Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, during this final week before the spring break, the House will cap off a strong winter of work helping the American people grow the economy and create jobs. With positive economic news continuing to come in, we can be sure times are good, yet equally sure they are not perfect. More Americans are working today than at any time in our history. Unemployment and interest rates remain low, the budget we passed last week is pointing the way toward fiscal accountability, and every day that passes brings us another day closer to victory in the war on terror. But, Mr. Speaker, our manufacturing industry continues to feel the squeeze of outsourcing; and certain segments of the population have not yet come to fully enjoy the economic recovery evidenced in all this economic data. People are still hurting. But thankfully, more help will soon be on the way. This week the House will consider the long-awaited Federal highway reauthorization bill, which will set and deliver on the highway transportation investment priorities for the rest of the decade. It is estimated that every billion dollars spent on highways creates 47,500 jobs. The TEA-LU bill we will take up this week will authorize $275 billion over the next 6 years. This is a jobs bill, plain and simple. When a new highway is built, new neighborhoods follow, then businesses to serve those neighborhoods, and then businesses to serve those businesses. A highway does not just mean asphalt. It means families and car pools and schools and office parks and grocery stores and shopping malls. It means more new jobs, from waiters and convenience store clerks to doctors and stockbrokers. Added to the tax relief Congress passed in 2001 and 2003, the highway bill will further grow the American economy, creating jobs, expanding opportunity, and changing lives along the way. Less than a week since we passed one of the strongest, most pro- growth budgets in history and less than a week before we receive March job creation numbers, now is the perfect time for us to move on the highway bill. It is time, Mr. Speaker, to help the American people kick our economic recovery into high gear.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday, March 29, 2004, for morning hour debate.

Mr. DeLAY

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, next week the House will convene on Monday at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour debates and 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 this week. Any votes called on these measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will convene at 12 p.m. We plan to consider additional measures under suspension of the rules, as well as H.R. 3966, the ROTC and Military Recruiter Equal Access to Campus Act. Next week we also expect to consider H.R. 3550, the TEA-LU highway bill. Finally, I would like to remind all Members that next week is a full 5-day work week. We may work some late nights as we work to complete these important pieces of legislation. I am happy to answer any questions.

Mr. DeLAY. While I would defer to the Committee on Rules who should have an announcement regarding amendments very shortly, I anticipate that they would make in order a variety of amendments and call for a very lengthy debate.

Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman reminding me. The gentleman knows, of course, that the other body has already passed their version of the budget resolution; and in working with the other body, I really anticipate moving to go to conference on the budget as early as Monday afternoon of next week.

Mr. DeLAY. That is correct.

Mr. DeLAY. All I can tell the gentleman is what I know and what I have been advised of. I have been advised that the Budget Committee, at least the House, and the conference committee wanted to start meeting as early as Tuesday morning. In order for that to happen, we would have to go to conference Monday evening.

Mr. DeLAY. Certainly we would like to reach an agreement with the Senate prior to our district work period. For that reason, Members really should anticipate a very long workweek next week, because we would want to give the House and Senate negotiators all the time that they need in order to hopefully get this done and passed by both Houses before we leave next week. I know that is asking a lot of Members, but it would be nice if we could get the budget done before we break for the district work period.

Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman asking about the continuity in Congress bill. We had it sort of waiting in the wings, but it looks like next week is going to be a pretty full week, and we may have to look for another time to bring that bill to the floor.

Mr. DeLAY. I want to congratulate the gentleman, because I know he has worked on it and others have. I have been very pleased with the bipartisanship that has been exhibited in working on this continuity of government bill. I am very pleased that it is coming along. I think we can continue to work together and come to some sort of solution to protect this House in case of some calamity.

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. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Budget for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate myself with the eloquent speech that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget has just delivered to this House. I also want to congratulate him on bringing to this floor one of the best budgets that I have seen in the 20 years that I have been in Congress. This is a very well thought out budget, understanding exactly what it should do and exactly what the American people need it to do; and I congratulate the chairman and everyone on his committee that supported this budget and worked hard for this budget for bringing it to the floor. Now is the time to do something just as this, and I really appreciate the chairman for doing all this hard work. Mr. Chairman, this budget's priorities are quite simple. First and foremost, it increases funding for our national security and homeland security agencies, so that the United States can reaffirm our commitment to winning the war on terror and protecting our citizens from attack. Second, it freezes nonsecurity discretionary spending at current levels, so that while we meet our current needs, our economy will have room to grow, create jobs and cut the deficit. Third, it provides for necessary measures to protect the national economy from snap-back tax hikes on parents, married couples and working families. Strength, growth and opportunity, three simple principles vital to America and embodied in this budget, are the reasons everyone on both sides of the aisle should support this budget. However, I understand that unanimous support is probably not realistic, especially in an election year. But no less realistic, Mr. Chairman, are the Democrats' tax-hiking budget alternatives. Let us just get this straight: The Democrat budgets do not ``freeze,'' ``roll back,'' ``defer,'' or ``stop to review'' anything. They raise taxes on at least 6 million Americans; on 1.8 million married couples, on 740,000 small businesses, on 535,000 schedule C sole proprietorships, and on 52,000 family farmers. How exactly will this massive, reckless, job-killing tax hike on families and small businesses, $28 billion worth supported by Democrats during the Committee on the Budget markup, possibly create the kind of growth that our economy needs to meet the demands of the war on terror and the looming entitlement crises, balance the budget and keep America competitive in the global economy? Along the same lines, how exactly will $28 billion in new spending, voted on again by Committee on the Budget Democrats during markup, possibly address the Democrats' supposed concerns about the deficit? They will not. Of course they will not, Mr. Chairman. Which brings us to the fundamental choice that we have today. On one side of this debate will be a transparent and honest budget supported by clear and simple arguments. On the other side will be confusing rhetoric, dismissive of small businesses and the jobs that they create, hysterical in its advocacy of massive new taxes as an economic stimulus and new spending as a means of cutting the deficit, and belligerent towards anyone who seeks to trim waste, fraud and abuse. I know what side I am on, Mr. Chairman, and given the current stakes in our Nation and around the world, I urge everyone listening to this debate and contemplating their vote to stand with me on the side of strength, growth and opportunity, and support this budget.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this week the House will take up the budget resolution for fiscal year 2005. This is the document that will set the terms for much of the national debate in this very pivotal year. Issues as unrelated as tax cuts and homeland security, law enforcement and space exploration, and the deficit and the international democracy and diplomacy will all be affected by this budget. Anyone who believes there are no real differences between the two parties should watch this week's debate, read the competing budget proposals, and see how stark these differences really are. The Republican budget is built on the principles of strength, growth, and opportunity. To secure our Nation and win the war on terror, it increases defense spending by 7 percent; it provides for more than $33 billion in nonmilitary homeland security initiatives to fund America's first responders, law enforcement officers and the every day heroes who keep our communities safe. The Republican budget will provide the framework by which Congress can help maintain the economic recovery. It will protect the economy from targeted snap-back tax increases on parents, married couples, and the working class. Our budget will anchor Federal spending by freezing all nonsecurity discretionary spending growth giving the economy breathing room to grow, create jobs, and cut the deficit. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the budget will meet all our domestic needs, from health care and education to welfare reform and veterans benefits without leaving any priority behind. The Republican budget speaks clearly to the issues facing our Nation this year. And to their credit, so does the Democrat's budget. Unfortunately, their budgets, while clear, are just wrong. In not one budget, but in three separate budgets, the minority party will propose job-killing tax increases, more spending, and bigger government as the solutions to our Nation's problems. The differences between the parties' visions could not be more clear. Democrats trust government, and Republicans trust the American people. This week we will see which vision prevails in this debate and in the minds of the American people.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the distinguished whip, for yielding to me, and I will try to be brief as I am sure my friend is anxious to get back to watch the end of the Terps game.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules. A final list of those bills will be sent to Members' offices by the end of this week. Any votes called on these measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will convene at 10 a.m. We plan to consider the budget resolution for fiscal year 2005. We would hope to complete several hours of general debate on Wednesday before moving into the amendment process on Thursday. And, finally, I would like to note for all the Members, and they should take note, that we are making a change to the schedule that was sent to offices at the beginning of the year. We do not plan to have votes next Friday, March 26. I thank the gentleman for yielding and would be happy to answer any questions.

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I really anticipate next week's process to resemble years past. I do not want to presuppose what the Committee on Rules would do, but I would think that we would likely have an extended general debate in the neighborhood of 4 or 5 hours. In addition, the Committee on Rules could and will likely make in order multiple substitutes, and assuming that they are legitimate budget resolutions, and we will have a very vigorous debate.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Obviously, the Committee on the Budget passed out a budget mechanism that will be considered by the Committee on Rules. I have no idea at this point in time when we could schedule such a thing. There are a lot of Members on our side and the gentleman's side that want to participate in this process that have a lot of good ideas. I think this issue needs to ripen a bit. The Committee on Rules claims some jurisdiction in this regard and they want to look at and mark up their own bill. This is a process that actually just got started yesterday by the Committee on the Budget marking up a bill and moving it out of their committee, so I really cannot say. I do not know when is the earliest. We have a pretty full schedule next week and the following week and then, as the gentleman knows, we break for the spring district work period. But it is vitally important, everybody wants to bring fiscal discipline to the budget process and show that this House can have fiscal responsibility, and we think that is an important bill and we will bring it to the floor as soon as it is ready.

Mr. DeLAY. As soon as we can get back to the Terps game, I think the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) is going to stand up and announce when they should be filed.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourns to meet at noon on Monday, March 22, 2004.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, March 22, 2004, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 23, for morning hour debate.

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, after this partisan debate, I want to open my remarks by saying I agree with Bill Clinton who in December of 1988 said, ``There should be no doubt, Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world.'' I could not have put it better myself. Unfortunately, too many in the minority, faced with the harsh realities of the war on terror, have not even tried to say it at all. Too many seem to be in denial. Too many seem to prefer to ignore the war on terror or choose to see it as ``far less of a military operation and far more of a law enforcement operation.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a fundamental debate before us today. Are we at war or are we not? Should the United States appease international terrorists and pretend that they are a law enforcement problem or fight them as the military threat that they are? Let us consider the records of these competing positions. First, the appeasement approach. Through the 1990s, the United States and our allies were victimized by progressively deadlier and more audacious terrorist attacks, and in accordance with the international law enforcement strategies, our leaders did nothing. They passed U.N. resolutions and they issued subpoenas and indictments. They wrung their hands about root causes, and they tried to reduce the problem of international terror to a dorm-room dialectic. Meanwhile, as we listened to double-talk about constructive engagement and cross-culture dialogues, they gutted the national security and intelligence infrastructure of this Nation. They slashed our military budget and surrendered national interests to the higher authority of international institutions. And on September 11, 2001, on September 11, 2001, we witnessed the tragic and the inevitable consequences of the international law enforcement approach. By contrast, America's foreign policy since 9/11 has been to wage war on the terrorists before they wage war on us. In Afghanistan, in Iraq, in the Philippines, in southeast Asia, everywhere in the world a terrorist sticks his head out of a cave, there will we fight, fight the terrorists, their networks, their allies, their financiers and, most importantly, their state sponsors. Enter Saddam. One year ago, Iraq was still enslaved, still ruled by an unstable psychopath who started two regional wars, two regional wars in just a decade, who possessed and used weapons of mass destruction against his own people when he gassed the Kurds in 1988, who funded international terrorism and provided terrorists a safe haven; a mass murderer, sitting atop a nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons program, a ticking bomb, a ticking time bomb, a nuclear 9/11 waiting to happen. So we violated the principle tenet of the international law enforcement approach. We acted, and in less than a year, since Iraq's liberation, a preliminary constitution, the most progressive of its kind in the region, has been signed by its leaders. Elections will soon be scheduled and the human right, the human right of self-determination will be exercised by the Iraqi people. Had we not acted, as our opponents wished, Iraq would still be enslaved. Terrorists would still enjoy a strategic ally and a safe haven and a financier in Baghdad, and we would still be fighting the war on terror with U.N. resolutions and losing; but instead, Iraq is free, America is safer, and the world has changed for the better. Now, terrorists have no safe harbors in Afghanistan and Iraq nor potential partners in Saddam Hussein or Moammar Qaddafi's weapons of mass destruction programs. States once conflicted about terrorism, like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and others are now vital allies in the war, providing us with invaluable intelligence and assistance. And for all these reasons, Operation Iraqi Freedom and the courageous policies that set it in motion have won the most significant battle yet in the war on terror, and yet appeasers who endorsed the law enforcement approach, who did nothing to deter terrorism in the 1990s, had the audacity to call the Bush doctrine and Operation Iraqi Freedom reckless. Well, what would you have us do? Wait until Saddam proved that he had nuclear weapons by detonating one in New York City? Wait like we waited for al Qaeda to prove that they really meant business on September 11, 2001? A war raged and many people did not know it. A war raged for 8 years and our national policy on Iraq was regime change, which had overwhelming bipartisan support and yet nothing was done. Six dead in the World Trade Center bombing, 19 dead at Khobar Towers, 224 dead in the African Embassy bombings, 17 sailors dead on the USS Cole, 3,000 dead on 9/11. And you speak to us about recklessness? People are dying and the course of human history hangs by a thread, and that thread, Mr. Speaker, is the moral courage of this Nation. In the name of justice, vote yes on this resolution to affirm the liberation of Iraq as a victory for all humanity over barbarism. In the name of decency, vote yes to salute our brave and compassionate troops, and in the name of freedom, vote yes to reaffirm that the citizens of these United States of America will never abandon the cause of human liberty, no matter how terrifying its enemies or tempting the platitudes of appeasement. Support the resolution and make our voices heard. No retreat, no surrender, and no apologies. Victory, Mr. Speaker, only victory.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, one year after the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, our mission in Iraq has been an unqualified success. Saddam Hussein's regime is no more. Its senior officials are in prison, and the people of Iraq have been liberated. An interim constitution, one of the most progressive in the Middle East, has been signed. Free elections and self-determination are on their way. Americans and Iraqis and free people the world over are reaping the benefits of regime change in Baghdad. There is no ``yes, but'' in this calculation, Madam Speaker. The world is at war and whether we want to be a part of it or not, we are a target. Our freedom is a target. Our prosperity is a target. We are hated by our enemies, not for any strategic or diplomatic reason but for issues of culture, religious extremism and ideology. No amount of appeasement or international hand-holding will end this threat. The only thing that will is making relentless war on our enemies, on every front and with every weapon available to us, until the last terrorist on earth is either in a cell or in a cemetery. Our intervention and victory in Iraq have been absolute goods for mankind and for mankind's war against terror. Those who supported our action were right, and those who opposed us were wrong. This week, Madam Speaker, the House will take up a resolution commemorating the first anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom, acknowledging its success and commending the Iraqi people on their hopeful march to freedom. This resolution, this opportunity to restate the United States' commitment to winning the war on terror, is all the more important for its timing, coming only days after the largest terrorist attack in Spanish history. Madam Speaker, last week's violence reminded us all that the world is still at war, whether it feels like it every day or not, and the only way to win the war on terror is to remain vigilant in its execution. This week, we will have an opportunity to reaffirm our support for our troops, for our victories and for the liberated people of Afghanistan and Iraq. I encourage everyone to read the resolution, put politics aside, and work towards its unanimous approval.