Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield further, that is correct. There will be amendments to the Defense Authorization Act as laid out in the rule, and we anticipate votes on those amendments.

Mr. DeLAY. On Tuesday night, starting about 5. The votes could come as soon as 5.

Mr. DeLAY. That is correct.

Mr. DeLAY. I am pleased to announce that we have concluded our legislative business for the week. On Monday, May 13, the House will not be in session. On Tuesday, May 14, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Members should note that we do not anticipate votes until after 5 p.m. on Tuesday, May 14. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday next, we will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules. I will not read through the list at this time, but a complete schedule will be distributed to all Members' offices this afternoon. After consideration of the suspensions, we will take up H.R. 3230, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, the rule for which was just passed today. On Wednesday, May 15, the House will meet at 9 a.m. and recess immediately for the Former Members' Day annual meeting. We expect to resume legislative business by 10 a.m. and complete consideration of H.R. 3230, the National Defense Authorization bill. On Thursday, May 16, the House will meet at 10 a.m. to consider the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution. Mr. Speaker, we should finish legislative business and have Members on their way home by 6 p.m. on Thursday, May 16. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. DeLAY. We do not anticipate consideration of either of those bills next week.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman's concerns are well founded. We found ourselves in circumstances that were beyond our control that caused us to work later than we anticipated this week. But I think the gentleman can count on, at least Tuesday night, going until 10 or 11 at night. We hope to get through the general debate on the defense bill and start votes somewhere around 5 and go until 10 or 11 Tuesday night.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young]. He is a vigorous advocate for his constituents and I know he has the best intentions with his amendment, but I urge my colleagues to support the provision of the gentlewoman from Ohio and vote against this amendment. History has been cruel to many Native Americans, and there is no doubt that the past treatment of American Indians still plays on the minds of the people who support this amendment. But today we must not only look at the past but also to the future. More specifically, we must look to the future of the children who have been victimized by the well-meaning regulations stemming from the Indian Child Welfare Act. Reform of this act is necessary. Simple fairness dictates that conclusion. I look forward to continuing to work with all concerned parties in conference where we can work out our differences, but the Young amendment is the wrong approach to finding that agreement in conference. Children who have no significant affiliation with any particular tribe and who are adopted by loving parents should not be unfairly taken from those parents. Prolonging any child's stay in foster care, when there are moms and dads just waiting to care for that child, simply because they may have a fraction of ethnic blood different from that of the parent, is just plain wrong. A member of my staff was adopted after being in various foster homes for the first 6 months of her life. It was later discovered that she had one-sixteenth Indian blood. Had the Indian tribe interfered with her adoption, she would have ended up trapped in foster care, bounced around from one temporary home to the next, and possibly been prevented from ever having a stable and loving family to help care for her. She was one of the lucky ones. Many others are not so lucky. My friends and colleagues, these adoption reforms are based on fairness. It is time that we start making the children's welfare our top priority. Vote no on the Young amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Tuesday, May 14, 1996, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, May 15, for the purpose of receiving in this Chamber former Members of Congress.

Mr. DeLAY

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

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I commend to our colleagues an article written by Father Sean McManus, the president of the Irish National Caucus, that appeared in the Irish Echo on April 3, 1996, about our colleague, Chairman Ben Gilman of New York. This article describes the efforts of the Republican Congress to fight for fairness and peace in Ireland, and the great leadership of Ben Gilman on these issues. Ben Gilman is proving that Republicans in the Congress do fight for justice around the world, especially in Ireland. I applaud him for his leadership, and I urge my colleagues to read the following article: My Irish Hero Is a Jewish Congressman (By Fr. Sean McManus) I don't think that Irish Americans are sufficiently aware of the extraordinary revolution that has taken place in the U.S. Congress regarding Irish affairs. For over 20 years the Irish National Caucus had campaigned for Congressional Hearings on Northern Ireland. But famous Irish-Catholic speakers of the house--with names like O'Neill and Foley--steadfastly blocked all hearings. They didn't want to offend Her majesty's government: ``An ad hoc Irish committee of 119 members has been formed in Congress. But the committee's attempts to publicize the outrages being committed in Northern Ireland, along with the efforts of the Irish National Caucus, have been blocked by House Speaker Tip O'Neill and other congressional leaders (Jack Anderson, ``Carter Pressured on Northern Ireland,'' Detroit Free Press, Oct. 29, 1978. When the MacBride Principles were launched in 1984 we had an even more legitimate reason for hearings because U.S. dollars were subsidizing anti-Catholic discrimination in Northern Ireland, where Catholics are twice likely to be unemployed as Protestants. But again--and now under speaker Tom Foley--hearings or legislative action were blocked. Furthermore, the then-chairman of House Foreign Affairs (now called International Relations Committee, Rep. Lee Hamilton, the Indiana Democrat, kept telling me there was no interest in the MacBride Principles among members of the Committee. This was a deeply distressing experience. We knew we had a perfectly valid case for a hearing, yet it was being unfairly and undemocratically blocked in the interest of the English government (with the connivance of the then Dublin Government). Yet oddly enough, some Irish Americans thought that when the Republicans seized control of both House and Senate in 1995, the Irish cause would suffer. But not this Fermanagh man. The first thing the Republican takeover meant to me was that our very best ally, Rep. Ben Gilman of New York would become chairman of the House International Relations Committee. Ireland has never had a more dedicated, consistent, or genuine friend than Ben Gilman. As far back as July 1979, Rep. Gilman, then a member of both the Committee of Foreign Relations and the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade, commissioned Rita Mullan, executive director of the Irish National Caucus, to conduct an investigation of the hiring practices of U.S. companies doing business in Northern Ireland. This was the first-ever American study of those companies and it marked the genesis of the MacBride Principles. Rep. Gilman has been a champion of every Irish issue: the Birmingham Six, the Guilford Four, the right of political prisoners etc. He has been absolutely fearless on the Irish issue, never allowing the State Department or any foreign government to silence him. One of the first things Chairman Gilman did early on in the 104th Congress was to hold hearings, the first on Northern Ireland since 1972. Then, despite heavy lobbying and pressure, he attached the MacBride Principles to the International Fund for Ireland. The House International Relations Committee, after spirited debate, voted on the issue on May 15, 1995. There are 41 Members of the Committee. Thirty-two voted for MacBride Principles, only 8 voted against. And yet for all those years I had to listen to Lee Hamilton tell me there was no interest in the Committee on MacBride. The MacBride legislation is part of the American Overseas Interest-Act, H.R. 1561. The legislation has now been passed twice by the House of Representatives. It has also been endorsed by the House and Senate Conference. And the entire Republican Leadership--from Sen. Jesse Helms--are all on record of supporting the MacBride Principles, while the State Department opposes these efforts. What an extraordinary political realignment. None of which could have happened without Ben Gilman's leadership. For years I have been preaching the message: ``Human Rights for Ireland is an American issue--not just an Irish-American issue.'' And I deeply believe that. Nonetheless, I am still deeply touched when someone who is not Irish stands up for Ireland. And there are many in the Congress who do: African- Americans, Italians, Polish, Jewish, etc. Rep. Gilman is Jewish American. Isn't it extraordinary that it took a Jewish American to move the Irish agenda to the very top of the U.S. Congress? Isn't it truly amazing that while some powerful Irish Americans in Congress were too scared to take a stand, this quiet, unassuming man has emerged as Ireland's best friend in the U.S. Congress. Every Irish-American worth his or her salt must stand up and cheer Ben Gilman. He is my Irish Hero. I should end by explaining that the Irish National Caucus is nonpartisan: neither Democrat nor Republican. So I do not want readers to think this is a pro-Republican article. It is not. In fact, I've personally never voted Republican in my life. But then, I've never lived in Ben Gilman's district.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I wish everyone a safe weekend.

Mr. DeLAY. Evidently we are working with the other body, and we hope to appoint conferees sometime next week.

Mr. DeLAY. Unfortunately, we were not able to mark up the budget this week. We anticipate marking it up next week and bringing it to the floor the following week.

Mr. DeLAY. I thank the distinguished minority whip for yielding, and, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that we have concluded our legislative business for the week. On Monday, May 6, the House will meet in pro forma session. There will be no legislative business and no votes on that day. On Tuesday, May 7, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Members should note we do anticipate votes soon after 2 p.m. on Tuesday. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 7, we will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules. I will not read through the list at this time, but a complete schedule will be distributed to all Members' offices. After consideration of the suspensions we will take up two crime bills, both of which are subject to rules: H.R. 2974, the Crimes Against Children and Elderly Persons Increased Punishment Act, and H.R. 3120, a bill regarding witness retaliation, witness tampering and jury tampering. For Wednesday, May 8 and the balance of the week the House will consider the following bills: H.R. 3322, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for civilian science activities; two resolutions, House Resolution 416 and 417, establishing a select subcommittee to investigate the United States role in Iranian arm transfers to Croatia and Bosnia; H.R. 3286, a bill to help families defray adoption costs and promote the adoption of minority children; and H.R. 2406, the United States Housing Act of 1995. Mr. Speaker, we should finish legislative business and have Members on their way home to their families by 2 p.m. on Friday, May 10, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

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

Mr. DeLAY

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

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, May 6, 1996, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 7, 1996, for morning hour debates.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Thursday, May 2, 1996, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, very quickly, maybe this is an insight that we are hearing about, that this was a concept. A bill was worked out, supposedly a compromise. I have three letters here, one from the AFL- CIO, one from International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and one from a group called Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, all dated yesterday. So my point is I know why from the time that this was a concept and this quote was made, through the time that a bipartisan effort was put together, to the time of yesterday, when Mr. Sweeney barked, they jumped. That is what is going on here. When the Sweeneys and the Washington union bosses barked, they jumped and changed and took another tack on this and offered the Oberstar amendment.

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to run the U.S. economy based on 1930's economics, and that is what we are trying to do here. We are trying to change it, to bring America into the 21st century. Unfortunately, the gentleman from Minnesota wants to keep us in the 1930's. I urge you to vote ``no'' on the Oberstar amendment.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I was back in my office watching this debate, and I thought I was living in the sixties and the seventies. The same arguments that those that support the Oberstar amendment were made time and time again in opposition to the deregulation of trucking, to the deregulation of aviation, to the deregulation of railroads. Small communities will not be served. We have got to have tariffs filed so that everybody can see them. We have got to have the Government involved or small shippers will not be able to find somebody to carry their goods. How many times have we heard these arguments in trucking, in aviation, in railroads? And you know what? Not one of those arguments came true in those modes of transportation. Not one. In fact, just the opposite happened, because those of us that oppose the Oberstar amendment believe in the free enterprise system, believe that in competition the quality of service goes up, the number of people that offer themselves for service goes up, and the cost of transportation goes down. It is not artificially held up, because the Government knows best. That is what the Oberstar amendment is attempting to do, to change a very well-crafted compromise in this bill. I have to tell you if I was writing this bill and I had the votes, it would not be this bill, because in this bill the chairman crafted a bipartisan, at least at the time, a bipartisan compromise to take care of some of the concerns of those that do not believe in the free market system. Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, and it has already been expressed here on the floor, at the last minute, this compromise was rejected. We ought to be opening up markets. We ought to be allowing shippers and shipping companies and ocean shipping companies to come together and, through the free market system, devise contracts that meet the needs of that market. That is what we are trying to do here. It worked in trucking. Let me give you an example why I was so supportive of deregulation of trucking. In my part of the country, outside of Houston, TX, we have a lot of small towns and they needed trucking service. But the Government said only one truck line, in a cartel type way, could service my small towns. The argument was, oh, my goodness, if you opened it up, that truck line would not go to Rosenberg, TX, because it is too small a market. You know what happened in Rosenberg, TX, with the car dealers? They could not get their parts shipped by this one trucking company that had authority to carry goods to Rosenberg, TX. So a Hispanic gentleman who cleaned commodes for one of the car dealers got in a truck and went up and picked up his parts on the other side of Houston and brought them back. He said, ``This is a pretty good deal.'' He started going around to the other car dealers, and they were having the same problem, so he bought himself a van and started himself a little business, provided a service that was not being provided by the Government authority given to one trucking company. But you know what? They caught him and they said ``You can't do this anymore, because the government says you can't do it.'' He says, ``Why not?'' He says, ``Because you got to have a piece of paper from the government to allow you to go pick up auto parts in Houston and bring them to Rosenberg.'' ``How do I get that piece of paper?'' ``You have to hire a lawyer.'' ``How much does a lawyer cost?'' ``Well, it will cost you at least $25,000, and then you are not guaranteed to get the authority.'' He went back to cleaning commodes in Rosenberg, TX. Now, they will say probably oh, well, this does not apply, because we are talking about large ships and we are talking about small ports and we are talking about small shippers. The market is the same no matter whether it is ships or trucks or airplanes or railroads. The point here is we are trying to move into the 21st century, and the proponents and the supporters of the Oberstar amendment want to keep us in the 1930's, when regulation of trucking was first passed, in the 1920's, when regulation of railroads was passed. We are in a world economy and we cannot afford the 1930's type economics.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the J. Frank Dobie High School Academic Decathlon Team for winning the national title in Atlanta. Their hard work and dedication is truly remarkable. I commend the faculty, students, and the parents at Dobie High School for their commitment to creating an excellent scholastic environment at Dobie. I know I speak for the entire State of Texas when I say how very proud I am of your outstanding accomplishment. It is wonderful to see that the pursuit of academic excellence is alive and well in Texas.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the American people have won a great victory today. This bill represents the end of business as usual. We fought. We begged. We cajoled. And now we finally have convinced the President that fiscal responsibility is good politics. The gentleman from Louisiana, Chairman Livingston, has done that, along with his staff, and for that reason I salute him. This legislation is the right thing for this country at this moment with this President. It is not the perfect bill. I am disappointed that we did not get rid of more wasteful Washington programs. Goals 2000 funds bureaucrats instead of teachers. AmeriCorps pays people a healthy wage to be volunteers, and the NEA pays for controversial and sometimes obscene art. But Rome was not built in a day and getting the perfect budget will take more than one term in the majority. To my colleagues who would sacrifice the good in favor of the perfect, let me say, I admire your fidelity to principle, but let me also say that voting to cut $23 billion in spending, eliminating over 200 wasteful Washington programs and doing all of this without raising one dime in higher taxes does not represent a sacrifice of conservative principles. No one could call me a moderate, but I am voting for this bill. I am voting for this bill secure in the knowledge that it is the right thing to do now at this moment in history. I give Chairman Livingston a great deal of credit for his determination and for his patience in negotiating this agreement. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this legislation. Send it up to the President and have him sign the bill that delivers the greatest savings to the taxpayer since the Second World War.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, last night the Appropriations Committee did a great job in working with the President and forcing him to be fiscally responsible. By getting an agreement to curtail spending in the 1996 omnibus appropriations bill, Republicans were finally able to cut back on Washington spending, and I am very proud of that. Today we will save the taxpayers $43 billion from last year's spending levels. We zero out 200 programs. We will keep on track to a balanced budget. And, most important, we will take a giant leap toward fiscal sanity. Mr. Speaker, the American people put the Republicans in the majority because they wanted more responsible Government from their Congress, and we have delivered on our promises. My friends, this is the biggest taxpayer savings since the end of the Second World War, and we did not raise one dime of taxes. By passing this spending bill, we take a giant step forward for the American family, and I just want to commend Chairman Livingston and his committee for his patience and great work on this legislation.