Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fazio substitute and in opposition to the Petri-DeFazio amendment. The effort to scuttle the Animas-La Plata project has arisen year after year with accusations of corporate welfare, antienvironmental impacts, and excessive cost. But a good faith effort is being made to reach a compromise that addresses the high cost and eliminates water quality concerns. The concerns raised by the opponents of this project are being addressed. But the Petri-DeFazio amendment would stop that effort in its tracks. It would freeze the Interior Department out of the only process that is examining alternatives to the full blown Animas-La Plata project. Mr. Chairman, that's just not right. The Indian tribes involved in this effort, like it or not, have agreements with the Federal and State governments--the promise to meet the water supply needs of the Ute Tribes goes back over a century. I urge my colleagues to support the Fazio amendment--it prohibits construction from going forward but allows the Interior Department to continue its role in working out a reasonable alternative to the current project. Hopefully, this approach will allow the Federal Government to fulfill the commitment it made to the Ute Indians so long ago.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to this substitute and in support of the Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997. It has been 16 years since the taxpayers of America have had tax relief from the Federal Government, and today's bill is long overdue. But instead of embracing tax relief, the Democrat minority embraces class warfare. America's working families are forced to pay over 50 percent of their salaries to the government because of high taxes and costly regulations. No wonder it takes one parent to work for the Government while the other parent works for the family. Instead of working with us to ease that tax burden, the minority leadership offers in their substitute more welfare. It should come as no surprise that the members of the minority oppose this bill. Asking liberals to go support tax relief is like asking aliens to come back to Roswell. If it has not happened in the last 50 years, it probably will not happen in the next 50 years. The liberals oppose tax cuts but they choose to cloak their opposition in the rhetoric of class warfare. Frankly, this rhetoric is giving me a headache. It is like listening to my daughter Mandy's favorite music. The beat is simple, the volume is loud, but the ultimate contribution to society is meaningless. Mr. Chairman, we need less rhetoric for the Democrats regarding taxes and more illumination. Our tax cuts help working families in all stages of life, from those who have children to those who are grandparents, from those who want to save for a retirement to those who want to invest in the future of America. Working families are not necessarily rich in wealth, but they are rich in spirit. The liberals believe that these people do not deserve tax relief, and I think that is pretty sad. So I just urge my colleagues to reject this weak substitute and vote for America's first tax cut in 17 years.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I understand the deep feelings of the opponents of MFN and I have deep sympathy with those feelings. But the question before us is very simple. Will revoking MFN lead to more freedom in China? In my view, the answer is a resounding no. I want to send the Communist Chinese Government a message regarding human rights and religious freedom. But I believe that cutting off MFN is a very ineffective way to send that message, and in sending that message, we are taking freedom away from Americans. Mr. Speaker, free trade leads to freedom, and capitalism is a synonym for freedom. Will revoking MFN help those Chinese who are being persecuted by their Government? Will revoking MFN stop the Chinese Government from selling dangerous weapons to unstable countries? Will revoking MFN end barbaric social practices within China? I fear that the answer to all those questions is a big no. Instead of closing the door on China, we should be forcing that door open to open even wider. Instead of taking away freedom from Americans, we should empower our citizens to fully engage China. We should have congressional delegations going to China demanding that the Chinese Government free political and religious prisoners. We should disallow visas for any member of the Chinese Government who is a known human rights violator, and we should press on many different fronts to make our views known to the Chinese Government that we care how they treat their citizens. But we should not cut the strongest link we have with the people of China especially now that Hong Kong is falling under the control of the Beijing regime. That link is trade. And the trade link is the lifeline for many Chinese who see America not as an adversary but as a friend. And this is not just my view. In a statement supporting MFN for China, Dr. Samuel Ling, who happens to be program director of the Institute for Chinese Studies at Wheaton College's Billy Graham Center, said: History since 1979 has proved that as the United States engages China, a more open, pluralistic atmosphere develops, and both the standard of living and human rights and freedoms, including religious freedom, tend to improve. Washing our hands of China is simply irresponsible. Let us not impose a false isolation of China that diminishes our influence, hurts the very people we want to help and takes freedom away from American citizens. I urge my colleagues to vote down this disapproval motion, and let us give a helping hand to those who are now being persecuted in China.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I must say, the comments from the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], do not surprise me a bit, because it is his party that has led us to this point over the last 30 or 40 years, that have controlled this Chamber, that had led us to the point that we have to introduce legislation like this to call attention to the American people what they already know by looking at their bank statements every month and trying to balance their checkbooks and paying their taxes on April 15. Mr. Speaker, I just wonder how many hard-working Americans really know just how long it takes them to earn enough income to pay for the cost of government. Many Americans mistakenly associate April 15 with the end of their financial obligations to the Government. Some believe Tax Freedom Day is the day which marks the end of their financial obligations to pay for the cost of Government. But, unfortunately, both of these dates are wrong, because it takes until July 3, more than half the year, to free yourself and your family from the heavy burden of government spending at all levels, plus the cost of regulation. Now, according to the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation, the cost of this Government this year equals $3.5 trillion, or 36.2 percent of our country's net national product. Now, that amounts to $13,500 for every man, woman, and child in America, $13,500 a year per individual to run this Government. Mr. Speaker, that means that the average American will work 183 days this year to pay for the government's insatiable spending appetite and the thousands of regulations that emanate from this town every year. In the last 14 months, over 4,700 new regulations have been issued by Federal agencies of the Clinton administration. The era of big government goes on and on and on. Over 50 percent of a family's hard- earned income goes to the country. Fifty cents out of every hard-earned dollar a family makes goes to the government. No wonder it takes one parent to work for the Government while the other parent works for the family. So, Mr. Speaker, no American should have to work more than half the year to pay the cost of government. We need to commit ourselves to reducing this burden. This week, when the House passes the Taxpayer Relief Act, we will have begun to make a down payment on providing middle-income American families the tax relief that they need, tax relief that they have not seen in 16 years, since Ronald Reagan was President of the United States. But I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, this is only a small down payment. We have to continue to reduce the tax and regulatory burden on working Americans because they are constantly struggling to hold on to their earnings. Whereas the parents' generation, their parents' generation got to keep 80 percent or more of the fruits of their labor, today's families are lucky to keep 50 percent of their earnings, and, for most families, that is with both parents working full time. Speaker Gingrich was right on the mark this weekend when he said that we would strive to make sure that no working American should have to turn over more than 25 percent of their hard-earned income to pay for taxes or other government costs. The Lord God only wants 10 percent, and the Government should have no more than 25 percent. Also this week, Mr. Speaker, we will receive recommendations on the IRS from the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS. That will provide the necessary framework to begin the national debate on what kind of tax structure we need to rephrase today's 800,000 word maze, that takes 480 forms with 8 billion pages of instructions to administer. So, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, this government is too big, it costs too much, and it increasingly impinges on the earnings and freedoms of our constituents. I just urge my colleagues to think seriously about the implications of the Cost of Government Day, and to consider that any tax and regulatory relief that we can send to working families in our districts is much deserved and much needed and much demanded.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, we do have a very important choice to make tonight, and it is a choice between a policy that shortchanges the men and women that risk their lives in defense of our Nation or it is a policy that will provide those men and women with equipment and the tools that they need to ensure that our Nation remains the protector of democracy and freedom around the world. Now we live in an age where when dictators are alive and well, they are busy stockpiling nuclear biological chemical weapons; and as leaders, we have to make sure that we send American soldiers into combat against these tyrants with the best possible chance of success. And as Cap Weinberger noted, the Air Force has estimated that a B-2 with two crewmembers could conduct an attack normally involving 75 tactical aircraft and 147 crewmembers. The procurement and lifecycle costs of 75 tactical aircraft approaches $7.5 billion and the comparable costs for one B-2 is $1.1 billion. Now clearly the B-2 provides us with the best opportunity to protect U.S. interests at the lowest costs with the best possible technology, and I just hope that my colleagues will make the right choice tonight. A vote against keeping the B-2 line open and operational is a very shortsighted vote, and in this dangerous day and age we cannot afford to make such ill-considered and shortsighted choices. We need to make the right choice for our service men and women and for the future of this country. So, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, John Tanner and I serve as the chair and vice chair of the Advisory Committee to the Chemistry and Technology Forum. The Chemistry and Technology Forum was recently established to foster a better understanding of the chemical industry among the general public and public officials. The Forum sponsors events and produces studies intended to improve the quality and quantity of information on industry issues available to the public and the Government. In doing so, the Forum believes that it will encourage the development of sound public policy and debate on the issues affecting the industry and the public it serves. Recently the Forum heard a presentation from Mr. J. Lawrence Wilson, the chairman and CEO of Rhom and Haas Co. and the chairman of the Chemical Manufacturers Association on international trade and the chemical industry. Mr. Wilson points out that since 1993 chemicals have been the largest U.S. export sector and that exports have doubled in the past 5 years to more than $60 billion. Today, 1 out of every 10 U.S. export dollars earned comes from chemical sales. Every billion dollars in export sales creates or preserves 4,000 jobs. Access to the markets of Asia and Latin America are key to this industry's future and renewal of ``fast track'' authority is a competitive necessity. I am entering Larry's speech in today's Congressional Record and encourage Members of Congress, particularly those with substantial chemical employment in their districts', to read the speech. International Trade--Working Hard To Stay Ahead of the Game I'm pleased to be here this afternoon because it gives me another opportunity to talk about my favorite subject--the U.S. chemical industry. Those here today already know about the contribution this industry makes to the U.S. economy--and to the world economy, for that matter: The chemical industry: Provides essential building-block products used by every sector of the manufacturing economy, and by most of the service economy; is high-tech and internationally competitive; provides high-paying, stable jobs; is a multi-billion dollar sponsor of research and development; and is a leader in health, safety and environmental protection. And this business is so dynamic that the chemical industry of today did not even exist 20 years ago. All of this is no surprise to you--but these facts are surprising to many of your colleagues who are not here today. In my experience, I've found some congressional representatives regard the chemical industry as ``ancient.'' Perhaps even ``outdated.'' Some even regard us as a bargaining chip to be used in the international trade wars. That's why I'm so pleased that Congressman Tom DeLay of Texas and Congressman John Tanner of Tennessee have taken leadership roles in this Forum--and that you all have demonstrated your interest and support of the chemical industry by taking the time to come today. On a personal note, I would like to acknowledge that both men represent states where some of Rohm and Hass Company's largest facilities are located. Congressman DeLay has the added distinction of having both personal and business experience in the chemical industry. International Trade The chemical industry is the nation's most powerful, most successful international competitor. Ten years ago, exports accounted for 10 percent of our total shipments. Today, that number stands at a little over 16 percent. Exports are beginning to drive our growth. Many people believe the global economy is entering a new Golden Age. Jeffery Sachs, the noted Harvard economist, recently said we have reached an important historical moment in time. He says global economic growth ``will raise the living standards of more people, in more parts of the world than in any prior time in history.'' Some economists are predicting world growth rates will average an astounding 4 percent a year for the next 20 years. I'm proud to say that American companies are leading the way. Bill Lewis, CEO of the respected McKinsey Company, says, ``U.S. firms have developed the best practices over the greatest range of industries.'' This is certainly true of the U.S. chemical industry! The U.S. is the world's largest producer of chemicals, accounting for almost one-fourth of total world chemical production. Chemical exports have doubled in the past five years to more than $60 billion. One out of every ten U.S. export dollars earned comes from chemical sales. And, since 1993, chemicals have been the largest U.S. export sector, running ahead of agriculture and far ahead of the aircraft industry. Exports create American jobs. In 1986, the chemical industry employed 1.02 million people. In 1996, the number stood at 1.04 million--in jobs that wages that are one-third higher than the average wages for all of manufacturing. In a time of downsizing and restructuring, and of maturing markets in the developed world, the U.S. chemical industry has preserved and strengthened high-paying, high-tech jobs for more than a million people. The ability to compete internationally has been critical to our success. It's likely you've heard this statistic before, but it remains true: Every billion dollars in export sales creates or preserves 4,000 jobs. And the U.S. chemical industry has not sealed itself off from international competition or opportunity. Quite the contrary--we are active players in every part of the globe. Three years ago, 201 U.S. chemical companies operated a total of 3,050 foreign affiliates. These foreign investments create demand--and pipeline--for U.S. technology and products. And the sales made by these affiliates help underwrite the research and development necessary to continually renew and strengthen U.S. competitiveness. Maintaining Our Number One Position Every developing nation wants to build its own chemical industry--to support their growing manufacturing industries, to add value to their raw materials and to create a technology base that will improve the quality of life for citizens today and in the future. These nations will move to meet these needs--with or without the U.S. chemical industry. Today's chemical industry is global, and there are plenty of competitors from Europe and Japan who will compete with us to establish footholds in these developing countries. The U.S. chemical industry today is vibrant and strong--but success is not a given. Our ability to succeed must be nurtured and encouraged. The competitive environment gets tougher, while the margin for error gets smaller. In the past, companies might have been free to raise prices to cover miscalculations, or could have relied on their reputation to become the sole source supplier--but no longer. The old markets--the developed world of Europe and Japan-- are where we cut our trading teeth and built trade surpluses. But they are not the growth markets of the future. Asia and Latin America are our future. Why? Because within these regions, 11 countries hold more than two-thirds of the world's population. And these economies are growing at astounding rates--double or triple the economic rates of the U.S.--and they will continue at these rates for the foreseeable future! Yet today, just 13 percent of the total chemical industry investment abroad is located in these countries. An Agenda For Action These growth markets also are the very same markets that have the highest degree of protectionism in the form of tariff and non-tariff barriers. The U.S. has done a great job of tearing down trade barriers and unlocking closed economies--but we still have more to do if we are to level the international playing field. We need your help. For starters, we need Congress to renew ``Fast Track'' authority to allow the President to negotiate future trade agreements. Expansion of free trade agreements in which the U.S. is a partner is a competitive necessity! This is especially true in Latin America. Having seen the benefits of free trade sparked by NAFTA, Latin American countries are moving quickly and aggressively to form strong regional pacts. These include MERCOSUR, which includes the Southern Cone countries led by Brazil, and the Andean Pact, which includes the East, Central and Northern Tier of South America. Yet we also see another trend developing--one that is somewhat alarming. The Latin American regional pacts I just mentioned are forming agreements and having discussions with Europe and Japan. All of this can and will lead to preferential trading status for these countries--more preferential than U.S. status. Here's just one example of what this can mean to the bottom line from my own company, Rohm and Haas. If MERCOSUR enters into a free trade with the European Community, monomer exports from our plant in Houston, Texas will be taxed at a 14 percent rate of duty. Product coming to Latin American from European-based companies will be taxed at duty rates of between 0 and 2 percent. At that point, the options for Rohm and Haas will be limited--either lose customers or be forced to build a brand-new plant within the Latin American free trade zones. Can you imagine what impact that might have on the economic health of our existing world-scale production facilities in the United States? The U.S. cannot afford to sit on the sidelines! We must have Fast Track trade negotiating authority. Thank You for Your Support and Encouragement Many chemical companies have restructured in order to compete. In fact, it's fair to say that this industry has been through a decade-long makeover. We have taken the steps needed to become a force a global markets. The legislative and regulatory process, along with our conduct of foreign affairs, must keep pace in order to help U.S. businesses maintain their number one, leading position. That means that government must be knowledgeable, nimble and involved in the international arena. There will be some companies--and some nations--who will be forced to drop out of this race because they cannot compete. I can tell you that we in the chemical industry are working hard to stay at the top. We won't let up. You can help by shaping our country's international and trade agenda. We are ready to work with you toward that end. You can tell by my accent, that I was raised in the South. I also was raised to be polite and to say thank you when you have asked someone to join with you in completing a task. So today I say ``thank you'' on behalf of the U.S. chemical industry--for what many of you have already done--and for the actions you will take to help us remain a vibrant, growing, dynamic part of this economy and this country.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this resolution, and I commend everyone on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in putting it together. Today we are faced with another historic decision. We can move forward by passing this resolution or we can stumble backwards by defeating it. This budget resolution accomplishes two very important things: First, it balances the budget; second, it cuts taxes for working families in America. Together these two priorities comprise the cornerstone of the Republican agenda. To characterize this as anything less than a victory for commonsense conservatism, I think, is an exercise in fantasy. I would remind my colleagues that this is not the end of the beginning nor is it the beginning of the end. Instead it is the first step in a very long process to preserve and protect the future fiscal health of this Nation. Like the 12-step program of Alcoholics Anonymous, the first step is the most important step, but each step on the way is equally important. We have a long way to go until we swear off wasteful Washington spending for good. Critics have found much to criticize in this budget. They have picked it apart with complaints as diverse as the people who make up this country. Some have said that spending is too high. Others have said that spending is too low. Some complain that our tax cuts are too generous. Others condemn them as inefficient. In a perfect world, if I were king, this would be a different budget. I am certain that if the minority whip, the gentleman from Michigan, were king, he could construct a budget far different from mine. But this is not a monarchy. Neither the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] nor I are kings. This agreement is the best we can get with the situation that we find ourselves in. It cuts taxes, it saves Medicare, it slows spending, and it balances the budget. In my view this budget resolution is kind of like Tiger Woods and his tee shot. It is not too far to the right nor is it too far to the left and it takes us a lot further than we previously thought we could go before. A cynic, Oscar Wilde once said, is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Cynics who condemn this budget miss its true value. For the first time in modern memory, the President of one party and a Congress controlled by the other party have agreed to balance the budget and to cut taxes in a very specific budget resolution. I call that a victory for the American people. To those Democrats who support this resolution, let me just simply say, welcome to the fight and we greatly appreciate your support. And to those few Republicans who may oppose this budget, let me just say, do not grasp defeat from the jaws of victory. To those Americans who have lost faith in the political process, let me just say, every once in a while the process works. This is one of those times. Vote for this resolution and together let us move on to the next step of balancing the budget and cutting taxes for the American people.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise on an issue that is of great concern to the Nation this year, the restructuring of our system of highway funding. Earlier this year, with the help of my colleagues, the gentleman from California [Mr. CONDIT], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler], and many others, I introduced the ISTEA Integrity Restoration Act, H.R. 674, also known as the STEP 21 proposal. Our bill has 101 cosponsors and it is very bipartisan. It has strong support in the Senate and has a bipartisan coalition of 20 State departments of transportation behind it. The Southern Governors Association has endorsed STEP 21, and many private sector industries and associations have mobilized behind our bill. H.R. 674 accomplishes four primary objectives. First, it maintains a strong Federal role in transportation by funding the national highway system as the key responsibility. Under STEP 21, 40 percent of a State's funds must be spent on NHS roads or bridges. Second, it simplifies and makes more flexible the Federal highway program by consolidating the myriad of existing highway programs into two, the national highway system program and the streamlined surface transportation program. Within these programs, Federal funds may still be spent on all ISTEA activities that are currently allowed. This means CMAQ enhancements, bridges, et cetera. However, removing the mandated Federal setasides gives States and local transportation officials the flexibility and responsibility to decide on what, when, where, and how much to spend to meet the individual and diverse transportation needs. Third, our bill updates the antiquated Federal funding distribution formulas. Currently, outdated factors such as 1980 census figures and postal route mileage are used to determine each State's share of highway funds. We believe formulas should be based on need. The Federal Highway Administration issued a scientific study that defines need in a statistically accurate manner to show what factors are related to road maintenance needs. The top three factors are: vehicle miles traveled, annual highway trust fund contributions, and lane miles. H.R. 674 uses these three factors, which demonstrate where highways are actually being used, in allocating resources to the States. Fourth, our bill creates an objective, simple method of distributing highway funds among the States that strikes a more equitable balance between taxes paid and funds returned. We ensure that all States receive at least 95 percent return on the payments made to the Federal highway trust funds. States like Texas have been short-changed for too long. Over the life of ISTEA, Texas taxpayers received 77 cents back for every dollar they contributed to the highway trust fund. Clearly there is a need for greater equity where States like Massachusetts receive $2.41 back for every dollar they put in. However, in order to guarantee that we maintain a strong national road system, our bill also has provisions to ensure an adequate level of resources for highways in low population density States that do not have the tax base to support their needs. This point leads me to one other issue. Many have characterized supporters of STEP 21 as a southern State coalition or a donor State coalition. Our provisions to protect the current highway funding levels of low population States were included specifically to reach out to nonsouthern and nondonor States such as Montana, Wyoming, and New Hampshire. Further, while the STEP 21 coalition includes many southern States, it also includes nonsouthern and nondonor States such as Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Nebraska. In sum, we call our bill the ISTEA Integrity Restoration Act because we believe it restores the original intent of ISTEA to promote State flexibility and to direct dollars where the greatest need exists. It strikes the appropriate balance between the national interests in highways and the rights and responsibilities of each State. I look forward to continue to work with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the rest of my colleagues on this legislation as it develops.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], the distinguished chairman of the Republican Conference, for taking out this special order on this agreement. There is a lot that has been said about this agreement. It is fascinating to me that some people came out in opposition to the agreement before the agreement was even announced by the President or by the House or by the Senate. I think that is really unfortunate, that someone would be against the agreement before they even knew the facts. I just really appreciate my colleague's taking out this special order on the balanced budget agreement. In my view, any agreement that balances the budget and cuts taxes for working families is good for the American people. This agreement does both. How long have we dreamed about bringing fiscal responsibility to this Federal Government and to Washington, DC.? We have dreamed it for a long, long time. In my entire adult life I have dreamed that some day we could balance the budget and actually start paying down the debt, so that my daughters would not end up paying for my generation's fiscal irresponsibility. I am really pleased to support the budget agreement. It is amazing that this agreement not only balances the budget and cuts taxes, but it includes long-needed entitlement reforms that will preserve and protect such programs as Medicare, and it is intended to weed out waste and fraud from the Medicaid Program. Is this a perfect agreement? Of course not. Frankly, if it were, President Clinton would probably veto it. We need to face the fact that Bill Clinton is the President of the United States, Mr. Speaker. Our Republican candidate lost. If our Republican candidate, Mr. Dole, had won the election, we would not have this problem. We would probably have the perfect agreement. But Bill Clinton was reelected by the American people. We have to recognize that fact, and we also recognize that he is a President that loves to spend more money. That means that we have to negotiate. This agreement is the end result of those negotiations. Let me correct that. It is not the end result, it is the beginning of a lot of negotiations that will have to go on for the rest of this year, because we start with the agreement on the budget resolution, and then after the budget resolution we will have to pass the bills that implement the policy set out by the budget resolution, and we will have to pass all 13 bills, all 13 of the appropriations bills, and all of that will have to be in consultation not only with the President, but with the Democrats in the House and in the Senate. So this is just the beginning, and it is a work in process. In my view, it reflects the principles, the agreement reflects the principles that Republicans have long campaigned on. Several questions have been raised about the agreement, good questions that I think need to be answered. I will take just a moment to respond to these questions point by point. Does this agreement use phony numbers? Many people wondered about the $225 billion that all of a sudden appeared when the Congressional Budget Office revised their projected revenues to adjust for a growing economy. They thought it was just another effort by Washington politicians to avoid making those hard decisions. But the whole budget is based on economic assumptions, many of which turn out to be wrong, and we can go back almost 20 years and find out that in only one year out of 20 years of budgets written by this House have the assumptions been right. They have either been overestimated or underestimated. Assumptions are just as the name implies, assumptions as to what we think might happen to the economy in the future. Indeed, since 1993 the Congressional Budget Office's 5-year deficit projections have overstated the actual deficit by an average of $279 billion. This particular budget agreement is based not on rosy economic assumptions, but on the best economic data available today. Given their track record over the last 4 years, CBO's new projections are not only defensible, they are a reasonable correction. Another question that has been asked by some of our critics: Does this agreement dramatically increase spending? Some have questioned, is it the biggest spending increase in history? The answer is an emphatic no. Spending for nondefense discretionary spending, money that keeps the Government running outside of defense and entitlement programs, will only increase at an average rate of 1 percent a year. Let us put this in perspective. This is 8 times better than the historical average of 8.1 percent per year stretching all the way back to 1969, which is, by the way, the last year we had a balanced budget. We have agreed to fund some of the President's spending priorities. This President loves to spend money. He loves to grow the spending of government. We had to give him some of his spending requests, but we have also agreed to restrain the overall growth of spending. I think this is a significant victory for fiscally responsible Republicans. Particularly if we look at past history, past habits, past traditions of Democrat-controlled Congresses, even with sometimes Republican Presidents, this is a fiscally responsible budget. Does this agreement fail to reform the entitlement programs? That is another question that is being asked by our critics. Once again, the answer is no. By far the greatest single threat to our Nation's fiscal health is the growth of health care programs. Since 1969, Medicare and Medicaid spending has increased at almost twice the rate of total Federal revenues. Let me repeat that. Since 1969, Medicare and Medicaid spending has increased at almost twice the rate of total Federal revenues. If that trend were to continue, spending on these programs would exceed Federal revenues in the next 30 years. The budget agreement will reduce the projected growth of Medicare by $115 billion, and of Medicaid by about $16 billion. It will achieve these savings by giving more choices to seniors in Medicare savings, and by enacting reforms of the Medicaid system to weed out waste and fraud. Congress will write the implementing legislation for this agreement, so Members can be assured that there will be real reforms of entitlement programs in that legislation. We are coming back with our promise. Remember, 2 years ago we promised to protect and preserve and strengthen Medicare by giving senior citizens more choices in the kind of health care plans that are important to them, so that they are empowered, rather than the Government telling them what kind of health care is good for them. Through competition in those programs we will be able to save money. It is not a theory, it is not a pipe dream, it has happened in the private sector, because health care has been reformed in the private sector for over 10 years. The way it has been reformed in the private sector is empowering the consumer. That is how they have been able to reform the private health care industry, empowering consumers, and people competing for that health care dollar drove down the cost of health care. We just want to take what we learned in the private sector and apply it to Medicare and Medicaid in the public sector. That is all we are doing. Through that we are able to save the system, preserve the system for seniors, and strengthen it by giving seniors more choice. Another question that is asked by our critics, does this agreement give insignificant tax relief? Some people have pooh-poohed the idea that we actually are giving tax cuts. I think it is the first tax cuts since 1981, first tax cuts for the American family in 16 years. In a perfect world, we could cut more taxes for America's working families. In fact, if our candidate had won the election, we probably would have a bigger tax cuts bill. But we do not have that option in this agreement. We have a President that is reluctant to give up his ability to spend money through a tax cut. People talk about the fact that we ought to balance the budget before we cut taxes. Well, those people do not understand it. Those people that want to balance the budget before cutting taxes are telling you that they want to spend more of America's families' money. Today, the American family is spending over 50 percent of its income on Government. If you add up local, State and Federal taxes and the cost of regulation and paperwork, over 50 cents of every dollar that the American family makes today, every hard-earned dollar goes to the Government of one level or another. We think that is immoral. We think the Government is too big, it spends too much, it takes too much out of the American families' pockets. We want to reform Government. We want to cut it down to size and make it work smarter. By doing that, we can allow the American family to hold on to more of its hard-earned money to be spent the way they think is important, rather than some Washington bureaucrat spending that money on what they think is important. So that is why we are for a tax cut. It has nothing to do with anything else other than giving some tax relief to the American family. But a tax cut signed into law is better than 2 tax cuts that are vetoed. And this agreement provides working families with gross tax cuts of $135 billion, with a net tax cut of $85 billion. Keep in mind that in the last Congress, the President vetoed net tax cuts of $155 billion, while in this Congress he proposed net tax cuts of only $14 billion. Keep in mind what happened in 1995, when the Republicans first took over this Congress, this House, for the first time in 40 years. People said we could not do it, but we put together a budget that balances, that shrinks the size of Government, that forces Government to work smarter, that saved Medicare and Medicaid and provided $155 billion in tax cuts, wrapped it up in a package, sent it to this President of the United States. He vetoed it and shut down the Government, and we got the blame for it. We proved to the American people that we can bring good commonsense policies to the Federal Government. We proved to the American people that we could balance the budget, that we could bring fiscal sanity and give tax relief to the American family. Unfortunately, this President did not believe it, or he did believe it but he did not agree with it and vetoed our package. The $85 billion net tax cuts represents a real victory for Republicans. The best part of this agreement is that the Republicans on the tax writing committees of the Congress get to design those tax cuts. So American families will get a child tax credit, a capital gains tax reduction and relief from that pernicious death tax. I call this a real victory for the American people. So in summary, Mr. Speaker, I again appreciate the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner] taking out this special order. It is so vitally important that the American people understand what is in this agreement and they understand the spin artists out there trying to negate what we have agreed to or misrepresent what we have agreed to or just be outright against it. The American people need to understand that this is a grand opportunity that we present to them, and we hope to get it. This agreement is good for the American people. We must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We must let this good agreement start the process of balancing the budget, giving tax relief to the American family, and some day pay down the debt.

Mr. DeLAY. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner] is absolutely right. I sort of describe it as the Republicans in the House and the Senate are like a sailboat and we are sailing against the wind and we are sailing down Pennsylvania Avenue and the wind is coming from the White House, a very strong wind is blowing in our direction. In a sailboat, you can either turn it around and go with the wind, and that is something we absolutely refuse to do, or you can tack toward the wind, always moving forward, but in some cases you have to make an agreement with the wind. Sometimes you have to make an agreement with someone else, but always keeping your eye on the future and the forward. And that is where we are moving. If you put it in perspective, this is an incredible budget compared to, say, the big budget of 1990, when George Bush was President. There were huge tax cuts, huge spending increases.

Mr. DeLAY. Tax increases. I thank the gentleman very much for the correction, tax increases. Tax increases is not even in the jargon of this place anymore. It is hard to even say. But tax increases, spending increases. Look at the budget that the President passed with the Democrat Congress in 1993 that they are so proud of, huge tax increases, once more taking more money out of the middle-income America's pocket and spending it on Government programs that we all know 9 times out of 10 are very wasteful. That is the kind of thing that we have been going for. Even when we did not get the President signing our balanced budget in 1995, the things we are able to do in tacking back and forth, moving forward, in eliminating over 270 programs, in cutting over $53 billion in real Washington spending, in moving forward and making sure that we are bringing this country into fiscal responsibility is very, very important that the people realize that, sure, if the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], and I were writing this legislation, it would appear to be much different. But on balance, we are getting more than we are giving up, and I am very proud of that.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner] is so right. I just want to expand on what he is talking about, what the children of tomorrow will owe. It is really interesting, when the President was running for reelection, he made in his State of the Union that famous statement, ``The Arabic government is over.'' And then when he came back and got reelected this year and made his State of the Union Message, his penchant for big spending was back, because in his State of the Union, he talked about all these new spending programs; and he said something at the end of that speech that I do not think I will ever forget. Not many people picked up on it. Certainly the press did not pick up on it. But the President said, ``You know, a child born tonight will not long remember this century.'' Once again, the President was wrong, because a child born that night will never forget this century because that child, as the gentleman has said owes so much money, not just in paying off the debt but in paying off the interest on the debt, that it is immoral. We are committed, with this President or without this President, to bring fiscal sanity to this Government for those children that were born that night. I would be glad to yield to the distinguished leader of the freshman class from North Dakota, who has been working very, very hard on seeing that the supplemental appropriations bill becomes law so that his disaster relief, much needed disaster relief, goes to North Dakota. I appreciate the gentleman for showing up.

Mr. DeLAY. South Dakota, I apologize.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman gets started, if I could, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be given my time.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important legislation and I commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] for bringing it to the floor. Last year, when the Congress passed comprehensive welfare reform, the United States took a giant step in the right direction. By providing incentives for able-bodied Americans to leave welfare and move to private sector employment, we have given these Americans a chance to realize the American dream. But, Mr. Speaker, the administration has not received the message. The hallmark of our welfare reform law is flexibility. Give the States the ability to design their own systems to give people a hand up, not just a handout, and the States will be more successful than the Federal Government has been in bringing and making welfare work for the American people. This has proven to be the case in State after State, places like Wisconsin and Michigan. My home State of Texas wants to have that chance to help its people in ways unique to Texas. Texas has petitioned the Federal Government to approve its innovative welfare reform proposal. This proposal includes commonsense ideas such as one-stop benefits centers so that people who are on welfare do not have to waste time traveling from one center to another to collect benefits. This is a commonsense proposal and would save the American taxpayers millions of dollars while giving the welfare recipients more time to look for a job. Unfortunately, the administration has refused to give Texas the flexibility it needs to implement this program. Texas has met every requirement asked of it by the Federal Government since last July when it first started the approval process. Still, the administration has not granted full approval. Without that approval, Texas cannot implement its program of getting people off of welfare and putting them to work. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge the administration to stop stonewalling and give Texas a chance to move ahead with real welfare reform. What is good for the rest of the country should be good for the great State of Texas.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, for months the political opponents of Speaker Gingrich have been on a singular mission to destroy him. That mission has failed. Today, the Speaker has assured us of his intent to pay the full amount of his ethics assessment out of his own pocket. This is the responsible thing to do, and I support his decision and thank him for his sacrifice. We can finally put an end to the sad display of bitter partisan attacks that we saw from the other side. They wanted to destroy the Speaker because they have no new ideas. They wanted to destroy him because they have nothing substantial to contribute to mainstream political dialog. The American people want lower taxes and less Government. And they respect leaders who take responsibility when things go wrong, unlike what we see at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. I applaud the Speaker. I respect the Speaker. I thank the Speaker.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to once again discuss an issue that is of great concern to the American people. That issue is judicial activism. And I am very pleased to join my colleagues in taking out this special order. Last week a three-judge Federal appeals court reversed a decision made by Judge Thelton Henderson, who barred the enforcement of the California civil rights initiative. In reversing that decision, the appellate judge wrote, ``A system which permits one judge to block with the stroke of his pen what 4,736,180 State residents voted to enact as law tests the integrity of our constitutional democracy.'' Well, I think, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly right. Judicial activism threatens the checks and balances written into our Constitution. And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record an article that appeared in today's edition of the Hill newspaper, written by Thomas Jipping, the director of the Free Congress Foundation's Center for Law and Democracy. The article is entitled ``Impeachment Is Cure for Judicial Activism.'' I think it is a well-reasoned and rational explanation of why impeachment should be used by this Congress as a tool to act as a check to the imperial judiciary. [From The Hill, April 16, 1997] Impeachment Is Cure for Judicial Activism (By Thomas L. Jipping) America's founders knew that government power, if left unchecked, will always grow and undercut liberty and self- government. The judiciary is today proving them correct. Operating unchecked for generations, judges routinely reach beyond the ``judicial power'' granted by the Constitution and exercise legislative power they do not legitimately possess. Judicial activism exists in part because Congress refuses to exercise the checks and balances the founders crafted. One of these is impeachment. Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) recently drew howls of protest from the legal establishment and political left by suggesting that Congress revive this check on excessive judicial power, Rep. DeLay, however, is on solid ground. His critics like activist judges because they like what those judges do; they are simply not honest enough to say so. But it is Rep. DeLay's view of a judiciary exercising only judicial power, checked if necessary with the tools provided by the Constitution, that resonates with America's founders. Activist judges claim the power to make our laws mean anything they wish. They practice Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes' maxim that the Constitution is whatever the judges say it is. As President George Bush put it, they legislate from the bench. Even Humpty Dumpty could define judicial activism when he declared: ``When I use a word, it means what I choose it to mean--neither more or less.'' If judges have the power to determine the meaning of our laws, however, they have the power to make our laws. That is a power legitimately exercised only by the people and their elected representatives. America's founders intended that Congress impeach activist judges. In The Federalist No. 81, Alexander Hamilton argued that ``the supposed danger of judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority ... is in reality a phantom.'' Why? Because, wrote Hamilton, ``there never can be a danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body entrusted with [impeachment].'' The Constitution allows impeachment for what it calls ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Advocates of unlimited judicial power yank this phrase from its constitutional moorings and give it whatever narrow meaning is convenient for their argument. American Bar Association President N. Lee Cooper repeated the current myth in The Hill (March 26) by arguing that judges may only be impeached for a ``criminal act.'' This bizarre theory has never been true and Mr. Cooper's reliance on high school civics for this theory demonstrates the dangers of both make-it-up-as-you-go judicial activism and the dumbing-down of American education. Arrayed against his position, however, is nothing less than 600 years of English and American legal and political history. According to Prof. Raoul Berger, impeachment was created because some actions for which public officials should be removed from office are not covered by the criminal law. The phrase ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' already had 400-year- old roots in English common law when the framers placed it in the U.S. Constitution. English judges were impeached for misuse of their official position or power, mal- adminstration, unconstitutional or extrajudicial opinions, misinterpreting the law, and encroaching on the power of the legislature. The Constitution's framers also believed that impeachable offenses extended beyond indictable offenses. When they settled on the phrase ``high crimes and misdemeanors,'' for example, George Mason and James Madison believed it included attempts to subvert the Constitution. All of these are features of the judicial activism that today undermines liberty and self-government. Activist judges do not simply make decisions someone does not like; they exercise power they do not legitimately possess. If a willful exercise of illegitimate power is not impeachable, nothing is. Faced with these facts, apologists for unlimited judicial power retreat to the cliche of ``judicial independence.'' They never utter a word when judges illegitimately steal legislative power, but suddenly discover judicial independence and the separation of powers at the suggestion of Congress legitimately checking judicial power. Checks and balances, however, cannot work only in the direction one likes. Judicial independence is a means to the end of a judiciary exercising only the ``judicial power'' granted by the Constitution and leaving the lawmaking to the legislature. When judges go beyond their proper role and make up new meanings for our laws, it is those judges who violate their own independence and make necessary the checks and balances, such as impeachment, provided by the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, an independent judiciary is the anchor of our democracy. A despotic judiciary may very well lead to the downfall of our democracy. I just urge my colleagues to consider all the tools within our constitutional authority as we, the Congress, take on a very real problem of judicial despotism. One of those tools is impeachment. Despite the barrage of criticism that myself and my colleagues have suffered over the last few weeks, I think impeachment is a tool that we should consider using. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this constitutional amendment to make it more difficult to increase taxes on the American people. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Joe Barton, and everybody else who has worked on this bill for their tireless efforts to protect the taxpayers of this country. People might laugh when the Congress says stop us before we tax again. But I assure the Members, this is no laughing matter. The American family is taxed too much by a government that does too much to limit the freedom and responsibilities of the people. This is not only about keeping a lid on the taxes that the American people pay. It is about shrinking the size and the power of the Federal Government. Freedom works. Freedom sells. Freedom creates opportunities and provides all of us with a better quality of life. But our freedom is threatened when we spend our children's inheritances as we tax the estates of those who die. The Federal Government can do better if it does less. The American people will do better if they are allowed to do more. This amendment to the Constitution will lead to both results. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution that expresses the sense of Congress that American families deserve tax relief, and I think it is very important to have such a resolution as this on this particular day. I want to congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts], for his efforts in bringing this resolution to the floor and highlighting an issue that is very near and dear to my heart. And we are very fortunate to have a man like the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Joe Pitts, here in this House coming from a long history in Pennsylvania of doing what is right for working families in Pennsylvania. Now he is working on what to do right for American families. Today working families across this Nation are getting ready to pay their taxes after spending hours upon hours figuring out our complicated tax system. Many do this chore with the knowledge that taxes are an inevitable part of the process, like death. While taxes may be a necessary evil, the current tax system is a national disgrace. In fact, the Government takes more than 50 percent of the average working family's paycheck through costs of taxes and regulations. That means that 50 cents out of every hard-earned dollar that the American family makes today goes to the Government. No wonder it takes one parent to work for the Government while the other parent works for the family. It also means that a single parent must work twice as hard to support the Government and his or her children. Now, when mothers and fathers work more to support their government than they do to support their children, I say that this system has gone awry. We want to change the system to allow families to keep more of what they earn to support their children. Now, some say that it takes a village to raise a child, while I say that it takes a village idiot to raise taxes on working families. Mr. Speaker, we need to cut taxes for working families but we are running into opposition, and he resides at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. President Clinton talks a good game but his actions prove that he is against family tax relief. Last year he introduced other legislation that would have given working families immediate tax relief; and this year he wants to increase taxes, increase taxes by $80 billion to pay for more wasteful Washington spending. Are families not taxed enough already? So I just urge my colleagues to join with me and send the President a message, the American family deserves a tax break.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss an issue that is of great concern to the American people, and that issue is judicial activism. Earlier this week, a three-judge Federal appeals court reversed a decision made by Judge Thelton Henderson, who barred the enforcement of the California civil rights initiative. In reversing that decision, the appellate judge wrote, and I quote, ``A system which permits one judge to block with the stroke of his pen what 4,736,180 State residents voted to enact as law tests the integrity of our constitutional democracy.'' That is exactly right. Judicial activism threatens the checks and balances written into our Constitution. I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, who just yesterday introduced the Judicial Reform Act. Now, his legislation takes a very important first step in reining in the judicial branch. Over the last several weeks, I have been attacked by several different groups for suggesting that it is within the constitutional authority of the Congress to impeach judges who willfully ignore the Constitution. By my reading of the Constitution, it is not only the right of Congress to act as a check on the judicial branch; it is our duty. The Constitution provides that judges may be impeached for conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. That phrase has never been completely defined, but there is little doubt that the Founders intended impeachment to be used against judges in certain circumstances. The first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Marshall, who was not in favor of judicial impeachment, nevertheless saw it as part of the Constitution. He said, the present doctrine seems to be that a judge giving a legal opinion contrary to the opinion of the legislature is liable to impeachment. Thomas Jefferson explained, the opinion which gives to the judge the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch. Justice James Wilson acknowledged that impeachment can be confined to political characters, to political crime and misdemeanors, and to political punishments. And even Gerald Ford explained that, when imposing the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, that an impeachable offense is whatever the majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at any given moment in history. Now, unfortunately, on too many occasions the Federal judiciary has strayed far beyond its proper function. In no other democracy in the world do judges who are not elected, who are unaccountable, decide so many political issues. Mr. Speaker, I do not advocate impeaching judges just because I disagree with them politically. I advocate that Congress, using its clearly defined role within the Constitution, act as a check on the judicial branch of the Government. The American people are frustrated when one person, one person subverts their will, expressed in a democratic election. They should be frustrated. An independent judiciary is the anchor of our democracy. A despotic judiciary may very well be the downfall of our democracy. I urge my colleagues to consider all of the tools within our constitutional authority as we take on the very real problem of judicial despotism. One of those tools is impeachment, and, despite the barrage of criticism, I think it is a tool we should consider using.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and since the gentleman from Wisconsin would not yield to me, especially when I asked him to read the names, he does not want to read the names because he will not enter into a dialog with me about the fact that one newspaper article misrepresented what happens in my office and that the fact that there has never been lobbyists sitting in my office or any office of the leadership sitting down writing bills. We all know that the legislative counsel does that, and we all know that we talk to people about the bills, and he will not read the names. Read the names so that I may respond to the incident. But they do not want to read the names because once again they are trying to smear another Member of this House. Mr. Speaker, I think we just consider the source of the issue, and if the gentleman does not yield to me, I am not going to yield to him.

Mr. DeLAY. As usual, the gentleman's time is always expiring while he is trying to accuse another Member of the House.

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