Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Well, Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from California because he is right on. The thing that I was thinking about as he was speaking is, number one, the headline that he referred to in The New York Times on the front page yesterday is the same sort of headline on the front page of The Washington Post today. I know both papers hated to write those articles. And if you read the articles, they always qualify things and say, yes, things are good, the deficit is going down, revenues are going up, they are holding down spending, but there are some things out there that are going to throw cold water on this burgeoning economy. We have gotten that over and over again in this Chamber. I can remember when we first started out with this majority in 1995, when we were committed to a balanced budget and this majority in this House led us to a balanced budget through the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, oh, the fear-mongering was absolutely outrageous. Hardly any Democrat voted for that bill, including President Clinton, who vetoed it one or two times, if I recall, and finally he signed it for political reasons. But the point is, they fought us every step of the way. They fought the philosophy of letting people hang on to more of their money and invest it and spend it and try to hold down Federal spending, the key to bringing a balanced budget. We thought the budget would be balanced in 5 to 7 years, but it was balanced in 2 years because the philosophy worked. We started gaining surpluses and started paying down on the debt because we had surpluses. We did run into economic problems because of the war and the bubble burst and recession and other things, and 9/11; but we are coming back. And the reason we are coming back is we are sticking to that philosophy that the gentleman is laying out here. We understand that the American business is overtaxed, overlitigated, overregulated. We understand that the government is too big and doing things it should not be doing, forcing monies out of the pocket of the private sector and families in this country and into the pockets of bureaucrats to do things that are unproductive; and we are attempting to get at that. We just passed the toughest budget that we have passed in a very, very long time that gives us the opportunity to look at entitlement programs, which are the biggest spenders in this Federal Government. So we are doing that. We are attempting to bring not only fiscal responsibility to this government but understanding how we can get government out of the way of entrepreneurs and families to let them do what they do best, which is to create jobs and create wealth. But the kinds of comments that are reported time and time again and never checked to see if they actually work, that come from the other side of the aisle, from the Democrat leadership, is just incredible. And now is the time to compare those kinds of comments, talking about the fact that our approach to the economy is going to drive up the deficit, when the deficit is going down; that cutting taxes takes money away from very important programs in the government, when revenues are going up and we are still able to fund those programs that make sense.

Mr. DeLAY. Let me guess, Madam Speaker. It must not be the rich. Could it be the rich?

Mr. DeLAY. As I do, Madam Speaker, and I greatly appreciate the gentleman's efforts, as I said before; and we are looking forward to implementing his agenda and the agenda of the Economic Competitiveness Caucus that he has put together and kicked off today. We are looking forward to working with them to bring this very important agenda to the floor of the House. It is only because we are in the majority that the gentleman is able to bring this agenda to the floor of the House, and we need to constantly remind the American people of that fact.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debates; and, further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, July 19, 2005.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago on a Saturday morning, the vessel and crew of space shuttle mission STS-107 were lost in the high skies over Texas. That same day, even in mourning, America made a promise to the memory of the Columbia Seven that our journey in space will continue, that their legacy of discovery would survive them. This afternoon at 3:51 on the east coast, the space shuttle Discovery, carrying as it will two women, five men, and the ancient hopes of an entire planet, will keep that promise by rocketing out of our atmosphere and into history. Commander Eileen Collins and her crew, James Kelly, Andrew Thomas, Wendy Lawrence, Charles Camarda, Stephen Robinson, and Soichi Noguchi will pilot the safest, most sophisticated, and reliable spacecraft ever built back into low earth orbit to begin NASA's historic work realizing President Bush's bold new vision for space exploration. That mission will command the physical and intellectual energies of some of America's brightest and bravest for years to come. The men and women of NASA, some of my constituents and some of my heroes, who devote their lives to doing the impossible for our Nation and our world, will spend the next decade and more on a technological and visionary quest: To send and resend the shuttle fleet into space to complete the International Space Station; to examine with unprecedented vigor and precision in the galaxy's preeminent laboratory the long-term exposure of the human body to microgravity and radiation; to design and construct the next generation of American spacecraft; to return to the moon; and to plot and endeavor a manned mission to Mars. The exploration of the unknown is one of the innate motivating forces of our species. That universal and ancient yearning will be satisfied today by NASA's heroic ``corps of discovery'' in a mission not to conquer space, but to conquer human ignorance. The darkness will be lighted, and this afternoon seven heroes will carry the torch of human discovery into the void. Our future in space is still unknown and unknowable: The station remains incomplete, the moon is still years away, and Mars is still a red speck in the night sky, but today's launch is a step toward our destiny. And like all steps into the unknown, the voyage of Discovery, T-minus 5 hours and 40 minutes, will prove the next giant leap in ``the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked.''

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us represents a promise, a promise by the House of Representatives to the American people that not only are we aware of the hindrances to prosperity now existing in the national economy but that we are committed to removing them as soon as possible. We are aware that compliance with Federal regulation costs American companies $850 billion a year. We are aware those costs are passed along from American businesses to American consumers in higher prices to the tune of $8,000 per family per year. We are aware that exports account for one-sixth of our economic growth, and that one in five American factory jobs and one in three American crop acres depend on customers in foreign markets and that many markets are still closed to our goods. We are aware that 1 million American jobs rely on research and development conducted by private businesses and through our world-class university system. We are aware that 60 percent of American businesses are impeded in their growth by the lack of advanced training in the workplace. We are also aware that health care is too expensive, coverage too limited, and that small businesses are at a disadvantage in covering their employees. We are aware that our tax system is unfair and inefficient, and that it costs families and businesses billions of dollars and hours every year. We are aware that our economy is dangerously dependent on foreign sources of oil, and that it is overrun with frivolous lawsuits that abuse our legal system. And, starting this week, Mr. Speaker, the House is going to do something about it. We are going to take up major legislation addressing these eight sources of economic friction and tear down these eight walls now surrounding the American dream. The debate about these eight issues: trade freedom and fairness; bureaucratic red tape; innovation and investment; health care security; lifelong learning; tax relief and simplification; lawsuit abuse reform; and energy independence are over. We all know these impediments to prosperity need reform, and we know what we have to do to reform them. With this resolution, Mr. Speaker, the House will take a first step toward enacting these needed economic reforms to help small businesses create not just jobs but long-term, rewarding careers for the American people.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. S. Ward Casscells III of Houston, Texas upon his commission as a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army Reserve Medical Corps. In accepting this commission, Lt. Colonel Casscells becomes one of the brave souls to serve not only as our Nation's defender, but also as our ambassador of freedom throughout the world. Serving in the United States military is a great gift of self and an act of the truest patriotism. Through his service, Lt. Colonel Casscells has displayed his patriotism and great love for his Nation, while proving his commitment and dedication to the cause of freedom. This admirable man brings great honor to himself, his family, and his community in joining the United States Army Reserve and proving his loyalty to family and his commitment to country. He is truly a shining example to his peers and, indeed, to all the citizens of the United States of America. I again congratulate S. Ward Casscells III on joining the United States Army Reserve, and I wish him well in his heroic endeavors.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, July 13, 2005.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his generosity in yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States was written as much for any other reason as to protect the private property rights of the American people. The Supreme Court last week, in the already infamous Kelo case, essentially rejected the very idea of private property rights at all. I know some believe that the Supreme Court is some Citadel with all knowledge and all wisdom and that every decision they make is the right decision. But by this narrow 5-4 decision, our high court essentially set aside the most basic fundamental tenet of the social contract that underlies self-government, the inviolability of private property rights; the unchangeable principle of politics, morality, and common sense; that what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours. What the court decided last week was that what is mine is not really mine and what is yours is not really yours; that, in fact, private property only exists as a political expedient, a psychological contrivance wholly subject to the government's whim. The court ruled that private property, your home or your small business, may be taken by the government and given to someone else who, in the government's judgment, will put that property to better use. This is not the taking of someone's property without compensation for specific public use, like a highway or a military base. Congress and States are explicitly granted such power in the Constitution. This is, instead, the government taking your home and giving it to some business because they will generate more tax revenue. Indeed, given the risible logic employed by the court's majority last week, there is no reason your city council cannot kick you out of your house and give it to a wealthier family who will add on to the home and, therefore, pay higher property taxes down the road. Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer, so do not just take my word for it. Justice O'Connor, writing in dissent of this awful decision said: ``If predicted, or even guaranteed, positive side effects are enough to render transfer from one private party to another constitutional, then the words ``for public use'' in the Constitution do not realistically exclude any takings.'' Justice Thomas adds, ``If such economic development takings are for public use, any taking is, and the court has erased the Public Use Clause for our constitution.'' Both Justices O'Connor and Thomas went on to warn the result of this foolhardy decision would be that people most vulnerable to the government preying on their property would be the poor, the elderly, and racial minorities. No kidding. Those people with the least economic and political power, with the least means to fight back, and the most need for government protection of their God-given rights have been told by the Supreme Court that while property rights are sacred, some people's property rights are more sacred than others. This is madness, Mr. Speaker, and it must not stand. The court's Kelo decision will go down in history as a travesty. It is not a debatable ideological overreach but a universally deplorable assault of the rights of man. The only bright lining to it is that this time the court may have finally gone too far and the American people will reassert their constitutional authority. We can only hope, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution will be the first step in a long overdue process of constitutional renewal. Begin that process and vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the author and proponents of this amendment, which would lift the longstanding prohibition on American travel in Cuba, support it for perfectly valid motives. They believe the infusion of both American money and American culture--however limited--will be a net positive for Cuba's struggling economy. And if, in fact, Cuba's economy was simply struggling, I would whole-heartedly support this amendment. But Cuba's economy is not struggling--it is strangled. It is dominated, oppressed, and leeched by Fidel Castro's terrorist regime in Havana. Cuba has no economy, not in the way we understand the term; it merely has economic extensions of Castro's tyranny. In Castro's Cuba, any money taken in from tourists is pilfered by the government and used to fund its decades-old machinery of oppression. There is no free market; just a command economy. There are no small businessmen; just Castro's button-men. There is no service industry; just a giant money-laundering apparatus for a murderous tyrant. Proponents of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, would have us believe Cuba could become America's playground if only the economic sanctions were lifted--that once Cuba's economy and culture were exposed to American dollars and sensibilities, we would have a tropical paradise, an exotic vacation Mecca, right around the corner. But Mr. Chairman, the difference between Cuba and Bermuda is not the absence of tourists in the former but the absence of secret police in the latter! The money Americans would spend in Cuba under this amendment would directly--not indirectly, but directly--benefit Fidel Castro's dictatorship, his aiding and abetting of international terrorism, his oppression of the Cuban people, and his hijacking of Cuban history. The only solution is to not spend that money in the first place. President Bush is right, as he has been for four years, to promise to veto any legislation that enriches Fidel Castro or benefits his regime. The president is right. I stand with him, and I urge all my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, frankly, I support the words in this amendment, but I reject the politics that brings it here. I think this House has sunk to a very new low, using veterans and trying to scare veterans for political gain. It is absolutely amazing to me that because you disagree with policies of the administration, you try to lead the Nation to think that people are lying. There is no lying here. Questioning the motives of military heroes that come to testify before this House and before the Senate is a new low. Questioning people's honest, forthright presentation of the facts as they know them at the time that they testify as lies is a new low. And that is what we have come to. It has come to politicizing everything. It does not matter what it is. And not only politicizing it, but trying to scare people into supporting your position. I remember very distinctly when this issue came to us, because the Veterans Administration had done a mid-year review and found the problem with the shortfall in veterans health. They properly informed the people that should be informed, both Democrat as well as Republican. Instead of doing what the responsible thing is, which is what our chairmen of the relevant committees did, that is, start looking at the problem, making sure we understand the problem, and then finding a solution for the problem, what did the other side of the aisle do; they immediately ran down here and tried to pass an amendment to a bill and throw over $1 billion at a problem they did not even understand. Why? Why would you do that? Why would you do such an irresponsible thing? The only reason you would do it is for politics. They had no idea what was required. As mentioned earlier, the Veterans Administration had suggested that they just move money around to get us through this fiscal year so that we could appropriate the next year. That was not a good solution. And the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) understood that and worked with the administration, and we are going to pass the solution tonight, understanding that we need not only to replace this money that is in the shortfall, but to make sure that there is enough money forward. I mean, in the bill that most of this House voted for that funds Veterans' Affairs, this House and our committees knew that there was a shortfall in what was presented by the administration, in our opinion. Not because we were lied to, but in our opinion. And we put $1.64 billion more than what was requested by the President, thinking that would take care of the problem. And it still may take care of the problem next year. And that is what these bills are all about, funding next year. We will take care of the problem now. And I say to the veterans in this country, you will not miss one day of health care that is coming to you. Do not listen to the politics and be afraid that you may lose your health care. That is not going to happen. We will take care of it, just as we have always taken care of it. Since the Republicans became the majority in 1995 funding for veterans has increased 77 percent. When the Democrats controlled this House from 1984 to 1994, spending per veteran rose from $923 to $1,300. Yet in the next 10 years, in the years that we have had the majority, it rose to $2,773. From $1,300 to $2,700. Funding for the Montgomery GI bill rose 35 percent when they were in charge. But since we have been in charge the last 10 years, the GI bill funding rose 147 percent. And yet we are constantly trying to play politics and cover up the facts. The bill that we passed for next year will take care of this. From 2001 to 2005, the percentage increase in the VA health care funding, 40 percent, was larger than the Defense Department's increase; 33 percent. And this is a time of war. We are providing for the needs of our veterans. We are taking care of our veterans. Do not let the political rhetoric and the political posturing and the demagoguery say otherwise. Because the facts, if you really want the truth, the facts say that we are not only taking care of our veterans, not only do we understand our responsibilities to our veterans, not only do we understand what veterans have contributed to this Nation and our welfare and our freedom, we are doing more than talking about it. We are taking the responsible way of taking care of our veterans and not playing irresponsible politics. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' against this cynical, political amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 198) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on this legislative day, it adjourn to meet at 6 p.m. on the third constitutional day thereafter, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 198, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on International Relations have until midnight July 8, 2005, to file the report on H.R. 2601, the State Department Authorization bill.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this week the House will complete its constitutionally mandated initial round of work on the annual appropriations bills that fund our national government. This spring and summer, the House's restructured Committee on Appropriations and its staff have worked under an accelerated schedule and within an extremely disciplined fiscal budget environment, and they have produced bills that are worthy of the needs and values of the American people. When the final two of the House's 11 spending bills are passed this week, Foreign Operations and the Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development bills, the House will have put us on track to hold domestic discretionary spending next year below this year's level. If we hold to these levels, the Federal Government will realize a real cut in domestic discretionary spending in 2006 for the first time since the Reagan administration. By the end of this week, we will have targeted more than 100 low-priority government programs for termination, more than even President Bush proposed in his austere budget. These difficult, but necessary, reductions will tighten the Federal Government's belt to the tune of $4.6 billion. In these bills, the House has met our Nation's pressing needs here at home and around the world, but at the same time has held every program accountable to the American people. Passage of these bills puts us on a path to deficit reduction, just as Republicans promised at the beginning of this Congress. As we showed in the 1990s, the best, and indeed the only, way to cut the deficit is to hold down government spending while creating an environment for greater economic growth through tax relief. That is exactly what is happening now. With Federal revenues up and spending checked and even reduced, the Congressional Budget Office has lowered its projected deficit for the year. We are finally on that glide-path to balance. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) deserves an enormous amount of credit for this achievement, and I would be remiss if I did not also thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, for his work, especially given this year's accelerated schedule and restructured committee. The House has taken the first step toward reaffirming fiscal accountability again in 2006; but with the process only half over, you can bet, Mr. Speaker, it will not be our last.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the minimum time for electronic voting on any motion to recommit may be 5 minutes, notwithstanding that it would be the first vote in a series.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to put all Members on notice that as soon as the Committee rises, I will seek an order of the House to permit 5-minute voting on any motion to recommit. I mention this now so that Members can have as much notice as possible. Announcement By the Chairman

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the minimum time for electronic voting on any motion to recommit may be 5 minutes, notwithstanding that it would be the first vote in a series.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. What a good man he was, Mr. Speaker. What a friend, what a gentleman, what a servant. James Jarrell Pickle was born on October 11, 1913, the son of a grocer and his schoolteacher wife, and died June 18, 2005, a statesman of the first cut. He was in many ways the story of his country in the 20th century. Some of his earliest memories were of soldiers returning home from France, heroes back from winning the First World War. He witnessed the roaring twenties as a teenager and came of age--much like our Nation itself--during the Great Depression. After graduating from the University of Texas in an age when the country turned to Washington for help, Jake Pickle came to Washington to help. He became a congressional aide, and quickly put his heart and mind into service for his country. That commitment to public service, though, was not to be limited to desk work. He served honorably in the United States Navy as an officer aboard the USS Miami and St. Louis during the war in the Pacific. After the war, Pickle returned home to Texas to make his way in the world as a young entrepreneur, spending his postwar years, as so many of his countrymen did, earning his share of America's peace dividend. He returned again to Washington in 1963, this time as a young Congressman, the winner of a special election in Texas' 10th Congressional District. Representative Pickle learned early that the 1960s would give no quarter to half measures. Sides had to be chosen and stands had to be made. J.J. Pickle cast his first significant vote in this building in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of only a handful of Southerners to do so. A Southerner in the days of Jim Crow, he feared the vote would destroy his young career. Instead, Mr. Speaker, that vote of conscience and courage came to define him. He served nobly in this body but never forgot he was a Texan serving in Washington, and not the other way around. His family and his constituents, Texans all, were his passion and he loved them all with the heart of a servant. It was in 1983, when he led the effort on the Ways and Means Committee to solve the short-term crisis facing Social Security, that Pickle reached the pinnacle of his congressional service. Over his 31 years in Congress, Jake Pickle served millions of people in his Austin- based district, and if he had his way, he would have gotten to know every last one of them. He was a good man, a good friend and a great Congressman. I think what may sum up his life and death is this: That as much as we will all miss his service to our Nation, he will still probably miss the opportunity to serve even more.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the distinguished whip yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, Monday the House will convene at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour debates and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider H.R. 2863, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006, and any recorded votes requested will be rolled until 6:30. On Tuesday, the House will convene at 9 a.m. for morning hour debates and 10 a.m. for legislative business. We expect to consider several measures under suspension of the rules, as well as H.R. 2475, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. For the rest of the week, the House will consider several additional bills under a rule: H.J. Res. 10, the Flag desecration amendment; the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2006; and the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 some time later in the week.

Mr. DeLAY. First, let me repeat what I mentioned in my statement. This is rather unusual, but we will be considering the Department of Defense appropriations bill on Monday afternoon. We will roll votes until 6:30 p.m., but Members should know that we will be having very important debate Monday afternoon, including amendments. In terms of the rest of the week, I would expect us to consider intelligence authorization, Flag amendment, and legislative branch appropriations on Tuesday and Wednesday, and Labor-HHS would be reserved for Thursday and Friday.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I would expect the Flag amendment would follow right after the intelligence authorization bill, and then legislative branch right after that.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I think that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Hoekstra), and the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), will be all in sync on that particular issue. They have been working together and working well to come to a solution to that. I would imagine it would be in a manager's amendment, whatever solution they come to.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, as far as I have been advised, that is correct.