Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this motion to instruct. Don't be fooled--the authors of this motion aren't interested in good environmental policy or public health--they're interested in status quo, in regulatory excess and in spreading false, misleading, and distorted information on what these environmental riders do. And what do they do? They prevent the EPA from going beyond its statutory authority so we don't have unelected, overzealous bureaucrats implementing their own agendas at the expense of our environment and the American public. They require EPA to use the most up-to-date data when making regulatory decisions. Do the opponents of the riders believe EPA should be allowed to develop a refinery MACT rule using data that is 15 years old when data exist from 1993? Is that protecting the public health? They direct EPA to use real world data instead of bureaucratic computer models based on faulty assumptions. EPA is trying to force our constituents into centralized emissions testing claiming this system works the best--but just a few weeks ago 12 cars rigged to fail were passed by a Colorado centralized testing facility--is that effective environmental policy? Chanting right along with the effort to scare and mislead the public on what this Congress is doing, our Vice President accused this Congress of prohibiting the EPA from taking arsenic out of drinking water. But who's asking for a delay in the rulemaking? In a letter dated this February, the EPA stated it has ``decided to seek to delay rulemaking on the arsenic regulation in order to conduct further research.'' Needless to say, the Vice President's office later said he misspoke. Mr. Speaker, these riders are about common sense, sound science, and flexibility; they're about making sure that we get real benefits out of our regulatory requirements so that the burden we place on Americans and on our businesses make sense. And for those who claim that this appropriations bill is no place for these legislative riders--get real--every bill is the right place to deal with government fraud, abuse of process, and misspent resources-- not to mention that the former Democrat-controlled Congress used this process for years. In fact, the radon rider in this bill is the same legislative rider that has been included in this bill for 3 years when the author of this motion served his tenure as chairman. Make no mistake, my colleagues, a vote for the Stokes motion is a vote to force your communities to implement a very costly, ineffective rule on regulating radon in drinking water. Now, some of my colleagues may have concerns with some of the riders and that's legitimate. But those concerns ought to be considered in the context of the conference. The conference must be given the ability to evaluate each provision on its merits. Mr. Speaker, at the end of debate on this motion, Members will be asked to defeat the previous question so that the motion to instruct can be amended. The amendment to the motion is a real vote on protecting the environment and it provides the House conferees the negotiating flexibility necessary to conduct an effective conference. I urge my colleagues to be responsible and use common sense--don't buy into the fear-mongering of those who refuse to acknowledge the facts. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Walker amendment, Earlier this year, the House passed a number of bills which made much needed fundamental changes to the way the Federal Government promulgates regulations. We passed unfunded mandates reform, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and an improved Reg Flex Act so that agencies can be taken to court if they don't take into account the impact of regulations on small businesses, among other reforms. [[Page H 12018]] All of these bills passed with strong bipartisan majorities, and two of these--unfunded mandates and paperwork reduction--have even been signed into law. The biggest and most fundamental reform the House passed, however, is a requirement that agencies conduct risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis based on sound science prior to promulgating regulations. Too often regulatory decisions are made without any consideration for the impact they will have or even for whether they will address the problem effectively. The Federal Government must set priorities on how to spend its limited resources. Risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis will both help us focus on those areas that are the greatest threat to the public, and provide the data needed to make those tough budgetary choices. Unfortunately, the other body has yet to act on these key provisions. That is why we are including this package in this bill--the provisions that make up this package are widely supported by a majority of both Houses, and signify a return to common sense, sound science, regulatory flexibility, and a more effective regulatory system. Because this regulatory reform package restores balance to our Federal regulatory system, it is being considered a key vote by a large number of organizations. They include: National Federation of Independent Business; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; National Restaurant Association; Americans for Tax Reform; National Association of Home Builders; and National American Wholesale Grocers Association. The Walker amendment is also strongly supported by Project Relief, the Alliance for Reasonable Regulation Citizens for a Sound Economy, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Grocery Manufacturers of America, and the National Mining Association, among many others. These groups represent tens of thousands of businesses and individuals that have become involved at the grassroots level to achieve regulatory reform. Regulatory reform will improve the average American's life in measurable ways--greater consumer choice, lower prices of goods and services, additional job opportunities, along with better economic growth. I urge my colleagues to help relieve some of the burden placed on the American family by the Federal Government. Support the Walker amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, do I get to start over with my time?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, maybe I mischaracterized personally the authors of this motion. Let me restate it this way: Those on the outside of this Chamber that support this motion are not interested in good environmental policy or public health. They are interested in the status quo, in regulatory excess, and in spreading misleading and distorted information on what these environmental riders do. And what do they do? They prevent the EPA from going beyond its statutory authority so we do not have unelected, overzealous bureaucrats implementing their own agendas at the expense of our environment and the American public. They require EPA to use the most up-to-date data when making regulatory decisions. Do the opponents of the riders believe the EPA should be allowed to develop a refinery MACT rule, using data that is 15 years old when data exists from 1993? Is that protecting the public health? They direct EPA to use real world data instead of bureaucratic computer models based on faulty assumptions. EPA is trying to force our constituents into centralized emissions testing, claiming this system works the best, but just a few weeks ago, 12 cars rigged to fail passed by a Colorado centralized testing facility. Is that effective environmental policy? None of these riders change present law, not one. Not one of these riders repeal present law. Chanting right along with the effort to scare and mislead the public on what this Congress is doing, our Vice President accused this Congress of prohibiting the EPA from taking arsenic out of drinking water. But who is asking for a delay in the rulemaking? In a letter dated this February, the EPA stated it has decided to seek to delay rulemaking on the arsenic regulations in order to conduct further research. Needless to say, the Vice President's office later said he misspoke. Mr. Speaker, these riders are about common sense, sound science and flexibility. They are about making sure that we get real benefits out of our regulatory requirements, so that the burden we have placed on Americans and on our businesses makes sense, and for those who claim that this appropriations bill is no place for these legislative riders, get real. Every bill is the [[Page H 11695]] right place to deal with government fraud, abuse of process and misspent resources. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the offending words.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, my friends, the distinguished minority whip represents a party that used to be the only thing to fear is fear itself; now, all they have to offer is fear itself. I rise in very, very strong opposition to this motion to instruct. Do not be fooled. . . . And what do they do? They prevent----

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, in the coming weeks, this Congress has a chance to end welfare for lobbyists once and for all, ending the insidious practice of allowing Federal grant recipients to use taxpayer dollars while advancing their own narrow special interests. Much has been written and debated on this issue; but, contrary to many Washington political pundits and the special interests who are desperately trying to save their taxpayer-funded subsidies, the issue is really quite simple. The American people do not want their money going to special interests to lobby Congress. Consistent with the Republican philosophy that people, not the Government, know best how to spend their own money, the Istook- McIntosh-Erlich language ends this abuse of taxpayer dollars being used directly or indirectly to lobby by Federal grant recipients. This ban on lobbyist subsidies will ensure the Nation's taxpayers that their money is not being used by Washington lobbyists to promote a special interest agenda they may or may not agree with. To those who oppose this legislation, I have just one question: If you are not abusing Federal taxpayer dollars now, then what is all the fuss about? The people who oppose this important reform legislation cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, they argue that they do not lobby with taxpayer dollars, while, on the other hand, they contend that ending their subsidy will directly impact their lobbying efforts. Mr. Speaker, I think we owe the American people who are taxpayers in this Nation a pledge that we will not let their money be used for any special interest group to lobby in this Capitol or any State capitol around this country. Let us promise to let the people of this country decide who, if anyone, should speak for them. It may be Halloween, but do not let the ghouls and goblins of taxpayer subsidies past scare you out of doing the right thing for our country. I urge my colleagues in this House and in the other body to end welfare subsidies for lobbyists.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, on October 27, the Office of the Sergeant at Arms, in particular, and the House of Representatives as a whole, lost a friend and coworker. Tom Eberlein was a valued member of the Sergeant at Arms Chamber security unit since 1992. Prior to that, Tom spent 20 years in the security field, including 17 years as a detective with the Metropolitan Police Department. He is survived by his mother, Pat, his brother, Timothy and his nephew, Justin. Those of us who knew Tom came to appreciate his genuine enthusiasm for his job. He was proud of the knowledge he acquired of the workings of this institution and eagerly shared it with others in order to better serve the House. His most memorable trait was his unflagging good humor, through the long days and nights, that he shared freely with one and all. Anyone entering the Chamber through the main doors can't have failed to notice Tom's cheerful, yet professional presence. The long hours and constant pressure never diminished his ability to perform his duties while lifting the spirits of those fortunate enough to serve with him. These words alone cannot adequately convey our sense of loss. His coworkers, especially will feel the loss as they must carry on now without him. Tom set a high standard for all of us. His smiling face and ready laugh will missed by all.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, as many scientists have long suspected, and despite the public scare campaign by environmental extremists, the reports of destructive global warming have been greatly exaggerated. Paul Harvey, the sage of the airwaves, put it well when he commented on October 17, 1995, that the sky is not falling. I wish to submit for the Record Mr. Harvey's remarks regarding the scare campaign on global warming. The remarks follow: The Sky Is Not Falling Many scholars and institutions secure grant money for research by scaring people. By producing bad news about population, about resources, about environment. One recent-years bogey has been the claim by some academics that ``the sky is falling.'' Specifically, these scaremongers argue that our use of fossil fuels is figuratively burning a hole in the sky, letting in too much sun, threatening global warming. This year's Nobel Prize was awarded to three disciples of that theory--that chemical actions are breaking down atmospheric ozone. Robert Balling, Junior, is director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University. He says those pedding this pessimistic prognosis are false- alarmists. And, he notes, the New York Times is parroting this apocalyptic view of the future, giving its front page to the theory of planetary temperature increases over the past 40 years, retreating glaciers, increasing sea levels and the increase in both drought and heavy rain. In rebuttal this climatologist responds with satellite measurements. Rather than ``global warming,'' this most accurate of all ways of measuring the Earth's temperature shows a slight ``global cooling'' since 1979. The Arctic area, where most warming should be expected, has warmed not at all over the past sixteen years according to our satellite observations. According to the measurement of standard weather stations there has been no measurable warming over the past 50 years. And, says, this climatologist, while some glaciers have retreated--others have advanced--including large ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland. Organizations within the United Nations, anticipating the inevitability of budget cuts, are desperately seeking to justify their existence. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PCC) is composed of 2,500 scientists around the world. Its recent book-length report, clearly labeled, ``FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE'' * * * was nonetheless distributed. It was intended to be circulated among contributors for their further evaluation and further contributions. Instead it was ``leaked'' to media people who focused on the summary section and sounded an alarm which has embarrassed many of the scientists who contributed to the study. There is just enough ``Chicken Little'' in all of us so that the tabloids with the most gross headlines are the ones which sell best. I promise, before the sky falls, to let you know.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Transportation appropriations conference report. It is a responsible bill--one that I believe all Members can support. I want to thank my chairman, Mr. Wolf, for having the patience over the last few weeks waiting to get this bill through conference and onto the floor. On his first trip through the process as chairman, he has done a masterful job of crafting this legislation that is before us today and I commend him on his efforts. It is important to note that there are many good things in the bill which keep us on message. This bill, while providing for a strong national infrastructure, also includes many policy statements that will benefit our Nation immediately and in the future. A good example must be the fact that there are no highway demonstration projects in this bill. What that means is there are no unforeseen priorities that the States have to take into consideration. What this means is that there is more money for States to accomplish their priorities in a timely manner. Having no highway demonstration projects in the bill gives the legislation integrity, and it gives the States confidence in the way we conduct business. This is what the American people and the State governments expect and this is what they deserve. In my home State of Texas, a donor State, highway spending will increase by $31 million over last year's level. Hopefully, this increase will assist the State in their construction of some important projects including several U.S. Highway 59 projects through my district. The conference agreement also approves continued funding for Houston metro's regional bus plan. Houston Metro is noted for having the lowest cost-per-new-rider index in the Nation. The continued funding for this program will assist in the efficient movement of people, goods, and services through the Houston area. With regards to airports, the conference elected to fund airport improvement programs at last year's level. In the face of both competing funding demands and ironclad budget constraints, I am pleased that were at least able to halt the downward funding spiral that airports have experienced over the last 3 years. However, in light of future air travel demands, I feel that it is important that Congress be ready with a plan that allows for the proper financing of our airport infrastructure in the future. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, a bill all Members can support. I urge all Members to support this responsible measure before us today.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker. I thank the distinguished minority leader for yielding to me. I just want the House to know that one of our colleagues has returned today because he felt this was a very important vote. He has been through a very serious operation and surgery, and he is just one of the neatest guys, and he understands how important this is. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Tejeda] has returned and is here today.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, for days, weeks, even months we have heard the rhetoric regarding the future of Medicare. We have heard all the scare tactics, we have seen the attack ads, we have read the newspapers, but beyond the hype, beyond the clouds of misinformation, some basic facts emerge. First, Medicare is going broke, and it will be broke in 7 years. Second, the Republicans are not cutting Medicare. Third, Democrats do not have a serious alternative that will save Medicare for the next generation. The American people can begin to understand the basic differences in the approaches to saving Medicare between the Republicans and the Democrats. Republicans want to reform the whole system. We want to make commonsense changes which will promote greater choices, give greater flexibility to seniors, crack down on fraud and abuse, and put reasonable limits on Medicare growth. Democrats ignore reform. They lack the courage to make commonsense changes to the system. They would prefer to keep the current system, which, if unreformed, will bankrupt this country. To me, Mr. Chairman, the Democrat alternative is just a joke wrapped in fraud and shrouded by farce. They save Medicare only enough to save their own political hides. In fact, secretly, Democrats would rather do nothing than to reform Medicare. Mr. Chairman, political cowardice is no substitute for responsible policy. If we do nothing to save Medicare, the country faces a stark choice: Either we forget about ever achieving fiscal responsibility, or the government will be forced to rapidly raise payroll taxes and income taxes. As we all know, even President Clinton now suffers from taxer's remorse over his last huge tax increase, so clearly, raising taxes is not a serious alternative. Mr. Chairman, as Edmund Burke once said, ``For evil to succeed, good people simply need to do nothing.'' The Democrats are doing nothing to save Medicare, and their inaction is a fool's choice. I urge my colleagues to vote for a brighter future for this country. Vote to save Medicare and reject this half-hearted Democrat substitute.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]. This amendment, in my opinion, would allow the premature imposition of potentially devastating regulations on the Texas shrimping industry. Texas shrimpers represent a $6 million trade employing 30,000 men and women on a total of 2,400 trawlers. By cutting short a comprehensive review of by-catch reduction devices, this amendment threatens the livelihood of an entire industry. Instead of relying on sound science, this amendment, in my opinion, is based on speculation, incomplete information, and bureaucratic inertia. As originally written, this program was to be a cooperative effort between the Federal Government and the affected industries. Unfortunately, the Government appears to have already made up its mind and is now threatening to leave the industry research unfunded. These studies, which would end should this amendment be adopted, are producing information which directly contradicts the regulatory tilt of the National Marine Fisheries Service's findings. For example, take some of the early data from a study by the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation authorized under this program. This information indicates that the fin fish by-catch is not as severe as once thought. Rather than 15 pounds of fin fish by-catch per pound of shrimp, as originally estimated by the NMFS, the foundation study indicates that, in reality, this ratio is closer to 2 to 3 pounds. Did the NMFS change their study to reflect this information? No. They continued to press for an increase in regulation despite scientific evidence to the contrary. Another disturbing item is the lack of direct side-by-side testing of these devices. The Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation petitioned the NMFS to allow the basic tests, towing a naked net without by-catch reduction devices, while simultaneously towing another equipped to free nontarget species. One would think that a direct comparison would be the easiest way to evaluate the performance of these devices. Yet the NMFS refused to allow the test, citing that the chance that turtles might be caught. You talk about a catch 22. We need these devices to save the species, but because you might catch one, we cannot perform the test to see if they work. It is ironic that measures designed to save these animals may not have any actual impact because we have decided not to test them thoroughly. It appears that this amendment would put the cart before the horse. While the goals of this amendment are commendable, it recklessly curtails the only source of accurate science-based information available. Acting without such information would be both a mistake and a disaster. The fishing industry is just asking that we allow 1 year to get this one right. Presently, both the regional councils and the NMFS are poised to start a new round of regulation based on incomplete data and misguided science. Where have you heard that before? They know the study will be completed by June. Would it not be best for all involved, the fin fish, the shrimping industry, the American people, to make sure that these devices work? Let us not be in a rush to regulate. I urge you to vote ``no'' on the Goss amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my 5- minute special order scheduled for this evening.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleagues for allowing me to reclaim my time. Mr. Speaker, in light of yesterday's signing ceremony at the White House I felt compelled to come to the floor today to comment on an aspect of the Middle East peace process that has troubled me for some time. That subject is the failure of the Palestine Liberation Organization to live up to the solemn commitments to which it agreed when it signed the Declaration of Principles, the DOP with Israel on the White House lawn on January 13, 1993. It has now been over 2 years since that historic day, a day on which the PLO and its leader, Yasser Arafat, agreed to be held accountable for its actions by the international community in exchange for territorial and administrative concessions by the Government of Israel. As witness to the accord, the United States pledged its political, financial, and moral support to the peace effort, making clear that it expected the PLO to transform itself from a terrorist organization to a lawful administrative entity to be known as the Palestinian Authority [PA]. The United States pledged the sum of $500 million over 5 years to the PLO to assist the Palestinians living in areas controlled by the PA with their development efforts. What we have seen over the last 2 years has been a grave disappointment, as the PLO has blatantly violated its commitments under the DOP. The PLO has failed to prevent terrorism emanating from the territory it controls and has shown little inclination to prosecute known terrorists or to extradite those individuals allegedly responsible for criminal acts inside Israel. As recent video tapes of Yasser Arafat demonstrate, he continues to exhort his people to violence against Israel and advocates a Jihad--or holy war--to regain Jerusalem. Even as we speak, Arafat is building up a paramilitary force in Gaza nearly three times what was permitted under the DOP, replete with automatic weapons and a modern security apparatus. Just last week, the Palestinian Ministry of Information issued a statement condemning the Senate's attempt on the fiscal year 1996 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act to institute a small degree of oversight over funds going to the PLO, calling Congress ``racist'' and its action a demonstration of ``hatred towards the Palestinian people, its leadership and its national rights. As a representative of the American people and a strong supporter of Israel, I am outraged that the PLO would essentially say ``Forget you and your money'' when we ask them simply to live up to their word. I'm afraid I cannot sit by and hope that the PLO will suddenly decide to abide by the commitments it made 2 years ago. I feel it is my duty to cry foul when I believe the American people are being had and our national interest is at stake. The administration has mounted a full court press to persuade Congress and the world community that the PLO remains committed to the peace agreement even when their violations are numerous. As a result, the PLO has learned that there are no sanctions for violating their agreements. That is why I have agreed to cosponsor H.R. 1960, the Middle East Peace Compliance Act of 1995, introduced by my distinguished colleague, Michael Forbes. In essence, the bill says that should the PLO demonstrate ``substantial, material and timely'' compliance with its commitments under the DOP as well as with certain requirements under U.S. law, then the President is authorized to transfer funds to Palestinian institutions and activities directly, and not through the PLO or the PA. Only in this way can we ensure that the funds reach the people for whom it is intended. Further, the PLO would be required to assist U.S. law enforcement agencies in the apprehension and prosecution of any member of that organization responsible for the killing of an American citizen. The bill also requires that U.S. assistance only be used for humanitarian purposes and economic development--no military activities. Unfortunately, much of the language attached to the Senate foreign operations bill is unenforceable and weak. Yesterday I agreed to an extension of current law for 30 days, with the understanding that the chairman of the House Foreign Operations Subcommittee, other interested colleagues, and I will work together to craft language that will bring real oversight and accountability into the process. Let there be no mistake about my position. I support peace as fervently as any man or woman in this Chamber. What I object to is the process for obtaining peace which requires that we turn our backs on our core national values and our responsibility as guardians of the public purse. Only the people of Israel have the right to determine the course of their own future. It is our job to see to it that when the history of this extraordinary period is written, we, the people of the United States, have not set aside our values, or standards, or our requirements under law to support a myth, not a fact.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill which authorizes the international space station through completion in 2002. This House, during consideration of the VA/HUD appropriations bill, and the Senate, just yesterday, made very clear America's commitment to our international space station program. Efforts to kill this very important program have been soundly defeated because the American people understand the significance of our manned space program to our nation's future. They share the excitement of the exploration of space because it touches the core of our American identity as pioneering adventurers. And the success of the space station bears directly on how our future here on Earth, in the United States, in our schools, and hospitals, offices and factories will be shaped. The opponents of the space station program have fought their hardest and they have lost. It's time for them to accept the will of the country. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be watchdogs of the program--this bill requires certification that the program be on schedule and on budget each year in order for the authorization to remain in effect. But let me be clear, the debate over the existence of the program should end. Mr. Chairman, just a few months ago, many around the world shared the excitement of the successful Shuttle-Mir docking. It was a nail-biting effort that required precision within thousandths-of-an-inch. There can be no doubt that this was a significant achievement, but I wish it wasn't. At one point, watching the shuttle take off became commonplace. At one point, even the act of landing on the Moon became just another landing. I'm looking forward to the day when the shuttle docking with the space station miles above the Earth no longer attracts attention because it's routine. This bill is an important step toward that day. I urge my colleagues to support this bill--it gives stability to the station program, certainty to our international partners and it represents America's long-term commitment to our manned space program and the international space station.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, it has been 1 year since House Republicans stood on the west front of the Capitol and promised to change dramatically the way Congress works. We signed a contract that said that we will bring to the floor 10 legislative priorities important to the American people. We brought those bills to the floor and passed nine of them. We kept our promises. We proved that politicians can tell the truth. We proved that real change is possible in Washington. Mr. Speaker, Rome was not built in a day, and completely reforming the Congress will take more than 1 year. But we have made great strides. This fall we will focus on four issues critical to our Nation's future: We will pass a budget that balances in 7 years; we will strengthen and protect the Medicare system; we will get tax relief to families who need to have more money to raise their children; and we will reform welfare to give folks a hand up and not a handout. Columnist David Broder has called this Congress ``a rout of historic proportions.'' Is it not amazing what can happen when you keep your promises to the American people?

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I support this National Highway System designation bill and urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of [[Page H 9273]] this important legislation. This bill that we will pass today represents a major step in the right direction for further establishing highways as a national priority. There is a provision in the bill that I am very interested in and remain committed in moving forward. That provision is the I-69 interstate highway project. This national highway is not only important because of the potential benefits for my district, but for all of Texas and the Nation as well. The bill contains provisions that designate I-69 as a high priority corridor. There is also a provision that establishes I-69 through Houston, TX. In my district, the development of the I-69 corridor will enhance mobility. Development of the I-69 corridor will assist in the widening and improvements along the Southwest Freeway from Rosenberg to Houston. Interstate 69 will be truly multi modal linking highway, rail, air, and ports together like a network. The Texas gulf ports, for example, represent a massive source of wealth for the entire State. Together they generate $40.9 billion in trade--in 1993. I-69 provides for the continued growth of the port facilities and provides high quality interstate access to the trading centers throughout the Midwest and the Northeast. I support designation of the I-69 corridor in the NHS legislation. I also support the Federal participation in I-69's locational study efforts. I will also support in any way that I can the Texas Department of Transportation's efforts to accelerate this planning and construction process for the I-69 corridor. As cochairman of the I-69 caucus, I believe that the development of the I-69 corridor will induce regional development and begin a process of uniting States and counties into a trade/distribution market with benefits accruing to the I-69 region and the entire State where I-69 traverses. This process begins with the development of the infrastructure--the development of the I-69 corridor. With increased trade with Mexico, the potential economic benefits gained by the completion of the I-69 corridor are tremendous. Mr. Chairman, I have merely scratched the surface with regards to the benefits I-69 will provide for the future of Texas and to the Nation. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important highway legislation.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, during consideration of the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996, Messrs. Istook, McIntosh, and Ehrlich offered very important legislation regarding political advocacy. The amendment was included in the committee reported version of the bill. The legislative measure was successfully defended on the House floor. The amendment to strike the provision by Mr. Skaggs of Colorado was defeated with 232 Members voting against the amendment to strike. In my statement I referred to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I stated that organizations from all sides of the political spectrum from Act-Up on the left to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have taken Federal funds and have lobbied for more Federal funds. It is now my understanding that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce does not receive Federal funds in any capacity that could be used for lobbying purposes. In no way was it my intention to paint a picture of the U.S. Chamber taking funds for lobbying purposes. Quite the contrary is true. The U.S. Chamber has played an integral role in the revolution that has and continues to take place here in Congress. They have been advocates of the Contract With America and many other important pieces of legislation. Without their support, I am sure that many of the victories we have experienced during the first 8 months of this session would not be a reality. I want to commend the U.S. Chamber for all their hard work and effort and express gratitude for their guidance.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, today, we take up legislation on the floor to protect the pensions of millions of Americans. President Clinton has directed that all government pension plans invest in fiscally risky but politically correct investments. He has done so for the obvious reason for helping his misguided left- wing agenda. But let me ask a very direct question: What is more important, political correctness or pension security? In my mind, we need to insure that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation invests with only one interest: keeping the pension system secure. If some Americans want to risk their money in politically correct investments, that is their decision. But it should not be by direction of the President, and it should not be done with the pensions of Americans who rely on them for their livelihoods. Mr. Speaker, the President should keep his hands off these pensions. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1594, which will reverse the Clinton Executive order, and restore security to our pension system.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, we have kept our promises to the American people. We have made the hard cuts in spending, while we are maintaining a strong defense for our Nation. Keeping our Nation strong means having a vision into the future defense of this country and having the ability and the technology to carry out our Nation's objectives. We have heard many arguments for and against the B-2. We have heard about the cost benefits and the strategic benefits. We have heard about capabilities, performance, and jobs. But the B-2 is about people. It is about our men and women who serve this country in uniform. It is about giving them the equipment and technology to defend and protect our Nation and its principles in time of conflict. We have that technology today. Here it is. Technology that allows our Department of Defense to risk the fewest American lives in time of conflict. The B-2 stands ready as a system designed to protect this Nation from threat of war and minimize the loss of life. Let us face it, that is what we are really talking about here is lives. Is it a difficult choice? Of course, it is. Most likely, one of the most difficult votes a Member will have to cast this year. But this is a vote which carries with it a vision for the future; the future of this Nation's defense posture and the task of keeping America strong. Someone once said: A task without a vision is drudgery. A vision without a task is a dream. A task with a vision is victory. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues today that the B-2 is that vision, the keystone in keeping our Nation's defense strong. The American people sent us here to make changes. Those who believe in the status quo never thought we could make serious cuts while keeping our military strong. Let us send a message back to the American people. Vote against this cutting amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the best I can tell the gentleman is before we adjourn sine die.

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this rule. This is a fair rule which provides for the consideration of the legislative branch appropriations bill. This appropriations bill is the first shot across the bow for those last defenders of the status quo. It cuts spending first, it cuts spending fast, and it cuts spending fairly. In fact, this bill spends $205 million less than we spent last year on the legislative branch. These are real cuts, not the mythical decreases in the rate of spending made popular by the former majority. Mr. Speaker, we have kept our promises with this legislation and we will continue to keep these promises all during the fall. Let us not be confused by the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle. They keep trying to confuse the issue.The issue here is spending. They do not have a plan to cut spending so they go into gift bans and all this other stuff. A vote to defeat the previous question will kill this conference report. It will not reform campaign finance, it will not reform our lobby laws. Any claims to the contrary are simply not accurate. The minority seeks to defeat the previous question so they can stop this first spending reduction bill in its tracks. That is not why the American people sent us here. They sent us here to change the way the government operates. I want to commend the gentleman from California, Ron Packard, my good friend, for his excellent work on this conference report. It is truly the first step to a balanced budget. So I urge my colleagues to think before you vote to vote for real reform and to vote to cut spending first by voting for the previous question for the rule and for this conference report.