Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. While this bill authorizes a number of much needed projects to address infrastructure needs and environmental restoration throughout the Nation, I am particularly pleased with two provisions in this bill. 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. The Houston ship channel is a critical economic lifeline between our Nation and the rest of the world. The Port of Houston draws cargo from every State in the Nation. It is the No. 1 U.S. port in foreign tonnage and the second busiest in total tonnage. To remain competitive, however, the ship channel must be improved to permit faster, safer handling of cargo vessels. The improvements authorized are also consistent with the port's and my enduring commitment to the environment. By working with 13 Federal and State agencies, the port and the Corps of Engineers arrived at a plan that will use the dredged material from the ship channel project to create over 4,000 acres of additional marsh land to be used in developing bird islands, boater destinations, and shoreline erosion projects. These beneficial uses have received the very strong support of several key environmental groups in the Galveston Bay area. The second provision allows certain flood control districts to carry out flood control projects with far greater flexibility than ever before. The Harris County Flood Control District will demonstrate to the Corps of Engineers that it can design and construct flood projects faster and cheaper when it is not burdened by Federal redtape. For too long, excessive Federal regulation has slowed the design and construction of flood projects. Many Harris County flood control projects currently in the design stage were first authorized for study in the 1940's. Bringing these projects to the local level has the potential to save the Federal Government hundreds of millions of dollars. Without the unnecessary redtape, there can be greater efficiency and greater input from the affected community. The result will be taxpayer savings and projects being completed much more quickly. Again, I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to support it, as well.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. That is certainly our hope and our intention.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentlewoman will yield further, as the gentlewoman knows, the minimum wage portion of the bill is the same in both Houses. We hope after vigorous consultations and negotiations with the Senate through the conference committee that the tax provisions will be worked out and we have every intention of bringing that conference report back to this House for a vote, hopefully in the next week. But the gentlewoman knows as well as I do, conference committees can slow down.

Mr. DeLAY. I thank the distinguished vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the House has concluded its legislative business for the week. We will next meet on Monday, July 29, at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and at 2 p.m. to consider a slew of suspensions. Members should be advised that any recorded votes ordered will be postponed until Tuesday, July 30, at 2 p.m. Please note that there is a possibility that votes could occur later than 2 p.m., although we cannot guarantee it. On Tuesday, July 30, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning hour and at 10 a.m. for legislative business. The House will continue consideration of suspensions before turning to H.R. 2391, the Working Families Flexibility Act. For Wednesday, July 31 and the balance of the week, the House will debate the following measures, both of which will be subject to rules: H.R. 2823, the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act; and H.R. 123, English as the Common Language of Government Act. Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that a number of conference reports may be ready next week. Among the possibilities the House may consider are welfare reform, health care reform, safe drinking water and, of course, any appropriations bills that are ready. Mr. Speaker, the House should finish its business and commence the August district work period by 2 p.m. on Friday, August 2.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, we certainly want to go to conference on those bills any way that we can next week so that we can stay on our schedule.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentlewoman will yield further, certainly the Committee on Appropriations of the House is working as hard as they can to see that that happens. We are trying to get as many appropriations bills to the President as quickly as possible in anticipation of adjourning on October 4.

Mr. DeLAY

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

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I just want to say that there have been a lot of misstatements in the press, outside this Hall and inside this Hall, by the administration concerning the FBI files. Mr. Speaker, I stand behind this chairman, and no one in this town or in this Nation would ever question the integrity and the straightforwardness of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].

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

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this substitute offered by my good friends, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner] and the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle]. I thought they worked very hard on this substitute. To me, this substitute is one last desperate attempt by the minority to cling to the status quo. They are making an argument about unfunded mandates, yet they still do not understand the concept of block grants and flexibility given to the States to make decisions based upon where the money will be spent among these programs. Our children cannot afford this status quo. I ask my colleagues this question: Is it right to preserve a system that has ruined opportunities, destroyed hope, and hurt generations of our Nation's children? I say to my colleagues that the current system is tough on children, weak on work, and easy on deadbeat dads. It is this system that I think the minority has fought so fiercely to expand and protect. This substitute does not go far enough to change the current system. It has loopholes that make any time limits worthless. It still allows people who will have been on welfare for 5 years to continue to receive benefits. It puts the States in a straitjacket, giving them very little freedom to design their own reform programs. In fact, this substitute gives Secretary Shalala veto power over State welfare plans. Madam Chairman, I just urge my colleagues to vote for real reform, defeat the Tanner substitute and let the American people know that the status quo is just not good enough.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this legislation. I really commend the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on the Budget for their efforts in producing this legislation. Madam Chairman, as my colleagues ponder their vote on this important issue, I would just urge them to consider this question: Does the current welfare system help people realize the American dream? If the answer is no, we should vote for this reform legislation. I believe that the current welfare system has destroyed the American dream for too many people, and this bill represents an important part of our agenda to restore the American dream. It also represents a core philosophical principle; that a hand-up is better than a hand-out. The American people have rightfully demanded that we fix this welfare system. They instinctively understand that the current welfare system undermines incentives to work, encourages the expansion of the underclass, breaks up families, and promotes welfare as a way of life. And they understand that the current system is a perversion of basic American values that value work, that promote personal responsibility, and that foster freedom. This reform legislation values work. It requires that every able- bodied welfare recipient work for their benefits within 2 years. It promotes personal responsibility. It cracks down on deadbeat dads, giving States the tools to track down men who leave or abandon their families and leave their children to fend for themselves. And it fosters freedom. Scripture says if you give a man a fish, he can eat for a day; but if you teach a man to fish, he can eat for the rest of his life. Our reform plan gives welfare recipients the incentives to gain their freedom, to gain control of their lives and to become productive members of society. Madam Chairman, some on the left call our efforts mean and extreme. Well, I say that defending the status quo is extreme. Continuing the current system that has destroyed families and promoted dependency is mean. The legislation, this legislation, is a commonsense effort to restore the basic American values of work, personal responsibility and freedom to our Federal welfare system. It is a necessary step to restore the American dream for those who are currently in the welfare system. I urge my colleagues to have the courage to change this system. Stand with the American people and vote for this commonsense reform plan.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I want to offer my congratulations to the gentleman from Massachusetts on his upcoming wedding tomorrow. I did not know he was getting married tomorrow. I think that is wonderful. I wish him all the best and a wonderful future. Mr. Chairman, I think this piece of legislation is very timely and very important, and I commend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] for bringing it to the floor. Many people are questioning why we are bringing it to the floor today but, Mr. Chairman, to me the answer is very clear. Polls in Hawaii and across this country show that the majority of the people of this country do not support legalizing same-sex marriage. However, despite the will of the legislature in Hawaii, three judges are about to rule otherwise. Now the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, an organization that is pushing very hard for the legalization of gay and lesbian marriage, is advertising their intent to use the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruling to force other States to recognize gay and lesbian marriages. I would just like to read the quote, and this is from a publication of Lambda Legal Defense Fund: Many same-sex couples in and out of Hawaii are likely to take advantage of what would be a landmark victory. The great majority of those who travel to Hawaii to marry will return to their home in the rest of the country expecting full legal recognition of their union. This is not a partisan issue, Mr. Chairman. The threat posed by the ruling in Hawaii is recognized by Members of both sides of the aisle. The bill before us is very simple. First it honors the State's right to decide its own position on the legalization of same-sex marriage. Second, it says that for Federal purposes, marriage is the legal union between one man and one woman. The Frank amendment strikes that. This bill does not tell people what they can or cannot do in the privacy of their own homes. It simply says it is not right to ask the American people to condone it. As a father and an observer of this culture, I look ahead to the future of my daughter and wonder what building a family will be like for her. We saw startling statistics in 1992 that told us that Dan Quayle was right. Children do best in a family with a mom and a dad. We need to protect our social and moral foundations. We should not be forced to send a message to our children that undermines the definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Such attacks on the institution of marriage will only take us further down the road of social deterioration. Vote ``no'' on the Frank amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished minority whip for yielding. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the House has concluded its legislative business for the week. We will next meet on Tuesday, July 16, at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour and 12 noon for legislative business. Members should note that the House will postpone recorded votes until 5 p.m. in accordance with an agreement with the minority to voice vote the rule on Treasury, Postal appropriations bill. On Tuesday, Madam Speaker, the House will consider the following seven bills under suspension of the rules: H.R. 3166, The Government Accountability Act of 1996; H.R. 3458, the Veterans' Compensation Cost- of-Living Adjustment Act of 1996; H.R. 3643, Extending Benefits to Veterans Exposed to Agent Orange; H.R. 3673, The Veterans' Compensation and Readjustment Benefits Amendments of 1996; H.R. 3674, The Veterans' Education and Compensation Benefits Amendments of 1996; H.R. 361, The Omnibus Export Administration Act of 1995; and H.R. 3161, Extending Most-Favored-Nation Status to Romania. After suspensions, we will take up under an open rule H.R. 3756, the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government appropriations bill. On Wednesday, July 17, the House will turn to the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary appropriations bill, also subject to a rule. On Thursday, July 18, we will consider H.R. 3760, Campaign Finance Reform and H.R. 3734, the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act. Both bills, of course, will be subject to rules. Members should note that next week will be a very busy week. We have a lot of important business to cover and it will probably be necessary to work very late on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings. However, we will finish legislative business by 6 p.m. on Thursday, July 18.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will continue yielding, I appreciate the whip asking the question because it allows me the opportunity to point out that this is the reform Congress; that on the first day of this Congress we went until 1:30 the next day reforming this House, reforms that we are all very proud of and voted for, to open this House and give it back, and finished the day with the Congressional Accountability Act that is now law that makes all of us live under the same laws that we have passed. We have passed the gift ban and lobby reforms, and many reforms over the course of the year. Because of the problem of floor time, what we are bringing next week is the campaign finance reform, and I believe one other on suspension. Well, just campaign finance reform next week, to continue the efforts and the accomplishments of this reform Congress, the 104th Congress.

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, I also wish everyone a good weekend and urge them to get rest, because of the short week and an intense week. And I wish my friend a good weekend also.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the Committee on Rules has not met yet on the welfare reform bill. We certainly want to work with the minority to make sure ample amount of debate time on this very important piece of legislation will be held, plus the fact that we want to make sure that every opportunity for the minority to have a substitute will be available to the minority.

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

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman would yield, I appreciate it, and I concur with the distinguished whip. I do point out that under the budget resolution, though, any substitute that would be allowed on the floor must conform to the budget resolution and therefore have to conform to the savings outlined in the budget resolution in the underlying bill.

Mr. DeLAY. We anticipate bringing welfare reform to the floor as a freestanding bill separate from Medicaid.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 16, 1996, for morning hour debates.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill that will dramatically improve the current system of allocating Federal highway funds. But first I would like to pay tribute to my colleague and fellow sponsor, Gary Condit, for his leadership on the Democrat side on this vital issue. I would also like to recognize the tremendous efforts made by my good friend and colleague, John Hostettler, who as cochair of the I-69 Mid-Continent Highway Caucus has demonstrated an unparalleled commitment to reforming the Highway Fund Program. We would not have built up the support that currently exists for this bill without his help. Although I shared in the excitement of celebrating the 40-year anniversary of our Interstate System last month, it saddens me to think about how the formulas we use today to distribute Federal highway funds to the States have broken down alongside the road. As our Nation speeds into the 21st century, those formulas force State departments of transportation to steer the development of our Nation's transportation system with both hands firmly grasping the rear view mirror. To try to remedy this situation, Mr. Condit and I, along with 37 of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, are introducing The ISTEA Integrity Restoration Act. It is our hope that this legislation will serve as a basis for discussion during the reauthorization process. Our bill accomplishes four primary objectives: Funds the National Highway System as the key Federal responsibility: Simplifies and makes more flexible the Federal Highway Program; Updates the antiquated Federal funding distribution formulas; and Equitably balances the amount of Federal gas tax dollars collected from each State with the amount of funding each State receives back from the Federal highway trust fund. When enacted, our proposal will at least focus our Nation's surface transportation programs on the 21st century. State DOT's can finally let go to the rear view mirror and get their hands firmly on the steering wheel. focusing federal responsibility By maintaining a strong National Highway System program that includes the interstate, the ISTEA Integrity Restoration Act recognizes that the purposes of the NHS--national defense, interstate and international commerce, and the safety and mobility of our people--are the basic responsibilities of the Federal Government and should shape the Federal role in transportation. simplicity and flexibility As America enters the 21st century, and encounters the many challenges and opportunities that it will offer, our Nation needs a streamlined Federal surface transportation program that will position its citizens and economy to respond well to this dynamic new era. The ISTEA Integrity Restoration Act consolidates various existing Federal highway programs into two simple and focused programs: The National Highway System Program [NHS] consolidates the Interstate Maintenance Program and the NHS portion of the Bridge Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Program. The Streamlined Surface Transportation Program [SSTP] blends the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, enhancements, the non-NHS Bridge Program and others into the existing Surface Transportation Program to create a new, broader category. Our bill continues the eligibility of all current ISTEA activities, but gives State and local transportation officials the responsibility and authority to decide on what, when, where, and how much to spend to meet their diverse transportation needs. Too often State DOT's have a surplus in one category and inadequate funding in another because the Federal Government has decided it knows better than the State what its needs are. The ISTEA Integrity Restoration Act will ensure that States--working together with their local partners--can respond to their own needs with individual solutions, instead of being limited by the current array of one-size-fits-all Federal requirements. updating formulas Since ISTEA went into effect, with the exception of the Interstate Maintenance Program neither a State's population, the size of the system of highways and bridges, nor the number of people or tons of freight moving across a State's highway has made any difference in the share of Federal-aid highway funds it receives. Instead, each State's share of these funds today is determined by the share of all highway funds that State received between 1987 and 1991. And the share of all highway funds a State received between 1987 and 1991 was determined in part by that State's population in 1980, nearly 20 years ago. Other factors in determining the 1987-to-1991 share include the size of the State's highway system during that period and the traffic that system carried. Perhaps the most irrelevant factor is the number of rural postal delivery miles in the State--a measure the post office quit using more than 40 years ago. These formulas penalize States that are home to increasing numbers of Americans and dramatically increasing traffic. The ISTEA Integrity Restoration Act's system of apportionment is simple, free from the obsolete characteristics of the current Federal funding system, and is related the real world. It is based on relevant factors such as the size of the public highway system in each State, the wear and tear on highways caused by the intensity with which a State's highway system is used, and the greater transportation needs of urban areas. fairness and equity The ISTEA Integrity Restoration Act also creates an objective, simple methods of distributing highway funds among the States that strikes a more equitable balance between the contributions each State's motorists and motor carriers pay in the Federal highway trust fund and the funds returned to the State from that fund. Our bill establishes the following two programs: An Equity Program which ensures that all States receive at least a 95-percent return--including attributable interest and other assets--on the payments made to the Federal highway trust fund. Ideally, the NHS Program and SSTP would provide more than a 95-percent return for all States. If not, the Equity Program would ensure this 95-percent return level. An Access Program which ensures an adequate level of resources for highways in large land area, low-population density States, and in States with small land area and low-population density. This would help provide the road systems that are urgently needed for national mobility, economic connectivity, and national defense. conclusion The DeLay/Condit ISTEA Integrity Restoration Act is not a radical departure from ISTEA. It builds on traditional partnerships while modernizing Federal aid formulas that are inadequate to meet the mobility and economic development needs of the next century. This act strikes the appropriate balance between the national interests in highways, and the rights and responsibilities of each State. I hope this Congress will look favorably upon it in the months to come.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McIntosh amendment. This is a classic case of regulations gone haywire. Since when does the Federal Government get into the business of prescribing a dress code for a private company? How can an agency enforce such a regulation with a straight face. We should give workers enough credit to let them decide what is appropriate dress to conduct their jobs. Contrary to what some bureaucrats may believe, the Federal Government does not always know best. As Roger Overbey, an equipment operator for a paving company in Indiana stated, ``They don't think we have common sense. Personally, I don't like the government telling me how to dress.'' I don't like it either. Federal bureaucrats in Washington, sitting in air conditioned rooms, should not be allowed to fine companies that try to keep their employees from getting heat stroke by giving them discretion to decide what they feel most safe and comfortable wearing to do their jobs. The Federal Government may be Uncle Sam, but in this case it is the Wicked Stepmother. I urge a yes vote on the McIntosh amendment.