Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a step in the right direction. It requires the Secretary of State to endorse and to work to obtain observer status for Taiwan in the World Health Organization. The 24 million people of Taiwan are building a thriving Democracy. It's the policy of the United States to support Taiwan's participation in International Organizations. To lead the Free World, we must act on our responsibility by standing up for democracy and our democratic allies. Taiwan is an island of freedom, but it is surrounded by the constant threat of Communist oppression from Mainland China. Taiwan's participation in world organizations deserves recognition. They are one of our largest trading partners and they are a free and democratic nation that has recently undertaken a free, peaceful, democratic transition of power. If we are going to support international organizations, we can't deny admission to free, democratic societies, with populations and economies that are larger than three quarters of the other participating nations. That would be unfair and it would constitute an abdication of American leadership. Taiwan is a symbol of freedom and opportunity for the billion and a half Chinese held captive under communist rule. Democracy, and the support for human rights that goes with it, is spreading throughout the world--we should reward and encourage it at every possible opportunity. We should stand by our friends. We should stand up for freedom and democracy. We should never waver on matters of fundamental principle. And that means we must stand with Taiwan.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and I thank the gentleman for bringing this bill to the floor. The gentleman from California is absolutely right. The other difference is we have credibility. They have no credibility. The last time they were in the majority and offered a tax cut was when Jack Kennedy was President of the United States. Mr. Speaker, Members should oppose the Democrat substitute amendment because it denies the across-the-board tax relief that the American people want and demand. The Democrats dangle partial relief but we repeal the death tax. Let us set aside those specific dates and figures that confuse Members to examine the very underlying dispute in this debate. And we should look beneath the surface, because the reason our parties disagree on this proposal stems from our core convictions. Republicans support the repeal of the death tax because we believe that the Federal Government has no legitimate right to tax income twice. We believe that families are entitled to keep what they earn over the years. Those families have already paid taxes on their assets and taxing them twice is wrong. All the Democrat objections flow from one single motivation, the desperate desire to preserve taxes for a stream of revenue. Democrats oppose the death tax repeal because it would cut off a source of revenue so they can have big government. The Democrat substitute is compromised by a flawed understanding that stubbornly refuses to accept this fundamental point: Tax dollars belong to the people who earn them, not the Federal Government. The Democrats are terrified by the prospect of foreclosing any source of taxation. We want to let people keep more of what they earn. The bottom line is this: Without full repeal, any death tax relief measure is no more than a placebo. To cure the death tax, you have got to kill it by ending it once and for all. The only plausible reason for opposing death tax repeal is the unstated ambition to one day restore the death tax in its current aggressive form. We want to let American families keep what they have earned but the Democrat leadership has designs for those tax dollars. That is why they do not and will not support death tax repeal.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support this resolution which demonstrates the importance of National Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for bringing this issue to the House's attention during the month that President Bush has proclaimed as National Child Abuse Prevention Month and also thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts) for bringing it to the floor. It is my hope that the facts and consequences of abuse will create a national consensus that underscores the importance of prevention. This issue requires that we answer several fundamental questions. First, what do we know about children who are abused? Second, who are the abusers? Third, what do we know about the way abuse hurts children and its attendant costs to society? And, finally, what have we learned about preventing child abuse? Let us begin with abused children. The years before a child's 5th birthday are the most dangerous age for children in the United States. That is because more than three-quarters of the children who die from abuse are preschoolers. We know that the leading cause of death among infants is head trauma. It most often happens when abusers violently shake a baby. Now, let us talk about the perpetrators. Nearly 9 out of every 10 perpetrators are parents. Sadly, the most dangerous place for a child to be is in a home with parents or those entrusted with their care when those people intend to abuse children. Next, we need to consider how abuse impacts children and ponder the associated costs to society. The victims of child abuse suffer in many ways. Some die. Other kids suffer brain damage. Many are haunted through life by a familiar pattern of debilitating injuries. For the young victims of shaken baby syndrome, approximately 15 to 30 percent die while the rest of these children suffer from disabilities that last their whole lives. Of the few SBS victims who escape without physical injuries, many are destined to suffer more abuse from the people who care for them. We find a consistent pattern of symptoms among abused children: school failure, feelings of worthlessness, and the aggressive behavior that too often culminates in criminal activity. It is estimated that each child abuse case costs society $2,500 initially. And that expense only covers the short-term costs of abuse, including the initial investigation and the short-term placement of the child in a safe home. All told, this costs $3 billion every year. When a child is hospitalized or placed in foster care, the costs soar higher. Finally, let us talk about our ability to prevent child abuse. We know that it is very difficult to prevent very young children from being abused by their parents. Half of the children killed by abusers are from families who have never been investigated. Even among cases that are under active investigation, abused children are left at risk in dangerous homes. An unpopular body of evidence warns us that every abusive family cannot be sufficiently changed to protect every child. But that does not mean that we ought to abandon the goal of protecting every child. Prevention is worth the risk. It is worth it even if some programs fail. Prevention is worth it because we may still be able to save additional lives through education, counseling, and home visits by specially trained nurses. Preventing child abuse is a pro-life policy. Some programs do cut child abuse rates. These programs should be supported across our society by Federal, State and local governments as well as private and faith-based organizations. Only by combining our prayers and efforts will we protect every possible young life. That goal is worthy of our full commitment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 66 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I, too, want to add my congratulations to the chairman of the Committee on the Budget and to the ranking member for a job well done. This is the chairman's first budget, and we are very proud of the work that he has done in bringing this budget to the floor. He has done an outstanding job in bringing a lot of people together and listening to a lot of people, and now we have a budget I think that is good for America. Mr. Chairman, the Members need to be real careful, because the Democrat substitute budget is a beguiling mirage. It is sold as fiscal discipline, but a close inspection shows that it sustains big government and offers taxpayers little more than a patched waste of paltry relief. The Democrat budget gives the impression that it offers significant debt reduction, but it really comes down to a false choice. Even Chairman Greenspan has reservations about paying off too much of the debt too quickly. Democrats do not take his concerns into account. Because Democrats refuse to return the tax surplus to the people who earned it, their budget leads to two unacceptable outcomes: first, excessive bonus payments to foreign investors who now hold U.S. debt and who will not sell them back before they mature; and second, the Federal government buying up stocks and bonds once our public debt is gone. Under the Democrat plan, the Federal government could actually eventually control up to 5 percent of the entire stock market in just 10 year's time after the Treasury has to invest the surplus dollars in an investment product other than Treasury securities. For the first time, the Federal government would own stock in the stock market. The Democrat plan offers less than $700 billion for tax relief. After we account for their $300 billion alternative minimum tax proposal, there is not even enough room to drop the bottom tax bracket from 15 percent to 10 percent, or there is not enough room to double the per child tax credit. That is not all that the taxpayers give up for the Democrat plan. The Democrats keep the death tax. The Democrats keep the marriage penalty. Their plan shortchanges taxpayers. But Congress can choose real relief. That is why every Republican and open-minded Democrat Member of this House ought to support the President's budget, because it strengthens American families, it expands economic freedom, and it strikes a very fair and reasonable balance between national need and fiscal restraint. For every hard-working family, every struggling small businessman, and for every young woman who is ready to launch her own business start-up, the President's budget carries a note of hope and optimism. In fact, for anyone who hopes to realize his or her American dream, this budget, our budget, brings that dream one step closer to reality. That is because our budget respects the taxpayer. The reasoning behind it begins with the supposition that tax dollars actually belong to the people who earned them. The President wants to let America keep more of what it earns, and we ought to help him do it. So for those women and men who desire nothing but the opportunity to challenge their talents and chase their dreams, the President's budget will spur job creation, enhance economic freedom, and provide the resources to restore limited constitutional government. Vote down and reject the Democrat substitute, and support freedom by supporting the President's budget.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call special attention to the achievements of the Willowridge High School Boys Basketball team of Sugar Land, Texas. This year, the Willowridge Eagles won their second consecutive 5A State championship on March 9th, 2001. Undefeated in 39 games last season, the Willowridge Eagles extended their winning streak to 62 games over two years. Led by a veteran group of seniors, the Eagles also defeated three nationally ranked schools when they traveled north to win the ``Slam Dunk to the Beach`` Tournament in Lewes, Delaware. Willowridge was recognized as the Number Two team in the country in USA Today's Super 25 boys basketball rankings. On their journey to the championship, Coach Ronnie Courtney and the Eagles have proven that they are one of the best high school basketball teams in the country. Their commitment to teamwork on-and-off the court has brought them both the state championship and national accolade. I congratulate the Willowridge Eagles. They have not only won the championship, but also the appreciation of their fans in Sugar Land, Texas, and across America.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, throughout its 45-year history, the National Right to Work Committee has been blessed with many loyal friends who selflessly offered their support in one legislative battle after another. But even in the pantheon of Right to Work champions, there is no one else like John Waldum Jr., a retired machinist and former union member and a Committee board member since 1967. Mr. Waldum, who served as the Committee's chairman from 1998 until last spring, passed away November 28 in Lake Worth, Fla. ``John had a slogan. `You only keep what you are willing to defend.' And John took that slogan seriously. He spent his life fighting against the odds, but with an indomitable spirit that was, and will continue to be, an inspiration to us all.'' Mr. Waldum first recognized the injustice and inherent dangers of compulsory unionism as a young man working in Missouri, which had (and has) no Right to Work law. Kansas City union bosses wielded their monopoly power over his job to intimidate him into joining a strike--even though he believed it unjust and contrary to his long-term best interest. Mr. Waldum quickly became a convinced Right to Work supporter, even as he continued to try to improve the system from within, both as a member of the Machinists union and as a shop steward for the United Auto Workers union. As a result of his outspoken support for Right to Work, he endured years of harassment from power-hungry union officials. Finally, in the early 1960s, Mr. Waldum and his family moved to Florida, a Right to Work state. He later became a research and development machinist for the Pratt- Whitney Engine Corporation. All the while, he kept on fighting for the Right to Work cause. When President Lyndon Johnson and the union hierarchy moved in 1965 to reimpose forced union membership and ``fees'' in Florida and other Right to Work states by abolishing Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, Mr. Waldum enlisted in efforts to stop them. The pointed testimony that Mr. Waldum and other freedom-loving workers gave to the U.S. House Labor Committee helped slow During the 1970s Mr. Waldum participated in a successful campaign to tighten enforcement of Florida's Right to Work law and stiffen penalties for violators. After he retired and moved with his wife Dorothy to Sebring, FL, Mr. Waldum relished the opportunity to expand his lobbying activities on behalf of the Right to Work cause. During the 1990s he visited Washington, D.C., a number of times, and accepted invitations to testify before the National Labor Relations Board and congressional committees. In 1993, he undoubtedly dumbfounded NLRB officials when he called the federal laws empowering union bosses to force workers to pay union dues as a job condition ``a travesty of justice'' that has transformed Organized Labor into ``nothing more than a union press gang.'' His testimony and his many letters to the editor often brimmed with moral indignation about how federal law and Big Labor-influenced bureaucrats trample the freedom of the individual worker. But the ever-present twinkle in his eye made it clear that Mr. Waldum was not angry--only determined to make the world a better place. John Waldum was a true gentleman and an outstanding spokesman for the Right to Work cause and he will be deeply missed. Mr. Waldum is survived by his wife and their son and daughter, and four grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Delaware for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it has come to this again; another school tragedy. In another American town, several families now mourn a lost child. Other families are faced with the certain knowledge that one of their children will never be the same after surviving a tragic attack. The town of Santee, California, is left to heal after an awful incident that made no sense at all and shattered hundreds of young lives. That is the reality, and we cannot shrink from it. We send them our prayers and our sincere hope that no city or town will again suffer the senseless trauma and tragedy inflicted upon Santana High School. That is our hope, but it would be the height of folly to suggest that we will prevent similar tragedies by simply erecting even more barriers to behavior and imposing ever more restrictions on our constitutional freedoms. This line of thought is flawed for both practical and abstract reasons. Fixating upon the blunt instruments of crime places the symptom before the cause. America confronts horrible tragedies, like the awful 8 minutes at Santana High School, not because the capacity to harm others exists within a free society. Rather, we face these demons because of our human condition. Human beings must inevitably struggle to triumph over evil. And make no mistake about it, this latest attack was certainly evil. We do not like to admit that evil still exists, but as the unmistakable lesson of the 20th century instructs us, we cannot remake human nature. Indeed, attempts to do so, like the policies perpetrated on its people by the Soviet Union have been themselves responsible for immense suffering. No, we cannot remake man, but we can, through negligence and indifference, tolerate a climate that is a more fertile breeding ground for senseless violence. I believe that our tolerance for a culture of death only serves to exacerbate those strains of evil present within persons who are predisposed to consider violent acts a viable statement. Because once we begin differentiating between shades of life, we truly open a Pandora's box in which some lives will be callously discounted and dispensed with. We need to treat all life as a sacred gift from our creator, not a sliding scale that society grades by its utility. I believe that we will only find a lasting solution by rediscovering our core and founding principles. I believe this rediscovery will demand that we boldly move to rebuild the three key elements of our Nation's success: The strength of the American family, the moral authority of American government, and the fundamental virtue of American culture. All of these things flow from a common philosophy, a coherent world view. It is a philosophy built on values that are moral, universal and, yes, I believe, the source of America's greatness. Faith in God, the sanctity of human life, the existence of right and wrong, and the certain knowledge that we are all ultimately accountable for our actions. This is not the world view that predominates our culture today, and until it does we will confront more awful acts of violence.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have to say, that the Democrat leadership has no credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility. They are the ones that were in charge and who drove up the debt. They point to Reaganomics as the reason for the debt going up, but what they do not point out is that because of the Reagan tax cuts revenues went up twice, two times as much. The problem was that the Democrat-controlled House drove spending up three times as much. It is spending, stupid. It is spending that creates the deficit. It is spending. And now, Mr. Speaker, the Democrat substitute amendment is a paltry half measure that falls far short of the important tax relief that the American taxpayers deserve and should demand from this Congress. But there is more at stake here than the simple math of reducing the unfair tax burden on the American people, and that is that taxes are simply too high. Clearly, whenever the Federal Government runs a surplus, taxes are, by definition, too high. But our opponents would have us believe that a budget surplus only proves that the Federal Government is not spending enough. And listening to the debate this afternoon, we have been warned in a hundred different ways that the sky is going to fall if we simply allow the taxpaying American public to keep more of what they earn. Let us just sweep aside all those empty arguments, because this debate raises a fundamental question: Will we let the Federal Government spend first and then stick the taxpayers with the bill? They want to spend the tax surplus; we want to let America keep it. Will we let the American people determine how high their taxes should be and then require the Congress to live within its means? That is how it works for every American family. That is how America runs its small businesses, and that is how the Federal Government should keep its books. Only in Washington do we spend the taxpayers' hard-earned money first and ask questions later. Our opponents argue that we cannot offer tax relief because the budget for the next fiscal year has not been completed. But we have a surplus this year, and we want to help American families this year. We can do it, we should do it, and we will do it by allowing every American taxpayer to keep more of what they earn.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this week we celebrate one of the defining moments in American history. It was 165 years ago yesterday, that almost 200 Texicans laid down their lives to ensure that Texas achieved her independence. It happened at The Alamo. And the road from Mexico City to the Alamo runs through Laredo, the place where I was bom. So, I came into this world only a few steps away from the footprints Santa Anna left on his march north. And let me tell you, on the night of March 5, 1836, things were going downhill fast for the Alamo's defenders. The Mexican Commander, General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, had the Texicans in the Alamo right where he wanted them. And everything was on the line. Santa Anna's forces had cut all the roads leading to the village of Bexar in what's now San Antonio, where the Alamo is still standing. He'd turned back a relief column that tried to make its way to help the Alamo's vastly outnumbered defenders. And with each passing hour more of Santa Anna's army arrived. There's a standard military rule-of-thumb, which advises that an attacker had better have a three-to-one advantage when assaulting a properly defended objective. Well, there weren't enough Texicans in the Alamo to property man the walls. As a military fortification, the Alamo left a lot to be desired. Its walls were incomplete and the Texicans had to throw up fences and earthworks to complete their perimeter. In fact, that day one Texican would have to fight off more than ten enemy soldiers. Tall odds. But the men of the Alamo knew it was time to stand and fight. As a strategic asset, the Alamo was better than nothing. That's because the Texicans had nothing else in place to slow Santa Anna's advance toward the eastern settlements where talk of independence had taken hold. If Texicans didn't stop him at the Alamo, Santa Anna could very well have carved a path of destruction across the state that effectively deprived its people of the means to resist and the will to continue their struggle for Independence. Had Santa Anna made his way across Texas, there might not have been anything left to fight for. The upshot is that conquering the Alamo appealed to Santa Anna's ego even though it did little to accomplish his military objective of suppressing the Texas Revolution. He needed to eradicate the passion for independence within every Texican, not simply defeat an army in the field. Viewed in that light, taking the Alamo was for him an indulgence not a military necessity. He fancied himself as the Napoleon-of-the-west and he dreamed of decisive battles to elevate his standing. And if Santa Anna had simply swept by the Alamo and pushed on to the settled fertile valleys and ranches further east, he'd have preserved the strength of his force. And if he didn't ultimately succeed in ending the dream of an independent Texas, he'd have extracted a far higher price from the Texicans he fought. So, even though all hands were lost at the Alamo, their sacrifice saved other lives that would have been lost beating back an unwounded Mexican Army of Operation. Santa Anna himself was a dangerous and daring adversary. He wasn't anyone to be taken lightly. He'd fought his way to the top of the Mexican military through a series of wars, including the fight for independence from Spain. Santa Anna knew a thing or two about fighting. He was a charismatic and compelling leader who issued orders that he knew would be obeyed. His army was disciplined and far better equipped than any comparable units then fighting for Texas. But we're taught that pride comes before the fall, and Santa Anna's pride was his Achilles'heel. Santa Anna did not begin his campaign with respect for his opponents. He considered the Texicans fighting for Independence as an ill-disciplined rabble that would be defeated by the first whiff of grapeshot that he sent over their heads. Before he marched north to Texas, Santa Anna even boasted to a group of visiting Frenchmen and Englishmen that defeating Texas was just the first step in his plans for North America. He actually said he'd conquer the U.S., haul down the Stars and Stripes and hoist the Mexican flag over this very building: The Capitol. Well, that's quite a boast, and I know what ol' Sam Houston must have said when he heard about it: ``That'll be the day. He'll have has his hands full right here in Texas.'' And so he did. Eventually, Santa Anna did learn to respect Texas, but a lot of men had to die first. And sitting here today, we ask ourselves: Why did they die? What were they fighting for? And is the country around us today worthy of their sacrifice? Some questions we can answer. Some will be answered for us. They weren't eager to die. They wanted to live out their years in a free Texas. Time and again, Alamo commander William Travis appealed for reinforcements and only once did 30 men answer the call by riding through the Mexican lines to join their fellow Texicans. In his famous letter to ``the People of Texas and all Americans in the World'', that he wrote with the Alamo surrounded and Santa Anna gathering strength, Travis made a last appeal for additional defenders. This is what he told Texas: ``The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot and our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism and every thing dear to the American character, to come to our aid with all dispatch. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due his own honor and that of his country. Victory or Death.'' The men at the Alamo died because they believed that some things are more important than life itself They knew that faith, family, and freedom were worth fighting for. And they also knew that, if they had to live without true independence, their lives wouldn't be worth living. They wanted the protections of a legitimate Constitution. They wanted their individual rights to be honored. They believed in the idea of self-government. They insisted that government respect their right to own private property. They chafed under tariffs and demanded free trade. They fought for democracy as the surest path to freedom. And it's true that the issue of slavery motivated some of the men at the Alamo. We must acknowledge that some of the men at the Alamo owned slaves and they were fighting for the right to keep them. History proved them wrong on that point. And that painful truth should not diminish the greater principles that all of the Texicans at the Alamo fought for. Just as our Founders did great things despite their flaws, so too did the Alamo's defenders ennoble themselves by the way they ended their lives. The most dramatic moment was still yet to come. It happened when William Travis gathered his command in the courtyard of the Alamo and leveled with his men about the fix they were in. They had three options, he told them. They could surrender, but they had all seen the red flag Santa Anna had flown. It meant no quarter. They would all be executed. They could make a break for it and try to fight their way through the Mexican lines. But this option was also doomed to failure because they would be fleeing across open country and Santa Anna's cavalry would butcher them easily. And they could instead defend the Alamo and, by dying in place, inflict enough casualties on the Mexicans to weaken Santa Anna's army. Travis chose the hard path. ``My own choice is to stay in this fort, and die for my country, fighting as long as breath shall remain in my body. This I will do even if you leave me alone,'' Travis said. But the choice was up to each of them, he said. Then he used his sword to draw a line across the courtyard. ``I now want every man who is determined to stay here and die with me to come across this line. Who shall be the first?'' And one by one, the men who died at the Alamo all came across. Now, some people will tell you that Travis' last speech was fiction. They'll say it's melodramatic and too full of grand gestures. They'll say it's wishful thinking on the part of dreamers and romantics. But I believe that Travis did draw that line in the sand. If you read his letters and consider the convictions of those men holed up with him in the Alamo, I believe you'll come to the same conclusion. Travis knew exactly what he was doing and his men knew their precise and painful destiny. And they stepped across that line in the sand and stayed just the same. Because independence is worth it. And that's why men rode off from their families to join a motley band of committed patriots, who without training, without supplies, and without much hope for success gambled everything on God and Texas. And they won even as they spent their lives so dearly on the walls of the Alamo. And the debate goes on today. Some men don't believe that any principle or conviction is worth the political capital to draw a line in the sand. But other men still do. And it's with those like-minded men and women that I'll throw in my lot. Some things are still worth fighting for, and we'd better never forget it. Because if enough of us ever do forget, we'll have squandered our birthright to freedom and we'll be the unworthy beneficiaries of those proud Americans who came before us. The Alamo's defenders, like our Founding Fathers before them, gave everything to put unstoppable events in motion. Their deaths were the birth pains of greatness. ``Victory or Death,'' became Victory in Death. And that victory was the offspring of the courage needed to make the simple yet difficult choices that so often determine history. May we never forget that freedom demands sacrifice. God bless the men who died at the Alamo. And God bless America.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize Mr. David M. Laney, who will soon complete his term as a member of the Texas Transportation Commission. Governor George W. Bush appointed Mr. Laney to the commission in April 1995, designating him its chairman and Commissioner of Transportation. In April 2000, he stepped down as Commissioner of Transportation, serving the remainder of his term as a member of the commission. During his term on the commission, Mr. Laney has been the champion of the State's efforts to increase the state's share of federal transportation dollars returning to Texas. He was instrumental in promoting the STEP 21 Coalition's successful efforts to guarantee that every state receive a fairer return on its contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. As a result, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21) provides a guarantee of at least a 90.5 percent return. When this guarantee was combined with a significant increase in national highway program funding and the use of more real world funding formula factors, Texas received an increase of more than $700 million annually in federal highway funds. In addition, he promoted increased federal funding for the nation's general aviation and reliever airports, which Congress provided in the historic Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21). Finally, Mr. Laney has been a strong advocate for the state's small urban and rural transit systems, working with Congress to provide much needed discretionary funding to address the vehicle replacement needs of these vital transportation systems, the most extensive in the nation. With these additional funds for Texas transportation programs, the commission will be better able to meet the tremendous transportation demands of the growing regional and international trade traffic in Texas. With a look to the future, as Commissioner of Transportation Mr. Laney led the Texas Department of Transportation in its efforts to obtain the flexible financing tools it needs to help address the multitude of transportation needs in Texas. He was successful in working with the Texas Legislature to create the Texas Turnpike Authority Division of the department, which provides toll-funding options for the state's major transportation projects. With this strong support and encouragement, the division has applied for and expects to receive an $800 million loan under the federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act for a major Central Texas turnpike project. Under Mr. Laney's leadership, the commission has used the Texas State Infrastructure Bank, authorized under the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, to provide needed assistance to localities to help move forward important transportation projects. Mr. Laney also initiated a major Texas border strategy, which provides more than $1.8 billion in priority highway funding to the state's border region to address the demands of international trade traffic. Throughout his tenure on the commission, Mr. Laney has provided strong, confident, and visionary leadership to the Texas Department of Transportation, promoting the development of a first-class Texas transportation system. His legacy is a transportation agency with a menu of solid financial and operational tools to provide a safe, effective, and environmentally sensitive transportation system for the people of Texas and the nation. His dedication to transportation and his strong leadership on the commission will be missed. Mr. Speaker, I know my fellow Texans join me in this expression of appreciation to David Laney for his exemplary leadership. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating him and wishing him the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce to the Record the following editorial that appears in Indian Country Today. As the piece points out, Chief Phillip Martin of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians has for more than a quarter of a century used the free market as a tool to better the lives of his fellow tribe members and neighbors. Self-reliance and not government dependency is the secret to prosperity. But there is no need to tell Chief Martin that fact. He has lived his life promoting the economic vitality of his people and they have reaped the benefits of his progressive thinking. I salute Chief Martin for all he has done to further the cause of freedom--for his people and for our nation. [From Indian Country Today, Dec. 27, 2000] Mississippi Choctaws: The Benefits of Peace Chiefs If a people are going to strive to achieve economic prosperity, the reduction of conflict, the acceptance and understanding of peace, is a most useful strategy. Mutual understanding, common cause and unity of action become possible. Little ever improves from virulent conflict and nothing moves forward in war. Leadership with vision often works actively to reduce conflict while putting its major efforts toward the positive building of fair community governance and efficient enterprises. At this moment of shifting political climates, when the future of Native nations is clouded by uncertainties on the national level, it seems proper to salute a consistent peace chief, one who led his own people from severe poverty and obscurity to sustained prosperity and regional political prominence. He is Phillip Martin, long-time chief of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. A man of great perseverance, the 75- year-old Martin has led and guided his 6,000-member Choctaw tribe since 1959. Periodically, yet consistently reelected to the tribe's highest office for more than 40 years, Phillip Martin is universally credited for the success of the Choctaw, who are well posed to enter the 21st century as a self-determined people. While other, more conflictive tribes have deepened their economic dependencies and allowed spirals of violence to weaken their body politic, the Mississippi Choctaws have built steadily for more than 30 years. A well- entrenched tradition remembers the attitude of historical chief, Pushmataha, who in 1811 reasoned against war with their neighbors while Tecumseh appealed to the Choctaw warriors to join his war parties. While he had been a great warrior as a young man, Pushmataha opted for peace as he aged as a chief. While Tecumseh has come down through the history as the greater leader, and Pushmataha is the lesser known. Interestingly, the response of Pushmataha, who coolly analyzed the horrible suffering war would bring, was actually quite sophisticated and just as completely dedicated to the preservation and survival of his people. He pointed out how his own tribe had painstakingly worked out friendly relations with their white neighbors. Their relations were reciprocal and as a result, things were going well. To start killing their neighbors with whom they had such relations did not seem a good idea to Pushmataha, who kept his people out of the war and guided them for another 14 years. Like Pushmataha, Phillip Martin came home from war to embark in a career that would build education and civic action and economic opportunity for his people. He was one of those from what has been called ``the greatest generation.'' A World War II Air Force combat veteran who lost a brother in the war, Martin served in the military until 1955. When he returned home, his people had their pride and their language, but little else. They were Appreciably, Martin returned home of sound mind and character and applied himself to the betterment of his people through self-sufficient enterprise. Martin led an early flight to construct and operated the first high school on the reservation in 1963, beginning a trend that has seen consistent improvement in the educational level of the reservation population. He began the planning that would lay out a modern community infrastructure with good housing. He pursued and constructed an industrial park and after 10 years of chasing contracts, began a successful 20 years of economic growth. General Motors, Ford Motor Co., Oxford Speakers and other companies have located manufacturing plants in the Choctaw's 80-acre industrial park, which boasts 500,000 square feet of manufacturing space. By 1994, the year when their enterprises diversified and accelerated with construction of a casino and entertainment center, the nation ran a total payroll topping $84 million. It had sound management and was ready to take on the complexity of gaming. The nation's Chahta Enterprises is now one of the 10 top employers in Mississippi. Its entertainment complex receives more than 2.5 million visitors a year and the tribe has built more than 1,000 new houses, constructed a major hospital, schools, nursing home, shopping center and day care center. In what used to be the poorest county in the poorest state in the United States, in one of the most conservative states in the union, the Choctaws led an economic revolution. Today, with nearly universal employment, only 2.7 percent of household income comes from social services and this mostly involves elderly and handicapped. The tribe's manufacturing plants, still going strong, consistently win high qualify awards. They employ some 8,000 people, mostly non-Natives. Most interestingly, a stroll down the reservation's main elementary school will reveal a lot of students speaking fluent Choctaw. ``Tell the other tribes'' Martin says, ``we can all do this. If you really want to do it, and get your act together, you can do it.'' This is a generous thought, but such progress will also require vision, and political acumen. To Martin's credit, when the political winds turned right in 1994, he was positioned to solidify friendships with such Republican powerhouses as Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. Hiring quality lobbyists as their new wealth allowed, the Choctaw leader persuaded a good sector of Republicans to the righteousness of the Native nations sovereignty from taxation. In particular, the Choctaw initiative convinced the country's major anti-tax organization--Americans for Tax Reform, whose 500-plus organizations network and 90,000 activists supported the Indian case as an anti-tax strategy. Politics is the art of achieving your group's self- interest, and it certainly makes for diverse bedfellows. But always the proof is in the pudding. The Choctaw strategy, precise and proper for their geopolitical context, is pragmatically brilliant. In the hold of the old South, this Mississippi tribe provides a welcome signal, an example of where visionary leadership can make a huge difference to the future of a people. An appreciation and salutation is due Choctaw chief and statesman, Phillip Martin, visionary, quiet building, steady helm.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a friend and colleague who, after eight years of service to the House of Representatives, is moving on. Every member of this House knows how important it is to have good staff. These are the people who run this institution from day to day. They are the people who do the grunt work, draft the bills, work long nights--all in service of the American people. And we, as Members of Congress, place our trust and careers in their capable hands every day. I am very lucky. I have always been blessed with great staff. But every once in a while a truly special person comes along and inspires and energizes an office. I was lucky enough to have one of the best, one of the most committed, one of the brightest staffers on Capitol Hill working for me for the past five and half years. His name is Tony Rudy. Tony came to work for me in 1995, just as I was beginning my time as Majority Whip in the House of Representatives. Being the Whip is hard work, and a lot of that work falls on my staff. These staffers devote a large part of their lives to making sure we get our work done, pass legislation and make the House of Representatives a livable place for Members of Congress. And Tony is one of the best. He has held virtually every position in my office as he worked his way up the ladder. He started out as a Press Secretary and moved on to Policy Director and finally Deputy Chief of Staff. And he was superb in each of these positions. As my Press secretary, Tony's hallmark was his ability to form real friendships with the Washington press corps. The people covering politics and Capitol Hill know that they can call Tony anytime and they can always trust what he has to say. Tony's authenticity and ability to form relationships has been instrumental to his success. Next, I put Tony's commitment to the conservative cause to good use by making him my Policy Director. One of the things that I have always admired about Tony is his real commitment to the conservative agenda. He is not in Washington, DC for power or personal gain. He is here because he believes in what he is doing and because of his desire to make America a better place. And his commitment was on display every day as he moved through my office like a whirlwind, pressing staffers to do more, to work harder. He is personally responsible for the passage of much good legislation, but more importantly he was on the lookout for bad legislation. More than a few bad bills found an early grave because of Tony's vigilance. Finally, Tony served as my Deputy Chief of Staff. In that capacity he became a not just great staffer, but a great friend. He was my gatekeeper and my watch-guard. In many ways, too numerous to list here, he made my life in Washington, DC tolerable. Now, Tony has decided to move on to greener pastures. For five and half years, Tony was always on call. He worked countless late nights and weekends. Now, he has a beautiful new son and is time for him to step back and spend some time with his family. Tony's departure is a personal loss for me, but I know that it is the right thing for him to do. I wish him the best in his new career and I wish him and his family all the joy and happiness in the world. After all of Tony's hard work for me and the American people, they truly deserve it.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who really understands these issues on bringing this special order to the floor. The gentleman speaks Russian as many in the House know and has been to Russia many, many times, so he knows what he is speaking about. The gentleman has met with many members of the Duma, many members in the Russian Government, and has been a great liaison with Russia and this House of Representatives. I wanted to say that because he has the most credibility of any Member in this House on issues dealing with Russia. And he understands how the failed Clinton-Gore administration's foreign policy has affected Russia. Mr. Speaker, the recent revelations that Vice President Gore and former Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin entered into a secret agreement to allow the Russian Government to sell dangerous weapons systems to Iran, contrary to a nonproliferation law that the Vice President himself authored with Senator John McCain, shed more light on the Clinton-Gore administration's inability to effectively provide for our national security. Allowing these systems to be delivered to Iran, a nation that is at the top of the list of terrorist states, again reveals this administration's failed, rudderless foreign policy based on appeasement rather than strength. Perhaps nowhere has this failed foreign policy borne more bitter tasting fruit than in those missed opportunities in Russia. Mr. Speaker, when this administration first took office in 1993, Russia was an emerging democracy that for the first time looked to America with open eyes and open arms. But, sadly, after years of misplaced policies, Russia's optimism has been replaced by skepticism. The Vice President headed up the administration's Russia policy, a policy which can now only be judged as a total failure. Unfortunately, the Vice President was in over his head and the results were disastrous. Anti-American sentiment, as the gentleman says, and look at that chart that shows the anti-American sentiment among the Russian people. It is at its highest point since the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia continues to be a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and, most troubling, to me at least, it has entered into a strategic military partnership with Communist China, one of our most serious potential adversaries. The administration has done nothing to discourage this emerging military relationship and incredibly insists that the Russian Government selling dangerous sunburn missiles to China, missiles specifically designed to destroy American warships, poses no serious threat to U.S. security. Instead of leading Russian policy with a very firm hand, Vice President Gore led with closed eyes and an open pocketbook. The collapse of Russia was fueled by the administration's insistence on pouring good money after bad. Billions of dollars were wasted propping up failing, inefficient, and corrupt institutions. The administration was committed to Boris Yeltsin at all costs while he and his cronies used the government to fuel their own appetites for wealth and power. According to the Speaker's Advisory Group and the document, the document that was produced just a few weeks ago by that group, by the way, I would tell the Speaker that the American people can get this document on the Web site at policy.house.gov and receive a very complete analysis of the failed Clinton administration policy when it comes to Russia. According to this group, and I am quoting here from this study, ``The Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission contributed to a deliberately uninformed U.S. policy toward Russia. It refused to acknowledge failure and, even worse, celebrated failure as if it were success. The Clinton administration's dependence on the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, coupled with the commission's refusal to listen to independent information, meant that the administration's Russia policy was both procedurally and substantively unsound.'' This administration had an opportunity to help Russia enter into the 21st century as an emerging and thriving democracy. Unfortunately, the Vice President's misguided policies helped fuel Russia's economic collapse and led to our relations being worse than any time since the end of the Cold War. Mr. Speaker, it is time we stopped feeding failure. Russia needs to take responsibility for its future and be held accountable for its mistakes. The Russian Government should know that we are committed to building a very strong friendship, but the foundation of that relationship must be a mutual commitment to freedom, democracy, and individual liberty. We should not restructure or forgive the billions of dollars Russia owes us until they show progress towards building democratic institutions committed to the rule of law, that they stop selling weapons to the Chinese, Iranians and other potentially dangerous states and dismantle their spy facility in Lourdes, Cuba. Contrary to the view of this administration, the Russian Government does not have veto authority over our national security policy. We should not be held back from building a national missile defense system by an invalid and outdated ABM treaty predicated on an absurd Cold War notion that the only way our people can be totally secure is to be totally vulnerable. The Russian Government should know that the American people are committed to building a comprehensive missile defense to protect our people and our allies, and we will not be deterred in doing so. Mr. Speaker, there is still great potential in Russia, and with real leadership we can build our relationship. But we must acknowledge that real reform does not lie in any single man or leader, but in the institutions that build the foundations for democracy. Without those foundations, without the rule of law, democracy cannot take hold. Russia is blessed with a rich heritage and tremendous resources. I hope the next page in their long history will show a commitment to democracy, the rule of law and individual liberty. If it does, the United States will be ready to stand with them as true allies. But our relationship with Russia must be based on respect and trust, not personal friendships and wishful thinking. Serious problems require serious leadership. The Russian Government should know that the United States will hold out a helping hand when that hand will be welcomed as a symbol of democratic partnership, not some sweetheart deal. I just challenge the national media. As the gentleman knows, I think the national media has shirked its responsibility, particularly in this campaign, by not looking at the actual actions that Vice President Gore took in carrying out the Clinton-Gore foreign policy. If they would look at what part Vice President Gore played in foreign policy, they would find a situation where there was no leadership, where there was appeasement rather than strength, where there was a complete disaster in most cases.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding this time to me, and I appreciate all the hard work that he has done on this bill. It is really unfortunate that the President vetoed a bill that he supports. I think most of us know what is going on here. What is going on here is politics is being placed above people. When we took the majority for the first time in 40 years, the minority went into denial. The minority has worked for 6 years to gain back the majority. They decided that these last 2 years was their chance because we had a six-vote margin. All they had to do was win a net of seven seats, and they are back in the majority. The minority leader last summer announced that they were going to run against a do-nothing Congress, that they would not cooperate, that they would try to bring down every bill that we brought to the floor that was of any substance. Politics. Words are really cheap, but actions really prove whether your words are true or not. All summer, while we were passing through this House all 13 appropriations bills and getting our work done, the minority side said all along that there is not enough money in this, there is not enough money being spent. They have always wanted to spend more money, and they have tried to spend the surplus; and we have worked very, very hard all this year to keep them from spending the surplus. On the substantive issues, the policy issues, right, we are guilty for not passing their agenda. We have been passing our agenda. We locked up the Social Security surplus. They have been raiding it for 40 years, spending it on big government programs. We locked up the Medicare surplus. They have been spending it for 40 years, or as long as Medicare has been in, on big government programs. Then there was more surplus on the on-budget, and we said we want to take at least 90 percent of that and pay down on the public debt with it. We are doing it. They have fought us every step of the way. We have had to bring very tough bills, including this TPO bill, to the floor and pass it with only Republican votes because they tried to bring it down knowing how hard it would be to pass it. Now we get into this season, and we have been working with the President. The President has signed seven bills that we compromised with him on and he has signed. But they have never intended to let us get out of town or to work out a bill. I mean, last week the minority leader put on a Scottish uniform, put war paint on his face and picked up a spear and declared war. Last night, the President put that same war paint on his face, vetoed a bill and declared war. They are interested in politics. They have only one goal and that is to take back the majority of this House. Sunday, the President threatened, or blackmailed the Congress by saying that he would veto this bill if he did not get an agreement on Labor-HHS. These gentlemen worked a long time, into the early morning, to come up with an agreement. But on every bill, and frankly we passed every bill out of this Congress except the Labor-HHS bill, we have got it all done, the problem is we cannot trust the President. Every one of those bills, once it has been worked out, has always been brought to the leadership to look at the agreement. We owe that and we have a responsibility to the Members that we represent to make sure that the agreement is a good one. We started looking at the agreement and then their spin doctors went out and said we were blowing up the agreement. We have looked at every agreement that our negotiators have made, and we were asking questions about this agreement. We were asking questions about the fact that what they said was the agreement on the labor provision known as the ergonomics actually was reflected in the language that was presented to us, and we did not think it was, because we read that language as doing nothing but codifying present law and present practice. And we thought, well, maybe we ought to write the language to reflect the agreement that was being made and we were working on that. We even compromised with them. They wanted $8 billion. We said, ``We'll give you 4 but tell us how you are going to spend it.'' To this point, 2 days later, they have not even given us the list of how they are going to spend that $4 billion. How in the world do you think we could put a bill together and file it and answer the President's blackmail when you will not even give us how you are going to spend it? They gave some money on Democrat projects. We have yet to get the list of the Democrat projects. How do you put together a bill, put it in language and bring it down here to the floor when we have not even got the list? So there was no way that we could comply. And they knew it. They knew it, that we could comply with the blackmail of the President and he vetoes the bill. Pure politics. People be damned. Pure politics was what is going on here. The political atmosphere here has been so poisoned by their actions that it is so difficult, and I have got to tell you, this bill is back into play. Now we have five appropriations bills in play. The President asked us to talk to him about the tax bill. We said fine. Nobody showed up. We have been waiting 3 days to talk about the tax bill. We have called for 3 days asking the President to negotiate with us over immigration. Nobody has showed up. This morning the President's people were supposed to come in early to talk about this ergonomics issue and the language. Nobody has showed up. In fact, the President went to Kentucky to campaign this afternoon. Now he is in New York. How do you negotiate with a mirror? The President has no intention of making this. That is why we are here a week before the election. It is politics. It is time to put the politics aside and think about the people and do the people's business. I am just asking you all to come together and let us put people before politics.

Mr. DeLAY

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) bringing this special order honoring the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer). The gentleman from Florida has already gone over his legacy, and what a legacy it is. I happen to have the district that is next to the district of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), and I have known the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) for many, many years. In fact, he does not particularly like for me to tell people how long I have known him, but back when I was going to the University of Houston, my senior year in 1970, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) was running for Congress for the first time. At that time, it was the first campaign that I had ever worked in. I never met him. I did not meet him for another 20 years. But I saw a man that I wanted to work for, a man of great integrity, a wonderful conservative, a man of principle, a man that stood for principle. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) was running as a Republican. Back in Texas in the late 1960s and early 1970s, they did not elect Republicans, they shot them. To run as a Republican was pretty near a death sentence if one really wanted to get elected. But the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) stood up. He ran as a Republican. His district saw his great worth, and they elected him. He has served with such distinction. Even when he served in the minority for so long, the majority would come to him for advice on tax policy and the tax code. Then when he took over as Chairman of the committee, most Members, particularly those that are not as senior do not remember, but the Committee on Ways and Means carried, I think, about 70 percent of the Contract with America. They drove that legislation and did an outstanding job in telling the American people that we were going to do it. We showed them that we were going to do the Contract with America, and we did it under the Committee on Ways and Means and, most importantly, the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer.) It was hard to do because we were fought every step of the way in everything we were going to try to do. Most people do not see it this way, but it is true. The shutdown of the government was caused by the President of the United States because he was opposed to balancing the budget. Yet, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) stood there, and stood there with great, great strength in order to carry that out, and finally signed in 1997 the Balanced Budget Act. Along with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the most important thing that I have ever done in my career and many of our careers was welfare reform. We found a system that had failed. It had failed because of its liberal approach. It had failed the people on the welfare system. It had destroyed families by being dependent on the government. Yet, with the President fighting us every step of the way, we passed that legislation, and now we are reaping the benefits. Families are coming back together. Fathers are moving back in with the mothers of their children. Children are looking up to their parents as role models because they are receiving a paycheck. All of this is due to the will and the stamina and the distinction of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer). Let me just say on a personal note, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) is one of the finest men I have ever had the privilege of knowing. Because he is strong in his faith in God, his wife Sharon, whom he dearly loves, at his side, a very extensive family, he has been a role model that they have modeled themselves after. His children are role models in themselves to their own children. His legacy is truly his family. Being the role model that he is, a man that shows integrity works, shows that being principled works, shows that if one loves one's family and holds them together, it truly works. And so I am more than pleased to be here in honor of Bill Archer.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to join others in saying ``Hat's off to Steven Lopez for his great victory in Sydney.'' Steven's determination and tenacity has made his family, Texas, and our country very proud. And since his victory, he has carried himself like a champion. Steven, keep up the good work. Although Steven won the gold medal, a lot of the credit for his gritty victory in Sydney belongs to his parents. Julio and Ondina Lopez set high standards for the son and the rest of their family. Not only did Steven set records on the mat, but he was also an honor student at Kempner High. We're proud of Steven for hanging tough and overcoming adversity at the Olympics. First, he had to fight through an injury. Then, he had to battle an Australian on his home turf. And, finally, he had to best another opponent in front of a large crowd of the opponent's supporters to win. Steven pulled it off. He was behind, but he kept fighting and, eventually, he was able to land the blow that brought gold back to Sugar Land. He typifies our can-do Texas spirit. We can see the American dream paralleled in Steven's preparations for this contest. Steven started Tae Kwon Do at the early age of five. He trained six hours a day, six days a week to be ready for the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. Then he traveled to Australia a month early to gain an edge. Fortunately, that determination paid off. Some people have suggested that Steven Lopez is a good role model for our area, and I think they're on to something. Because the most impressive aspect of Steven's victory is that he shares the credit with others. He credits both his family and his faith as the sources of his accomplishments. In fact, Steven's siblings train together in their home. You know, I'll bet some of the scrimmages at the Lopez house made Sydney seem like a tea party. But I want to reiterate how especially proud I am of the way Steven has handled himself. Steven's quote after his victory caught my eye when he said: ``I have so much faith, and that faith took me through all my matches today.'' That's a message that more people need to hear. I think the Lopez family is going to start a new tradition. Before this is over, the ``first family'' of Tae Kwon Do is going to make Sugar Land the Capitol City of this new Olympic sport. Congratulations and God Bless You, Steven.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this is an election year. Unfortunately, most of the time, the real loser in an election year is the truth. Mr. Speaker, I have seen the Democrat presidential nominee and the vice presidential nominee travel all over this country taking credit for balancing the budget, taking credit for paying down the debt, taking credit for welfare reform, taking credit for locking up the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus. Yet, the truth of the matter is, when Bill Clinton had a Democrat Congress, they passed budgets that had deficits as far as the eye could see. In fact, their budget they passed, the last one they passed in 1994, said that last year we would have over a $200 billion deficit. Yet now we have surpluses. In fact, they would lead us to believe that the shutdown of the Government in 1995 was because the Republican Congress was intransigent. If we really look at the record, the shutdown in 1995 came when the President shut down the Government because he did not want a balanced budget. That is what that fight was all about. On welfare reform, the President of the United States and most of his people in the House and the Senate voted against welfare reform. We had speeches down here in the well of the House accusing us of starving children and putting children in the grates outside and throwing them out of their homes. Yet it was a huge success, so now they want to take credit for it. The President vetoed welfare reform twice before he finally signed it a couple of months before his reelection campaign. Last year, when we decided to stop the 40-year-old Democrat practice of taking the Social Security surplus and spending it on Big Government programs, they fought us every step of the way. Yet we did it for the first time in 40 years and, hopefully, forever more. This last spring, we said that we were going to do the same with the Medicare surplus, we were going to stop the Government from spending the surplus on Big Government programs. And we did it. Now we are saying that we want to lock up 90 percent of the on-budget surplus and use it to pay down the debt. In the last 2 years, we have paid over $354 billion down on the public debt. We are proposing that next year we pay another, in 1 year, $240 billion down on the public debt that is on the backs of our children and our grandchildren. That is responsible. The minority and this President have fought us every step of the way while they have taken credit for everything that we have done, and now they say that we are a ``do nothing'' Congress. ``Do nothing'' Congress? The 106th Congress is one of the most productive Congresses in recent history. This is a single-space list of all the wonderful bills that we have gotten signed by this President dealing with reducing the national debt, with Social Security and Medicare, strengthening retirement security, excellence in education, health care, tax fairness, enhancing the national security of our Nation, protecting families from crimes and drugs, ending lawsuit abuse, advancing the high-tech agenda. And it goes on and on and on. That is what we have done. Now we have reached the end, and we have had to face for 6 years this event every year. The President submits his budget at the first of the year, and then we do not hear another word from him until the very end, and then he wants all this spending. He has never vetoed a bill because it had too much spending. He has vetoed bills because they did not have enough spending; and he has drug it on and on and on, especially this year worse than ever. Mr. Speaker, we remain here today because some people simply will not support the principles of fiscal discipline. The House did its job, and it completed its business. The minority chose not to participate. Some of the 13 bills we passed in this House we had to pass with only Republican votes, and we only have a six-vote margin. Let us remember what happened earlier this year. The leadership of the other party acknowledged that they had no genuine interest in working together to advance any sort of bipartisan agenda. Instead, they resolved to slow down proceedings, drag out the negotiations, and stall progress. That was their strategy that they started out with this year. Why in the world would they adopt such a strategy? Well, in some unguarded remarks, they admitted that their drive to become the majority party was predicated on a ``do nothing'' strategy that was designed to stop anything from happening. It was designed to stop anything from happening, and the indictments that we hear today are indictments on themselves, because they are the ones that have slowed this process down; will not negotiate. We have asked the President for the last 2 months to negotiate these bills with us, and he has chosen not to. At this point in time, they are holding the bills hostage for issues that have never passed either body, the House or the Senate, because they want their way or they will take their ball and go home. If the President was serious about reaching a reasonable consensus on the budget, he could rapidly conclude the negotiations by finally answering a few simple questions. How much spending is enough? How much money should go for debt reduction? How much money should go for tax relief? He often claims to support tax relief and debt relief but his actions do not reflect these goals. Rather, every effort of this administration, through this budget process, has been to advance his actual agenda and that is spend the surplus. Support this continuing resolution and let us get our work done.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address a provision in the FY01 Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report that is not only disturbing, but highly objectionable on legal grounds. This provision was subject to absolutely no deliberative thought. In fact, the Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committee raised serious constitutional and legal concerns about it. The Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers decried it. I am referring to section 745 of the bill. It states, ``No manufacturer of a covered product may enter into a contract or agreement that includes a provision to prevent the sale or distribution of covered products imported pursuant to subsection (a).'' Besides the fact that this provision baldly impedes the right of businesses to conduct affairs in the manner they so choose, what is perhaps most troubling about this provision, which restricts freedom of contract and clearly infringes on intellectual property and other constitutional rights, is that it was added to the Conference Report in the dark of night. This provision was not contained in either of the underlying House or Senate Agriculture Appropriations bills--or any other bill for that matter. Moreover, the provision was never the subject of any committee hearings or other public deliberation by the Congress. While it will slip past Members today because it is buried deep in an important appropriations bill that, among other things, provides billions of dollars in drought relief to American farmers, I take small comfort in knowing that this provision will not slip past the Courts and will not survive judicial review. Until that time, let us at least realize that this ill-advised provision requires narrow interpretation, not only because of the stealth with which it was included, but because an inappropriately broad reading would raise very serious questions with respect to conflicts with US patent and trade laws. To avoid--or at least minimize--such conflicts, the only interpretation of this provision (which replaced a broader proposed provision that the Conference Committee rejected) is that it is strictly limited to contacts or agreement involving drug reimports, and also containing explicit contractual provisions to this purpose and effect. Make no mistake--this provision is horrid. That's what you get when you have a flawed process--you get flawed policy. It profoundly affects both intellectual property rights and constitutional rights. It has no place in this bill and I am deeply disappointed the Conference Committee allowed such a provision to be included in this bill.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member, for doing an excellent job with this bill. I am going to vote for this bill. I have served on this subcommittee every year that I have been on the Committee on Appropriations and have dealt with transportation problems in many different cities as well as transportation issues for the City of Houston and the metroplex around Houston. Up until now, we have had excellent opportunity to work with Houston. Unfortunately, we have a new mass transit system that has decided to break what I thought was a model for the Nation of different transportation entities working together and sometimes overlapping and being concerned about mobility in Houston. We now have a metro system that has decided that they are going to build a megamulti-billion dollar rail system without the input of the people of Houston, without the people of Houston even gathering the information that would deal with this. It is the age-old bureaucratic strategy of let us build a little bitty short system, and then when it does not work, we can force the people into building a bigger system. Now, I have very serious concerns about that. I especially have concerns that, when we have a full-funding agreement on the mass transit monies going to Houston, that they want to come in and undermine that full funding agreement by taking some of that money and putting it into a rail system that has not been designed or considered by everybody in the Houston metroplex. Therefore, I told the Houston Metro System that, when they get their act together, when they look at congestion studies, when they look at the regional mobility plan, then we can talk about a rail system as part of that overall regional mobility plan. I have one other issue. I am for .08. Texas has .08. But I have very strong concerns about the Federal Government blackmailing States into doing something that maybe the States have a different idea in how to solve the problem. But I am going to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do so also.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, 204 years ago, President George Washington's ``Farewell Address'' was published in the New York Herald. For generations, the ``Farewell Address'' was one of the most recommended political works in American history. Schoolchildren studied it and citizens celebrated it. In fact, in 1862, President Lincoln even issued a national proclamation recommending that people all over the country read the address aloud. One lengthy section of Washington's address dealt with the importance of religion and morality to public life. After declaring that religion and morality were indispensable to political prosperity, Washington bluntly asked, ``Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert?'' He continued, ``Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.'' Washington warned Americans that without religious principles, neither education nor any other force would be capable of protecting either our life or our property. This is a lesson to remember today, the 204th anniversary of the printing of Washington's ``Farewell Address.''

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it is not confusing. The Republicans are committed to empowering American families by returning power, money and choices to the people. We do not believe that the Federal budget surplus belongs to the government. It is the people's money, and it should be returned. They earned it. This is our constant and unchanging goal. That is why we proposed a firm commitment that applies at least 90 percent of next year's Federal budget surplus to paying off our debts. It turns out that a commitment to paying off the debt is a popular position. Last night, we forged a common sense coalition for debt relief. We drew support from both sides of the aisle. We believe that the surplus must be returned to the American people, if not through tax relief, then through debt reduction. Today, we take another important step. Members have another opportunity to send a very clear message to the White House. The American people demand greater fiscal discipline from their government. An unrestrained wave of new Washington spending is not an acceptable use for their surplus. Our latest initiative addresses this theme of fiscal discipline by both expanding retirement security and paying off the debt. We can again urge the President to join with us, but our expectations are pretty low. The President has already repeatedly blocked the bipartisan effort to return the surplus to the American people. Just last week he said, whether we can do debt reduction this year or not depends upon what the various spending commitments are. Less than 24 hours ago, this House voted overwhelmingly in favor of our debt reduction plan. Now every Member, Republican and Democrat, who voted for that initiative should support this common sense measure. Mr. President, we have room for you in our common sense coalition to refund the surplus, but you must first abandon any scheme to spend the surplus on more Washington programs. If you can commit to using at least 90 percent of next year's surplus to debt relief and only debt relief, we would like to have you with us. Mr. Speaker, members should support this bill. It will return power to the American people and strengthen our Nation. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding the time to me. Mr. Speaker, it is really fascinating at times how short people's memories are or the lack of sense of history. When the Republicans became the majority in 1995, we had 40 years of the Democrats control of this body. For 40 years, they ran up the debt on this country. For 40 years, they had budgets as far as the eye could see that were going to run deficits and increase the debt on our children and grandchildren. When we came in, we told the American people that we would balance the budget, that we would give some tax relief, and we would start paying down on the debt. We were told by this side of the aisle and Washington pundits and Washington media that that is impossible, we cannot balance the budget and cut taxes and pay down on the debt. I am very proud to stand before my colleagues and tell my colleagues that the budget is balanced, and it has been for a couple of years, that we stopped the raid on Social Security that was going on for 40 years. They were taking the Social Security surplus and spending it on government programs. We did that last year. And we will do it again this year. We stopped the raid on Medicare surplus. They were using that for big government programs. We have a big surplus, and for the last couple of years, we have actually not talked about it, we actually paid down over $350 billion on the public debt. We started this year with a budget that said that now that we have this surplus, we have got to keep it out of the hands of the Washington spenders, and we need to return it to the American people, because they are the people that paid it and it is their money and they are overtaxed. That is the definition of a surplus. We said that we would take, and I remind the minority leader, at that time we would take 85 percent of the surplus and pay down on the debt, and take other 15 percent and give some of that tax money back to the American people, and we do it in many ways. Repeal the death tax, well, the President vetoed that. One of the most important reasons is why we are here today is to give some relief to married people, and there is a surplus, there is a $70 billion surplus. Not counting the Social Security surplus, we have a surplus that does not count the Social Security surplus or the Medicare surplus, and we can take 90 percent of that and pay down the debt. The institution of marriage is the foundation of our communities and our government. Marriage is something that we ought to be honoring and we ought to be respecting. It is time to repeal the destructive immoral tax currently imposed on married couples, a tax that this administration refuses to lift. The President had the opportunity to end this unfair tax earlier this summer, and with the stroke of a pen, he could have extended fairness to the millions of American families who are burdened by this tax. Unfortunately, the President placed a higher value on retaining Washington spending than he did on extending relief for struggling young families during the last vote on this issue. A very strong bipartisan majority of the House embraced the simple common sense of ending a tax that discriminates against people starting families. All of us understand that when we tax something we get less of it. Why in the world would the Clinton administration retain a policy that forces married couples to pay a financial penalty? How can they call a family that is making $43,000 a year rich? Their definition of middle class is anybody that does not pay taxes. Why do Democrats offer an alternative that says it is fine, we can take advantage of the marriage penalty tax and repeal it, but if we have a home and pay a mortgage or we itemize deductions, we do not get the benefit of repealing the marriage penalty. The support in this House for ending the marriage penalty clearly shows that the American people want and need relief from that tax. A country founded on freedom should not maintain a Tax Code that arbitrarily places an extra burden on husbands and wives. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues and the President to support this effort and to end the unfair tax on married couples.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, today we have a final chance to save family farms and small businesses that will be sacrificed to pay the unfair death tax. This vote is about whether or not we stop the Federal government from confiscating farms and businesses through an aggressive tax that attaches a penalty to the end of life. It is not the top rich. The rich do not pay these taxes. It is people like me when I used to be in the pest control businesses. It is a plumbing business that puts all of its assets aside as they build this business and create jobs. These are people that do not make $100,000, $200,000, $400,000 a year. Most of the time these people take in $60,000 or so to fund their own families. Then when they die, the government comes in in a very unfair way and takes their businesses, and also costs jobs because the people that work for those businesses lose their jobs because they have to liquidate in order to pay this onerous tax. The death tax punishes Americans who achieve their financial dreams. What is worse, it targets American farmers and these small business owners that are trying to sustain what they have worked their whole lives to build. When the death tax comes due, the surviving relatives are already wrestling with the tough decisions that follow a loss in their family, and this tax complicates matters by forcing family members to liquidate these farms and these small family businesses. This is wrong. It is unfair. It has been unfair for years. Most Americans recognize that this tax sends the very wrong message. That is why voters overwhelmingly support our proposal to bury the death tax. This debate also raises a critical question about our national priorities: Should surplus dollars be kept in Washington to be spent by politicians, or should that money be returned to the men and women who earned it? Our position is clear. Republicans believe that the American people can identify and address their own priorities. We believe that they are far better equipped to know their best interests than any Washington bureaucracy ever can be. Republicans support two options to return the surplus to the American people: We should either return the surplus to them through tax relief, or give the surplus back to the American people by paying down on the public debt. By supporting this bill, by overriding the President's veto, Members will end the death tax today and empower American families tomorrow.