[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 18 (Monday, March 2, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H684-H689]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       WHITHER THE BUDGET SURPLUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address my colleagues on 
where I see our country going. I see a country where children come 
first and where integrity and virtue are honored, indeed, they are 
recognized and rewarded in American life and to the extent possible 
through our official government policies; an America where values and 
character still matter and where the American dream is still real and 
within reach for those who strive to achieve and succeed.
  I believe I speak for most of my colleagues when I say that I want an 
America where Americans have more personal safety, more financial 
opportunity and security and more independence and freedom, and that 
the best way to do that is by lowering taxes, putting an end to 
judicial activism on the Federal bench, reforming and improving our 
education system, raising our education standards in this country, and 
demanding real results from our schools and holding our schools 
accountable for the performance of their pupils. I also believe that we 
need to strengthen families and communities in America and that, 
lastly, we need to restore fairness and morality in American life. So 
it is those goals and it is that vision that I would like to address 
today.
  I want to begin, though, my remarks under this special order by 
admitting that I never thought that I would see the day before my House 
service where I would be able to take to the House floor and talk about 
a balanced Federal budget, that I would be able to participate in a 
debate about the Federal Government actually generating an annual 
budget surplus as opposed to an annual budget deficit like the deficits 
that we have run back here in Washington for over a decade. This is all 
brand new, this whole debate about surplus politics.
  Let me first of all, while admitting that balancing the budget and 
generating a budget surplus presents a new challenge for those of us in 
positions of elected decision-making responsibility here in Washington, 
I will just again admit the obvious, what I think most Americans would 
certainly recognize in their daily lives and in their homes and in 
their businesses: that we ought not spend the budget surplus before we 
actually have it in hand. That would be too much like business as usual 
in Washington. It would be, I think, continuing the very dubious and 
questionable budget practices of smoke and mirrors.
  So let us say for a moment that we are still a ways away from the 
Federal Government and the Federal budget actually generating a budget 
surplus. However, this idea, this age of surplus politics does present 
a very new challenge for us and as the party, the Republican Party, the 
governing majority party in the Congress, the party of less government 
and less taxes, we are looking for ways to allow families to keep more 
of what they earn so that they can decide themselves how best to spend 
it. It is a very simple, fundamental principle of Republicanism. That 
is the Republican way.
  So as we enter this debate in this new age of surplus politics, we 
want to make sure that those who earn the money are able to keep more 
of what they earn and that whenever possible, while fulfilling the 
primary and fundamental responsibilities of the Federal Government, we 
return more money from Washington to the people who earn it rather than 
recycle it through the bureaucracy here and then attempt to find 
various ways to spend it. The Republican way is again to allow families 
to keep more of what they earn so that they can decide how best to use 
that to meet the needs of their family.
  The President and congressional Democrats, though, seem to be hostile 
to that idea. We have been able to, in a way, force the President and 
force congressional Democrats to go along with the idea of reducing 
taxes, and we were actually able to pass through this body and get 
enacted into law with the President's signature a tax cut. But it is 
clear, particularly if you hear the President's comments today talking 
about tax simplification, the idea of moving the country in the 
direction of a simpler, fairer, flatter Tax Code and tax system, 
perhaps a single rate of taxation, where we hear the President 
criticizing that as reckless, then we know that the President continues 
to resist our efforts to help families and to help our economy.

                              {time}  1415

  So, we are now going to be debating here over the next few weeks and 
months an annual budget resolution. This would be, if you will, the 
budget blueprint for the Federal Government for the 1998 Federal fiscal 
year, and as we enter that debate, I believe we ought to be guided by 
several basic principles.
  First of all, the best way to save Social Security is to make sure 
that we

[[Page H685]]

do not spend another dime of the Social Security surplus on more 
Washington spending, more social programs.
  You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that the President stressed the 
importance of putting Social Security first when he spoke from this 
podium right behind me to the Nation and to the Congress in his State 
of the Nation address back in early February. He talked about the 
importance, the need of putting Social Security first. But I think we 
have to kind of somewhat doubt his sincerity when he then, in the next 
breath, proposes to create a host of new Federal Government programs 
and to use the budget surplus, as well as the anticipated settlement 
proceeds, the anticipated proceeds from the large class action tobacco 
lawsuit, this is the class action litigation that the States have 
initiated against the big tobacco companies, when the President talks 
about using the budget surplus and these tobacco lawsuit settlement 
proceeds, which may or may not materialize, and he talks about using 
all that money to pay for all of these new Federal Government programs 
back here in Washington, programs that when added up in the aggregate 
would cost Federal taxpayers about $60 to 70 billion more in new 
Federal Government, Federal taxpayer spending.
  We believe the best way to save Social Security is to take Social 
Security off budget once and forever. No more smoke-and-mirrors 
budgeting, as I said earlier, no more using the Social Security Trust 
Fund to mask the true size of the Federal budget deficit and to pay for 
other Federal Government spending, most of it on social programs.
  If we took the Social Security Trust Fund completely off budget, and 
if we allowed the surplus in that Trust Fund to continue to accrue and 
to compound interest, we then would be able to offer Americans the 
opportunity of investing a portion of their own money, their own 
payroll taxes, in a directed individual retirement account, which would 
actually earn them a better return than Social Security.
  Imagine that, your money. These, of course, are mandatory taxes 
imposed on you, your FICA contributions, payroll taxes, automatically 
withheld and deducted from your paycheck, going into your own 
individual retirements account, an investment that you select in order 
to provide you a better return than what Social Security can provide. 
The difference over the span of your work life, your adult career 
employment, could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The net 
effect would be more retirement security for all working Americans.
  So the best thing we can do with Social Security is take it off 
budget and, as I said, not use another dime of the Social Security 
surplus on more Washington spending. To the contrary, use that Social 
Security surplus to offer or build better retirement security for 
working Americans.
  Secondly, when a legitimate problem needs to be addressed, child care 
would be an example, we ought to address it by giving families more 
control and more choice by allowing them to keep more of what they 
earn. This means cutting taxes. In fact, there are those that are 
talking about now a targeted tax credit for families with children 
under the age of 5. The desire, the goal, is to enable families that so 
choose to have more disposable after-tax income so that at least one 
spouse can remain in the home and not be forced to work, to be able to 
provide that all-important nurturing and upbringing that children need.
  The President's proposal with respect to child care shows a clear 
bias towards institutionalized child care and against families that 
choose to have one spouse remain in the home for child-rearing and 
child-raising purposes.
  So we think a better way to go, rather than spend a lot more money in 
block grants for child care, rather than continuing to move the Federal 
Government in the direction of the nanny state, where you have 
paternalistic big government attempting to address all the needs of 
families, is to empower families by allowing them to keep more of what 
they earn, and that, again, means cutting taxes so that families have 
more money at the end of the day to address their concerns, including 
child care, which we acknowledge is one of the principal concerns of 
any family where one or both spouses have to work outside the home, 
and, therefore, has to depend sometimes or all of the time on reliable, 
safe, quality child care.
  Third, we have to resist pressure from the left, particularly the 
more liberal wing of the House Democrats, to see the surplus as an 
excuse to build a bigger and more intrusive Federal Government.
  We simply cannot go back to the old ways of spending money on 
Washington bureaucracies that do not work. You had to wonder when the 
President gave his State of the Union Address if it was the same 
President who just 2 years earlier stood at the same spot and had 
declared the era of big government over, because for those of us 
sitting in this chamber, and for those Americans watching and listening 
across the land, it sounded like the President's State of the Union was 
a recipe for returning to an era of big government, for expanding 
government again, basically assuming money that does not exist here 
today, betting on the if come and maybe, if you will, where the 
President would propose to pay for all these new programs, again 
costing in the aggregate somewhere between $60 and $70 billion, with a 
budget surplus we do not yet have in hand, or with the settlement 
proceeds from this large class action tobacco lawsuit brought by the 
States against the big tobacco companies.
  I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if that settlement does materialize, and 
if there are proceeds that are left over after all the attorneys who 
have some piece of the action are paid off, that that money ought to be 
used for health care research. We are very committed to biomedical 
research, particularly trying to find, if you will, a cure to cancer 
and some of the other chronic diseases and illnesses that plague too 
many Americans, and it should be used for antitobacco, antidrug 
initiatives, education and preventive initiatives, if you will, aimed 
at our young people. Those proceeds should not be used to pay for a 
whole bunch of Washington programs not even remotely related to medical 
research or trying to prevent our young people from using tobacco 
products, or at least trying to educate them as to the damages of using 
tobacco products.
  So, the President has finally agreed to our plan to balance the 
budget and cut taxes, yet he now appears to have done a 180, and he is 
attempting, we think, to energize, to galvanize the liberal wing of his 
party with this budget proposal currently before the Congress. This is 
really a throwback to the President's first 2 years in office. It is 
really, if you will, a politics as usual in the model of 1992 and 1993.

  The President wants to raise taxes. In his budget proposal, he 
increases the size and scope of government, and he rejects allowing 
families to keep more of their own money. Well, it is their money. When 
we are talking about their children, we are talking about their future 
as well. So it is their money, their, if you will, lives, their future, 
and they ought to, American families, be able to keep more of their own 
money.
  So this is just classic vintage politics as usual, and I wanted to 
come down to the floor and set the record straight about the Clinton 
budget.
  We will have choices to make about the budget surplus, there is no 
doubt about that, but it is clear we will not follow the prescription 
that the President sets out in his State of the Union Address and in 
his budget proposal to Congress, which is bigger government supported 
by higher taxes and a Social Security program that would be 
jeopardized, not saved, by increased spending.
  So, let me now talk about where I believe we can help all middle-
class working families in this country. I think all of us in this 
chamber, almost all of us in this chamber, are really concerned that 
taxes in America are at a record level. They are at a record high, 
where the average two-income family earned approximately $54,000 in 
1997, last year, but paid more of their income in Federal and State 
taxes, approximately 38 percent, than they paid for food, clothing, 
housing and transportation combined; 38 percent as opposed to 
approximately 34 percent.
  So what does that say? It basically says the IRS spends more of your 
money than you do, and that is wrong, particularly during times of 
peace and prosperity as we enjoy today. We want to lower the tax burden 
on working

[[Page H686]]

Americans. We believe that the tax burden combined, at all levels of 
government, Federal, State and local, should not exceed 25 percent 
during times of peace and prosperity.
  As I just mentioned, Federal and State taxes are at 38 percent, more 
than what families pay today for the necessities of life.
  We want to reduce that. Most of us came here to Washington, we 
campaigned for Congress as fiscal conservatives, and we came here to 
put our fiscal house in order, to really redefine the role of the 
Federal Government and to replace big government with smart government.
  So the solution, unlike what the President has proposed, is to shrink 
the government by downsizing at all levels, and to allow the American 
people to keep more of what they earn. Our responsibility here in the 
Congress is to reset priorities, if necessary, to establish national 
priorities. There is no national priority greater, after providing for 
the collective security through national defense and public safety, 
there is no priority higher than empowering Americans, particularly 
those that are economically disadvantaged, by letting them keep more of 
what they earn.
  We feel that your tax dollars should be spent on the things that 
matter to you, because, after all, it is your money.
  So we are talking now about cutting taxes further for the American 
people, lowering taxes so that Americans have more money, are able to 
keep more of their own money at the end of the day, and doing something 
about this onerous tax burden, which is at a record high 38 percent, 
again, Federal and State taxes, for a median family of four, with 
Federal taxes accounting for about 21 to 22 percent, the highest level 
of Federal taxation in our country's history.
  So where could we begin to lower taxes? I think the best way to lower 
taxes is to raise the income threshold at which the 28 percent tax 
bracket would apply; in essence, putting more people in the 15 percent, 
the lowest tax bracket. That would be a tax break for every single 
taxpayer, except for those already in the lowest bracket, and for those 
folks, to help reduce their taxes, our plan would raise the personal 
exemption from 27- to $3,400 per year, so that more of the lowest-
income earners would pay no taxes at all.
  It is a bottom up approach, if you will, to tax relief in America 
that can and will lift all boats. It is one that those who serve in the 
Congress now, those who talk about targeted tax relief, and that 
includes, of course, the President, it is one that they would have a 
hard time attacking, because these are the people, the practitioners of 
what I call class warfare and the politics of envy. They believe in 
confiscating wealth and redistributing that wealth, and I think that 
approach is not only flawed, but failed. It has not worked in the 
former Communist bloc in Eastern Europe, and it will not work in 
America, because it is inherently anti-American.

                              {time}  1430

  So what we want to do is cut taxes, but on terms that Members of 
Congress ought to be able to support on a bipartisan basis.
  Let me just tell the Members, as for paying for these tax cuts, 
because we have a very real fiscal discipline in Washington nowadays, 
it is called ``pay as you go,'' where you have to find a corresponding 
offset. You have to find a way, if you will, of paying for lowering 
taxes. So as for paying for these tax cuts, if the President has more 
money to spend, we have the money to cut taxes in Washington. There is 
no question about it.
  So we need to reduce spending, we need to reduce taxes, and we need 
to save Social Security. That is why I favor the idea of letting every 
American taxpayer, beginning now, this year, choose between paying a 
flat tax on their income or staying in the current system. We do not 
need to study the flat tax or the whole concept of tax simplification 
indefinitely.
  That is the Washington way, to study things to death. It is called 
paralysis by analysis. Instead, we could now begin giving taxpayers 
that choice, that option of reporting their income and paying a flat 
tax on that income or staying in the current system. Like I said 
earlier, we could now, if we take the Social Security trust fund off 
budget, start allowing working Americans the opportunity to invest a 
portion of their payroll taxes in a directed individual retirement 
account so they can earn a better return than what Social Security 
provides.
  This would create a retirement program that protects current 
retirees, protects seniors, older Americans, and at the same time 
offers opportunity to young workers. The combination of allowing 
taxpayers to choose a flat tax, on the one hand, and to invest a 
portion of their own payroll taxes in their own individual retirement 
account, as opposed to Social Security, the combination of those two 
ideas would not only empower millions of Americans, but it would lead 
to more take-home pay and more retirement security in America today.
  So I wanted to share those two ideas with my colleagues today. I 
talked about a vision of a country where there is more personal safety, 
more freedom, and more opportunity.
  I am also working very hard for passage of legislation that would 
impose term limits on Federal judges who are currently appointed for 
life. Think about that for a moment. We have too many judges who are 
activist judges, pursuing a political agenda as opposed to strictly 
interpreting and enforcing the law. What really makes that, I think, 
particularly troublesome is the fact that so many of those judges have 
lifetime appointments to the Federal bench. They are appointed for life 
and therefore they are not accountable to we, the people.
  My bill which I have introduced for consideration by my colleagues 
would apply term limits or impose term limits on Federal judges, 
because it would require the periodic renomination and reconfirmation 
of all Federal judges. So the net effect would be no more lifetime 
tenure for unaccountable judges who too often pursue, as I said 
earlier, an activist political agenda.
  We have been particularly hard hit by that in California, where 
California voters have voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 187, a 
statewide initiative, a ballot referendum, if you will, that addresses 
illegal immigration, and more recently, the California civil rights 
initiative, Proposition 209 on the California ballot, which would 
eliminate affirmative action preferences in California law.
  In both instances, opponents of those ballot initiatives were 
immediately able to go to Federal court and find a friendly, 
sympathetic judge who, in effect, delayed the implementation of those 
two ballot initiatives which had the effect of subverting the will of a 
majority of California voters. Think about that; one person on the 
Federal bench who can effectively block the will of millions of voters, 
a majority of the electorate. That is wrong, and that is why we need 
term limits for Federal judges.
  I also believe, if we are truly committed to public safety in this 
country, that we will end lenient release and parole standards. We have 
a huge problem in this country today. It is particularly acute in 
California where many people, arrested and charged with serious crimes, 
are released right back out on the streets. In fact, many times they 
are back out on the streets before the arresting officer can get back 
out on the street, because arresting officers have to, and I know this 
as a former police officer and deputy sheriff myself, they have to 
complete the required paperwork.
  So we have lots of people who are being released right back out into 
society in California today and in other States around the country 
because of these very lenient release practices. It is called OR, 
releasing somebody on their own recognizance and their promise to 
appear at a later date in court to stand trial on those charges.
  We know what happens. Too often those individuals commit other 
crimes, additional crimes, while they are free on their own 
recognizance, or they fail to appear to stand trial on the charges, 
which is a crime in itself. Then they become fugitives from justice, in 
many, many cases, avoiding justice for years and years and years, or 
avoiding justice indefinitely.
  We need to end those lenient release standards in our jails. The best 
way to do that is to require bail, not jail, for those people who have 
been arrested

[[Page H687]]

and charged with serious crimes. That bail requirement, the idea of a 
surety bond or a bail bond, is the best way to assure that that person 
will appear at that later date to stand trial on the charges and will 
be less likely to commit additional crimes while they are free in 
society if they are able to post bail.
  We also have to eliminate lenient parole standards in American 
society. I think most Americans believe that when someone is convicted 
of a crime that the time they are given should be the time that they 
serve, but too often time given is not time served. The average 
sentence imposed in America today for murder, the taking of another 
human life, is roughly 15 years. Yet, the average sentence actually 
served for someone who has been convicted of murder is 5 years, 6 
months. I do not believe that 15 years should mean 5 years, 6 months.
  So we need to end lenient release standards, and we need tough 
sentencing and parole standards. We have to make sure, again, that 
those who are arrested and charged with serious crimes get jail, not 
bail; that they go to jail, that they are not released right back into 
society, and we have to make sure that the time given is time served.
  If we are truly concerned, though, about public safety, certainly in 
California, we have to seal off our border from drugs and illegal 
immigration. We have about 6,600 jail beds or jail cells in America 
today, and about a half a million, a half million, illegal aliens, many 
of whom commit other crimes while in America; bearing in mind, of 
course, that coming here, crossing the border, entering America 
illegally, is a crime in itself, and they then commit other crimes 
while living in America.

  So 6,600 jail beds, and one-half million, approximately, or 
estimated, illegal aliens in America. We obviously have no way to 
control the problem. We obviously have no way to incarcerate those 
individuals. Too many of those individuals are filling up our jails, 
are occupying our available jail cells, and as a result, we are not 
able to incarcerate, pretrial, many of the people who should remain in 
jail, not free on their own recognizance or promise to appear in court, 
because they pose a very serious risk, a real menace, if you will, to 
society as a whole.
  We also should change Federal policy in this country where criminal 
aliens, aliens who are arrested and convicted of serious crimes in 
America, I am talking about illegal aliens, are deported back to their 
country of origin. Because again, our concern is we do not have enough 
jail cells, we do not have enough prison cells to ensure the public 
safety, and to protect the public from those individuals who have shown 
as a result of their criminal history that they pose a very real risk 
to society as a whole.
  Lastly, if we are concerned about public safety, since children 
account for the fastest growing segment of the criminal population, we 
ought to pass legislation in this session of Congress, which is rapidly 
running down now, that deals with the juvenile crime problem in 
America.
  I am the author of H.R. 1818, that passed the House of 
Representatives by a strong and in effect an overwhelming bipartisan 
vote, that is now languishing in the other body. It is languishing in 
the Senate. We should not let the other body be the graveyard for 
legislation that deals with juvenile crime and delinquency prevention. 
I like my bill, which is tough on punishment but smart on prevention.
  The bottom line is we have to be willing to do what it takes to save 
our children from drugs, violence, and failing schools. We cannot as a 
country afford to lose another generation of urban schoolchildren. We 
have to invest in education, job skills, and stronger families and 
communities, and our policy should be directed there, because there is 
never going to be any way we can build enough jail or prison cells to 
house the entire criminal population.
  If we do not address this growing crime problem on the part of young 
people who lack the education and the job skills to find gainful 
employment and to live a productive and successful adult life, it is a 
perfectly real problem in this country and it is one that continues to 
grow with every passing day.
  We do have a gap in American society, a gap between the haves and the 
have nots, or the have little. That gap is defined more by your 
education and your job skills than by your financial status or your 
material wealth, particularly with respect to young people. So there is 
a clear need to improve our education system in America today, and that 
is why at the beginning of this Congress I accepted the responsibility 
of chairing the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce in the House of 
Representatives.
  I truly believe that every American child has the inalienable right 
to a high-quality, world class, if you will, education. For those who 
talk a lot about affirmative action, even though I believe as we enter 
the 21st century we ought to be moving into the post-affirmative action 
era, where a person is judged, as Dr. King suggested, by the content of 
their character rather than the color of their skin, but if you believe 
in affirmative action, as so many people in the Congress espouse, then 
I think you have to say, okay, affirmative action really means equal 
opportunity, and equal opportunity begins in our schools.
  There is a great American tradition of a free public education for 
every child. That is the common denominator. That is where equal 
opportunity begins in American society, not equal outcome. It is equal 
opportunity. The assumption is that as an American, if you get the 
education and skills through our public education system, then you are 
ready. You are at the starting line, and where you end up in the race 
of life, if you will, is then up to you. It is a matter of personal 
initiative and discipline and effort.
  But too many of our children are not getting that education today. 
They are not getting the education they need to be productive citizens. 
What are we trying to do to improve our education system? For the last 
year and a half I, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Early 
Childhood, Youth and Families, have focused a lot on improving the 
quality of teaching, because we need good teachers.
  There are few professions, few occupations, more important than the 
teaching profession. It is truly a missionary calling, and there is a 
saying that a teacher can affect eternity, because he or she never 
knows where their influence on that child might end. So we need to 
improve education through good teachers, through a traditional 
curriculum in our schools focusing on the basics, the core academic 
subjects, by ensuring that every child has access to and instruction in 
technology, and lastly, by holding our schools accountable. I am going 
to have more to say about that in just a moment.
  We have also worked for the last year and a half, and I am talking, 
now, about the majority party, the Republican Party in the Congress, 
not only forming an education task force, but crafting a legislative 
agenda that makes sure that education dollars, your taxpayer dollars 
for Federal education programs, are spent on teachers and on students 
and on classrooms, not on more bureaucracy here in Washington or at the 
State government level.
  We want 90 cents, 90 cents minimum, that is the minimum, the goal 
actually is 95 cents, of every Federal taxpayer dollar for education to 
go down to the classroom level, ideally, to pay someone who knows that 
child's name. That is our goal. We are working steadily, making sure of 
progress, gradual progress, in driving more money down to the local 
level and trying to make sure that that money then follows the child. 
It is the child-centered approach to education funding.
  We are also working for more local control and more accountability 
through competition and choice. We have bipartisan legislation that has 
passed, again, the House of Representatives, it is pending across the 
way in the Capitol, in the other body, the Senate, that would create 
more independent public schools, known as charter schools.
  These are deregulated public schools that are free of a lot of the 
bureaucracy and red tape that strangles our schools today. Those 
schools obviously are a lot freer, a lot more able to experiment and to 
innovate in education today. Charter schools in the public schools are 
the best way to ensure local control and local decision-making.

[[Page H688]]

                              {time}  1445

  They are truly autonomous. We respect this tradition in America today 
of local control where that locally elected school board is responsible 
for making education policy decisions, from curriculum to personnel and 
everything else.
  But with charter schools, we drive that control and that 
accountability down one step further, to the lowest possible level, 
which is that individual school site. And that is what we want in 
education today. We want site-based decision-making. We want local 
control at the individual school. That is what we are doing by helping 
to create more charter schools around the country; charter schools 
which, by the way, are the first step on the road to full parental 
choice in education.
  Full parental choice is ultimately the best way to assure 
accountability in education today, that we ought to, as a matter of 
national policy, allow parents the right to choose the education and 
the schooling that is appropriate for their child. To do that, we have 
to let them choose among all possibilities, all options in that local 
community. We have to give them the full range of choice among all 
competing institutions, public, private, and parochial.
  Mr. Speaker, we are trying to do that at the Federal level by 
pursuing legislation that would give parents tuition tax credits. We 
are pursuing tuition scholarships, which are also called opportunity 
scholarships or vouchers, for low-income families who too often do not 
have the same array, the same range of choice that more affluent 
families have and whose children too often are trapped in failing, 
underperforming and even unsafe schools.
  We are trying to pursue education saving accounts where parents can 
invest their own hard-earned, after-tax dollars in an education savings 
account, a little bit like an individual retirement account, and then 
make tax-free withdrawals to pay for education of any kind in primary 
and secondary schools, in other words for grades K through 12, for 
their children, and that would include private school tuition.
  We have literacy legislation, and the main thrust of the literacy 
legislation is to give parents what is called tuition assistance grants 
if their children are not reading at or above grade level. If their 
children are falling behind their peers, if that school cannot get that 
child up to grade level in terms of their reading skills, then we 
provide a tuition assistance grant for that family which can be used at 
other reading tutors or those kinds of companies or services in the 
local level.
  Our belief is that every child should be able to read and write by 
the end of the first grade. The first grade, Mr. Speaker. We hear 
people in this Chamber and elsewhere in Washington talking about every 
child being able to read and write well in English by the end of the 
third or fourth grade. We believe that every child should be able to 
read and write by the end of the first grade in English, which is the 
official, it is the common and, yes, it is the commercial language of 
our country.
  So we are very, very committed to improving the quality of education 
in America today. We are also cognizant that there is a problem with 
bilingual education in America today; that too many children are placed 
in bilingual education classes and that seems to compound some of their 
learning difficulties. They seem to lag even further behind their 
peers. So we want to change Federal policy, Federal law, with respect 
to bilingual education so that parents must give their consent, must 
give their written permission before their child can be placed in a 
bilingual education class. We are working hard on legislation that 
would do that now.
  But when we talk about our children, we have to ask the question: Do 
we really care for our children? Do we demonstrate by our own personal 
action, and I am talking now not just to my colleagues but to all 
adults, we are role models for our children. Do we really care for our 
children and do we teach our kids the right lessons?
  Mr. Speaker, I personally believe that there is nothing more 
important than personal morality in life; that the truth matters and 
character does count. I worry that with recent events here in 
Washington, we send a very different, almost opposite, opposing message 
to our children today.
  Many of the problems that plague our Nation today arise primarily 
from bad moral decisions that have been made by adults. Illegitimacy, 
crime, drugs, a divorce rate that is way too high, drug abuse, child 
abuse and neglect, pornography, a rate of abortion in America that is 
way too high. I believe that the most pressing issue affecting child 
welfare is the breakdown of the family. That is why I mentioned at the 
beginning of my comments the need to try to help build stronger 
families and stronger communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I also mentioned at the beginning of my comments that we 
have balanced the budget, or are on the verge of balancing our budget, 
which was a goal that I and many of my colleagues had when we were 
first elected to Congress. But I really believe that being on the verge 
of eliminating the fiscal deficit in America today, we need to address 
the moral deficit in America today. We have to address the spiritual 
state of the Union, which is our real national product.
  That begins, for those of us in positions of elective office, with 
the responsibility of being good role models for our children. 
Politicians and elected officials, and I know that this goes contrary 
to the grain, counter to the grain, contrary to conventional wisdom in 
America today that holds out a very cynical belief and there is disdain 
for the political process and for those of us who hold political 
office. I really believe that politicians and elected officials should 
be held to higher standards, whether we like it or not.
  Mr. Speaker, I speak now in a very personal sense to some of my 
colleagues in Federal Government today from the very top on down. 
Politicians should be held to higher standards because we are and 
should be role models for our kids.
  So I wanted to stress that in my remarks today. I will have more to 
say on that subject over the next few days. I am constrained, I am 
told, by the rules of this body, the rules of this House, from 
commenting on the President's conduct and personal character. But I do 
hope that I will be able to find a way to address the controversy here 
in Washington which I worry is setting the wrong example and sending 
the worst possible message to our young people today.
  Speaking of the moral erosion of American society, I also wanted to 
share with my colleagues some comments that were made by one of our 
former colleagues, former California Congressman Dan Lungren, who is 
the Attorney General of California today. He has been speaking out a 
lot about the future of our country and the importance of morality and 
restoring morality in American life. He has been addressing the moral 
erosion and the neglect of virtues in America today.
  Mr. Speaker, I think his words and some of the things that he has 
written really bear a great deal of merit, thought, reflection and 
consideration by this body here. I want to share very quickly a column 
that appeared in the Los Angeles Times talking about former Congressman 
and now California Attorney General Dan Lungren. I will read from the 
column. It says, ``Attorney General Dan Lungren may be behind the 
times, his values stuck in a bygone era.''

  Mr. Speaker, let me digress for a moment just to say that if he is 
stuck in that bygone era, I guess I am there and I know many other 
people may be as well. The column goes on to say.

       He may be ahead of the times, far in front of some moral 
     pendulum. But polls indicate he is not with the times. 
     Lungren has this unconventional notion that character and 
     virtue are important in a person's public and private life. 
     He doesn't understand how the two can be separated.

  The article quotes him as saying,

       I don't compartmentalize my life. I don't think most people 
     do. To suggest you can be honest in one significant part of 
     your life and dishonest in another, and that one side never 
     affects the other, I don't find it possible. And if Americans 
     really don't understand that, we are in for a sad state of 
     affairs. Because we will not have enough cops, enough 
     prosecutors, enough prisons to take care of our young people 
     if, in fact, they believe that character does not count. That 
     if you can get away with it, it's okay.

  That is what I worry about. I worry that we are now teaching our 
young people that somehow the truth is disposable. That in the 
political fray, the give and take back here in Washington,

[[Page H689]]

that the truth is something to be distorted and manipulated for 
partisan advantage. And, again, that is the worst possible message we 
can be sending to our children about the importance of personal 
morality and character and about the way our political process works.
  The column goes on to say that Attorney General Lungren has been 
talking about morality for a long time. So have some of the rest of us. 
It reminds me of the old country song, ``I was country when country 
wasn't cool.'' A lot of us were talking about morality and character 
and talking about stressing the need to talk more about character and 
virtue for a long time now. We were doing that not only because we have 
to be role models for our children as elected decision-makers, but 
because we think there is a tremendous yearning for spiritual values 
now in America, as this column suggests, that is unarticulated and 
unfulfilled. And, hence, here I am today in what is really sort of an 
``off'' day for the Congress talking about these particular issues.
  It just, I think, cannot be stressed enough that we should have a 
public debate on character, especially the character of politicians, 
and that those of us who are in elective office should welcome that 
debate and the scrutiny that comes with it.
  Two weeks ago we celebrated President's Day, the day that is created 
to celebrate the birthdays of Presidents George Washington and Abraham 
Lincoln. Two weeks ago today. It is a day when the country honors two 
great men who led this country at unique times. I certainly would not 
put myself in the same category as Washington and Lincoln, but it is 
their qualities of leadership and strength of character that I believe 
every person running for elective office should try to emulate.
  First and foremost, both men were men of great integrity and 
fortitude. Secondly, both men were willing to do the right thing for 
their country regardless of the political consequences. If we think 
about that for a moment, perhaps like I do, my colleagues will realize 
that times have indeed changed. These were men, by the way, long before 
the advent of modern American politics where everything is polled and 
focus-grouped, and where we can have political operatives and handlers 
and advisors and everybody is out there spinning constantly. This was 
long, long before that. Both men, though, stood for what they believed 
was right. They stood for doing the right thing for their country, for 
their constituencies, regardless of consequences.
  Washington said, ``Let prejudices in local interest yield to reason. 
Let us look to our national character and to things beyond the present 
period.'' That is, I think, very timely advice for today. Washington 
said, ``Let us look to our national character and to things beyond the 
present period.''
  Abraham Lincoln, in his last public address in April of 1865, said, 
``Important principles may and must be inflexible.'' Both men believed 
in being patriotic citizens first and politicians second. It is called, 
very simply, principle over politics. Both men triumphed over adversity 
and numerous setbacks. The value of courage, persistence and 
perseverance has rarely been illustrated more convincingly than in the 
life story of these men, and both men recognized that their 
perseverance was a gift of God.
  Both men realized, again, as I said earlier, that the truth matters 
and character counts. They understood the importance of morality in 
American life. They understood that our freedom, the foundation of this 
country, was built on our Judeo-Christian values, and that it would 
never be possible or desirable to separate those values from the 
official actions and policies of our government.

                              {time}  1500

  George Washington said, in his Farewell Address, of all the 
dispositions and habits which leads to political prosperity, religion 
and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim 
the tribute of patriotism who would subvert these great pillars of 
human happiness.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor 
today to talk about building a better America for our children, about 
leading the country to a new level of freedom and opportunity for every 
citizen, about repairing and rebuilding the moral fabric of America, 
and about my concern for the lessons we teach our children, the message 
that we send our children if, in fact, we really do care for our 
children when we begin to become very subjective, very relative about 
the truth and about morality in American life.
  Washington and Lincoln again reminded us that there is no substitute 
for character and morality in elective office, and there is no shortcut 
for the truth. Today, 2 weeks after the President's Day holiday to 
celebrate their birthdays, I thought it would be a good idea to come to 
the floor and remind my colleagues that we can learn from the lessons 
of Washington and Lincoln, that we can, by following their example, do 
the right thing and put principle over politics.

                          ____________________