Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman's words and they are heartfelt and honest and straightforward, and I greatly appreciate those words. I would like to give the gentleman a time, but there are two reasons; one is I am a little concerned at this moment that if I gave a projected time of being through on Thursday, Members would leave on Wednesday. We just saw what has happened to this House where some, almost 30 Members were not here to vote on the last pieces of legislation, of both parties. And it greatly concerns me that when we give notice that we might be leaving, Members take advantage of that and move on and leave the Chamber and are not here to vote like they should be. And so I do not know. Secondly, I would hope, and we have been in touch with your offices, I would hope that we would continue to work today and through the weekend to put together the right kind of commemoration of the day so that we exhibit to the country that the people's House has great concerns about the events of 9/11 and the events that have followed 9/ 11 and we want to express the feelings and the emotions of the American people on this very important day.

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 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 9, 2003, for morning hour debates.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I understand why the proponent of the amendment has offered it. Most of the proposed rail in Houston would be built in her district to the exclusion of most of the suburbs and the rest of the region participating in the rail system. So this is a very controversial issue, and this bill tries to make sure that the people on the local level will have a voice in what will be proposed and ultimately will ask for Federal funds. Section 163 of this bill actually prohibits Houston Metro from using funds to build a light rail system until a specific plan is approved in a local referendum. After all, the city's people will bear the brunt of the multi-billion-dollar price tag, so they should have a say in whether the project moves forward. This is a huge financial burden for the people of the Houston area, many of whom I represent. The project's ultimate usefulness is still uncertain. That is why the Transportation Appropriations bills for each of the last 4 years, which this amendment's author voted for, have included similar provisions to guarantee affected residents the right to have their voice heard in this matter. It is also why the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) and I worked closely with officials at Houston Metro when we were writing this provision to give Metro flexibility should the voters approve the light rail project. The referendum that we are talking about is scheduled for this November, and the current proposal on the ballot begs many questions. For instance, if, as studies conclude, new jobs and people are moving in droves to the Houston suburbs, why would we spend billions of dollars on a centralized, downtown rail system? Is a multi-billion- dollar light rail system the best use of our resources when studies conclude that new roads, highway lanes and busing systems have been less costly and more effective than light rail around the country? With an ever-sprawling population, will light rail be convenient enough to attract commuters? And finally, an important question Metro has not answered yet, how does a massively expensive light rail system, accounting for a small fraction of area trips, fit into Houston's long-term 100 percent mobility plan? I do not have all the answers, but neither does the author of the amendment. Patience has been our policy for 4 years, and I think it makes sense for another 2 months. Vote ``no'' on the amendment and make sure that the people of Houston have their voices heard.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, between now and adjournment, the House's top- three priorities will focus squarely on correcting the missed opportunities of the recent past. This summer's blackout revealed the urgency of one of them. America needs a national policy to meet the energy demands of a 21st-century information economy, and it is our job to make that policy. House and Senate negotiators are hard at work developing a final bill; and when it is done, we will have our first comprehensive energy policy in a decade, more than 2 years since the House first passed it. We are also working with the Senate to complete a Medicare bill that includes prescription drugs to finally strengthen and improve health care for American seniors. This has been a top domestic priority for several years. We have already passed prescription drug legislation three times over Democrat partisanship, and we are committed to finishing the job this time. And finally, this fall we will complete the remainder of the Federal spending bills for the coming year. We said all along that saving time during the budget process would save us money during the spending process, and now we have a chance to live up to that promise. Recent Congressional Budget Office projections of future deficits should serve as a warning to all of us about the need for spending restraint. These deficits are spending-driven deficits, and the only way to get the budget back to balance is through spending restraint and economic growth. Thanks in part to the tax relief the Republican Congress has passed in recent years, the American people are starting to revive the national economy, and the best thing we can do to help them is to maintain the fiscal discipline laid out in the budget proposed by the President and passed by the House. The last thing we want is to explode the deficit with new spending like the almost-$1 trillion worth proposed by the minority so far this year. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is committed to maintaining spending discipline and keeping the Federal budget on a glide-path to balance just as we are committed to completing the American people's unfinished business.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 259) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding service of Courtney Stadd, who recently left his position as Chief of Staff and White House Liaison at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. As I tell my constituents who live in the Clear Lake area in Houston, Texas, where the Johnson Space Center is located, I greatly admire the dedication, genius and passion of the people who dedicate their lives in the pursuit of exploration. Courtney Stadd exemplifies those qualities. For over twenty-five years, in both the public and private sectors, Courtney has remained committed to the importance of American leadership in technology, aeronautics and space. I have known Courtney in his various space-related roles for several years and have always been impressed by his creativity and passion for space exploration. Courtney has led a distinguished career. He served in senior policy positions in both the Reagan and previous Bush Administrations, where he played leading roles in developing U.S. space policies. In the private sector, he has been associated with pioneering efforts, involving the establishment of the commercial launch industry, the emergence of the high resolution commercial remote sensing industry and efforts to protect and foster commercial applications of the Global Positioning System. In December 2002, Courtney was appointed by President George W. Bush to lead the NASA transition effort, ensuring an effective and smooth agency transition into the new Administration. He has served the President and nation well. Courtney has demonstrated strong, compassionate leadership, put the needs of the NASA workforce paramount and remained steadfast in his support for a strong space program. We will miss Courtney as he turns to the next chapter of his career. He leaves a legacy of solid leadership behind him at NASA. I wish Courtney the very best in his future endeavors and look forward to seeing his next achievements.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the distinguished whip yielding to me. In consultation with the minority, we have come up with what we think is a very firm schedule, very fair schedule, and that is we, as most Members know, will go to the Head Start bill at the end of this conversation. There will be about 2 hours, 2 hours 20 minutes of debate before a vote. Then when that bill is disposed of, we will go to the drug reimportation bill, hopefully voting on that final passage sometime around 1 o'clock. Then we will break and come back tomorrow. We have been in discussion with the ranking member of the appropriations and the chairman of the appropriations. They want to do a supplemental on FEMA and fires first thing in the morning, or in the morning, and then go to VA-HUD appropriations. We will not be doing D.C. appropriations tomorrow. We anticipate or we hope that Members will get us amendments to the VA-HUD bill so that we can make some sort of arrangements in time on that debate. And if everything goes well, we ought to be able to adjourn sometime around 5 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. DeLAY. The gentleman is correct. We will start that at 9 a.m.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I appreciate the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations pointing that out because it will take all night tonight to work on those amendments, and during the time of the debate on the motion to instruct and the supplemental, we will have to firm up those agreements so that the debate on VA-HUD will go smoothly.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it will be tomorrow, but hopefully we can work it where we can roll it into other votes.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged motion at the desk.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this year, the Republican majority has committed itself to doing the bulk of its work by this summer before Presidential politics overtakes the Nation's attention. We know once we return after Labor Day, Congress will focus on completing the spending bills and the broader political agenda will be dominated by the Presidential campaign. We have had this first 8 months to get the work of the people done, and I am happy to report we have done so. On issue after issue, the House has identified, developed, and passed necessary legislation. We passed major bills to further reform Federal welfare programs, to promote work and help prepare recipients to find it. We passed the President's African relief initiative to curb the spread of HIV/AIDS on that suffering continent. We passed a partial-birth abortion ban and hope to finally deliver it to a President willing to sign it and outlaw this gruesome procedure. From education to national security to child protection, the House has been addressing the urgent needs of the American people. But we have also not lost sight of the three principle objectives we set out this year: the war on terror, the economy, and a Medicare prescription drug benefit. When we began our work in January, Saddam Hussein was still in Iraq dominating and terrorizing his people. Thanks to the leadership of President Bush and the amazing work of our military, a fledgling democracy is now being fostered in Iraq. The American people are safer and global terror has lost a sponsor and ally, thanks in part to Congress's bipartisan support for the war budget we passed in April. On the economy, we passed the President's Jobs and Growth Package to create more than 1 million new jobs. The effects of this legislation are already benefiting the national economy, leaving more money in the pockets of American taxpayers. And finally, the House and Senate have each passed versions of a Medicare prescription drug benefit. We will continue to work with the Senate and White House to negotiate a final bill and put it into law to improve the health of American seniors. So, Mr. Speaker, this House committed itself to fulfilling America's promise from day one; and we are a safer, more prosperous, and healthier Nation because of it.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, despite our success in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite our many allies around the world, and despite our unquestionable leadership here at home, the wolves of terrorism are still on the lurk. Wherever they threaten, we must gird ourselves for battle. This war presents many foes on many fronts, but we fight it for one purpose: the security of American people. This week, the House considered one of the tools that will help us win this war: President Bush's ``Project Bioshield'' initiative. Project Bioshield, as you know, is a comprehensive program to research, develop, and acquire vaccines, drugs, and countermeasures to protect Americans from terrorism. It will streamline government-sponsored research of biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological weapons and medicines to combat their effects. And it will authorize a special reserve fund to purchase enough of those countermeasures to respond to catastrophic terrorist attacks. Project Bioshield is another way to protect America, and further evidence that there is no difference between national security and homeland security. Both agendas are designed to win the war on terror and protect the American people from future attack. Thus, we will implement Project BioShield for the same reason we defeated the Taliban and liberated Iraq: Security. Without security, peace and prosperity will be difficult to find and impossible to preserve. Without victory in the War on Terror, no fiscal, domestic, or social policy will even survive. Those are the stakes, Mr. Speaker: the preservation of civilization and hope for peace in the world. One man who understands those stakes is British Prime Minister Tony Blair, one of the heroes of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the War on Terror. To show our appreciation for his courage and his friendship, we will welcome Prime Minister Blair to speak to a joint meeting of the House and Senate Thursday. The American people are safer today because of the support he gave us--and continues to give us--in Iraq . . . . . . just as they will be made safer by Project BioShield and other security initiatives here at home. And President Bush and this Congress will work to ensure we stay that way. Thanks to President Bush, vulnerabilities have been identified and addressed. Our nation is safer, stronger, and better prepared to meet the next threat, wherever it may emerge. Wartime leadership, Mr. Speaker, could not be better defined.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, this bill before us today will fund the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, in my opinion, at the appropriate levels. It maintains fiscal discipline and makes necessary spending reforms, and it also sets priorities. It reflects America's commitment to education, Federal health initiatives and working families. The bottom line is that it meets our needs, and, of course, it does so without raising taxes. But raising taxes is exactly what the minority wants to do. It is the basis of the proposal of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and most of the people that have spoken on the other side of the aisle. The gentleman from Wisconsin suggested earlier that he thinks 90 percent of the people affected by his tax hike actually want higher taxes. I repeat, the Democrats think Americans want and deserve higher taxes. Now, that is a debate I wish that we could have every week, every day, on the floor of this House, because the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) says his tax hike, and I thank him for his candor, would only cost a small business $28,000. Only $28,000.

Mr. DeLAY. ``Only $28,000.'' But $28,000 to a small business is a job. That is a salary, money a small business could use to hire a new employee. And they want to take it away. Now, Democrats want to stifle job creation to fund their big government programs. But, Mr. Chairman, Republicans know better. We understand that the economy cannot be improved without job creation, and we understand that 70 percent of all new jobs are created by small business. So, when the Democrats propose raising taxes on the very small businesses that would create these jobs, you have to understand our confusion, and you have to understand our excitement. After all, this has been a wonderful debate, and I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin and the Democrats for their clarity and their consistency. I want to thank them for touting this idea to raise taxes on small businesses and stifle job creation. I truly do. Though, I have to admit, when I heard about the Democrat's proposal, I almost forgot what year it was. I started looking around for bell- bottom pants and aggressive chest hair. But before I dusted off my polyester, you will be happy to know, Mr. Chairman, that I had come to my senses, because, despite the earnest wishes of the Democrats, it is not 1977 anymore, and hiking taxes to pay for big government programs is as dead as disco. Now, I do not mean to single out the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) or the Democrats. After all, as you can painfully see, a lot of bad ideas were fashionable in the 1970s. But nowadays big tax-and-spend hikes make as much sense as my old pink and red leisure suit. Mr. Chairman, thankfully most Americans had the common sense to let the embarrassing fashions of the 1970s go. So on behalf of everyone with a picture like this in their family album, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill and vote against the small business tax hike of the disco Democrats.

Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, that is one of the most beautiful women in the world, my wife.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, following President Bush's landmark No Child Left Behind law, we now have an opportunity to make overdue reforms in the Federal Government's role in our national education system. We will take up two very important education reauthorization bills this week to begin that process. The first is the Ready to Teach Act of 2003 sponsored by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) which will strengthen and improve teacher training programs all around this country. With the enormous responsibilities weighing on them today, we owe it not only to American teachers but to their students to prepare every one of them before they set foot in the classroom. Highly qualified teachers, as all of us know and some of us were lucky enough to have in school, are worth their weight in gold. But too many inexperienced teachers are being thrown into the classroom without effective training and preparation. This legislation will start measuring training programs' success and holding them accountable. It will bring higher qualified individuals into the training programs and ultimately into the classrooms. It is an important first step in reshaping American education to face the emerging challenges of the 21st century. Equally important is the bill of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act. Under this bill, qualified teachers in math, science and special education would be eligible for student loan forgiveness of up to $17,500 if they teach in low-income community schools. Most of these poor title I schools are in our Nation's inner cities and in our rural areas where the need for qualified teachers is most acute. Too many math and science classes are being taught by teachers who neither majored nor minored in those fields. And two-thirds of public schools around the country have teacher vacancies in their special education programs. Mr. Speaker, as more and more of our best teachers retire every year, the teaching shortage in America is approaching crisis levels and we must act. We have to develop innovative ways to attract and retain the highest quality individuals we can for our schools, to get results for students, parents and teachers around the country. And while these two bills are only part of a broader agenda, both of them start to do just that.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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 Tuesday, July 1, 2003, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 231, 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 business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, July 9, 2003.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 299, I send to the desk a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 231) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend all those that have worked so hard on probably the most important issue that most of us will vote on in our career. There is very few times that you are going to have a vote like this. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the members of the Committee on Ways and Means, members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Members know this is incredibly important. The future of our seniors, the future of our children are at stake. Yogi Berra said when you reach a fork in the road, take it. That is sort of where we are tonight, at that fork in the road. Many of us want to take it because we know, we have witnessed Medicare being a system at the present time that is a disaster waiting to happen. We are spending $267-plus billion a year on Medicare. Payroll taxes only pay 57 percent of that, general revenue and other taxes pay 30 percent, and premiums pay 10 percent. In less than 20 years, the payroll taxes will only cover 30 percent, the rest will come from our children and their incomes. That is on top of the fact that there is over $13 trillion in unfunded liability. In just 5 years, we will be spending over $400 billion per year on Medicare. Now some on my side of the aisle think $400 billion is a lot of money over 10 years, and giving this benefit is really expensive. But at the same time what are we getting for this system that has been designed to bankrupt this country? What we are getting is doctors refusing to take seniors as patients. We have hospitals closing. We have costs escalating through the roof. Medicare is driving other health care costs through the roof. Seniors are having to make spending decisions based upon the cost of their health care or their drugs. This is the system they want to preserve. This is the system that they want to see continue. But many of us, both Democrats and Republicans, think that this is a time that we have an incredible opportunity. I came here to make a difference; and, frankly, since this Republican House has been in the majority we have made an incredible difference. Some Members wanted to preserve the old welfare system. We reformed welfare. Some of our Members have commented over the last few days that entitlements are forever. No, they are not. Welfare was an entitlement, and we changed it. We stood up and led and took the responsibility to do so. Tax relief, tax reform, paying down the debt, not one time in 40 years did the other side of the aisle balance the budget, we did. They spent 40 years driving up the debt on our children, we paid over $550 billion on that debt. So what are we faced with on this road that forks? What is the solution? The Democrats have offered their solution, and I say to Members, we get a glimpse of the future. I hope Members watched the debate on their substitute because that is a glimpse of the future if this bill does not pass. Let me tell Members what people have said about their substitute. According to Tom Saving, who is a current Medicare trustee, the Democrat plan would lead to Medicare consuming not only all of the Medicare payroll taxes, but also more than 54 percent of all Federal income taxes by the year 2040 and over 90 percent of all Federal income taxes by the year 2075. They want to continue the plan. The Democrat plan would add between $18 trillion and $30 trillion in unfunded liabilities to the Federal Government's balance sheet. They want to preserve Medicare, and that is what it would be. Now what is the Senate's solution? More of the same. The Senate is writing a bill over there that Senator Kennedy is very proud of. Well, the Senate has got to do what it has got to do. What is our solution? It has been talked about over and over again, but what we are desperately trying to do is bend that growth curve and get a handle on this and still bring good quality health care to our senior citizens by bringing market forces into play, by addressing the third party payment problem through copayments, deductibles and so forth, but give seniors the right to choose the type of health care that they think is best suited for their needs, not what some government program tells them is going to suit their needs. We want to start us down that fork to make Medicare a viable, reliable program for generations to come. I just ask my colleagues and Democrats to vote no. What is the alternative if this bill does not pass tonight? What is the alternative? I do not know the answer to that question. I have asked that question for the 6 months that we have been working on this piece of legislation. I do not know what the alternative is, but I do know we have an opportunity. Mr. Speaker, sometimes things are not the way you want them to be. Sometimes a bill does not have quite as many reforms as Members want. This bill does not have as many reforms as I would like to see, but it is starting us on a different path, a path of fiscal responsibility, a path that provides quality health care to our seniors, provides them choice. A study was just done. They claim that all these private plans will not work. Our own plan, FEHBP, has been growing at a slower rate than the Medicare plan. That ought to tell Members something, when there is competitiveness in the process, costs are held down and quality is increased. Let me tell Members, this is the beginning of something that we can be proud of. It may not be the end. We may have to change it down the line, but we need the opportunity to move this forward so we can provide a future for our children that brings sanity to this process. That is why we came here, to bring sanity to this process. I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to join us because Medicare is too important for partisan politics. Mr. Speaker, the American people have asked us for this. They sent us here to do this, and they deserve this approach. It is the right thing to do. It is the right time to do it, and if we fail to act now, we may never have another chance to make it right. The American people have given us this opportunity to lead; and in leadership, responsibility has to be there. We are ready to stand up and lead, and it is our job to seize that opportunity today. I just ask Members, I implore Members to vote yes for Medicare, vote yes for our seniors, vote yes for this bill.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 231, I move that the House do now adjourn.