Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. As I was saying before I was interrupted, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding, the point is that both sides, in the old rules, both sides could shut the process down. The difference is, and it is a huge difference, the Members would be hanging out there and with no resolution. And the gentleman is incorrect and misrepresents the process. The process starts with the ranking member and the chairman looking at the facts as presented to them by the person charging the Member. And then they decide whether to submit a recommendation to the full committee to proceed further and what action should be taken. So the facts the gentleman is talking about start with the ranking member and the chairman. Then a recommendation is submitted, just like a DA would submit a recommendation to a grand jury. And this is the grand jury process, to the committee, and the committee makes a decision whether they go forward. Now, what happens in practice is, if that Member that has been charged receives from the committee that they are moving towards an investigative subcommittee, that is a huge hit on that Member, whether he is guilty or not. The press run with it and all kinds of things happen, as the gentleman perfectly knows. So that step to go to an investigative subcommittee is a very, very important step. And that is why the Speaker thought it was really important that a bipartisan vote be made in order to get to that step. It starts with his own ranking member making a decision, in concert, one vote to one vote, with the chairman, whether to submit the recommendation to the committee to proceed. And that is where the gentleman's concerns can be taken care of as to whether it is going to be blocked one way or another. Then once they have made that recommendation, if they make a strong recommendation to proceed to an investigative subcommittee, I guarantee you, because you have a Republican chairman and a Democrat ranking member, the committee is going to follow their recommendation more times than not, and you will have a bipartisan, and in many cases, a unanimous vote to proceed to the next step. The problem is, and it is a real problem that was used, where you come to a deadlock, then there is no resolution for the Member that has been charged. And the Speaker felt very strongly that that undermines the rights of every Member of this House.

Mr. DeLAY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the gentleman who worked so hard on that bipartisan ethics reform taskforce that made recommendations to the House. And I appreciate that the gentleman is trying to protect those rules that he worked on. But I remind the gentleman that when those rules were voted on, both gentlemen from Maryland voted against the rules they are trying to protect today. And then I might say your comments are well taken. The length of time is a problem. We have recognized that is a problem and I am told, I have not talked to the ethics chairman, but I am told through the Speaker that the ethics chairman has offered to negotiate the time problem with the ranking member. I do not know what the result of that has been, but I know that the Speaker has been informed by the chairman that he is more than willing to work on those issues, and I know the Speaker told me that he is open to fixing that time problem that the gentleman brings up and is concerned about.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman would yield, I appreciate that.

Mr. DeLAY. I yield back.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, obviously we would have liked to have met the statutory deadline of April 15, but, unfortunately, we will not. I am advised that the Speaker has not yet decided when he would like to appoint the conferees to meet with the Senate, but it could occur as early as next week. Hopefully, within the next few weeks we will have a conference report for the House to consider that provides for the extension of the pro- growth tax policies enacted in 2001 and 2003, reduces non-security discretionary spending, and provides for important reforms of entitlement programs.

Mr. DeLAY. I thank the distinguished whip for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Tuesday at 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under the suspension of the rules. A final list of those bills will be sent to the Members' offices by the end of the week. Any votes called on these measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will convene at 10 a.m. for legislative business. We will likely consider additional legislation under the suspension of the rules, as well as H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman would yield. I have to remind the gentleman, and I know going back to 1997 is very difficult, but this was not part of the rules package. This was voted on September 18, 1997, and it was on the recommendations for reforming the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and the gentleman that worked on the recommendation and the gentleman speaking voted against the recommendations, not on the House rules package. My point, and I do not want to belabor that for the gentleman, I think it is very important that if the gentleman is protecting a package and a rules ethics reform that he voted against, I think that is one thing. But the other thing is we are working in a bipartisan way, I hope. The chairman and ranking member are dealing with this. A commission would just open up the whole recommendations that the gentleman from Maryland worked on and the gentleman from Louisiana worked on. I do not think we need a complete overhaul of the ethics process, but there are certain problems that were found in practice that the Speaker felt needed to be done in order to protect the Members. And I have got to tell you, the Members on your side of the aisle as well as my side of the aisle better think about this very seriously because we do want to protect the integrity of the institution. But, as important as that is, we also want to protect the rights of the Members.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, April 18, 2005, that it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 for morning hour debates.

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 next.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding to me, and I appreciate those words more than you know. I really appreciate you having this Special Order on an incredibly important issue that is important to all of us. You are fighting along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) the fight that makes sure that we have retirement security for our seniors, for all of us, for our young today, providing retirement security for them. Mr. Speaker, for all the rhetoric being thrown at the Social Security debate these days, four facts rise above the opinions. Fact number one: The ratio of workers to retirees is shrinking. In 1945, there were 42 workers for every retiree. Today, there are three. And when my daughter retires, there will only be two. Fact number two: The average rate of return for Social Security money is 1.6 percent. In other words, Americans could do better just putting their money into a simple savings account. Fact number three: In just 3 years, the first of the baby boomers will start to retire, and in just over a decade, the Social Security system will start to pay out more money than it takes in. Fact number four: Seniors are living longer and living more active lives than they were when Social Security was first created. Average life expectancy has increased 15 years since the 1930s, yet the system is still making 20th century assumptions. These facts are not in dispute. Social Security is in trouble. The trouble is not as bad as it will be 10 years down the road if we do nothing, but it is serious trouble nonetheless. The question is not whether Social Security needs fixing. The question is when, how and by whom. When? As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker. With each passing day, fewer and fewer workers are paying more and more benefits to support an ever- increasing population of retirees. The four facts I mentioned before all lead to a fifth fact, that every year that we wait to strengthen and improve Social Security, the problem gets $600 billion bigger. If we wait until after the next election, that is $1.2 trillion more we will eventually have to come up with. We have an opportunity to act this year, and we must seize it. How? Permanently and comprehensively, Mr. Speaker. Every 15 years or so since its creation, Congress has gone in and treated a symptom of Social Security's more fundamental fiscal problems. But this time, thanks to the leadership of President Bush, we are committed to solving the problem itself, permanently. We need a solution to the fundamental challenges facing Americans' retirement security beyond just altering a formula here or there. We need a solution that goes beyond mere tax increases or benefit tweaks. We need to acknowledge 21st century realities and develop solutions around them. One of those solutions, or, rather, a part of any such solution, is the establishment of personal retirement accounts within the Social Security system that will enable younger workers to build their own retirement nest eggs that they can pass on to their children and that the government can never take away. Personal retirement accounts are an exciting, innovative and secure way for younger workers to save for their retirements and prepare for their own futures their own way. Finally, Mr. Speaker, by whom? By us, Mr. Speaker. The fiscal crisis that now threatens the Social Security system has been looming since the baby boom exploded after the end of World War II. Mr. Speaker, we are running out of time. Regrettable as it is that national Democrats have decided to put their heads in the sand and pretend that Social Security is perfectly sound, action still needs taking. Seniors are living longer, more independent lives; the boomers, the most affluent generation in history, are preparing for retirement; and younger workers who have their own families to raise and needs to meet are counting on us to protect Social Security not only for current and near retirees but for themselves and their children, too. We have a chance this year with the leadership and vision of President Bush to come together to strengthen and preserve Social Security. Mr. Speaker, if our oaths of office mean anything, it is a chance that we must take. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for bringing this Special Order, and I appreciate the commitment and the willingness to constantly talk about this issue so eventually the American people know, number one, there is a problem and, number two, there are solutions out there to fix that problem.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, every year, loopholes in America's bankruptcy laws are abused, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars--costs that get passed on to consumers in higher prices and higher interest rates. Our bankruptcy protections, which have always been available to debtors as a last resort, have become just another part of financial planning for too many Americans. Over the last 15 years, bankruptcy filings have increased 150 percent. In that time, our economy has grown, tens of millions of jobs have been created, and inflation has been held in check. There are always families and businesses in need of bankruptcy protection, but not 1.7 million of them a year, Mr. Speaker. Nor should drug traffickers and violent criminals be eligible for protection. Nor should debtors be able to use bankruptcy laws to avoid paying spousal and child support, which should--as this bill ensures-- be the highest priority debts. Nor should small businesses, family farmers, and fishermen be thrown to the wolves every time their market takes a temporary downturn. That is why the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 has been a critical item on the Republican economic agenda for so long. And that is why the House this week will finally pass a finished bill--already passed by the Senate--and send it on to the President for his signature. These loopholes need closing, and at the same time, honest American debtors will always need protection. That is why the bill we will take up--the product of years of development and negotiation--will include debtor protections such as credit counseling, financial management courses, and greater clarity in credit card billing statements. It isn't enough to punish the abusers and protect the victims; we must develop a credit system that helps consumers manage their debt before they get in too deep. The bankruptcy bill is another example of the far-sighted and fair- minded reform agenda the House has been passing for a decade. It has been a long time coming, Mr. Speaker, but this week we will get the job done.

Mr. DeLAY

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The House will convene on Tuesday at 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules; a final list of these bills will be sent to the Members' offices by the end of the week. Any votes called on these measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will convene at 10 a.m. for legislative business. We likely will consider additional legislation under suspension of the rules, as well as S. 256, The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. In addition, we also plan to consider H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005. Finally, I would like to remind all Members that we are finished voting for the week. We will not be in session tomorrow to accommodate Members traveling to Rome for the funeral services of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. We do not know at this point, and we will certainly advise the gentleman when we have that. The problem is because of this shortened week, we have committees that are marking up next week that had planned to mark up this week, and we have to try to work out the schedule so that we can make it as convenient for those markups as possible.

Mr. DeLAY. That is correct. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I am not advised as to when we could go to conference on the budget, possibly next week. I know the House is yet to appoint the conferees, so we have a ways to go before a conference report is completed.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I am confident that we will have a conference. Yes, I am very confident.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is a very good friend of mine, and it would hurt my feelings if we did not invite the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) to the conference.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, the gentleman is correct, and we are all concerned about the higher gas prices and as important as that is to higher prices of oil and gas. We have been trying to pass or get to the President an energy bill for almost 5 years or 6 years. We have an excellent chance of actually getting a bill to the President this year. We have had three committees scheduled to mark up components of the energy bill this week, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on Resources, but due to the shortened week, only one of those was able to begin their markup. I hope, and we are going to work very hard, and I expect that all three of those committees will complete their markups next week, and we will be able to have a comprehensive energy bill on the floor hopefully by the following week.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Friday, April 8, 2005, that it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 12, 2005, for morning hour debate.

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 next.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, April 8, 2005.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for offering this resolution. From the darkness, Mr. Speaker, came the words, ``Be not afraid.'' A quarter century on, through tearful eyes, we behold the man, Karol Wojtyla, who with gentle vigor willed history toward the splendor of truth. Born to an age of man and an era of oppression, John Paul II gave witness to all who would be free that the Author of History was too the Author of Liberty. As a secret seminarian witnessing the Nazi occupation of Poland, the Third Reich wanted him arrested. As a bishop witnessing the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, the politburo wanted him dead. And as Holy Father witnessing the degradation of human life, the culture of death wanted him silenced. Yet in the face of their threats, not despite them but because of them, his voice rang out all the louder and his heart beat all the stronger in love for the children of God. He battled tyranny his whole life, tyrannies of the sword and of the heart, that the world, his universal flock, might throw off the yoke of evil and embrace the love of God's truth. Against violence, oppression, materialism and hatred, John Paul defended the dignity of human life with a warm voice and an iron will. He was the rock upon which a generation of Catholics built their churches and the walking symbol of faith, hope and charity that fuels the Christian heart. Much has been rightly said of John Paul's role in the victory of freedom over tyranny in the East; but much more will be said, Mr. Speaker, of his eventual role in the victory of freedom over license in the West. For the culture of life is the culture of John Paul II. In his later years, the Pope gave perhaps his most profound witness to the dignity of human life as he carried age and disease around on his back like a cross. He stumbled along the way, like his Savior, but he never put it down. In his final days, as his long-suffering body began to fail, pilgrims came to his home at the Vatican to pray and to share this particular moment in the history of faith. And still they come. Around the world, billions of every creed are treated to photographs of John Paul as a child in Poland, as a young actor, and a priest. We see footage from his decades in Rome, the smiling face, the graceful, athletic frame, the gentle voice that roared truth to power. It is in these images, Mr. Speaker, that the grace of his late suffering can be fully understood. He gave to his God and neighbor all that he had, all his heart, all his mind, all his soul, until there was nothing left to give but his broken, weary body which he gave with a prayer of joy and a soft, final amen. Thus shall we remember our friend John Paul, warrior-saint, the Lion of Krakow.