Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very, very strong opposition to the DeLauro pro-abortion amendment. As many of you know, the majority of Americans oppose Federal funding for abortion. However, just 4 days after his inauguration, President Clinton issued an executive memorandum allowing military facilities to perform abortions. The DeLauro amendment takes the President's memorandum even further, to codify the use of Federal tax dollars for abortions in U.S. overseas military facilities. Make no mistake about it. When the taxpayers spend their money to open the clinics and open the hospitals, to build the facilities and pay for the doctors, taxpayers are paying for abortions that may be paid for by the woman, but that fee in no way covers the cost of these facilities. The Dornan language now in the bill passed overwhelmingly in committee. The Dornan language simply restores the Reagan and Bush policy that prohibited overseas military facilities from performing abortions. As my friends on the other side of the aisle will agree, this is a very emotional issue, so let me be very clear about what is happening here. President Clinton and supporters of the DeLauro amendment are obligating men and women who have taken the Hippocratic Oath, who may find abortion morally and professionally unconscionable, to perform abortions in federally funded facilities. It is not only morally offensible, but it is an abuse of Federal tax dollars. Vote no on the DeLauro amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

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

Mr. DeLAY. I am sure the chairman of the Committee on Rules would like to speak to the rule on this bill. All I can say is that this is a very important piece of legislation. We are hoping to let many issues come to the floor under this legislation. There are a lot of Members who wanted amendments; unfortunately we could not accommodate all of them, but the chairman from the Committee on Rules can probably speak to this.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentlewoman will yield, that is just an oversight. We will have morning hours.

Mr. DeLAY. In response to the gentleman from Massachusetts' comments, and I do appreciate his comments, because it is a very important bill, I might warn Members that because it is such an important bill we could go late into the evenings the 3 days that we will be on this bill.

Mr. DeLAY. It is highly likely that we will go late on Tuesday, Wednesday, and even Thursday.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker will the gentlewoman yield?

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

Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. The House will not be in session on Monday, June 12. On Tuesday the House will meet at 12 o'clock p.m. to consider H.R. 1530, the fiscal year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act, subject to a rule. Members should be advised that recorded votes may take place beginning at 12 noon on Tuesday. Wednesday and the balance of the next week the House will meet at 10 a.m. to complete consideration of H.R. 1530. After completion of the defense measure we plan to take up the 1996 military construction appropriations bill. It is our hope to have Members on their way home to their families and their districts by no later than 3 p.m. on Friday.

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 Friday, June 9, 1995, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 13, for morning hour debates.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, when President Clinton took office in 1993, he changed U.S. family planning policy overseas in fundamental ways. He reinterpreted law with regard to funding for the U.N. Population Fund so that United States dollars could be used in China, where it is well-known that a brutal and coercive birth quota policy is in place. Clinton also outright repealed the Mexico City policy, which prohibited United States funding from going to nongovernmental organizations which perform abortions and which lobby internationally for the repeal of laws protecting unborn children and their mothers from abortion. Now, regardless of one's personal view of whether abortion is right or wrong, one generally agreed-upon principle is that taxpayers' dollars should not be used for its promotion. These drastic policy changes made by the Clinton administration completely fly in the face of this principle. The Smith amendment contains nothing radical--it simply puts into law what was practiced prior to Clinton's coming to office. It is Clinton's policy that is radical, forcing U.S. taxpayers to fund organizations that promote or lobby for abortion as a method of family planning overseas. To my colleagues, I say let us stick to the principle that has served U.S. family planning funding overseas well for so many years--that taxpayers should not be forced to support coercive population control or the promotion of abortion as a method of family planning. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Morella amendment and a ``yes'' vote on the Smith amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rescission bill.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I want to add all my congratulations to the chairman of the Budget Committee and all his members and particularly the staff for an incredible piece of work and being part of history. Mr. Chairman, a great scientist once said, ``All truth, in the long run, is only commonsense clarified.'' The Republican budget, in the long run, is common sense clarified. Everyone who has spoken today knows the truth. Our country faces a crisis. Our budget deficit threatens the security and stability of America's future. Our Medicare system nears bankruptcy. Interest payments eat up more and more of our discretionary spending. Entitlements, if unchecked, will break our financial backs. And if we do not change fundamentally our Government, our Nation may not remain prosperous and free into the next century. This substitute amendment does not fundamentally change government. This continues government, just at a little less cost. The substitute amendment we have before us is a flawed choice, but at least it is an alternative. I look to the leaders of the opposition, and wonder where they have been. I hear Mr. Gephardt may not vote for his own alternative. That is a shame. President Clinton worked to defeat the balanced budget amendment while refusing to submit a fiscally responsible budget alternative. That is a shame. It is a shame, because to get our country out of this crisis, to successfully change government to meet the needs of all the American people, we need their help. This debate should not be about politics. It should not be about class war. It should be about Democrats and Republicans coming together to make commonsense changes to save America's future. But Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the battle to balance the budget, Democrat leaders have been conscientious objectors, sitting out this fight instead of finding ways to stop crippling deficits and runaway spending. Republicans and many responsible Democrats reject that passive policy. Republicans offer a plan that faces this budget crisis head-on. It will balance the budget by 2002. It changes programs, agencies, and bureaucracies to not only save money, but to also make government more efficient and more effective. Some of my Democrat friends have come to the floor with photographs of people they say will be affected by our budget reforms. I don't need photographs to remind me of the people who will be hurt by the inaction advocated by the Democrat leadership. I only need to look out into the gallery today, or walk down the street, or go home to my constituents. Because if we refuse to act today to save our future, every single one of us will be adversely affected. Our seniors will be hurt by a bankrupt Medicare system. Our children will be hurt by impossibly high tax rates. And our grandchildren will be hurt by limited economic opportunity. Inaction may be the choice of some of my colleagues. But that is not my choice. Yes, we will provide tax relief to people who need it the most. We have all heard the charges about our tax cuts. But who among us can say that families with children, taxed at rates approaching 50 percent, do not deserve a tax break? Who can say that we should not have an adoption tax credit? Who will claim that our seniors deserve to be taxed at a rate twice that of millionaires if they choose to work? I dare my colleagues to make those claims. Tax relief is not about giving people something they don't deserve. It is about letting our citizens keep more of their own money to spend as they see fit. It is about freedom, not about giveaways. I hope someday, the Democrat leadership will finally get the message. But I'm not holding my breath. Mr. Chairman, today we make a historic choice. We can take the path of least resistance. We can please the interest groups and the bureaucrats. We can continue to spend at the present destructive rate. We can protect the status quo. Or we can take a courageous stand for America. We can make the Government work for people, while cutting out wasteful spending and cutting down painful taxes. If we make the first choice, I fear that America will become fiscally frail, economically weak, a land of limited opportunity awash in a sea of tax troubles and Government waste. But if we take the responsible course, I am confident that this great land of ours will awaken to limitless opportunity, abound in free market creativity, spurred on by low interest rates and low taxes. And in the final analysis, when our budget is balanced, when our Government is stable, and when our people are free, we will see that this choice was in fact common sense clarified. I urge my colleagues to vote against this flawed substitute and vote for the Kasich budget.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me and elevating me and promoting me. I appreciate bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 450 has developed a very long history. In December 1994, the Republican leadership sent a letter to the President asking him to issue a moratorium on Federal regulations in order for the new Congress to institute these long-needed regulatory reforms. The President refused. In January, I introduced H.R. 450, instituting that moratorium that the President refused to issue on his own. And in February, the House passed H.R. 450 with a very strong majority vote and sent it to the Senate for its consideration. The Senate has chosen to take a different approach, passing a bill which allows Congress to review and disapprove regulations under an expedited procedure. In light of the differences between those two bills, we are now sending H.R. 450 back to the Senate and encourage the Senate to work with us to come to an acceptable compromise. H.R. 450 had very broad support from both Members and from the public at large. It responds to the serious cry from the American people to reduce the burden of government. This bill puts a hold on the incredible flow of regulation since November 20 so that the regulatory reforms passed by the Congress will apply to those regulations. I might say to the previous speaker, most of the horror stories that he spoke about, Mr. Speaker, are taken care of with the health and safety exemption in our bill. Anything that has to do with health and safety, the President himself can exempt from the moratorium. Actually, the bill itself puts the President in charge, even though he does not choose to be in charge. We give it all to the President, and there is a procedure set up whereby the President on his own initiative under certain conditions can exempt these, any regulations he deems necessary that affects the health and safety of the American people from the moratorium called for in this bill. All the scare tactics, all the fear mongering that is going on about regulations and how we are going to kill children and throw the senior citizens out in the street are totally false, particularly if you have any confidence at all in this President, in his ability to use the bill to exempt certain regulations from the moratorium. So I ask the Members to support striking the language of S. 219 and sending H.R. 450 to the Senate today so that we can get a bill to the President's desk soon.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and I appreciate all the hard work the gentleman and his committee have done. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Boehlert amendment. Like the Saxton-Boehlert substitute amendment which was soundly defeated, this amendment seeks to undermine everything this House accomplished during the first 100 days of this session to promote regulatory reform and property rights. First, it strikes all property rights provisions, including the right to compensation for property owners whose land is devalued by more than 30 percent due to Federal wetlands regulations. These provisions are identical to provisions in H.R. 925, the Private Property Protection Act, which the House passed on March 3 with 277 votes, including 72 Democrats. My colleagues, let us not reverse the strides we made so recently for the rights of private property owners when it comes to wetlands regulations. Second, it eliminates the three-tier classification system created by the bill which is designed to give greatest priority to those wetlands that are in most need of protection. This flies in the face of common sense. Every wetland is not the same. The current expansive definition of a wetland is the root of the overregulation so onerous to this country's municipalities. Only by making critical distinctions will we ensure sensible conservation and a healthy future for our local and national economies. And third, it removes provisions that streamline the current highly bureaucratic system for wetlands permitting, giving four agencies the power to veto a wetlands permit application. This is sheer and utter nonsense. I spoke last week about Lake Jackson's current difficulties in the permitting process. I can only imagine the cost in time, money, and effort the city would expend in merely getting through the submission process if this amendment were adopted. The American people have been crying out for relief from the intrusiveness of Government, and applauded heartily when the House voted overwhelmingly to give it to them. We cannot go back on the contract we made with America to bring sound science and common sense to the regulatory process, as well as to take into account the rights of property owners. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, in reference to the previous speaker, fear, fear, fear. That is all we have to offer, is fear. We are here to rise in support of the Clean Water Act that brings some common sense, good science, and responsibility, adding much needed reforms to the Clean Water Act, bringing a responsible approach to the Clean Water Act. I just want to point out a situation in my own district. The city of Lake Jackson, TX, is no stranger to the current tangle of regulatory policies when it comes to wetlands. Mayor Doris Williams has led that effort since the late eighties to see that the city be allowed to construct a public golf course, despite the U.S. Corps of Engineers' objections that Lake Jackson had not adequately defined all of its jurisdictional wetlands. You know what that is in this case? Footprints of cows. They had to go out and map every footprint from a cow on these 400 acres of property. This small city purchased 400 acres of property, and after 4 years of working with regulatory agencies at a cost of well over $100,000, a lot of money to this small city, the city is only now eligible to submit an application to the U.S. Corps of Engineers for an individual 404 permit to construct a public golf course. There is no guarantee at this time that a permit will be awarded, despite the city's significant efforts and investment. This bill brings the promise of reason and relief to communities such as Lake Jackson. The time has come for sensible environmental reform. The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1995 provides for risk-based regulation and requires the EPA to subject its mandates to both risk assessment and cost- benefit analysis. It offers flexibility to the States in their efforts to determine how each may best comply with Federal law and contribute to long-term pollution control. Support the bill.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, as we start the budget process today, we will hear many doomsday predictions from liberal Democrats about the Republican approach to balancing the budget. Sadly, we will not hear a thing about the Democrat approach because there is no Democrat approach to balancing the budget. That failure to act is a monumental decision. A failure to act on the budget means higher interest rates, slower economic growth, and less job opportunity for working Americans. A failure to act means higher taxes and more wasteful government spending. A failure to act means less buying power for American families, a heavier burden on our middle class, less stability for our senior citizens. A failure to act means a bankrupt Medicare system. A failure to act means a less secure future for our children. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have failed to act, and that failure is completely irresponsible. I urge the American people to keep that in mind as House Democrats come to the floor with their hysterical charges.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, as President Clinton goes to Moscow, he once again has dodged his responsibility. This time, he has failed to exhibit any leadership when it comes to saving Medicare. According to the Medicare Board of Trustees, a group which includes three members of the President's Cabinet, Medicare will go bankrupt by the year 2002. Republicans are developing a plan which will protect, improve and preserve the Medicare system. We will do this by eliminating fraud and abuse, while slowing the explosive growth in costs. Instead of joining with us in our reform efforts or offering solutions of his own, the President has gone AWOL. Yes, he is absent without leadership. Mr. Speaker, the American people want real leadership from their President. They want us to take steps to save Medicare, not allow its costs to continue to skyrocket to the point of bankruptcy. I urge the President to live up to his responsibilities and work with Congress to save Medicare.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, Bill Clinton proclaimed he was relevant to the legislative process. Since he is still President of the United States, I certainly hope he is relevant, but as time goes on, I begin to wonder. The debate on Medicare is just one example of the President's slipping relevance. Republicans in the House and Senate are taking steps now to save Medicare in the future. Our plan will preserve, improve, and protect Medicare far into the next century. But comprehensive Medicare reform will take bipartisanship, statesmanship, and cooperation. Unfortunately, the President has decided to walk away from this problem. In fact, he has rejected Republican attempts to get the administration involved in solving the Medicare problem. I urge the President and his advisers to join Republicans in saving Medicare. Actions speak louder than words, and if the President wants to be relevant, he has to act relevant.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Did the gentleman vote for Jackson-Vanik?

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means for an excellent job in bringing real tax relief to the American citizens of this country, to allow American families to keep more of what they earn. Right now, Mr. Chairman, 53 percent of the American families' income goes to government. If you add up the taxes of the local, State and Federal Government, you add to that the cost of litigation and regulation, 53 percent, 53 cents out of every dollar that the American family earns today, goes to the governments. And what the minority leader and the Democrats want to do is to protect their ability to confiscate the income of the American family to pay for their failed welfare state. I want to talk about their substitute. First off, they have no intention of offering a budget that gets us to balance by the year 2002. Yet they offer a so-called tax cut that depends on a balanced budget. This substitute provides income tax deductions for interest payments on student loans and education expenses up to $5,000 and $10,000 thereafter. So if you are an American family that does not have a child in college or a child going to vocational school, you get no relief. You still pay for the failed welfare state. Deductions will be phased out. Class warfare. Between $50,000 and $60,000 for individuals and between $75,000 and $85,000 for couples. Marriage penalty. In our bill, we try to lessen the marriage penalty, because in the present Tax Code, you are penalized for creating and starting a family. The Democrat substitute allows penalty-free IRA withdrawal for education and creates new education savings bonds. Education is a very laudable goal, and that is what we ought to be striving for. But the problem is that the Democrats are putting up this sham that they are giving tax relief as long as you have children in college or are participating in education. The phaseout of this deduction will increases the marginal income tax rate by 50 percent, from 28 percent to 42 percent for those in the income phaseout range. More class warfare. Deductions for education are contingent on OMB certifying that the Federal budget will be balanced by the year 2002, yet they are not even going to offer us a budget that does balance. Since the Democrat leadership has not announced any plans to offer a balanced budget, we can only assume that their tax cuts will never take effect. Even if the tax cuts do take effect, they would be repealed in any subsequent year in which annual deficit targets are not met. In other words, the Democrats, who claim to care so much about students, would hold these very same students hostages every year to Congress's ability to meet deficit targets that they will not even offer. If Congress misses those targets, who gets punished? Not Congress. Not the big spenders. Not the people that want to continue making Americans dependent on government. No, it will be the very students that they claim they want to help. Finally, the Gephardt substitute contains the expatriation tax. I ask the minority leader, did the minority leader vote for Jackson-Vanik? Did he vote and condemn Russia for charging such a huge exit tax that Russian Jews could not get out of Russia? Where is freedom in this country? We just throw freedom aside, as if it means nothing. When an American citizen wants to leave this country, they want to charge a tax. That is what this is all about. They want to charge a tax. They care nothing for freedom. What we care about is the American family, the American family holding onto their own income. What they want to do is charge Americans for leaving America. Yet they want Russians to stay there.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I hope I do not take the 3 minutes, but I appreciate all work that the chairman of the Committee on Rules has done on this issue. I know it has been very, very hard for all the Members because this is a very big and important bill. Everyone wants a piece of it, but not everyone got what they wanted, and there are some ``push me, pull you'' going on on the rule. I appreciate that. But you have got to also appreciate the hugeness of this bill and what we are trying to do. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and in strong support of the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act. Last November, the American people spoke loud and clear by voting in the first Republican majority in the House in 40 years. The message voters sent was simple: Cut our taxes and cut Federal Government spending. The new Republican majority has heard that message, and today we start to deliver on our promise. Democrat minority a chance to offer an alternative while keeping the integrity of the Republican majority package. The rule also gives the American people a very clear choice. You can vote for a Democrat package that contains no tax relief for middle class Americans. Or you can vote for the Republican package that finally begins the process of talking the tax burden of the American people. I am reminded of the vote we had in 1993, when President Clinton and the leadership in the Congress voted in a tax increase that hit seniors, hit the middle class, and slowed economic growth. Two hundred forty billion dollars' worth of tax increases. All we are doing is allowing people to keep $190 billion of those taxes for themselves to spend the way they think it ought to be spent. Not one Republican voted for that tax increase. So today I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with us in righting the wrongs of 1993. Vote to stop taxing our seniors, vote to allow middle-class families to keep more of their money, and vote to create jobs for our workers. We have been asked how do you balance the budget by cutting taxes? Well, we have shown you that we honor our promises with passing the Contract With America; we will also show you in May when you cut taxes, as President Kennedy and President Reagan did, revenues go up and as we cut spending and the size of this Government, the cost of government goes down and the American people allowed to hold onto their money and spend it the time way they think is important. So I urge all my colleagues to vote for this rule, vote for job- creating, deficit-cutting, the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act.