Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Well, we understand that, and if we have to go to midnight tomorrow night to finish the Interior bill, we will just have to do that. We lost a lot of time last week and the early part of this week, and we have every intention of passing every appropriations bill before and honor the August 4 adjournment date.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, to answer the distinguished ranking member of the interior appropriations bill, we, in looking at the amendments that have been published in the amendments, we understand that will be offered on the Interior bill and trying to extrapolate that over time of tonight and up through tomorrow, it looks that we have it pretty well scheduled to where we have to get into amendments in order to finish the Interior bill by tomorrow evening.

Mr. DeLAY. I think the majority leader had the intention of explaining the schedule later on this afternoon and this evening as the schedule applies to tomorrow, I mean, and next week.

Mr. DeLAY. I am advised that, yes, we intend to go to midnight tonight. We are going until we finish this bill for sure, and we are going tomorrow until we finish the Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, that is correct. I think the majority leader had every intention later on this evening to explain the new schedule.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote whereby the question of consideration was decided. motion to table offered by mr. boehner

Mr DeLAY

Mr DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote. motion to table offered by mr. boehner

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, today is the first day that the American citizens start working for themselves. What do I mean by that: Yesterday was the Cost of Government Day. The American people worked from January 1 of this year to July 9 of this year for the government. I say to my colleagues, ``If you add up all the taxes paid on the local, State, and Federal level, and the cost of regulation, 52 cents out of every hard-earned dollar that the American people earn goes to the government. Out of the 365 days in the calendar year, the American people worked 189.9 days for the government and the regulatory bureaucracy. They worked 15.3 days for defense, 13\1/2\ days for interest on the national debt, 28.7 days for Social Security and Medicare, 51.1 days for State and local taxes and regulations, 41.7 days for Federal regulations, and 35.6 days for other Federal programs.'' I ask my colleagues, ``Did you know that more than half of the money that you earn goes to the government? Actually 52 cents of every dollar, every dollar earned by the average worker, is spent on government, tax and regulations? This means that you spend more time working for the government than you do for yourself and your family. It means that only 48 cents out of every dollar earned by the American family is available to pay for housing, food, education, transportation, and other essentials.'' Mr. Speaker, this is unconscionable and immoral. By recognizing government-imposed costs and regulations, we can begin to increase public awareness of the 52-cent swindle. As chairman of Cost of Government Day I say to my colleagues, ``I urge you to join me in highlighting the cost of government to the average American family by giving a 1-minute or participating in the press conferences to come, and I urge all my colleagues to do so.'' True, this year, the total cost of government is estimated to be $3.3 trillion. Nearly $1 trillion of this is the result of regulation. The Federal Government alone is responsible for $720 billion in hidden taxes through regulation this year. That amount equals $2,800 for every man, woman, and child in America. Although the burden is immense, it can be lessened quickly. If the House Republican budget proposal were to be implemented, the Cost of Government Day would be 17 days earlier by the year 2002. That would allow Americans to work 2\1/2\ weeks longer for themselves and their families. Regulatory and legal reforms could move the Cost of Government Day to even earlier. Mr. Speaker, we need these budget, legal, and regulatory reforms in order to reduce the Government's negative impact on the American family. Mr. Speaker, July 9 marks the third annual Cost of Government Day. Cost of Government Day is an excellent opportunity to drive home the need for less government spending and more regulatory reform. The 104th Congress has made an excellent start. Passage and implementation of the House Republican budget will make Cost of Government Day come much quicker and the American family be able to spend more of its hard- earned dollars for things they think are important rather than for what some bureaucrat thinks is important. Mr. Speaker, over in the other body they are starting the debate on regulatory reform, and the first thing out of the box for the last week has been an absolute unheralded attack on Members of Congress that are trying to bring some good science and common sense to regulations in this country. We have been attacked with the notion that we are destroying the environment, that we are removing safety. Indeed people are attacking us for even costing lives. What we are talking about is bringing reasonableness to regulations. Let me just go over a couple of these issues that show how crazy and extreme the regulatory environment in this country has gotten. In Sacramento, CA, residents are reeling over a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ruling last fall which added three varieties of fairy shrimp to the endangered species list. The agency relied on a one-paragraph petition submitted by a Davis, CA, botanist in 1990 even though millions of hardy shrimp can be found in California, Europe, Asia, Australia, and Africa. The decision has shut down a pony ranch that housed a Sacramento program for the needy and disabled children and could cost the Sacramento area housing industry $500 million. That is the kind of regulation that we are trying to stop. That is the kind of regulation that we are trying to bring reasonableness to. That is the kind of regulation that we are trying to bring forward, regulatory reform to bring forward, to stop the cost. That is a direct cost to the American people, thereby a direct cost to the American family. Mr. Speaker, I think it is really sad that yesterday was the Cost of Government Day, that the American family has to work more than half the year for the government. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we need to put policies forward in this country that lessen the number of days that the American family has to work for their Government and increase the number of days that the American family can work for themselves.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I appreciate the work that he is doing. Frankly, I respect the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. He really believes in the world as he sees it. I just see it from a different pair of eyes, and I think the American people do, too, as evidenced in the election last November. The gentleman said the people, or he thought the people voted the way they did to make the two parties work together. I do not think that was it at all. I think the American people saw the party that was in power was driving them into such debt that they rejected everything that they stand for and did a historic thing and put the Republicans in power for the first time in 40 years. This whole process that we find ourselves in now is a perfect example of that. It is a perfect example of that. The President of the United States, in trying to become relevant to this process, presented to this body a request to pay for some disaster relief in California, and then the Oklahoma City disaster happened during the process, so he added that and other things that we desperately needed to pay for. This body, under a new majority, took advantage of the situation to take care of some rescissions and spending that needed to be corrected this year. A lot of the spending in these rescissions are spending that would never be done this year, so we took advantage of that and set that aside, huge accounts in the HUD account that have been building up over the years but not obligated; a lot of this money is funds that cannot be obligated by the end of September. So we took advantage of that. We sent the President a bill that got some significant real savings, and along with paying for, and always paying for, not adding to the deficit, those kinds of relief problems. So we got to this point, and the President vetoes the bill, not out of substance, out of politics, out of politics. The President wanted to become relevant. He knew he was irrelevant in this process because he has chosen to be irrelevant, because he has not been part of the negotiation process of this bill. They have not told us what they wanted except to pay for this disaster relief. So the President vetoes and says, ``I want all of this good spending, like adult job training.'' Mr. Speaker, we have got hundreds of adult job training programs that are going on and were not stopped under the rescission bill, but the President wanted to add another $40 million. He wanted Goals 2000. Most of the American people are against Goals 2000. So he puts in another $60 million. Safe and drug-free schools, that may be okay. He tried to put back midnight basketball, something the American people overwhelmingly oppose. He wanted $10 million for that. And I could go on through this, safe-drinking-water money, $225 million. That cannot possibly be spent between now and the end of September. But he wanted to be the safe-drinking-water President. This is a headline President and the talking point President. When you look under what he is talking about, you see there is no substance there at all. It is all politics. Then he started pounding his chest about too much pork in this bill, had a bunch of Federal courthouses in here, ``and I want to eliminate it.'' We asked him where are the courthouses? He has never yet given us a list of the courthouses. Do you know what the President wanted? $348 million cut out of the rescission bill and hand over to give the General Services Administration the opportunity to pick and choose where they think the courthouses ought to be cut. That is not the way the process works. So now we find ourselves trying to pass a bill that gives us $9.2 billion worth of real savings to the American family, plus an extra $30 million in change and give back the President the opportunity to do some of his pork and his spending programs that have not proven to be effective, and he is still against the bill and still will not tell us what he is for. That is not relevancy, ladies and gentlemen, it is not cutting spending to finance tax cuts. It is cutting spending to downsize the size of this Government so the American family can hang on to more of their hard-earned dollars. The reason the family is having problems, Mr. Speaker, is that they are paying 52 percent of their income to the Government. Support the rule and support the bill.

Mr. DeLAY

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will not take my whole 5 minutes. I just want to come down to the well to support the Smith amendment and oppose the Meyers amendment. As I watched this debate, I saw that there is a lot of misinformation about this amendment. Let us not be deceived. The Smith language does nothing to reduce U.S. funding of international family planning programs. It merely prevents taxpayer money from going to fund promotion or funding of abortion, a principle that the majority of the American people support. The American people have risen time and time again against Federal funding for abortion. Let us not be deceived about what this amendment does. Now, I heard earlier said on this floor that we have too many people in this world. How elitist can you be to make a statement like that? We have too many people in this world? Ladies and gentlemen of the House, if you took every person in the world, you could put them in the State of Connecticut, and they would still have 5 square feet to stand on. It is not that we have too many people in this world. It is that we have governments that oppress people and destroy the free market system, that does not allow the system to feed the people. That is what is the problem in the world, not that we have too many people. If you all remember the book ``The Population Bomb,'' by Paul Erlich, that has been disputed, ridiculed and thrown out years ago. Yet some people, as I saw today, still quote from that ridiculous book. ``the Population Bomb.'' This is not the problem. As the gentleman from Indiana has said, what the fight is here is to allow Planned Parenthood to use these funds to perform abortions, whether they are through fungible funds or not. We know what the Planned Parenthood is and what it is all about. They do it here in the United States as well as overseas. That is what this is all about. I just ask that you vote ``no'' on the Meyers amendment and keep the Government and the American taxpayer out of the business of abortion and restore the Reagan-Bush policy.

Mr. DeLAY. Reclaiming my time, I understand the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Small Business and her approach, and I am sure she is sincere in it. We all know how these organizations shift funds around. We feel very strongly that they are taking our taxpayers' money, or they are either taking it or they could very well take taxpayers' money, and put it in one account while they are using their private funds to perform abortions. I do not want my taxpayer money, and most Americans understand, to be used in any way.

Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today with my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona, eliminates funding for the Global Environment Facility or the GEF. The GEF was created in 1991 to pay cash to Third World governments to stop local people from escaping poverty through development that could harm the environment at some point in the future--a difficult concept to grasp when you consider that the everyday concerns of these countries are not about climate change but survival, clean drinking water and reduced food spoilage. In 1992, the GEF was made the funding mechanism to help poor countries finance projects in compliance with the environmental conventions agreed to at the Rio summit dealing with such scientifically questionable--yet trendy--environmental ``calamities'' such as global warming and biodiversity loss. I say to my colleagues that what this program really is, is a global giveaway for poor countries--it gives developing countries a refund for the economic restrictions imposed on them in the UN ``biodiversity'' and ``climate change'' conventions. This program is flawed because its fundamental design is wrong. A scathing report on the GEF's activities--called for after loud complaints from environmental groups and donor countries to the GEF-- basically found that the GEF's operations are ``dysfunctional'' and its accountability is ill-defined. The report found that the fundamental purpose of the GEF, that being dedicating funds to climate change, biodiversity, international waters, and ozone depletion is ``rather obscure in nature.'' The GEF has also been severely criticized as a ``green'' slush fund for the World Bank. On this, the independent report concluded that the World Bank controls the lion's share of the GEF's resources and that is fundamentally using GEF as a device to make its own regular projects look ``greener'' and to mitigate criticism alleging World Bank insensitivity to environmental concerns. Take a look at how the GEF is actually performing its obscure role: you'll find that it has done more to upset the environmental and social balances in developing countries than to clean things up. As of last year, over half of the GEF's projects had provoked clashes over forced resettlement of displaced local people. The report concluded that the premise of the GEF's mandate--putting emphasis on global environmental problems over local ones--is a ``serious weakness.'' The GEF claimed it was reforming these abuses by including locals in the decision-making process but the independent GEF report called this claim a ``biased exaggeration, if not falsification.'' The independent review led to a restructuring process that was supposedly completed in March of 1994. And my colleagues who support this institution will probably argue that the GEF has made progress since this report. But I submit to my colleagues that such assertions serve little more than the political purposes of those who seek the ``environmental'' cover of the GEF. According to Probe International, a Canadian environmental group that has monitored the GEF for four years, ``The restructured GEF remains as flawed as its predecessor and, as a closer examination of some of its projects shows, does nothing to protect the global environment.'' Despite such obvious reasons to be extremely concerned with sending taxpayer dollars to this operation, the Administration pledged last March to send a total of $430 million to the GEF over four years--the largest amount of any donor nation. In FY95, the U.S. gave the GEF another $90 million. This year's request from the Administration is a completely unsupportable $110 million. You would think that the Administration believes the GEF has been an unheralded success. I commend the chairman of the Foreign Operations subcommittee for recognizing the extremely questionable activities of this project and reducing the funding for the GEF to $50 million in this bill. But, I submit to my colleagues that the GEF is a fundamentally flawed and unaccountable organization and certainly not an area where this Congress should be allocating scarce tax-dollars. Not only does eliminating funding for the GEF make sense and save the taxpayers hundreds of millions of tax dollars, but it will also have the effect of slowing the implementation of global environmental policies that do more to restrict economic opportunity in poor countries than to promote environmental conservation. The only responsible move for this Congress is to put a halt to the millions of taxpayer dollars we send to this flawed institution. I urge my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just asked for this time to explain to the Members where we are. Even if we wanted to do the great things that the gentleman from Maryland claims that the GEF does, which I dispute, this is a waste of money, $30 million. It will go to bureaucrats. It will go the World Bank. It will not do anything. So I urge the Members to understand the vote. The vote that I am urging is a no vote on the Porter amendment to the DeLay amendment. Defeat that and then vote for the DeLay amendment.

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the Wilson amendment. Mr. Chairman, I will try not to take the 5 minutes. I think it is important for those Members that are listening to understand what is going on here. It is obvious to me that the gentleman from Texas, my good friend, is trying to block zeroing out a failed agency because it has failed on a failed concept. The gentleman from Illinois was right in pointing out that former President Bush went to Rio and worked on the Rio summit and committed us to certain things. Before the President left, many of us, and many of us in leadership urged the President not to go because this summit would lead to bad things. This is a perfect example of proving us right. This is a feel-good organization that has no substance in its ability to clean up calamities as outlined in the Rio summit. First of all, I would like to say to those that may not know, being a biologist and biochemist by education, I am here and stand here on the floor to tell Members that global warming and ozone depletion are not proven. They are not proven concepts. They are theories. No one, including the environmentalists, can say with certainty that this is a proven concept. This is a hope-that-it-does-not-happen concept. It has never been proven. This is a concept designed on computer models by environmental activists. Yet we are spending millions if not billions of dollars on a theory. That is why we were very concerned that Bush go to Rio to get involved in this kind of issue. Yes, he signed a 3-year pilot. Well, the pilot has crashed. This does not work, it is a fundamentally flawed concept. Let me say to the Members that are interested in deficit reduction. We are not interested in ``government-light'' that is an example of the amendment of the gentleman from Texas. We are interested in looking at programs and those programs that can be done better and smarter, we want to do them better and smarter, thereby realizing savings. But for programs like the GEF that are fundamentally flawed and even environmental groups are saying it is flawed, we want to zero them out. Members have to vote against the Wilson amendment in order to get to the DeLay-Shadegg amendment in order to zero it out. Mr. Chairman, as far as the corporations, all those Members that have called for the end of corporate welfare, corporations support the GEF because GEF gives them green cover, and makes them look like they are environmentally sound. I am not here serving in this body to protect corporations and give them taxpayers' money to make them look a little greener. That is what GEF does. Mr. Chairman, I am just saying, this is a flawed program, it has not proven itself at all, it is a flawed program trying to control a flawed theory. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Wilson amendment and a ``yes'' vote on the DeLay amendment.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. [[Page H 6365]]

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hefley amendment and in support of the Wilson substitute, I know that it is fun to come down to the floor and do a lot of cutting. I used to do it a lot on my own. And I hope Members heard the gentleman from Pennsylvania's excellent presentation on being responsible when you do the cutting. Mr. Chairman, the committee has been responsible. The committee has made deep cuts in aid to the former Soviet Union. But the Hefley amendment goes way too far and seriously undermines our ability to work with Russia and the independent states, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] has so eloquently outlined. Two-thirds of the money that is left in this bill, after having cut it to $193 million less than the request, and $248 million less than last year, two-thirds of this money does not go to Russia. The Hefley amendment cuts aid to Ukraine, Armenia, and other victims of the former Communist state. We need to continue our support for an independent Ukraine. We need this money to keep Armenia alive. It will seriously undercut the remaining free marketeers and reformers in Russia. It is not responsible, from this Member's point of view, to make the kind of cuts that the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] envisions cutting. He has made some good arguments, and they are arguments that we need to address, but this is not the way to address it. The way to address it is look at what the committee has done and seriously sending a message to Russia by cutting from the request and cutting from last year. But there are real, legitimate concerns that the committee has. We are sending a message with the Wilson substitute, a very real message that if Russia does not clean up their act, there will be consequences from this body. But when you come to the rubber hitting the road, you have to ask yourself, are we cutting for cutting sake or are we cutting to make responsible decisions? I think the Hefley amendment cuts too deep. I would urge our Members to vote against Hefley amendment and support the Wilson substitute.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I only take this 1 minute to clarify a statement that was made earlier. Mr. Speaker, we do expect, in fact it is automatic on appropriations bills, a vote on final passage. The other side has assured us, and we are assuring Members that there is no plan to vote on the rule on the Foreign Operations appropriations bill.

Mr. DeLAY. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I change my earlier statement. There will be a vote on final passage, a rollcall vote on final passage, and Members should expect a vote on the rule in an hour after that vote is concluded.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of creating a calendar for the purpose of Corrections Day legislation. From the start, I've thought having regular Corrections Days would be the perfect way to deal with the myriad of rules and regulations that are unduly costly or simply make no sense. It is particularly timely for us to be doing this now because July 9, just a couple of weeks away, is Cost of Government Day. This is the day when Americans will have earned enough money to pay off the total financial burden of government at all levels, including taxes, mandates, borrowing, and regulations. This means [[Page H 6115]] that 52 cents out of every hard earned dollar are going to the government either directly or indirectly this year. Cost of Government Day is a sad reminder that the size of government has reached unbelievable proportions. But the 104th Congress is very different from past Congresses. Earlier this year, the House began to shrink the burden of government by passing a number of regulatory reform bills, and the Senate will soon bring similar legislation to the floor for a vote. However, while we are making significant changes to the process by which regulations are promulgated, there is still the arguably even bigger problem of ridiculous regulations that are currently on the books and are encroaching on people's lives every day. Many of these are hard to believe: Last year, a Houston roofing company was cited by OSHA 23 times for a grand total of $13,200 in fines for such transgressions as a bent rung on the bottom of a ladder and a splintered handle on a broken shovel placed in the back of a truck after it had been broken. Also last year, a 14-year-old Boy Scout was left stranded in new Mexico's Santa Fe National Forest after being lost for 2 days because the Forest Service would not allow a police helicopter to land and pick him up. It seems the boy was in a ``wilderness area'' in which ``mechanized vehicles'' are banned. And many of you have heard of OSHA's rule requiring employers to provide detailed safety information and training regarding the use of such hazardous substances as diet soda, Joy dishwashing liquid, and chalk. I assume the Federal Government is not intentionally trying to wreak havoc on people's lives. Nonetheless, the American people shouldn't have to continue to suffer the consequences of poorly written or poorly implemented rules and regulations. Mr. Speaker. I say to my colleagues, Corrections Day is a real opportunity to right wrongs. All across the country, Americans are fed up with a system that is overly intrusive, unreasonable, and excessively costly. This rules change will address one aspect of the problem and create a process by which we can repeal the most egregious, oppressive, and ridiculous regulations that this Government has promulgated. I urge support of the Members for House Resolution 168 to create a Corrections Calendar.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the Houston Rockets have done it again. How fitting that on Flag Day, the Rockets captured their second championship banner. Who would have thought just 7 short weeks ago that the Rockets would be the World Champions? Who could have thought that a team ranked No. 6 going into the Western Conference playoffs, could win it all? Who dared to dream that the combination of Hakeem ``The Dream'' Olajuwon and Clyde ``the Glide'' Drexler would accomplish something that eluded them in their years together at my alma-mater, the University of Houston? Well, the answer to these questions should be obvious--nobody. Nobody believed the Houston Rockets could win a second world championship; nobody but the Houston Rockets. And in the end, that's all that really mattered. Last night the Rockets used their magic brooms to sweep the Orlando Magic back to the land of Disney. When Rudy Tomjonavich took the helm of this Houston ballclub 2 years ago, he inherited a team that many thought talented, but few thought capable of winning a championship. However, through their hard work and dedication, the Rockets proved their critics wrong. This season, the Rockets had a sub-par regular season. They struggled at times and the trade for Clyde Drexler was viewed by many as being a mistake. Nonetheless, the Phi Slamma Jamma duo proved to be an unstoppable winning combination. The Houston Rockets are a positive role model for our county. They are the underdogs who have overcome great odds to achieve a goal. And doesn't this country just love an underdog. The Rockets have taught us all a valuable lesson about believing in yourself and performing to the best of your abilities. With the heartbeat of a champion, they have captured their second crown with an unprecedented combination of humility and hunger. Sure, the Rockets have the greatest player on the planet in Hakeem Olajuwon. But this victory was not an individual one by any stretch. It was a team victory. That is the beauty of the Houston Rockets. Last night, Hakeem was awarded the Most Valuable Player in the finals. As reporters bombarded him with questions about what winning the award meant, it seemed that all Hakeem could do was unselfishly pay tribute to his teammates. ``We played team basketball,'' he said. ``I'm just so happy for Clyde.'' Last year, when the Rockets won, they were all seen as a mediocre team who happened to win it all during a year when no great team emerged. This year, having won it again, the Rockets have finally proven to the world what they and ``Clutch City'' have known all along. This team is a legitimate champion. They are the first NBA team to ever repeat with a sweep. And now, having won another world championship, the Rockets have shown themselves to be the greatest basketball team in the world. I send out a heartfelt congratulations to owner Les Alexander, Coach Rudy Tomjonavich and the Houston Rockets basketball team. On behalf of a grateful city I thank them for giving us yet another ring to be proud of. So before I leave today, let me leave you with a poem, chronicling the play-off drive of the world champion Houston Rockets. The play-offs started against the Utah Jazz; The Rockets beat 'em, but nobody spazzed; Next came the Suns and Charles Barkley; Their talent, I'm afraid, proved a bunch of malarkey; The Spurs were on fire, the highly praised number one seed; But the Rockets cut 'em down to size, like an overgrown garden weed; Finally at last, the Magic fell to defeat; The Rockets left standing, shouting ``Repeat!'' Yes, Shaq be nimble Yeah, Shaq be quick But Shaq came to Houston And got his tail kicked. How sweet it is!!!