Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland's words, but I look at it a little differently. After reading all the records and everything, what I do know is that there is a mother, a father, a brother, and a sister that want Terri Schiavo to live, and they want to take care of her. I want to thank everybody that has worked on this bill, particularly those in the Senate, the Democrats in the Senate, the Republicans in the Senate. They passed this bill unanimously. I want to thank the Democrats in this House that worked on this bill, the Republicans that worked on this bill. Some have tried to make it a partisan issue. Mr. Speaker, after 4 days of words, the best of them uttered in prayer, now comes the time for action. I say again, the legal and political issues may be complicated, but the moral ones are not. A young woman in Florida is being dehydrated and starved to death. For 58 long hours, her mouth has been parched and her hunger pangs have been throbbing. If we do not act, she will die of thirst. However helpless, Mr. Speaker, she is alive. She is still one of us. And this cannot stand. Terri Schiavo has survived her Passion weekend, and she has not been forsaken. No more words, Mr. Speaker. She is waiting. The Members are here. The hour has come. Mr. Speaker, call the vote.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 23, 109th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that upon entry of this order, the Speaker may decline to entertain a motion to adjourn until after disposition of the motion to suspend the rules described in this order; that it be in order at any time on Sunday, March 20, 2005, for the Speaker to entertain a motion that the House suspend the rules with respect to S. 686; and that such motion be debatable for 3 hours, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees.

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and before answering the question, I want to thank the gentleman for all the good work that he has been doing over the last 2 or 3 days under very difficult circumstances. The distinguished whip has worked very long hours, and we greatly appreciate his cooperation and his consultation. I really do thank you for that, Mr. Whip. To answer your question, our intentions are to come in at 9 o'clock. We hope to vote at midnight, and, therefore, we will have a 3-hour debate.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman is absolutely correct. And hopefully, as the gentleman knows, every hour is incredibly important to Terry Schiavo. The Senate has passed the bill, so we will be taking up a Senate bill and, hopefully, we will expedite this process as fast as the House rules will allow us.

Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman's question, and that is the intention. But, hopefully, level heads will prevail, and maybe something will happen; lightning might strike and another agreement may be made. Certainly we would not do anything without the distinguished whip's concurrence and okay, in consultation with him, and we will keep the whip advised if there is any unlikely reason for us to come back earlier than 9 o'clock.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 103) and ask for its immediate consideration.

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, April 6, 2005.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday, March 21, 2005, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 103, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Before us today is an excellent budget, the result of an excellent process, and the product of an excellent chairman, the gentleman from Iowa. Despite some occasional overheated rhetoric, the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution is, in fact, a modest attempt by a reasonable majority to hold down the growth of government spending. This is one of the strongest budgets I have seen since coming to Congress. True, it makes tough choices. Imagine, it prioritizes spending, and it starts the long process of modernizing the Federal Government while rooting out waste, fraud, and inefficiency. But, Mr. Chairman, American taxpayers deserve no less, especially today. We are at war with an enemy who threatens us here at home and on the other side of the world. Our security spending must therefore take priority, and in turn we must make difficult but necessary choices about non-security spending. That is exactly what this budget does. It meets our needs at home and abroad without raising taxes, which would stifle our economy, or wasting money, which undermines the hard work the American people did to earn those tax dollars in the first place. Of course, for some people, regardless of the fiscal and international circumstances, taxes and spending are never high enough. This year, as every year, they have warned us about the dire consequences of trusting the American people with their own money. Last year, the same critics made the same criticism of our efforts, which we now know ultimately slowed the growth of non-security discretionary spending to about 1 percent. These critics assured us that our budget would bust a hole in the deficit. And yet last year, the deficit came in $109 billion smaller than experts originally thought it would, specifically because of the increased economic growth directly attributed to Republican tax relief passed since 2001. Millions of jobs were created last year. Indeed, more than 3 million of them have been created since the House took up President Bush's similarly criticized Jobs and Growth tax relief package 21 months ago. So, in short, Mr. Chairman, the economic data coming in every month speaks to the wisdom of the fiscal policies of the Republican majority. The critics were just wrong, and they are wrong again this year. The principal mantra against this budget is that it will explode the deficit, despite the evidence of last year's shrinking deficit projections. What, one wonders, do they think that the $67.1 billion in additional spending that they propose at the Committee on the Budget markup would do? The balanced budgets of the late 1990s should serve as our model, they say. Well, I agree. And I would remind them that the balanced budgets of the late 1990s were passed by Republican Congresses, without much help from our friends on the other side of the aisle. Hardly any of them voted for it. How anyone takes credit for policies they opposed is beyond me, but I guess that is politics. But, again, so is the idea that raising $392.4 billion in new taxes, as Committee on the Budget Democrats proposed just last week, would somehow help the economy to create jobs. Well, Mr. Chairman, the facts are indisputable: Democracy is on the march around the world; the war on terror is being won; the economy is growing; jobs are being created; deficit projections are shrinking; and the looming demographic crises facing Social Security and Medicare are being addressed, all thanks to the courage, the policies and the leadership of President Bush and this Republican Congress. That the same people who have criticized us all along are criticizing our budget today, Mr. Chairman, only suggests we must be doing something right. So I urge all my colleagues to give more momentum to our success and support the budget resolution before us.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for taking this Special Order in memory of Tillie Fowler. Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember a warrior, Tillie Kidd Fowler, wife, mother, friend and patriot, died 6 days ago and left behind her a legacy of service all will admire but few will match. She was as good a friend as she was a politician and was superb in both roles because no matter what hat she was wearing, it was still the same Tillie underneath. When word reached Washington last week that Tillie had left us, we all remembered the same things: we remembered her courage, her tenacity, and we remembered her leadership. There was no national security issue about which she was not an expert. There was not a branch of our military that did not seek her guidance and help in promoting the policies that keep our Nation safe. And there was not a serviceman or -woman in uniform who did not have a loyal and caring friend in the gentlewoman from Jacksonville. Her retirement from Congress, as anyone who knew Tillie could have guessed, did not in any way signal her retirement from public service. In the years after she left us, she helped lead public investigations into sexual misconduct at the Air Force Academy and prison abuse in Iraq. The wrongdoers in those cases up and down the chains of command, like her political opponents over the years, learned the hard way why Representative Fowler earned the nickname ``Steel Magnolia.'' She had also served since 2001 on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, advising Secretary Rumsfeld on strategy and policy during the tumultuous last 4 years. Whatever the situation, Tillie Fowler's motivation was service: service to her family, to her community, to her country. For that reason, far more than for her many career and legislative achievements, last week this country lost a hero. Decades from now, Mr. Speaker, when we too have left this building and, indeed, this world; when the controversies of our age are largely forgotten, the service and integrity that defined Tillie Fowler's life will still be remembered. She was a woman, good and true, who said things worth saying, did things worth doing, and served causes worth serving. When you think about it, what more can you say about anyone? Tillie Fowler was always admired, Mr. Speaker, and now she will be missed.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 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. A final list of these 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. We will likely consider additional legislation under suspension of the rules, as well as the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. And, finally, I would like to note for all the Members 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 11.

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me. The gentleman is correct in that we really want this bill to move as quickly as possible, get it through the other body, because contract letting is seasonal, particularly in the northern States and that contract letting needs to be done. So we are working as hard as we can to get this bill done. Since this bill is very similar to the reauthorization that was passed in the last Congress, I would expect that the Committee on Rules would develop a rule that was very similar to that one that was used when we considered this bill last Congress which, if I recall, there were 23 amendments allowed under the rule, a manager's amendment. So we have to see what the Committee on Rules is going to do and see how we can divide the work between Wednesday and Thursday.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me. It is our anticipation, or I have been notified by the respective committees, that we will be considering the supplemental from the President and the budget that both committees expect to hold markups on those two bills next week, which would prepare us and give us plenty of time to have both of those bills on the floor the week prior to the Easter recess.

Mr. DeLAY. The gentleman is correct.

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 today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday, March 7, 2005; and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 8, 2005, for morning hour debate.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I really thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for bringing this bill to the floor and particularly the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for working hard to make sure it was all right and well. These three gentlemen have worked tirelessly on children's issues, particularly this issue. It is a thankless issue. Just like people in the United States do not want to talk about abused and neglected children in foster care, people around the world, and particularly governments, do not want to recognize that sex trafficking is going on, slavery is going on, and actual exploitation of children and women is going on around the world. These three men have worked tirelessly on the thankless job to raise this issue, an issue this is vitally important to the lives of many, many people. Last December, the United Nations Under Secretary for Humanitarian Relief reported that cases of sexual abuse and exploitation by U.N. peacekeeping and humanitarian personnel had reached an unacceptable level. Victims of natural disasters and civil wars, especially children, are among the most vulnerable people on Earth. In many places around the world, the security of homes, families and lives rely on the compassion and commitment of international relief organizations. As anyone who has ever seen them in action could tell my colleagues, the men and women who devote their lives to this work, who travel at a moment's notice to help total strangers, survive in desperate straits, arrive on such scenes with wings on their backs. The very thought that such people could prey upon the women and children under their care is disturbing in the extreme, and yet we must now sadly admit such cases have occurred. Victims of disasters need our help, and the American people always respond to humanitarian crises with compassion and generosity. That any of our generosity for these victims might be twisted into revictimizing them will not stand. Assistance must reach those in need of relief, and it must be delivered by organizations and individuals committed to their safety. That is what this bill will do. The Humanitarian Assistance Code of Conduct Act, the result of cooperation from humanitarian relief organizations, administration officials, and especially the work of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) will ensure that from now on the American people need not accept a choice between indifference and abuse. It will require any organization receiving humanitarian assistance funds from the United States Government adopt a strict code of conduct for its relief workers. It will prohibit humanitarian relief workers from engaging in sexual contact with minors, soliciting prostitution, and in other ways exploiting the women and children of disaster-ravaged communities. Such organizations must strongly discourage any sexual relationships between relief workers and beneficiaries and will immediately terminate any worker who crosses the line. The best of such groups already adhere to the principles in this bill, groups that have assisted in its development, groups that set a gold standard for every aspect of humanitarian activity; and the adoption of these principles by more and more groups will help eradicate the behavior they specifically prohibit. This code of conduct will help identify and document at-risk children in devastated regions, reducing the likelihood that such children will fall through the cracks and into the dark world of exploitation, abuse, and even human trafficking. It is sickening that this bill even merits consideration, Mr. Speaker; but in order to protect some of the world's most vulnerable people, consider it and pass it we must. The exploitation of women and children who have already lived misery few of us could even imagine at the hands of their would-be rescuers is a corruption of humanity itself. Those responsible for such evil are terrorists of the soul, Mr. Speaker, their crimes of a sort civilization cannot brook. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Delahunt) bill and reminding the world the only acceptable level of abuse and exploitation of human life is none. I, too, want to thank the staff, particularly my staff, Dr. Cassie Bevan, in working on this, the staff of the Committee on International Relations on both sides; and certainly the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Delahunt) staff did excellent work on this issue. This is an issue that people have to pay attention to, and hopefully this bill will help.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this week the House will take the first step of the new Congress towards fulfilling our mandate to reform America's legal system, which for decades has been too often and too easily gamed by predatory self-serving personal injury lawyers. Last week, the Senate passed the Class Action Fairness Act, legislation essentially identical to a bill passed by the House in recent years. This week, we will take it up and pass it again, and send it, along with the final product, to the President for his signature. This first step, Mr. Speaker, is a giant leap. For the first time in years, the power of trial lawyers to abuse our generous and open legal system will be checked by ensuring that class action lawsuits are both valid and designed to protect victims, not line lawyers' pockets. It first requires that large interstate class actions be filed in Federal court to streamline the process and make sure that lawyers cannot shop around for the most historically generous State venues. It puts an end to other tricks certain lawyers use to keep their cases out of Federal court. And it establishes a consumer class action bill of rights that ensures it is the plaintiffs and not just the lawyers who benefit from legitimate class action suits. This last provision will prevent a repeat of the Shields et al v. Bridgestone/Firestone case in which the plaintiffs got nothing, but their lawyers got $19 million, or of the Microsoft antitrust litigation in which consumers received 5 to $10 in voucher coupons, while attorneys billed hundreds of millions of dollars in fees. This is a pattern of abuse, Mr. Speaker, greed rewarded on a breathtaking scale by a legal system in desperate need of protection. Class action fairness is not just reform; it is self-defense. After all, our courts are not home to a legal system but a system of justice, justice too long denied American plaintiffs and defendants. Consumers and businesses alike have been victimized by lawsuit abuse, court dockets are backed up, companies are paying lawyers instead of employees, and our economy is suffering for it all. With the Class Action Fairness Act, Congress will begin the work of restoring common sense and common decency to our legal justice system, according to the needs of American families and the principles of reform they endorsed in last November's historic election. The 109th Congress has a mandate for reform, Mr. Speaker, and this week we will send the President the first product of that mandate.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 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. The final list of those bills will be sent to Members' offices at the end of the week and any votes called for on these will be rolled to 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday the House will convene at 10 a.m. We will likely consider additional legislation under suspension of the rules, as well as H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act. In addition, we are working on the continuity of government legislation. It is anticipated to be similar to H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act passed by the House last year. We hope to move quickly and bring that legislation to the floor next week. Finally, assuming the other body passes S. 5, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, in a form identical to what the Senate Committee on the Judiciary passed last week, we expect to consider that legislation next week as well.

Mr. DeLAY. What I was talking about is, as the gentleman knows, the Senate is debating that bill as we speak. If indeed that bill comes out as it passed by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary with no amendments, then we could very well pick up that bill and just consider it here without going through committee.

Mr. DeLAY. It is a new Congress and a new Senate, and the work that they are doing over there, at least the beginning of the work that they are doing over there, is pretty impressive, particularly the work they have done on this very important bill. We have gone through regular order on this side of the House in many different steps on this class action issue; and if the Senate does what I think it is going to do, yes, we would bring it straight to the floor and consider it without committee action.

Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman knows, the Committee on Rules will take that up under consideration and perhaps the gentleman should contact the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) on that question as it relates to this bill. I am not advised as to what the Committee on Rules will do.