abiding citizens. With its vast array unchecked powers it is not 
surprising that the IRS has used its authority to needlessly destroy 
families, close businesses, put people out of work, and shatter dreams. 
Unfortunately, current law makes it impossible for innocent taxpayers 
to fight back.
  I think a recent Newsweek Magazine article said it best: The IRS has 
too much muscle, too much money, and too little oversight. The agency 
is out of control and it is not going to fix itself. Only Congress can 
do that. In my view, we should overhaul--if not eventually abolish--the 
IRS.
  Then we should scrap the Tax Code and replace it with one that is 
fairer and flatter.
  Today, the House has an opportunity to take an important first step. 
By passing H.R. 2676, the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and 
Reform Act, we can show the American people that their Government 
exists to serve them, not itself. This bill will rein in the out-of-
control monster that the IRS has become. It will create new 
administrative and oversight structures, and it will give taxpayers new 
protections and rights. More importantly, H.R. 2676 will shift the 
burden of proof from the taxpayers to the IRS. In other words, the IRS 
will no longer be free to harass the American people.
  For too long, Mr. Speaker, the table has been tilted in favor of the 
IRS. As result, the IRS has abused its power and mistreated millions of 
taxpayers. I, like the American people, won't stand for it any longer. 
As an elected official and a representative of the people, neither 
should you.
  On rollcall No. 578, on agreeing to the rule, I would have voted 
``aye.''
  Mr. Speaker, over the last few weeks, Congress has been engulfed in a 
debate about China. The House will consider nine legislative 
initiatives that focus directly on China. This Policy for Freedom 
initiative includes legislation that attempts to deal with the Chinese 
sale of military hardware, the Chinese Government's inability to 
protect intellectual property rights, the Government's failure to 
accept different religions, and human rights. These debates, which have 
been continuing since Nixon re-established relations in the 1960's and 
the 1989 Tiannamen Square massacre, are particularly poignant this week 
because of the formal meetings this week between Mr. Jiang Zemin, the 
President of the People's Republic of China [PRC] and President 
Clinton.
  Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that we must closely examine our 
relationship with China. There are human rights violations and 
atrocities being committed in China that are too horrible to ignore. 
Innocent people are being persecuted because of their religious 
beliefs. Sadly, people who step outside the prescribed bounds are dealt 
with in a draconian manner--monasteries in Tibet are defamed and 
burned, Christians in Singapore are arrested, and religious dissidents 
throughout all of China are prohibited from expressing their beliefs.
  In addition to religious persecution, China has exchanged high 
technology military hardware with rogue countries that threaten Middle 
East and Near East peace. China has knowingly sold precision cruise 
missiles to Iraq and continued to share nuclear secrets with North 
Korea, despite vehement opposition from the United States. China has 
routinely ignored intellectual property rights of individuals and 
corporations, allowing copyright pirates to market merchandise without 
paying the creators.
  I am pleased that Congress will take up nine bills this week that 
will send a message to the Chinese Government. America is the beacon of 
democracy and freedom for the world. We have a moral obligation to 
stand up to those who dismiss the protection of human rights and those 
who refuse to protect and preserve the sanctity of life. We in Congress 
cannot sit here with the knowledge that innocent people are being 
targeted by an authoritarian and repressive regime. The failure of the 
U.S. Congress to act would send a message of appeasement and blindness 
to the Communist Government of China. We must stand up for our beliefs 
or we betray the ideals for which we were elected to champion. Mr. 
Speaker, it is my hope that Congress sees the value within the Policy 
for Freedom and passes these bills so that the people and Government of 
China know that we here in the United States are not going to turn a 
blind eye to actions of China.

  On rollcall No. 579, an amendment to extend the congressional review 
period for licensing nuclear exports to China from 30 to 120 days and 
to provide for expedited procedures for consideration of a joint 
resolution of disapproval for any licensing, I would have voted 
``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 580, a bill to provide for improved monitoring of 
human rights violations in the Peoples Republic of China, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 581, a motion to table the motion to appeal the 
ruling of the Chair, I would have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 582, a bill to provide for certain measures to 
increase monitoring of products of the People's Republic of China that 
are made with forced labor, I would have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 583, a motion to table the measure, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 584, a motion to adjourn, I would have voted ``aye.''


                       Thursday, November 6, 1997

  On rollcall No. 585, a motion to adjourn, I would have voted ``nay.''
  On rollcall No. 586, a motion to adjourn, I would have voted ``nay.''
  On rollcall No. 587, on ordering the previous question, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 588, a motion to table the motion to reconsider the 
vote, I would have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 589, a rule waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of 
rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported 
from the Committee on Rules, I would have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 590, a motion to table the motion to reconsider, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 591, a motion to adjourn, I would have voted ``nay.''
  On rollcall No. 592, a bill urging the executive branch to take 
action regarding the acquisition by Iran of C-802 cruise missiles, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 593, a motion to table the motion to reconsider, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 594, a motion to adjourn, I would have voted ``nay.''
  On rollcall No. 595, a bill to prohibit the use of United States 
funds to provide for the participation of certain Chinese officials in 
international conferences, programs, and activities and to provide that 
certain Chinese officials shall be ineligible to receive visas and 
excluded from admission to the United States, I would have voted 
``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 596, a motion to table the motion to reconsider, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 597, a motion to adjourn, I would have voted ``nay.''
  On rollcall No. 598, a bill to condemn those officials of the Chinese 
Communist Party, the Government of the Peoples Republic of China, and 
other persons involved in the enforcement of forced abortions by 
preventing such persons from entering or remaining in the United 
States, I would have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 599, a motion to table the motion to reconsider, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 600, a motion to adjourn, I would have voted ``nay.''
  On rollcall No. 601, a bill to implement the provisions of the Taiwan 
Relations Act concerning the stability and security of Taiwan and 
United States cooperation with Taiwan on

[[Page E2307]]

the development and acquisition of defensive military articles, I would 
have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 602, a motion to table the motion to reconsider, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 603, a motion to adjourn, I would have voted ``nay.''
  On rollcall No. 604, a motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 605, a bill to require the United States to oppose 
the making of concessional loans by international financial 
institutions to any entity in Peoples Republic of China, I would have 
voted ``aye.''


                        Friday, November 7, 1997

  On rollcall No. 606, a motion to adjourn, I would have voted ``nay.''
  On rollcall No. 607, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 1998 for intelligence and intelligence related activities of the 
U.S. Government, the community management account, and the Central 
Intelligence Agency retirement and disability system, I would have 
voted ``aye.''

  On rollcall No. 608, a motion that the Committee rise, I would have 
voted ``nay.''
  On rollcall No. 609, a motion that the Committee rise, I would have 
voted ``nay.''
  On rollcall No. 610, an amendment to strike provisions in the bill 
that identify specific priorities for charter school grant funding to 
states that meet certain requirements, I would have voted ``nay.''
  On rollcall No. 611, a bill to amend titles VI and X of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to improve and expand 
charter schools, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. Speaker, Americans want charter schools. Why? Because charter 
schools work, They work because they allow parents, teachers and 
communities demand something new from students--academic excellence and 
discipline--without interference from Federal and State education 
bureaucracies.
  Charter schools are gaining popularity across the Nation. Today, 30 
States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have passed 
legislation allowing charter schools to open. This fall, nearly 700 
schools are in operation, serving more than 170,000 students. Many more 
are waiting for State approval.
  The charter schools movement is simple. First, under the charter 
school arrangement, parents and teachers are freed from the 
bureaucratic restrictions of traditional schools. Ideally, this means 
that the charter school is not bound to the State's codes for 
educational curriculum, personnel, scheduling, or financial 
administration. In other words, parents and teachers--not bureaucrats 
in the State capitol or Washington--are free to decide how to best to 
run their schools. In return, these new school entrepreneurs and held 
accountable for results, namely high student achievement.
  Unfortunately, there are significant barriers between these 
innovative schools and success. The most daunting of these barriers 
require access to start-up capital flexible State laws that will 
encourage the establishment of charter schools. I believe that H.R. 
2616, the Charter Schools Amendments Act of 1997, will help new charter 
schools overcome these barriers.
  Specifically, this legislation will help improve the process of 
creating new charter schools in more States. For the first time, States 
will be given incentives to adopt stronger charter school laws. Under 
H.R. 2616, States that give local school administrators a high degree 
of fiscal autonomy will be eligible to receive increased funding for 
their charter school programs. Additionally, these States must also 
agree to increase the number of charter schools allowed to open each 
year and provide for academic accountability. H.R. 2616, also ensures 
that charter school grant money actually gets to the classroom. Under 
the bill, at least 95 percent of Federal charter school funds go to the 
State and local level.
  Mr. Speaker, the charter schools movement has grown out of the need 
and demand for parental and teacher control of public schools. With 
their wide acceptance from both educators and parents, charter schools 
can no longer be considered an experiment in education reform. They are 
the future of education reform. For this reason, I strongly support 
H.R. 2616.
  On rollcall No. 612, a motion to table the motion to reconsider, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 613, a bill to ensure that commercial activities of 
the People's Liberation Army of China or any Communist Chinese military 
company in the United States are monitored and are subject to the 
authorities under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 614, a bill making appropriations for the Departments 
of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and related agencies for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, I would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition H.R. 2264. While this legislation 
does include critical Hyde amendment language that will prevent Federal 
funding of abortions through State manage-care health plans I am 
concerned about several provisions of the bill. I am also pleased that 
this bill did not include funding for the President's misguided 
national testing program, but did include $20 million for charter 
schools. However, H.R. 2264 does include a $5 million increase in title 
X funding a $273 million increase from the President's budget request 
and $5.7 billion more than the fiscal year 1997 bill, and finally an 
unacceptable compromise on needle exchange programs.
  The original House version of H.R. 2264 contained a critical 
provision that would have banned Federal funding of needle exchange 
programs for drug abusers. In my opinion, Federal funds should not be 
used to encourage or support illegal drug abuse. Accordingly, I stand 
in opposition to the conference report.


                       saturday, november 8, 1997

  On rollcall No. 617, a bill disapproving the cancellations 
transmitted by the President on October 6, 1997, regarding military 
construction appropriations, I would have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 618, a bill to reform, extend, and repeal certain 
agricultural research, extension, and education programs, and for other 
purposes, I would have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 619, a bill to allow the Medal of Honor to be awarded 
to Robert R. Ingram of Jacksonville, FL, I would have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 620, a bill to increase the child care credit for 
lower-income working parents, and for other purposes, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 621, a motion to adjourn, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 122, the Tactile 
Currency for the Blind and Visually Impaired Act. I am an original 
cosponsor of this legislation, which encourages the Bureau of Engraving 
and Printing to make cost-effective design changes to this Nation's 
currency so that it will be better identifiable by the blind and 
visually impaired.
  I strongly believe that it is important that the visually impaired in 
this country are given the opportunity to have a better chance at 
living independently by making their money more accessible to them.
  Mr. Speaker, tactile marks will make an important difference in the 
lives of the visually impaired, including those individuals involved in 
programs offered by exceptional organizations like the Alabama 
Institute for the Blind and Deaf in Talladega, AL, and its associated 
programs within the Alabama School for the Blind, The Helen Keller 
School of Alabama, the E.H. Gentry Technical Facility, and the Alabama 
Industries for the Blind.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the visually impaired 
because it is vitally important that every individual in this country 
is given an equal chance to live his or her life at the best of his or 
her capacity.


                        sunday, november 9, 1997

  On rollcall No. 622, a motion to table, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________