Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentlewoman from California, the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the words of the Minority Leader, and she is absolutely right on. I just would finish by saying, people need to realize, because there are already critics on television, it is amazing; but people need to realize that very serious decisions have to be made in times like these: A decision to scramble the jets, a decision to shoot the flares, a decision to shoot the plane down or not and a decision to evacuate the building when that plane is only 3 to 4 minutes away from this building. Those are very critical decisions that have to be made, and we appreciate the people that have made those decisions and made them properly and protected the lives and property of the Capitol.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, ever since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, punctured both our national security and our national economy, the House has responded on both fronts. We have worked tirelessly to both secure our homeland and defeat our terrorist enemies around the world, and we have worked with equal determination to secure our economy, helping it to grow and create jobs over the last 3\1/2\ years. These two missions, economic prosperity and military victory, are so intertwined that it could be said that winning the war on terror is America's top economic priority, while growing our economy is a wartime necessity. Both prongs of our agenda are succeeding, Mr. Speaker. Last week, the Department of Labor reported that 274,000 jobs were created in April, far more than economists predicted, while unemployment came in at just 5.2 percent. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit projection for the first 7 months of the fiscal year is $50 billion lower than previously estimated. The deficit is going down. New home sales grew 12.2 percent over last year, and the overall economy grew at 3.1 percent for the first quarter of 2005. The economy is strong, it continues to grow, and that strength and growth make it possible for us to meet the needs of our military and conquer the challenges of the war on terror. Last week, Mr. Speaker, we built on those successes by passing President Bush's emergency supplemental war budget with strong bipartisan support. And at the same time, offensive operations in the Iraqi and Afghani theaters have netted our troops significant victories over the last week. Dozens of terrorists and insurgents have been captured, and our intelligence gatherers continue to close the noose around our enemies. Our continued success around the world enhances our security here at home, where this week we will add to that momentum by taking up a bill to reform the way that the Federal Government funds our first responders. Under the new bill, firefighters, police, and emergency medical personnel will get the money they need via a streamlined funding system. That will help bolster our homeland security and national preparedness, which will further protect our economy, which will, in turn, continue to support our war effort. All of these priorities are of a kind, Mr. Speaker: homeland security, national security, and economic strength; and this week, the House will score victories on every front.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, as much as we may hate to admit it, there is no denying that the bald-face, cynical ploy can be as much a part of American politics as shaking hands and kissing babies. Though cynical ploys are occasionally effective, they are almost never pretty. But, Mr. Speaker, the refusal of the national Democratic leaders to offer constructive proposals to strengthen and preserve the Social Security system is starting to give even cynical ploys a bad name. After all, the stakes of this debate are not a mere election or two, but are instead a looming fiscal crisis and the retirement security of a generation of American seniors. President Bush and some Republican congressional candidates ran in 2004 on the issue of retirement security. And the President made Social Security the focus of his first State of the Union after his reelection. From that day on, Democrat leaders have rejected any effort to begin bipartisan dialogue on reform and have threatened any of their rank- and-file Members from so much as discussing the issue with members of the AARP, let alone Republican Members. From the outset of this debate, Republicans, led by President Bush, have held a seat at the table open for congressional Democrats. And despite this sincere desire among many Democrats to help, their leaders have demanded unquestioned obedience to their obstructionism. Just last week, President Bush ended a 60-day tour of our Nation explaining to the American people the problems facing Social Security and his ideas to help solve those problems. Indeed, he has left open for debate, as we have, any productive reform idea to address the system's funding and benefit structure, personal retirement accounts, and other options. President Bush and his party are trying to preserve and strengthen Social Security for generations to come, to keep the promise the program originally made to the American people 7 decades ago. And since January, we Republicans have identified the problems and begun this crucial debate by proposing several solution alternatives. Meanwhile, the Democrats have ignored problems, offered no solutions, and attacked anyone with courage to help. As I said, Mr. Speaker, some cynical ploys work and some do not. But as the retirement security of a generation of future retirees depends on the honest, sincere work we do this year, I think we owe it to them to be a little bit better than that. So even as Republicans continue our work this month to develop the long-term solutions to Social Security troubles, I once again remind Democrats willing to work with us that their seat at the table will be kept open.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the chairman of the Committee on the Budget and every member of Committee on the Budget for doing a fantastic job under very difficult circumstances. Also I want to say it is a day of small miracles. First, we hear that the Democrats all of a sudden have become fiscally responsible. I have been here 20 years. I have lived through their fiscal responsibility. On the one hand, they do not like tax relief to grow the economy; on the other hand, they do not like spending cuts. So, how in the world are you going to balance the budget? Secondly, in eastern Arkansas, ornithologists are confirming the rediscovery of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker, a species of birds long feared extinct. Meanwhile, here in Washington, the House and Senate have agreed on a resolution that will provide for reforms in Federal entitlement programs, a fiscal strategy whose prospects for survival critics said were not much better than the survival of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. Now that the final details of the budget conference report have been negotiated, we can say for sure that this budget before us today is the best since the historic Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I mentioned the mandatory spending reforms before, Mr. Speaker, but they merit further explanation. These entitlement programs deserve reform. The Medicaid system is antiquated and the quality of care is not being brought to the people that need it. It needs to be reformed so that we can get that health care to them. These reforms are necessary in other programs that are at the same time popular but rife with waste. It is time to implement these reforms. These reforms are therefore necessary if we are going to get our arms around the deficit. The needed belt-tightening this year will help build momentum toward more savings in the future as we slow the overall rate of growth of the Federal Government. That is how we balanced the budget in the 1990s, by holding down spending and growing the economy. Just this week, we received more evidence of the fruit of our strategy. New home sales last month increased by 12.2 percent over last year, and the Commerce Department reports that the United States gross domestic product grew at 3.1 percent for the first quarter of 2005, marking the 14th consecutive quarter of real growth and the 8th straight above 3 percent. Meanwhile, the budget agreement holds overall discretionary spending growth to 2 percent, that is including the war spending, and provides for a real cut, a real cut, in nonsecurity discretionary spending. That is what makes them squawk, because we are trying to hold down spending. And at the same time, it provides for continued pro-growth tax policies over the next 5 years. The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that this budget meets all of our current needs, makes realistic assumptions about emerging challenges, takes real aim at waste and fraud and will cut the deficit in half in 5 years, all in a time of war. This is the budget that the American people voted for when they returned a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican White House last November. It is the next step in our long-term plan to reform government at every level to better serve the American people. For 10 years, this Republican majority has built an historic record of economic and fiscal accomplishments, and the proof is in the pudding: 17 million new jobs, 14 million new homeowners, low inflation, a 24 percent increase in the GDP, the first balanced budget in a generation, smaller welfare rolls and fewer families living in poverty. So looking at today's budget, Mr. Speaker, some might say that fiscal accountability is back in the Republican Congress, but as the evidence bears out, like that rediscovered woodpecker, it never left.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Tuesday at 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules, and a final list of those bills will be sent to Members' offices by the end of the week. Any votes called on these measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will convene at 10 a.m. for legislative business. We may consider additional legislation under suspension of the rules, as well as H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the distinguished whip.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I believe the Committee on the Budget chairman, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), has had some informal discussions with his Senate counterpart. I have spoken to the majority leader of the Senate. They are hoping to call a conference committee meeting sometime next week, which means we will have to go to conference sometime next week. As the gentleman may or may not know, the Senate is taking a work period the following week, so they are trying as hard as they can to get this conference formed, a meeting, and work done so that we can have a conference report on the floor of the House and the Senate by the end of next week.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. All I can tell the gentleman is, I know there is a lot of discussion about that over in the Senate. I do not know what their resolution is, even if there is a resolution on the Senate side. The House, as the gentleman knows, passed the budget that has substantial mandatory savings in it. The House is very interested in holding the line on their mandatory savings, and the Senate is trying to work through this process. So it is really up to the Senate as to what they are going to bring to the conference.

Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I am sure that the discussions will fly fast and furious over next week in trying to get this conference report done.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday next, and, further, that when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 for morning hour debate. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

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 appreciate the gentleman continuing to yield. The gentleman has touched on many points. I am advised, and I stand to be corrected, but having served on the Committee on Appropriations, the rules allow that once we pass the April 15 deadline for having a budget, the Committee on Appropriations is allowed to start their work without a budget. I am advised also by the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) of the Committee on Appropriations, who is walking in front of me right now and hopefully will correct me if I am wrong, that the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) has begun the appropriations process in earnest and he has a very ambitious schedule. In fact, I am told that we will have the opportunity to schedule appropriations bills for the floor by the middle of May, and I anticipate, not anticipate, we have set as a schedule, another way of putting it, we have turned over the schedule to the Committee on Appropriations to get their work done. It will be a very ambitious appropriations schedule starting the middle of May.

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman's original question was when will we see a conference report for the budget come to the floor. I am hoping as soon as possible, obviously. I have no idea when the negotiations with the House and the Senate will start in earnest, when we will appoint the conference committee. There is very little difference, quite frankly, from the House bill and the Senate bill, and I would assume that the major issues will be taken care of in a matter of days, if not a couple of weeks. So I would assume that we could have a conference report on a budget hopefully by the first of May. At least that is what we would like to see happen.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that is correct, both Wednesday and Thursday. This is a major, major piece of legislation, as the gentleman from Maryland knows. This bill has passed this House before. It required lengthy debate. It also required time to consider amendments, and we anticipate it taking all of Wednesday and most of Thursday to complete.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Obviously, I cannot anticipate what the Committee on Rules may do on this bill.

Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I do recall that in the last Congress when we approached the energy bill there was I think at least 20, if not more, amendments allowed on the bill. I would anticipate that the same approach, because the bill is very similar to the bill we passed in the last Congress, would be taken.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. This is a very, very important issue that upholds the integrity of the House, that has to do with the image of the House in making sure that the House can enforce its own rules in a bipartisan way. I would just remind the gentleman, with all the work that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and Mr. Livingston did, which is excellent work, unfortunately, we cannot anticipate unintended consequences; and once we start implementing that wonderful work, we find out that there are some flaws that need to be corrected. The Speaker of the House looked at the last few years and decided that the rules allowed the use of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for partisan purposes, and its ability to act in a bipartisan way was seriously hindered. Most importantly, there were some due-process issues to protect Members of their due-process rights. I will give my colleagues one example. The committee, on its own, decided to change the way they operated from the past. In the past, when the committee wanted to warn a Member about certain actions that were not in violation of the rules, they used to send a private letter to that Member. This committee and the last committee had decided on their own that, without consulting with the affected Member, to send a public letter and release the underlying documents to support their position, without the opportunity for a Member to face the committee and discuss those letters of warning, the Speaker felt very strongly that that undermines the rights of every Member, both Democrat and Republican, to due process. The Speaker, in his office, looked at the standing rules of the 108th Congress in this regard and felt that some minor changes needed to be made; one, to protect the committee from being politicized; and, two, to protect Members' rights of due process. That suggestion by the Speaker, as the gentleman knows, was brought to this House and debated extensively on this House floor, and those amendments to the rules were passed by the entire House, with some nay votes, I understand. I think it is unfortunate that we have found ourselves in this position, particularly when the Speaker was trying to protect the rights of the Members and certainly, more importantly, protect the integrity of the institution that we have reached this point. I am advised through the Speaker that the chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is working with his Ranking Member, and I would hope that they would come to some sort of agreement in how we get past this impasse. Otherwise, the rights of Members will not be protected, and I find that extremely unfortunate.

Mr. DeLAY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's concerns. The gentleman has raised two issues: one is process and one is substance. On the process side, the gentleman is correct. And the gentleman would have to ask the Speaker about the process of bringing the rules to the floor in a bipartisan way. And I do not want to second-guess the Speaker, and the gentleman may well have a good argument on process. But in the substance, the gentleman is correct. And I hope all Members are watching this because they need to consider this very strongly, that the gentleman cannot have it both ways. The gentleman wants a bipartisan process. The Speaker was bringing a bipartisan process, which means that in order to proceed to an investigative subcommittee you would have to have a majority vote, which would be bipartisan, a bipartisan vote to proceed to the investigative committee. What some partisans had found, that if there was no agreement and charges brought against a Member, the Member would be hung out to dry. There would be no action, or there could be automatic action without a majority vote of the committee. That is the problem. That is what allows people to use it for partisan politics is that if one side or the other decides to deadlock the ethics committee, then the Member that has been charged can be held out and held up for many days, if not months, before a resolution of that charge comes. The Speaker came up with a way to make sure that the committee is bipartisan because it requires a bipartisan vote to move forward. The gentleman is suggesting that he would like to change, for the House and the rights of the Members, something that is so different than the rules of procedures in courts of law. If a grand jury is deadlocked in an indictment, there is no process that goes forward. If there is a full jury in a trial that is deadlocked, there is no process that goes forward. It has to be clear, without a reasonable doubt, with no reasonable doubt that the offense is right and needs to proceed. And that is why the Speaker created a bipartisan process for that to proceed. And it can work for both sides politically. It can work for Democrats as well as Republicans. And that is why I say the Speaker was trying and worked very hard to protect the rights of the accused, and more important than that, the rights of each and every Member of this House.

Mr. DeLAY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman has made my point. Under the old rules, both sides could protect themselves.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman is not going to let me respond and interrupt me, then this colloquy can end.

Mr. DeLAY. Thank you. I appreciate that.