[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 29 (Tuesday, March 17, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1219-H1224]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           SEARCH FOR VALUES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) is recognized for 
60 minutes.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleagues that will be 
joining me this evening. It seems like every now and then, once perhaps 
in every lifetime, there is a sense of a movement on land, a movement 
of a Nation in search for things of greater meaning and of deeper 
meaning. I believe that is the case today. I believe America is 
searching for values that will work in the lives of their families and 
the lives of their children. I believe that value search that we see 
going on in America today is characterized accurately, as I like to 
characterize it, as a search for old ways of doing things.
  I believe that it is up to us in a representative democracy to 
represent the very best of the people that we are privileged to 
represent and in doing that, it seems to me we must be in touch with 
these issues. We must be in touch with the search that we see among our 
Nation's people. So towards that end of better understanding, I have 
gathered together a group of Members who have been studying on this 
matter and we would like to devote the next hour to discussing these 
issues.
  I would like to begin with the distinguished gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), who will talk about the moral principles as 
the foundation of a good society.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to begin a discussion with the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the House majority leader, on the 
importance of values to our Nation. I thank him for giving me the 
opportunity to speak today on this issue of vital importance for the 
survival of our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, moral principles are the foundation of a good society. 
It is a simple fact that our democracy, the greatest government in 
history, was founded in large part so that Americans could practice and 
maintain a strong moral code in their way of life. The first people to 
colonize this Nation did so for the freedom of religion, not freedom 
from religion, freedom of religion in order to freely follow a code of 
ethics to which they were firmly devoted. From the time of the Pilgrims 
we have associated the creation of America with the privilege and 
responsibility of applying moral principles.
  Even the modern anti-tax movement can trace its roots directly back 
to a moral principle present in colonial times that every penny and 
every power that government gets comes at the expense of personal 
freedom and personal opportunity.
  In fact, this principle helped spur the American Revolution.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a founding document in this Nation, a birth 
certificate, if you will, called the Declaration of Independence. This 
declaration is different from many others that have been issued around 
the world. The primary difference is the preamble that distinguishes it 
from all other declarations of independence. This preamble has certain 
principles that I would like to mention. The fact that, and I would 
like to quote it, the fact that these principles are highlighted, I 
think, are instructive.
  This is what it says: We hold these truths to be self-evident that 
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with 
certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights governments are 
instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the 
governed and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive 
to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it 
and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such 
principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem 
most likely to affect their safety and happiness.
  Now, that is not the whole preamble, but in that part of the preamble 
we see that these principles that we are endowed by our Creator, that 
all men are created equal and that we are endowed by the Creator with 
certain inalienable rights, that these are God-given rights, rights not 
given to us by government, rights that the government cannot give and 
rights they cannot take away, they are God given rights and the purpose 
of government is to secure these God given rights, life, liberty and 
the pursuit of happiness.
  With rights also must come responsibility. Our Nation is built on the 
principle of liberty. Our government exists with our consent. We choose 
to augment, revise and improve our laws and the very structure of our 
government routinely. With this privilege comes a mandate that we tend 
to liberty with care and caution and prudence.
  We have another founding document, the one that we all swear to 
support and defend. It is called the U.S. Constitution. And that 
Constitution is the oldest national Constitution in the world, the 
granddaddy of them all. And it begins with these words: We the people 
of the United States in order to form a more perfect union, establish 
justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 
promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to 
ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution 
for the United States of America.
  We the people, as one of the prime ministers who spoke to this 
Congress in past years said, the most important words in the English 
language, the most important three words, we the people. And in those 
days when kings were sovereign and people were subjects, to say that we 
the people are sovereign and we only give you the government certain 
limited powers, that we the people do ordain, was a revolutionary 
concept. Of course we know that our Republic, our constitutional form 
of government cannot work in a vacuum and it should not work in a back 
room. It requires citizens to be involved with their representatives in 
order to represent them adequately.
  But when we take a look at other forms of government, we realize what 
a powerful and beneficial system we have. When other nations were 
created, the citizens were thought to be subjects. They were so much 
chattel from which the hierarchy could prosper, and around the world 
governments created just a few decades ago and some longer than that, 
centuries ago, forced men and women to be pawns for the state. The 
people live at the discretion of the government. But not in America. In 
America the government lives at the discretion of the people. As we see 
when we look around the world, our democracy truly is a blessing.

[[Page H1220]]

  Now, it is easy to argue that things have run amok. We have too much 
taxation. We have an overly large Federal bureaucracy. We have an 
administration that takes power away from families. It is pretty clear 
that we have taken the benefits of democracy and used them to support 
bad policies. But it is not the system that is flawed. It has been a 
lax approach to following the moral principles which created this 
Nation and made it strong.
  In 1776, in my home State of Pennsylvania, our State Constitution 
decreed in its preamble, and I quote, we the people of Pennsylvania, 
grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious 
liberty and humbly invoking his guidance, do ordain and establish this 
Constitution.
  In that same period, the 18th century philosopher Montesquieu wrote, 
and I quote, the deterioration of every government begins with the 
decay of principles upon which it was founded. And in current times we 
have seen that very decay in our moral principles. We have stopped 
advocating biblical principles upon which this Nation was founded. 
Instead, we have adopted relativist stances which are far easier to 
defend, but which are far more difficult for the progress and security 
of our Nation. Thus we have seen the decay. We live in a society where 
infidelity is either glamorized in the media or accepted as benign and 
inconsequential by our politicians.

                              {time}  2000

  Tonight, 4 out of 10 children who go to bed will go to bed in a home 
in which their father does not reside in America. Tonight, drug abuse 
is on the rise among our youth, and child crime is more prevalent today 
than at any other time in the history of our Nation. As we have walked 
away from the moral code which binds this Nation together, we see our 
society fraying at the edges. We must get back to those values that 
created our Union for the sake of our Union.
  George Washington, our first President, was a man of great moral 
character. It was his capacity for self-discipline and willingness for 
service to the American Nation which ultimately allowed this Nation to 
be founded. George Washington said this, and I quote: ``We ought to be 
no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of heaven can never be 
expected on a Nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and 
right which Heaven itself has ordained.''
  Washington's message was clear: We as a Nation can thrive by the 
adherence to a fundamental moral code. It gave Washington the vision to 
lead us into the era of democracy. Conversely, as we have seen, we as a 
Nation can fall with the disregard of that code.
  This Nation was founded on the premise that fidelity to God was 
honorable and ought to be encouraged, not hindered, by government. 
Sadly, we now have portions of the government fighting alongside elite 
liberal factions in order to portray faith in God as a radical, 
irresponsible act.
  While the founding fathers used prayer as a guiding influence in 
their fight for freedom, we now hide behind false legal pretense to 
deny our responsibility to gain inspiration and direction from prayer. 
The first act of the very first Continental Congress in 1774 was to 
pass a resolution as they met in Carpenter's Hall.
  They did not meet, the first Continental Congress, in the old 
statehouse in Philadelphia. They did not want to plot against the Crown 
on Crown property. They met next door in Carpenter's Hall, 57 men, and 
their first act was to pass a resolution calling on each session, every 
day, to begin with prayer, to be led by a local clergyman.
  They had heard a false rumor that Boston had been cannonaded. The 
next day they invited the vicar of Christ Church in Philadelphia, the 
Reverend John Dushay, to come and lead the prayer. And in those days, 
when they had prayer, it was not like we have a 1- or 2-minute prayer, 
his session lasted over 2\1/2\ hours. He first read from Psalm 35. And 
if my colleagues will remember the rumor of Boston being cannonaded, 
and in the day of slow communication they did not know it was false, 
and so we can understand his reading.
  And John Adams, who was there, wrote to his wife Abigail. There are a 
lot of letters that they exchanged. And he described this scene, and it 
is portrayed in a picture on the wall in Carpenter's Hall, if anyone 
visits there. He said, Washington and Rutledge and Lee, and he named 
some others on their knees; beside them the old gray pacific Quakers of 
Philadelphia; and then behind the old pacific Puritans of England, with 
tears in their eyes. And he ended, ``It was enough to melt a heart of 
stone.'' The first act of the first Congress on their knees in prayer. 
Something that might be a little foreign to us today.
  But heroes like Washington, Adams and Lincoln used their lives to 
demonstrate their effort to respond to their responsibilities as men of 
faith. They fought for the concept of freedom with their demonstrations 
of honor and integrity, and, as a result, a great Nation was born, 
developed and survived great challenge.
  Abraham Lincoln, during a time when our Nation struggled to recreate 
itself, affirmed his devotion to the core principles begotten by faith. 
He said, and I quote, ``Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity and a 
firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are 
still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.''
  Our Constitution embodies core moral principles. It creates a system 
where individual effort and integrity are rewarded. In it, men are free 
to support those with similar moral convictions. It rewards those who 
incorporate their faith-based responsibilities of honesty, hard work, 
devotion, fidelity and charity. It works to create a system which works 
for and through morality and responsibility.
  The founders of our Nation recognized the importance of faith and 
honesty in government, requiring officeholders to publicly swear an 
oath before assuming governmental responsibility. And this was not a 
simple act of pomp and circumstance. This was a declaration of a bond 
with their Creator. It was a demonstration that honesty and faith are 
prerequisites for governing.
  According to Sir William Blackstone, who was the great jurist, and he 
was the one who wrote the commentaries that all lawyers back in those 
days studied to become attorneys, he said this: ``The belief of a 
future state of rewards and punishments, the entertaining just ideas of 
main attributes of the Supreme Being, and a firm persuasion that he 
superintends and will finally compensate every action in human life, 
all which are revealed in the doctrines of our Savior, Christ, these 
are the grand foundations of all judicial oaths, which call God to 
witness the truth of those facts which perhaps may be only known to Him 
and the party attesting. All moral evidences, therefore, all confidence 
in human veracity must be weakened by apostasy, and overthrown by total 
infidelity. Wherefore, all affronts to Christianity, or endeavors to 
depreciate its efficacy, in those who once professed it, are highly 
deserving of censure.''
  Mr. Speaker, the freedom to which we owe so many is a direct result 
of adherence to divinely inspired moral values. These values made us a 
great Nation. And as we have recently seen, there is an inverted 
relationship between our Nation's success and its rejection of 
traditional values. The further we avoid making the tough choices of 
honesty, fidelity, honor, self-reliance and the incorporation of our 
faith into our daily lives, the further we slide down the path of 
relativism.
  As we face a new millennium, we must work to come back to those 
principles. Our Nation cannot afford to slide much further. Redemption 
can come from reacquainting ourselves with these morals, but this 
action must occur soon. For the sake of our Union, we cannot wait.
  I thank the gentleman for letting me participate tonight and yield 
back to him.
  Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for his participation. And, Mr. 
Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) has set the stage 
for us. We have a Nation that was founded on the highest of moral 
principles and faith, as, in fact, expressed and practiced by our 
Founding Fathers.
  And while we all know that we cannot by law make a Nation good, I 
think it is a very clear fact that if a Nation is to legislate law that 
reflects the best

[[Page H1221]]

of its people, it can do so, and, in doing so, it can encourage those 
traits of human conduct and behavior, value, morality and belief that 
are of greatest service to a Nation.

  With respect to these questions, of how we might legislate in such a 
way to be an encouragement to our citizens, we are privileged to have 
with us tonight the distinguished whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Tom DeLay), who has studied these issues, and studies them well, as we 
apply them to his critique of legislative offers that come before the 
body and the decision-making process by which we determine what 
legislation we should bring forth.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. DeLAY. I thank the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Speaker, 
and I appreciate the gentleman for bringing this special order that I 
think is so important, particularly in the beginning of this session of 
Congress.
  I really appreciate the presentation done by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts). For all of those in the Nation today that are 
talking about the fact that character does not matter or that what one 
does in their private life has no affect on their public life, I hope 
they will go back either to the Internet or to their library and pick 
up tomorrow's Congressional Record and read the presentation by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, because he so eloquently points out the 
foundation of values to our country and their importance.
  I really appreciate this opportunity to join my colleagues and the 
majority leader this evening in this very, very important discussion. 
And as we are talking, a friend of the majority leader's and mine is 
somewhere in the Capitol leading a tour of this Capitol, a gentleman 
that is vice president of the Texas Republican Party and a fellow by 
the name of David Barton, who is the symbol of values, particularly 
Texas values, that represents what we are trying to say here tonight. 
We are very appreciative to have him here.
  I have been asked to discuss with the American people, Mr. Speaker, 
our legislative agenda and how it reinforces our family values. But we 
have to first ask the question what are family values? And according to 
the dictionary, the definition of a value is something intrinsically 
valuable and desirable.
  Now, most Americans believe that a strong family structure is 
intrinsically valuable and desirable. This is not a new belief. Indeed, 
an ancient philosopher once said, the root of the state is in the 
family. And likewise, the root of the United States lies in the 
families of the United States. But for too long the family structure 
has been under attack. It has been under attack from many different 
quarters.
  Today's culture all too often designates the family as the building 
block of our civilization. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania points 
out, divorce rates continue to climb in this country. Child abuse and 
neglect has become a national epidemic in this country. Drug abuse 
tears families apart. And the government has become, in many ways, an 
unwitting accomplice in the process.
  The government continues to take more money from middle-class 
families in the form of taxes and regulations. If we add up local, 
State and Federal taxes and the cost of regulations, today the average 
American family is forced to fork over more than 50 percent of its 
income to the government. That means 50 cents out of every dollar that 
a family makes today goes to the government.
  No wonder it takes one parent to work for the government while 
another parent works for the family. This puts additional pressure on a 
two-parent family, and all too often one parent is forced to work to 
pay off the government while the other works to support the family.
  That money pays for two unnecessary things: One is a bloated 
Washington bureaucracy, and the other is a misguided welfare state that 
creates a culture of dependency that quite often undermines the family 
structure in many of our most fragile communities.
  We have taken the first step to reverse this process. In the last 
Congress we reformed the welfare state to give families a hand up 
rather than a handout. And that welfare law has been a great success. 
In fact, there are fewer people on welfare today than there were in 
1970, and I think that is quite an accomplishment. But we must not 
rest.
  We are committed as a majority in this House to creating conditions 
that support strong family structures in all our communities. Our 
legislative agenda has five components:
  First, we want to reduce the government burdens put on our families; 
and we want to eliminate things like the marriage penalty in our Tax 
Code. Our Tax Code actually has an incentive for divorce. I just feel 
that that is so ridiculous, and we are going to change it.
  Our current labor laws also make it difficult for workers to 
substitute vacation hours for additional pay. If a mother or father 
wants to spend more time with their children in lieu of cash, that 
should be their choice, not the choice of some Federal Government.
  We want to give more choices to parents for child care. We want 
seniors to have more choices for their retirement security. Giving 
families more choices and ending government policies that take away 
those choices is a very critical part of our family-friendly agenda.
  A second pillar of this agenda comes with our efforts to improve 
education. Some of our Nation's public schools are getting better and 
better every day, but many others are getting worse. Parents need to 
have that option to send their kids to good schools. Good schools are 
accountable to parents. They maintain discipline. They use their 
resources wisely. Providing parents with school choice and making those 
schools face competition are innovative ways to improve education in 
this Nation.
  The majority leader, who is standing here, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Armey), has been a vocal proponent of a D.C. scholarship program 
that will give parents more choices in this beleaguered school system 
in Washington, D.C.

                              {time}  2015

  Now the President has an opportunity by signing this legislation to 
help at least 2,000 underprivileged kids in the D.C. area to have 
access to a better education. Making certain that more dollars go to 
the classroom rather than to Washington education bureaucracy is 
another important way we can improve education.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), has 
introduced a bill that does just that. Under committee consideration 
right now, the Dollars to the Classroom Act block grants 30 Federal 
education programs and requires that at least 95 percent of those funds 
go straight to the place that they are needed most, at the kids in the 
classroom.
  We will also be working on providing middle-class parents with a tax-
free education IRA. This will give parents the ability to save for 
their kids' grammar school and secondary school education. I think 
these are fitting ways to show our commitment to an improved education.
  A third pillar of our family-friendly agenda involves the war on 
drugs. Congressman Denny Hastert from Illinois, working with 
Congressman Rob Portman of Ohio and other Members in our conference, 
has designed a strategy to put some teeth in our war on drugs. We must 
not lose another generation to violence and drugs. We need aggressive 
enforcement of our drug laws, we need better interdiction at our 
borders, and we should build on the innovative efforts of faith-based 
programs that have been successful in ending drug addiction.
  Protecting the sanctity of life is the fourth pillar of our pro-
family agenda. The President vetoed legislation that outlawed the 
barbaric partial birth abortion procedure. That was a shame. Because, 
as Senator Moynihan from New York put it, this procedure is very close 
to infanticide. We will work to override that veto this year, later on 
this year.
  The culture of death that surrounds partial-birth abortion and 
assisted-suicide laws must be stopped. We should also stop government 
funding for groups that promote abortions abroad, and we should be 
exporting policies that celebrate life, not policies that promote 
death.
  The final pillar of this values-based agenda comes with protecting 
people of faith in America and across the world. All too often people 
of faith are oppressed and condemned rather than respected and 
welcomed.

[[Page H1222]]

  One example, of course, is in China. They have persecuted Christians, 
they have torn down churches, and they have imprisoned peace-loving 
pastors who only want to promote the gospel. We should continue to put 
pressure on the Chinese and other governments that practice religious 
persecution to allow more religious freedom.
  We should also end policies in America that unfairly discriminate 
against people of faith. The courts have changed our Constitution by 
distorting the original intent of the First Amendment. The First 
Amendment to the Constitution says, and I quote, Congress shall make no 
law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof.
  There is no separation of church and state in that statement. That 
does not mean that the Founding Fathers wanted us to ignore God or to 
forbid our children to pray. We believe that children should be allowed 
to pray in our schools. We should talk about the moral basis of our 
Government. We should be allowed to post the Ten Commandments in 
Federal buildings.
  Moses looks down on this Chamber every day. Right over that door, I 
am looking at the face of Moses; and he gazes down at the Speaker's 
chair. We open each of our sessions with a prayer to God. We should not 
allow the judicial branch to stamp out religious expression in other 
areas of the government.
  My colleague the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has introduced 
a religious freedom amendment that reestablishes the people's right to 
acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience, and it has 
been reported out of committee and should see floor action in this 
session.
  So let me just conclude by saying that some liberals have called us 
the ``do-nothing Congress,'' and maybe we are the ``do-nothing-they-
like Congress.'' But we are a busy Congress, doing the things that 
support the values of this country, the values that have built this 
country. And it is wrong to call us a ``do-nothing Congress.'' We are 
working on a value-based agenda that will strengthen families into the 
next century.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I so much 
appreciate his hard work and his clearly focused understanding on what 
is indeed of value to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, we are blessed by our creator with certain inalienable 
rights. Certainly, liberty and personal freedom is the greatest 
blessing of all; and our Government should be protective of that 
freedom. But I think anyone who is clear and judicious in the 
understanding of freedom understands that we really can only be free if 
we purchase that freedom through the exercise of personal 
responsibility.
  Tonight we have with us Congressman J.D. Hayworth of Arizona, who has 
studied on this matter a great deal and wants to share with us some of 
his reflections on the relationship between freedom and responsibility. 
At this time, I yield the floor to my colleague from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. Speaker, as we spend time together here in this Chamber tonight 
and by extension electronically with citizens of this great Nation from 
coast to coast and beyond, one cannot help but remark on our proud 
heritage and our history. And I would thank very much not only the 
majority leader but our colleague from Pennsylvania, where so much of 
the early history of this Nation took place, and the distinguished 
Majority Whip for offering his thoughts as well.
  Indeed, as the Whip explained, Mr. Speaker, from the vantage point of 
the Speaker's chair we can see the visage of Moses represented here in 
this Chamber looking down on these proceedings. And indeed, Mr. 
Speaker, above the chair where you sit are inscribed the words, ``In 
God we trust.''
  So tonight, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues and fellow citizens, it is 
important to reaffirm what it is we believe, to stand and celebrate the 
notion that we are free in this constitutional republic to worship God 
according to the dictates of our own conscience.
  Indeed, citizens are free to choose not to worship God. But even as 
we acknowledge that freedom, we must also acknowledge that tremendous 
history and tremendous responsibility that is inexorably part of the 
American experience. Here we stand free to express our ideas, our 
convictions, our philosophies in this Chamber; and citizens around the 
country are doing it I think tonight in a City Council meeting in 
Flagstaff, Arizona. Similar meetings may be going on in Fargo, North 
Dakota, or in Philadelphia, the cradle of our liberty, as our colleague 
from Pennsylvania pointed out. And undergirding all these notions are 
firm and solid principles.

  I could not help but reflect, as I heard our colleague from 
Pennsylvania offer his historic observations, of the actions involving 
our Founders, not only the actions taken to win our independence but 
subsequently the actions taken at that constitutional convention at 
what became Independence Hall, actions that were so incredible 
Catherine Drinker Bowen called the entire proceeding in her great and 
definitive work the ``Miracle at Philadelphia.'' And from that heritage 
and from those principles springs the deep convictions of our 
citizenry.
  Polls can never take the place of principles, and yet polling 
information offers insight into the psyche and indeed the souls of 
America. And in stark contrast to some of the polling results that have 
been offered by various media outlets in recent days, there are 
important things we can see from surveys taken across our country.
  A Terence survey reports that 71 percent of Americans polled in this 
Nation believe that our Nation confronts a moral crisis. Contrast that 
with only 16 percent of Americans believing there is an economic 
crisis. So, indeed, even as there are times of economic plenty, 
citizens of this country are concerned that there are problems with the 
morality and the fealty and the convictions which we attempt to affirm 
and uphold each day.
  Pew Research Center suggested that a decline in moral values was the 
top problem facing our Nation, three times higher than economic 
insecurity.
  Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as we come and we celebrate our diversity in the 
fact that many of us celebrate and worship God according to many 
different traditions, I know that many of us pray for the wisdom of 
Solomon, that we might, in taking on these constitutional 
responsibilities, understand that with freedom comes those 
responsibilities. And indeed, those unique circumstances the 
constitutional republic offers us in this role in this Chamber are 
mirrored by responsibilities that belong to each and every citizen. 
Other speakers have bemoaned the fact that four out of 10 children in 
America tonight will go to sleep in a home where their father is not 
present.
  Our distinguished Whip reaffirmed legislative priorities that help 
affirm the principles that have made this Nation great. We can see this 
not only in remembering and holding in reverence the words of our 
Constitution but also on the Nation's bookshelves, as so many Americans 
seek out supplements, if you will, to scripture on the notion of 
spirituality.
  Annual sales of religious books has topped $1 billion in this Nation 
in 1997. The sales increase of these items grows at a dramatic pace, 
nearly 100 percent over the last 3 years. Indeed, the best-seller that 
remains number one on every list in this great country remains the Holy 
Bible. Last year, nearly 30 million Bibles were sold in the U.S., far 
dwarfing the sales of any other book in our Nation's history.
  Indeed, as we stand and celebrate that fact, we cannot help but note 
that, in this world, as others begin their business day, indeed, across 
the dateline, as others live in another day temporally, sadly there are 
areas in this world where that very freedom to pick up Holy Scripture 
is abridged, where that notion is denied. How more remarkable, then, is 
this great constitutional republic.
  Indeed, even as Americans are concerned about a moral crisis, there 
are signs that America in general, from Main Street to Wall Street, 
seeks the help of the supreme creator.
  In new technology, matters of faith are leaping to providence. On the 
Internet, the Christianity on-line web page is named as one of the most 
popular web sites on America Online.
  In my former profession of broadcasting, we have all witnessed the 
phenomenal success of Dr. Laura

[[Page H1223]]

Schlessinger who has taken to the airwaves to reaffirm the simple 
notions of faith and family and fealty to those principles which made 
us great and to the responsibilities engendered in taking on 
fatherhood, in taking on marriage, in taking on a leadership position, 
not only at home but in a fellowship of faith or in a business or, dare 
I say it, in a position within government.
  Mr. Speaker, I have learned a lot in traveling the width and breadth 
of the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona, an area in square 
mileage roughly the size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. A message 
continues to come from my constituents, many of whom had forbearers who 
came to what was a relatively desolate place at one point in our 
history, folks with the help of technology and faith literally made the 
desert bloom. It has given flower to freedom but, with that, a notion 
that is not peculiar to the West but reaffirmed there that with freedom 
comes responsibility, and those responsibilities we dare not shirk.
  The other note I have heard, Mr. Speaker, from my constituents is 
this notion that while there are those who say you cannot legislate 
morality, it is also true that you cannot exercise moral leadership 
without a firm foundation of moral authority. So that is what we seek.
  Even as we celebrate the differences in our religious expressions and 
backgrounds, even as we celebrate the fact that we will not all speak 
with one voice on every issue when we come into this Chamber or stand 
in this well or cast a vote on behalf of those we represent, but we 
give thanks for the opportunity to be here to be able to worship 
according to the dictates of our own conscience, to discuss these 
matters freely and openly, and to have the opportunities to see that we 
can address the so-called moral crisis with a commitment to seek 
wisdom, with a commitment in the words of the prophet Micah to do 
justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God.
  With that, I yield back to our distinguished majority leader.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for his contribution. It is truly 
appreciated. Mr. Speaker, we will follow up the distinguished gentleman 
from Arizona with the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Talent), who will give us further reflections on this subject.
  Mr. TALENT. I thank the majority leader for yielding to me. It is 
always hard to follow my friend from Arizona.
  Mr. Speaker, we are a country that has been blessed with great 
prosperity. With our affluence has come more choices for all the 
American people. The more choices we have, the more important it is to 
exercise responsibility along with our freedom. Mr. Speaker, the law 
does not directly legislate responsibility typically. It does not 
require directly that you engage in moral activity. It just says you 
cannot engage in activity that hurts other people. There is no reason 
why the law should do that. Typically there are very important 
consequences that follow socially if you do exercise these choices in 
an irresponsible or an immoral way.
  There is no law, Mr. Speaker, against lying. If you lie too much, you 
are going to find yourself without any friends. There is no law against 
borrowing too much. But if you do, you typically end up losing 
everything. The problem is not that our laws do not, except in very 
limited areas, legislate responsibility along with freedom; the problem 
is in the last generation or so, we have allowed government policies to 
develop that actually detach responsibility from freedom, that actually 
seduce people into exercising their freedom in a way that is 
irresponsible because it at least holds out the prospect of immunizing 
them from the natural and normal consequences that typically follow 
from making bad choices. We see that in a lot of areas of the law.
  The criminal justice system over the last generation developed in a 
way that tended to treat criminals as if they were the victim and so 
sent the messages to young people that they were not responsible for 
their behaviors, that if they did wrong it was because they were the 
victim of an unjust society. The tax system that punishes savings and 
investment by taxing it tends to reward people who consume and spend 
everything that they earn.
  And then the subject, the area that I want to discuss tonight very 
briefly, Mr. Speaker, the welfare system, which is perhaps the best 
example we have of a system that over the years made it harder and 
harder for decent people to live honest, responsible lives. Today we 
are living and they are living with the consequences of that system. 
Mr. Speaker, in the immediate postwar era in the late 1940s, the 
poverty rate in this country was around 30 percent. It declined 
steadily for the 20 years following that until 1965 when it reached 15 
percent. It was at that point that the Federal Government declared war 
on poverty. The Federal Government decided that it was going to help 
poor people in this country, a natural and good impulse. But it did it 
by providing the wrong incentives.
  Mr. Speaker, there are two programs, if you will, two things that 
typically over the generations have gotten Americans out of poverty, 
that has gotten my parents out of poverty, that gets people out of 
poverty or got their parents out of poverty, because, Mr. Speaker, 
almost everybody in America either grew up poor or had a parent who 
grew up poor or at least had a grandparent who grew up poor. So this is 
not something that most people are not familiar with. Those two things 
that tend to get people out of poverty the quickest in this country are 
work and family, typically marriage. The Federal Government decided in 
1965 that it was going to condition a very substantial package of 
assistance on people doing neither of those things, a package of 
assistance that grew until it reached $8,000 to $15,000 a year in cash 
and other kinds of benefits, an amount of money that seems very, very 
large to a person coming from a low income background. What the 
government said in effect to people was, ``Look, if you don't work, if 
you get married without having children, we will provide you with a 
large package of assistance.'' And so we effectively changed the 
behavior that people would otherwise engage in. If people wanted to get 
out of poverty in the way my parents did it, that is the way that 
requires a lot of faith, a lot of work, a lot of long-term thinking, a 
lot of responsibility. You have to decide that in America, you can make 
it out by working, make it out by staying in school as long as you can, 
make it out by raising a family after you have married someone who has 
made a commitment to doing that. That is one alternative that was 
available to people from lower incomes. Then the other alternative the 
government was offering was, ``Now, wait a minute, you can have an 
apartment of your own, you can have health care, you can have food 
stamps and you can have walking around money. All you have to do is not 
get a job and have a child without being married.''
  Then we were surprised at the results, Mr. Speaker. The poverty rate 
in 1965 when the Federal Government declared war on poverty was 15 
percent. In 1995, 30 years later, it was still 15 percent. Only we had 
changed the poverty from something that was transient, that typically 
went away after a generation, to a situation where people were mired in 
dependence on the government without the family or neighborhood support 
that had made it possible for them to get out of poverty. What we got 
was not a decrease in poverty but a vast increase in the out of wedlock 
birthrate, from about 6 percent in 1965 to about 32 percent in 1995.
  What a sad thing, Mr. Speaker. I talk very often to teen moms. What a 
sad thing, because if you are 16, 17, 18 years old, you have had a 
child, you are not married, you have not finished school, you do not 
have any family support, well, then you really are not going to get out 
of poverty very quickly probably, and it is heroic that so many young 
people are trying, notwithstanding the incentives in this system. They 
wake up after a couple of years and realize that what they were seduced 
to do is a dead end.
  We changed that with an act in 1996 that was aptly called the 
Personal Responsibility Act of 1996. We are already experiencing the 
good consequences of that as caseloads around the country are dropping 
on average 20 to 25 percent, something that has not happened in the 
postwar era. The system, Mr. Speaker, was such that as my friend

[[Page H1224]]

the majority leader said one time, ``We need to reform welfare, not 
because people on welfare are abusing the system but because the system 
is abusing people on welfare.''
  Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that that bill should be a model of 
what we try and do and in fact have done in other areas. We have 
reformed substantially the incentives in the criminal justice system. 
We have made a start in changing the tax system. We need to continue 
linking once again the law to responsibility, linking once again the 
responsibility that people normally have for the decisions that they 
make. That is the way to rebuild America. That is what we are trying to 
do here. That is the new consensus that is emerging in Washington. Mr. 
Speaker, it has been a pleasure to declaim on this subject for a few 
minutes.

  Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman again. Mr. Speaker, here we are. We 
have had a pretty decent, as we like to say, truck driver's review of a 
lot of the things very important to the American people. The gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) came in earlier and talked about the 
founders of this great Nation, how they were governed by faith, born 
mostly from our Judeo-Christian traditions; how serious were such words 
as honor, duty, dignity, respect, decency, morality, ethics, 
truthfulness, and how much that was the foundation on which this great 
Nation was built. We have had some look at the character and the nature 
of the American people. For all our foibles, Mr. Speaker, we really 
have not as a Nation strayed that far from those wonderful, courageous, 
devoted, dedicated people that founded this great Nation. We are still 
fundamentally good people, and we are still fundamentally people that 
depend upon rules of law and rules of governance around which we might 
organize ourselves and our personal lives and our relationship to one 
another. We do look to the government. Then it comes to some of us to 
be part of the government.
  I was struck today, I had for me an incredible privilege. I actually 
was able to substitute for the Speaker of the House today in the 
business of swearing in a new Member of our body, 435 people, all of 
whom are given a trust, a sense of responsibility, a certain amount of 
confidence and faith and expectation placed in each and every one of 
us. I suppose maybe we do not stop and think back about how big a deal 
that is in our lives and how big it can be in the lives of others who 
have trusted us. I am sure the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) 
did today on this day of her first day of work as a Member of the 
Congress of the United States, charged with the responsibility of 
writing law.
  I think what we must do is ask ourselves, what is our responsibility? 
Who are we and what are we doing here? We look for examples. We in 
Texas, for example, like to cite our favorite Speaker Sam Rayburn, a 
man of great sage advice. We read the history books and we know of 
other great Speakers. We know of other great Members. We have read 
Profiles in Courage and we all hope that someday we might be included 
in the same way. But how do we decide the model that will govern us? 
What a difficult thing to reconcile the authority and the 
responsibility placed in us with the fact that what it is we are 
responsible for is to writing the law by which a Nation of free people 
will govern itself.
  It begins, I believe, with our first knowing the goodness of the 
American people and first committing ourselves to represent the best of 
the American people, not their fears and not their doubts and not their 
reservations or their jealousies or their envies or their angers, but 
what is truly the best of their hopes and their dreams, their 
abilities, their contributions, their citizenship and, yes, indeed, 
their faith. So we look for examples. It is not enough, I believe, for 
us to be here and be satisfied that the work we do is good. I think we 
must go beyond that and conduct ourselves in our own personal life 
either on the job or off such that others that look to those of us that 
were given this responsibility and this privilege and yes, this 
authority, will see in us an example of someone that is good, that is 
at once an example that can be held up before your children and at the 
same time an encouragement to those children to live out in their lives 
the best of all that goodness that was placed in each and every one of 
those precious children by a wonderful God and Creator who had the 
generosity to create us after His own image.
  So where do we look? Let me suggest that we look to that Creator, 
that most wonderful Creator who must have had his frustrations, do you 
not suppose, with the children of Abraham, as we read in the Old 
Testament, as they wandered and they struggled and they were serving 
and they vacillated between faith and doubt? How many times do you 
suppose they let their God and their Creator down with their inability 
to understand or their inability to accept or their inability to 
practice in their own lives a disciplined faith? Yet He never left 
them. How many times have we said, you and I, in our own childhood and 
we have heard it from our own children, have we not, ``Well, if God is 
so powerful, why doesn't he just stop me from doing those things?''

                              {time}  2045

  So if I was bad, it must be his fault. But that is what freedom is 
all about, is it not, giving us both the freedom to do, to choose, and 
the responsibility that goes with it.
  As I read in the Old Testament about the struggle and the search of 
the children of Abraham and the expressions of hope by their God and 
their Creator, our God and our Creator, I am struck by something. The 
Lord God Almighty looked down on these people searching for a way, and 
He said, I hope My children will know My laws and obey them so things 
will go well for them. He did not say, so that they would know My power 
and know My authority and know I am in command here. His hope was about 
His children, that they would know His laws and obey them so things 
would go well with them.
  Lord God Almighty did not give us many laws, Mr. Speaker. He gave us 
a lot of helpful suggestions, many of which can be found in Proverbs, 
my favorite book of the Bible. So many helpful suggestions, but very 
few laws. It should not be hard for us to remember them. But Lord God 
knew His people. He knew the goodness that was in these people. He knew 
their needs, and He wrote only those laws that were necessary so that a 
free people, knowing his laws and obeying them, would find that things 
would go well for them.
  Maybe, Mr. Speaker, as we practice the authorities and the 
responsibilities and the privilege granted to us by people that have 
elected us to these positions, maybe someday if we are successful, we 
can draw from that model; we can look back on our careers, we can look 
at the way we have conducted ourselves as an example before others, and 
hopefully, as an encouragement before others, and look at our 
legislative record, and maybe we can say, I hope my children know and 
obey my laws so things will go well for them. And perhaps, if we can 
have any confidence, we might in some way emulate that wonderful 
kindness and great charity given to us by a God who is of such 
generosity that He would create us humble beings in His own image.
  It is a serious matter we have discussed here this evening. We have 
not done justice to it. We find ourselves leaving this hour's 
discussion, even after the wonderful contributions given by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts); the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Hayworth); the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent); and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and my own meager offering here, 
probably with more questions than answers. But are they not great 
questions, Mr. Speaker? Questions about the goodness of a people in a 
land that was created by people to do honor to the greatest gift of 
all, the gift of freedom from Lord God Almighty, our Creator.

                          ____________________