Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield, because I have a chart here----

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

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I had the distinct pleasure to make some history with more than 200 of my colleagues in Hershey, PA at the bipartisan retreat. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LaHood] and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] and everyone who worked so hard in putting this retreat together. My experience in Hershey was very positive, and I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their cooperation in making this event a real success. For most of the world, the U.S. House of Representatives means democracy. We, as Members of Congress, have a profound responsibility to treat this institution with respect, to uphold its rules, and to realize that the House and its traditions are bigger than any one person or party. I also would like to remind my colleagues that disagreement in policy, disagreement in philosophy, disagreement in ideology is the wellspring of democracy, and I welcome spirited debate. In the weeks, months, and years to come, I can guarantee one thing: We will all disagree. But after this weekend, I hope that those disagreements are made with the understanding that we all, as elected Members of Congress, are trying to do the best for our Nation.

Mr. DeLAY

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I am a little out of breath because I had to run down to the floor. I witnessed, as I was watching my television, what was going on on the floor, a very unfortunate situation, and had I been here I would have probably attempted to take down the words of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards]. He was attacking another gentleman from Texas. I think it is really unfortunate. Particularly if one Member is going to use the name of another Member, it is usually comity on the floor of the House to at least inform that Member that you are going to talk about him on the floor of the House, and give that Member the opportunity to respond to what is going on. I feel that what is going on between the two gentlemen from Texas is unfortunate. I would hope that particularly on the eve of trying to bring comity to the House and the Members going to Hershey, PA so we can bring a little bit better discourse to the floor of the House, getting to know each other, that we would find it within the courtesy afforded to each Member to at least talk to the Member. Now, I do not know, all I have seen is the reports in the press on this incident. But I would just hope, I see the gentleman from Texas is on the floor now. I appreciate him coming down to the floor of the House because I did inform him that I was about to talk about him. I just ask the gentleman from Texas to realize the tradition of the House and the courtesy of the House, to extend the courtesy to a Member, let him know that you are going to talk about him before you are going to come down to the floor.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the gentleman, did the gentleman call Mr. Paul to ask him about the context with which that statement was made? Or did the gentleman just go out and make statements based upon what he saw in the press? Or did the gentleman from Texas see the program on which the words were spoken by Mr. Paul? The reason I am close to the Chamber is we were having lunch, and Mr. Paul was very disturbed that the gentleman from Texas had made these kinds of comments. He left the lunch to go call the gentleman from Texas so that you get together and talk this out. As we were leaving the lunch room, we found that the gentleman was down in the well of the House attacking one of his colleagues from Texas.

Mr. DeLAY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is a friend of mine. I think it is unfortunate that we are even having this conversation. Because at least the Texas delegation has always been able to speak to each other privately. And if they could not resolve their differences, they always, they could take the opportunity of going to the press very seldom. In fact, I do not even remember in the 12 years I have been in the House that a Member from Texas attacked another Member from Texas from the well of the House. I appreciate the time.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this proposition. I am tempted to just follow the gentleman from Illinois, Henry Hyde, and just say, me too, but I owe my constituents an explanation why I will not vote for a constitutional amendment to change the current limit of terms of service. Yes, there already is a term limit written into the Constitution. Article I, section 2 states that the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States. After that 2-year term, the Member is officially retired. If, and only if, that Member is selected again by his or her constituents can that Member return to this august body. We all know the procedures and the process but it helps to be reminded from time to time. I appreciate the passion with which my Republican colleagues have fought for this amendment. They believe that carrerism has ruined this House. I think we took care of that and addressed it by limiting the terms of our Speaker and our chairmen. That is appropriate. I agree that if Members of the House willfully ignore the wishes of the American people on issues that are important to the future of this Nation, they should be removed. But I submit that the system works. Sometimes slower than we like, sometimes messier than we would prefer, but the system works. Look at the success of the 104th Congress. We showed that reform is possible, that change can happen, that the American people do have the ability to work their will. In the 105th Congress, we have 235 Members who have been here less than 3 terms. By my count that is a majority. The system works to give us new blood, new ideas and new enthusiasm, but it also provides us with the wisdom honed by experience. When Members like Henry Hyde and John Murtha and Jerry Solomon and Lee Hamilton share their insights, we would be unwise not to listen. Retiring Members of Congress for no other reason than an artificial time limit seems very shortsighted to me. In the final analysis, I believe we should have faith in the voters to do the right thing. Term limits takes the constitutional choice away from the voters and in my view we could do no more damage to the intent of our system of government.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for giving me this time. Last week, Mr. Speaker, I was prepared to vote for a reprimand, but then I found out that it is more than a reprimand; it is now a reimbursement plus a reprimand. And I cannot take what I was going to take, a political decision, when I feel strongly, feel very strongly, that it is not right. Now, I have the greatest respect for the chairwoman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Nancy Johnson, and I appreciate all the hard work that the committee has put into this recommendation. But I must agree with my colleague from Texas, Mr. Smith, the only member of the committee who voted against that recommendation. I believe that this punishment is too harsh given the history of the ethics process and the precedence of earlier punishments. Such a punishment is not only unprecedented and can be levied on every one of us, it is unwarranted. I will not vote to reprimand Newt Gingrich for transgressions that in the past have only warranted either warnings or letters of reproval from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Now, I understand the Speaker's noble motivation in working out a settlement in this case, and I understand why and how the committee came to this end and the Speaker came to this end; but we have to put it in perspective. The gentleman from Missouri, the minority leader, Mr. Gephardt, received a letter from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for giving false information to the committee not intentionally. The chairman of the DCCC received a letter from this Committee on Standards of Official Conduct because he did not intentionally use a Federal employee for campaign purposes. Those are letters of reproval, and I submit that both of those actions are worse than what Newt Gingrich has owned up to. Now, for what kind of violations has this House put reprimands on Members? Hiring the wrong lawyer? Submitting or being sloppy about submissions to the committee? No. Reprimands have been used for things such as using political influence to fix parking tickets for personal friends; reprimands or recommendations of reprimand by the committee for improper sexual relationships with pages; reprimand for intentionally lying to the committee. This committee has not found this Speaker has intentionally lied or intentionally misled the committee. This is, I say to the gentlewoman from California, Mr. Speaker, this is about power. This is about some on this side have lost power and they are trying to regain it by abusing the ethics process and this institution. That is what this is all about. So, I do not agree that the Speaker should be held to a higher standard. All of us, all of us, every Member, should be held to the highest of standards. This Speaker and any other Member should not be held to a double standard. This is a double standard that we are imposing on this Speaker. In fact, we know it because this Speaker has been prodded and probed from every direction. Since 1989 he has had over 500 ethics charges brought against him. In the last 2 years he has had 74 ethics charges brought against him. You know what? Nothing has been brought to this floor to bring a sanction against anything that he has been charged with. What he is being charged with today is during the process he happened to screw up. That is what is going on here. I just find that really sad that we have abused the process like this. This Speaker has had every detail of his life examined under a microscope, and that microscope has exposed some flaws, some sloppiness, some things that should have been done better; but it has not exposed corruption or lawlessness or personal profit. And that is what reprimands and censures are all about. The highest possible standard does not mean an impossible standard that no American could reach. Let us stop using the ethics process for political vendettas. Let us not create precedence that will only serve to undermine the service of this country. Let us stop this madness. Let us stop the cannibalism. Let us not fall victim to unrealistic expectations that do not forgive the common flaws of normal Americans. With all due respect to the great work of the Ethics Committee, I cannot vote to reprimand the Speaker of the House for the stated transgressions.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the First Baptist Church of Angleton, TX, on its 100-year anniversary. October marks the celebration of a century of service to the community of Angleton. Growing and changing over the years, the church and its congregation of over 1,800 are currently involved in mission projects and television ministry. I want to take this opportunity to commend the First Baptist Church of Angleton for its contributions and service and I wish the church and its congregation God's blessings for the years to come.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, the last day of the historic 104th Congress, to introduce legislation that I believe will bring about a historic change in the way American families think about electricity. Now I know that electricity service isn't necessarily an exciting issue to most Americans, but I think when they learn about the hundreds of dollars a year they stand to save, they will sit up and pay attention. What most American families don't realize when they get their electricity bill every month is that they could be paying a lot less. There are companies that are ready, willing, and able to sell them electricity for a lot less money, but are prevented from doing that by outdated laws. In the vast majority of cases, the current system forces consumers to buy electricity from only one company, and actually encourages those companies to charge consumers for services they don't need, want or use. There are no logistical barriers preventing Americans from buying electricity for their homes and businesses in a competitive marketplace. The obstacles are political and legal, and it is our historic opportunity as legislators to remove these barriers for the common good. Electricity service in the United States is a $200 billion a year industry, and deregulation can save $60 to $80 billion a year, much of which will end up in the pockets of my constituents in Texas and families throughout America. The bill that I am introducing today, the Consumers Electric Power Act, will put an end to the archaic electricity delivery system in the United States and will allow American families to purchase their electricity from any electric service provider in the country. The competition that this legislation will introduce to the electricity market will cause prices to plummet, improve the reliability of electricity service, and spur innovation in the electric service industry. I know that deregulation is happening on a piecemeal basis at the State level, and that is good. But there is no reason that American families in one State, city, town or neighborhood should be forced to pay more of their hard-earned money than families in the next town over or down the street who have the ability to choose their electric service provider. The Federal interest in free and open competition requires that jurisdiction over the terms and conditions of access to the customer be Federal and not State--it is the only way that every American will see the benefits of competition in the electric service industry. The free market is a national system, one that will benefit every American family, no matter where they live. Specifically Mr. Speaker, the Consumers Electric Power Act will guarantee that every customer has the right to choose their electricity service provider by January 1, 1998; ensure that electric service providers are allowed access to compete on a level playing field; preserve and strengthen the State authority with regard to universal service for consumers, universal access for electric service providers, and the promotion of conservation and economic development programs; outline the performance objectives of competitive transmission and distribution systems; and prospectively repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act 1978 after competition is affirmatively achieved. This bill very clearly shows the direction that I believe deregulation of the electricity industry should take. I realize that this bill I am dropping today is by no means the last word on this subject. An issue this complex and important must harness the experience and expertise of those individuals who have spent years studying this issue and working in this industry--and who realized years ago that we must deregulate the electricity industry because it is the right thing to do for American families. Input from those Members of Congress who realize the importance of this subject is both expected and welcome. Mr. Speaker, this Commerce Committee will be the forum for shaping this legislation and I look forward to working with Members of the Committee over the next year to shape a bill that will provide the maximum benefits for consumers. In particular, I want to recognize the importance of two Members of the House of Representatives who have opened the way for electricity deregulation. The Honorable Dan Schaefer, my colleague from Colorado, and the Chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, has already introduced an excellent electricity deregulation bill, and I look forward to working with him on behalf of American families. His knowledge of this subject will be invaluable to Members of Congress as they craft electricity deregulation legislation. In addition, the Honorable Tom Bliley of Virginia, the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, and the Member who will be responsible for bringing this legislation to the floor of the House, has already made this issue his highest priority for the 105th Congress. His determination and ability are sure to serve American families well in the coming years. Mr. Speaker, by opening this industry to competition, we will not only implement the economic equivalent of a major tax cut, we will unleash a new era of productivity and creativity in this huge and vital industry to lead America into the new millennium. At this time Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the text of the Consumers Electric Power Act for inclusion in the Record. I hope that my colleagues will study the legislation in the coming months as they prepare to address this important issue in the next Congress.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Could I have 15 seconds to respond?

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report, but I am disturbed by the kinds of things that are being said on this floor with regard to what is frankly a simple technical correction that was made by the conferees of this committee. FedEx is not trying to get something that they have not had for many, many years. FedEx is not trying to get something new. FedEx is not union bashing. FedEx understands that we made a mistake in the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, and they are trying to regain and correct that mistake. It is fairness here. And I am very disturbed that like the ads that are being run against us time and time again out in the country and almost $100 million misrepresenting what we have been doing in this, once again the facts are being misrepresented in this regard. When the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act was signed into law last year, a drafting error in a conforming amendment created an ambiguity concerning the status of express companies under the Railroad Labor Act, which is the sole statute governing labor relations in the rail and the airline industry. That is fact. Prior to the enactment of the ICC Termination Act, the Railway Labor Act had jurisdiction over carriers which were defined as ``any express company, sleeping car company, carrier by railroad.'' Due to a drafting error, express companies were inadvertently dropped from the scope of the Railway Labor Act, and that is fact. The result is that an ambiguity was created. The ICC Termination Act states that the enactment of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 shall neither expand nor contract coverage of the employees and employers by the Railway Labor Act. Now clearly, Congress did not intend to change the status of express companies with regard to the Railway Labor Act in any way, and unfortunately that is the result of this error. So I certainly would hope that those Members expressing concerns about this provision are not trying to take advantage of an unintended mistake for their own gain. This bill simply corrects an error to restore what was the status quo in this country. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill and oppose any motion to recommit that would strip out this provision.

Mr. DeLAY. I hope someone will answer that.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, it's not often that a distinguished cardinal of the Appropriations Committee flies away to the other body. But Jim Lightfoot has decided that he will take his common-sense, his great humor, and his great ability to the Senate. The House's loss will be the Senate's gain. Serving with Jim Lightfoot on the Appropriations Committee has been both an honor and a privilege. He has fought hard to cut out wasteful Washington spending, while making certain that his constituents in Iowa are represented fairly. He has been a passionate defender of small business owners and farmers of his district. Most importantly, Jim Lightfoot is a man of his word. When Jim Lightfoot makes an agreement, he sticks to it. That is a trait that needs to become more common here in the United States Congress. Jim Lightfoot is a great American and he will make an outstanding Senator when he wins in November.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Chairmen Shuster and Boehlert, as well as Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Borski, for all their hand work on this bill, and rise in strong support of this legislation. I came to the floor earlier this summer when the bill first came through the House to discuss two provisions critical to the Houston area, and am very pleased that these provisions remain in this final conference report. One of these is the authorization of funding to deepen and widen the Houston Ship Channel. These improvements are essential to the economic development not only of the region, but of the country generally, as the Houston Ship Channel is a critical economic lifeline between our Nation and the rest of the world. The improvements authorized are also consistent with the Port's and my enduring commitment to the environment. The dredged material from the Ship Channel project will be used to create over 4,000 acres of additional marsh land to be used in developing bird islands, boater destinations, and shoreline erosion projects. The second provision in this bill allows certain flood control districts to carry out flood control projects with far greater flexibility than ever before. Although still subject to the high standards set by the Corps of Engineers, my Harris County Flood Control District officials will now be able to plan, study, design and construct these projects with greater independence and more input from the local community. I am convinced that Harris County will demonstrate that it can design and construct flood projects faster and cheaper when it is not burdened by Federal redtape. In fact, I am told that the Harris County projects will not only be completed much sooner than projected by the Corps, they will be completed at a total cost that is as much as 35 percent less than that projected by the Corps. Again, I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to support it, as well.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Party finds itself in a very sad state of affairs. Instead of engaging the Republican Party on issues of importance to the American people, liberal Democrats come to the floor of the House engaged in a campaign to destroy the reputation of one man. But I say to my colleagues, tearing down one man will not elevate the lives of the American people. Engaging in a smear campaign will not ease the worries of working Americans. The voters do not care about the personal insults we hurl at one another on this floor. They care about their children and the future we leave them. They care about the sad state of education in this country. They worry about crime and drugs, and they struggle under the burden of an insane Tax Code. I ask my colleagues this one question: Does that venom with which you speak to the C-SPAN cameras reflect well on the House of Representatives? I urge my colleagues to think first about this Nation and the reputation of this House and leave the personal attacks in the gutter where they belong.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] for working on this bill and understanding how important this bill is to so many people. I also want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] along with the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] who are both on the Corrections Day Advisory Group, for helping us work through this legislation. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in favor of H.R. 3153, the Small Business Transport Correction Advancement Act. This bill, the product of months of meetings and negotiations and hard work, will provide countless small businesses with much needed commonsense relief from excessive Federal regulations. The gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] and I introduced H.R. 3153 to try to fix what I think is a ridiculous situation where the drivers of small vehicles carrying small quantities of relatively benign substances such as nail polish remover and spray paint are being required to retain complex shipping papers for at least a year, mark containers on a daily basis and undergo training on how to handle these substances. While DOT's hazardous materials regulations do serve a worthwhile purpose, everyone agrees that they were not intended to cover the transport of a spare can of gasoline in a gardener's pickup truck. Earlier this year, DOT proposed a materials of trade exception from HazMat regulations for small businesses that transport small quantities of hazardous materials as part of their business. While we are pleased to see that the Department shares our concern that small businesses are being unnecessarily heavily regulated, we were disturbed that this proposal was attached to a much larger and more controversial proposed rule dealing with intrastate regulation which has been on the docket since 1987. Based on DOT's assertion that it expects to issue its final rule on December 31 of this year, H.R. 3153 simply acts as an insurance policy, setting December 31 as the deadline by which the Department must issue a final rule establishing a materials of trade exception. If DOT succeeds in issuing a final rule by this date, then this bill will not be necessary. But if the bigger issue of intrastate regulation requires additional discussion, then at least small businesses will not be held hostage to that separate debate. Currently this bill has 58 cosponsors and is a bipartisan bill. Further, a diverse coalition of over 20 organizations, ranging from the National Federation of Independent Business and the National Restaurant Association to the Society of American Florists and Walt Disney, have come together in support of this bill. H.R. 3153 will help roofers, painters, plumbers, housekeepers and cosmetic supply salespeople, among many others. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as a prime example of how this Congress is trying to provide commonsense relief to the small businesses of this country, which are also the biggest job creators in this country.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Not at all.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, not at all. I am just reporting what has been reported by those that wish that they could take over. But, no, worse case scenario we will gain 8 to 10 seats. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, as the November elections edge ever closer, the American people will be presented with a historic choice: They can choose to move forward with commonsense change or they can fall back to the old ways of doing business in the Congress. The Republican Congress has worked very hard to enact commonsense change. It has passed the first balanced budget in a generation, while cutting taxes for working families. It has cut wasteful Washington spending, passed historic health care reform, brought commonsense changes to our legal system, and reformed the welfare state. We still have a lot of work to do. The President vetoed our balanced budget. He vetoed tax cuts for working families. And he has consistently pushed for more wasteful, Washington spending. Democrats in Congress are leading the reaction against common sense. I respect many Members of this body for standing up for their liberal philosophy. For instance, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], who is poised to become the chairman of the committee that oversees taxes in the Congress should the Democrats regain control of the House, has become the chief defender of the Internal Revenue Service. He says, and I quote: ``We have the best and fairest tax collection system in the world.'' In other words, if Democrats regain control of the Congress, we can just forget about tax relief for working families. Liberals are also thinking of ways to cut defense spending to pay for social welfare programs. The gentleman from California, Mr. George Miller, has asked and I quote: ``Do we really have to be prepared to fight two wars simultaneously,'' rather than pay for social welfare spending? In other words, if Democrats regain control, we can count on them to slash defense spending to pay for wasteful Washington spending. It is no secret that Democrats in the Congress will repeal our efforts at tort reform. They will work with their friends, the trial lawyers, as they have over the years, to try to repeal tort reform. And according to the Washington Post, if the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. John Dingell, becomes chairman of the Committee on Commerce, he will, ``reexamine GOP legislation capping awards in civil damage suits and limiting investor suits.'' In other words, if Democrats get control of Congress again, we can just forget about any commonsense legal reform. The Democrats in Congress are also making plans to repeal the welfare reform bill signed by the President, and they have not given up on the idea of having the Government take over our health care system. The Democrat agenda remains, as always, to put the Government first. They want more Government spending, more Government control, more Government influence over the lives of the American people. Mr. Speaker, if the Democrats regain control of the Congress, they will reverse the great progress we made over the last 2 years to make the Federal Government work better for working Americans. I urge my colleagues and the American people to take notice. When they vote this November, they have a choice of moving forward with an agenda of commonsense change or moving backward to the old days of higher taxes, more wasteful Washington spending, and a bigger, more intrusive Federal Government.

Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Airport Privatization Pilot Program, which was included as part of H.R. 3539, the FAA Authorization Act of 1996. I would first like to thank our Chairman, Mr. Shuster, and the Aviation Subcommittee Chairman, Jimmy Duncan, for their foresight and strong leadership on the issue of airport privatization. Because of Chairman Duncan's hard work, the legislation which we are considering today includes an airport privatization pilot program which provides for a limited test of airport privatization. I believe that local and State governments should have the discretion to consider airport privatization. I also understand, however, that some airport users are skeptical about the private ownership of airports. This airport privatization pilot program has been carefully crafted to address these concerns by permitting the privatization--by sale or long-term lease--of up to six airports, while explicitly protecting the interests of the airport users and the Federal Government at each privatized facility. The pilot program protects the airlines and general aviation from undue price increases at a privatized airport by capping rates and charges at the rate of inflation. It explicitly prohibits discriminatory access policies, safeguarding general aviation users. And, I must emphasize, it does not create any new opportunities for airport revenue diversion. Cities and counties should have the discretion to consider airport privatization as a means to fund needed capital improvements and promote economic development. It is clear that federal airport development resources will be limited. And, many cities need to create new capacity at their existing airports to meet surging demand for air services, creating pressure on cities and counties to consider alternative sources of capital. At the same time, there are well-capitalized, experienced American companies looking for opportunities to invest in domestic airport facilities. But, as is the case far too often, the Federal Government is standing in the way. Cities and counties do not have the discretion, because of outdated Federal policies, to even consider private sector solutions to fund otherwise unaffordable airport capital improvements and bring market-driven management efficiencies to their facilities. State and local governments should have the discretion to consider airport privatization as a means for promoting economic development. First, airport privatization can help attract new businesses to a community. The quality of an area's airport is a key factor for companies looking to relocate or build new facilities. Airport privatization can be a tool for State and local governments to make capital and operating improvements at an airport without further burdening the taxpayers. Second, airport privatization can increase property, sales, and income tax revenues. The sale of an airport facility adds a valuable piece of realty to the local property tax base. And, the new jobs and retail sales created at a privately-operated airport will increase income and sales tax receipts. Third, cities and counties may recover their capital and operating investments in an airport facility from the proceeds of an airport sale or long-term lease transaction. For all of these reasons, I believe that the airport privatization pilot program will provide for a meaningful test of airport privatization, permitting a limited number of State and local governments the discretion to employ innovative management solutions to help meet their infrastructure needs. Again, I commend Chairmen Shuster and Duncan for their hard work on this measure.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that President Clinton has endorsed the welfare bill that will pass the House today. Clearly, the time has come to end welfare as we know it. The welfare system as we know it has been a disaster. The only thing great about the Great Society was the great harm it has caused our children. With this bill, Mr. Speaker, we make commonsense changes long requested by the American people. Common sense dictates that able-bodied people work. Common sense dictates that only Americans should receive welfare benefits in this country. Common sense dictates that incentives to keep families together. Common sense dictates that welfare should not be a way of life. Now liberal Democrats will vainly challenge these simple truths, and even the President could not help himself and has challenged some of these truths, but time and experience has proven them wrong. Welfare has not worked for the people it was supposed to help. Everybody knows that fact. Now is the time to change that system. Some well-meaning people will once again make the claim that welfare reform is mean- spirited. Well, I disagree. We reform welfare not out of spite but out of compassion. We change this system not because we want to hurt people, but because we want to help people help themselves. And we change this system not to throw children into the streets, but to give children a greater chance to realize the American dream and still maintain a safety net for those truly in need. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this Congress for the great work on this historic legislation, and I am pleased that President Clinton has agreed to finally live up to his campaign promise.