Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. There are ongoing discussions about this bill with the minority and particularly with the minority leader's office. We are continuing those discussions. I remind the gentleman that this bill got 306 votes last year. I think that is pretty bipartisan. So as we work through this, we will continue to discuss and work with the minority to make it even more bipartisan than it is.

Mr. DeLAY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. I hope the gentleman is not raising a standard that is even higher than given to the Constitution, in that when two-thirds of this House has voted for a measure, in order for it to be bipartisan, we have to go even higher than two-thirds of the House. We are continuing to work with the minority leader. We understand her concerns and your concerns. But when you have well over two-thirds of the House voting for a bill, it gets more and more difficult to write a bill that requires unanimity.

Mr. DeLAY. Frankly, I do not know. We will just have to get back to you on that.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The White House has indicated to us that they will submit, as the gentleman said, the supplemental request on the tsunami next week. But we also expect the supplemental requests on the war on terror, and I would expect the House to consider some supplemental sometime in the month of March.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. DeLAY. The energy bill, we are continuing to work on that bill, just working on putting it together in order to introduce it. It is not ready, and I do not know, frankly, when it will be ready to even introduce, much less think about committee action and when the House might consider it.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman would yield, I think that is fair to assume.

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 at Monday next; and further, when the House adjourns on that day it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 for morning hour debate.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who is an expert, and we all value his input, we are going to do immigration reform in this Congress. We are looking forward to working with him on immigration reform. But what we are here today about is border security, border security and closing loopholes. I just want to thank both sides of the aisle for the thoughtful way that they have conducted this debate. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) and the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) for their hard work in getting this bill to the floor so early in the new session. Of all of the issues being debated before us today, the controversy I find most confusing is the section regarding the standardization of driver's licenses. After all, Mr. Chairman, the war on terror is not being fought in a vacuum. There was a time, to be sure, when identification fraud was a matter of concern principally to bouncers and bartenders, but that was before September 11, 2001. Since that day, Mr. Chairman, ID fraud has represented a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States, plain and simple. Without standards for the issuance or content of driver's licenses, the American people are needlessly put at risk. As long as America boasts the civilized world's most open laws concerning immigration and mobility while remaining its greatest terrorist target, we must ensure that people coming in and out of our country are not here to do our people harm. When someone enters this country and can get a driver's license, he can board a plane, open a bank account, and get a job. If he plans to do these things not to make a better life for himself, but with the express intent of killing Americans, and that treachery could be curbed simply by reforming the way we issue driver's licenses, how can we not? The REAL ID Act requires that applicants for driver's licenses prove that they are in the United States legally, very simple, and that a foreign traveler's license expires with his visa. These are hardly Draconian measures, Mr. Chairman, nor are the sections of the bill that strengthen our deportation and asylum processes. These processes are not just loopholes; they are gaping, yawning chasms in the law waiting to be exploited. They are risks, threats even, to the security of our homeland and to our success in the war on terror. The reforms in the REAL ID Act are overdue, no less an authority than the 9/11 Commission itself says so. So I just urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation to further help ensure that such events as three Septembers ago never again scar our homeland. Announcement by The Acting Chairman

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, border security is homeland security. It is odd we even need reminding about that fact especially after 9/11. But just as homeland security is national security, so border security is homeland security. It is really simple, Mr. Speaker. There are violent men who wish to commit atrocities against innocent Americans; and most of them, not all, but most of them come from outside the United States. The 19 men who hijacked commercial passenger planes on September 11, 2001, to fly them into American buildings to perpetrate mass murder exploited our porous borders and ultimately succeeded in their mission of evil. Since that time, we have made numerous reforms to numerous programs and agencies and systems to prevent such exploitation and such treachery from ever again bloodying our soil. But, Mr. Speaker, the job is not done. The job is not near done. The holes that remain in our border security systems are not small; they are gaping. And they are glaring to our terrorist enemies. They are coming for us, Mr. Speaker, and politics will not stop them. What will? Last year, Congress asked the bipartisan 9/11 Commission that very question, and here is what they said in their report: ``The Federal Government,'' the report reads, on page 390, ``should set standards for the issuances of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver's licenses.'' Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft. The Federal Government should restrict terrorists' freedom of movement because without it, we learn on page 65, ``terrorists cannot plan, conduct surveillance, hold meetings, train for their mission, or execute an attack. ``Today more than 9 million people are in the United States outside the legal immigration system,'' we read on page 390. ``Once in the United States,'' the commission says on page 49, ``terrorists tried to get legal immigration status that would permit them to stay here, primarily by committing serial, or repeated, immigration fraud by claiming political asylum. Immigration cases against suspected terrorists are often mired for years in bureaucratic struggles over alien rights and the adequacy of evidence. ``There is also evidence,'' we learn on page 64, ``that terrorists used human smugglers to sneak across borders.'' In other words, Mr. Speaker, there are gaping holes in our border security system that, 3 years after 9/11, still remain untouched by any reform. This week, the House will finally consider the kind of reforms our border security system desperately needs, reforms called for in the 9/11 Commission's report, reforms American families demand and deserve. Border security is homeland security, and this week we will begin the process of saying so in the law.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the victims of the space shuttle Columbia disaster, and also to honor the survivors here on the ground, who have worked without interruption for two years to see that the legacy of those seven explorers lives on. Against a striking blue sky that Saturday morning, the shuttle burst like a star, and our friends, our astronauts--who, as President Bush said, faced their dangers willingly because they knew they had a ``high and noble purpose in life''--were gone. That day our Nation mourned their loss and gave thanks that such men and women lived. And that day, our space program, brought low by tragedy, began a new ascent in the hard, hard work of discovery. Because no organization works with higher stakes, no organization has ever had to be as good as NASA at recovering from mistakes and adapting to new and more dangerous challenges. That is why, as we remember the Columbia seven, those of us still inspired by America's mission in space joined our sorrow with hope when we heard the news that the shuttle could soon return to flight. NASA's ``Return to Flight Task Force'' reported this week that the space shuttle Discovery could be cleared to fly again as early as this summer. This news is not only great, Mr. Speaker, but noble. The legacy of the Columbia seven was a legacy of exploration and discovery not despite the risks, but, in a way, because of the risks-- because knowledge has no price. Every astronaut who has ever suited up for NASA is driven by the same spirit that drew early man out of his cave and into the light. We crossed an ocean, then a continent, and walked the surface of the moon, not in search of profit but knowledge. America's mission in space is nothing less than the answering of ancient questions, on behalf of all the nations and all people who have ever stared into the night sky and wondered. Intrepid, wise, and good, the Columbia seven--sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, parents and friends--left us that day two years ago, but their souls echo still in the brave and brilliant they left behind at NASA. The shuttle will fly, Mr. Speaker, and the Columbia seven wouldn't have it any other way. So today, we remember, we mourn, and we hope, confident as Americans always are, that those who died in a quest to conquer ignorance can never die in vain.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. I just want to say the comments by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) are well taken; and it is because of his work, and particularly his work to hold us together and work together on these issues, that that kind of bipartisan support for these resolution happens. So I commend the gentleman and thank him very much for his work and his willingness to work with us. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) who came to the floor because he just returned from Iraq a couple of weeks ago and he has some very important things to say.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas entering the Prime Minister of Iraq's remarks into the Record. I think it is very appropriate to do at this time, particularly on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, the central point of this resolution is the central point of America's foreign policy: that mankind is made more secure when tyranny is replaced by democracy. That is the story of the American revolution against the old world, Western Europe's liberation from Nazism, Eastern Europe and Central America's liberation from communism and despotism, and the Middle East's liberation from terrorism. The victory of human freedom over human oppression, of good over evil, Mr. Speaker, is why we are here. Last Sunday morning, the people of Iraq showed the world that humanity's will to freedom knows no borders. When I first saw the news Sunday and saw an image of a woman in Najaf exiting her polling place alive and well with tears streaming down her proud, smiling face, I thought to myself, now, this, this is what Operation Iraqi Freedom was all about. But I was wrong. Sunday's election, Sunday's miracle of democracy, was about more than that. I thought about the image of the elderly man in a wheelchair in Basra who, in his long years, saw revolution and war, tyranny and terror and, finally, with a joy only possible in a man who had known such pain, cast the first ballot of his life. I thought of the image of the little girl with a ribbon in her hair, holding her mother's hand as hundreds of women in traditional hijab dress waited in line. Now, this little girl was not quite sure what was happening, only that the women knew it was important. I thought of the image of the voters in Baghdad who ducked for cover as their polling place came under fire, yet whose lines never broke. There were bullets and bombs and mortar shells, yet their lines never broke. These voters in Baghdad, not soldiers, but shopkeepers and homemakers, knew when they left for the polls in the morning that they might not come home. They knew that they were targeted, that their spouses would be, could be widowed and their children orphaned. Yet the lines never broke. A humble defiance of evil. And that is when it hit me, Mr. Speaker. Just as on Sunday all free men and women were Iraqis and on Sunday the Iraqis were all free men and women. Sunday's elections are not just why we invaded Iraq. They were why we stormed Omaha Beach and took the Normandy cliffs. They are why we held Little Round Top and braved Valley Forge. The lines that formed in Iraq on Sunday stretch not only around the world but back in time to the moment when 13 British colonies declared their independence. For the first time, at that moment, a nation declared itself endowed with an inalienable right to liberty, and in 228 years since, no nation, no nation, no people ever offered a chance at freedom refused it. Against all odds and it seemed at times even against all hope, the Iraqi people, over 8 million of them, all marked by death by the terrorists, woke up Sunday morning and got into line. Some people still do not get it. They still do not understand Concord and Lexington or Gettysburg or Bastogne or the Cold War, or even Flight 93. They do not understand why those lines in Iraq never broke or that every man and woman who ever lived, fought, or died for freedom was standing in that line with them. They still do not know why we fight. Last weekend that Iraqi woman in the photograph knew. After a lifetime of oppression she voted in humble defiance of evil, and then she broke down crying. And in those tears she is shedding along with the anguish of how many friends and children lost and how many wars and prisons are the hopes and dreams of all God's children who still yearn to be free. Sunday's elections in Iraq were not an accomplishment; they were a miracle, a miracle made possible by the resilience of a liberated Iraq, the mercy of a loving God, and the moral courage of this Nation under God to stare evil in the face and make the devil blink. Eight million brave Iraqis struck terrorism a lethal blow on Sunday, replacing tyranny with democracy, and in doing so they made America and the world safer, for which it is altogether fitting and proper that we commend and thank them. Despite the continued threat represented by terrorists and terrorism and despite the threat of disgraceful partisan rhetoric coming from many on the other side, Sunday's miracle in Iraq shows that the dead who died to free that nation have not died in vain and that even in the darkest recesses of violent oppression, all who would live in peace and liberty have yet reason to hope.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, issues like this one--first brought to our attention with a passion and eloquence only possible in a man like Jerry Solomon--provide our democracy a valuable service: They cut through the fog of spin and force us to tell the American people exactly where we stand. Pure and simple, this bills says our armed services--the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and National Guard--should have the same right to recruit at colleges and universities who receive federal funding as any other group. Every year, thousands upon thousands of businesses, industries, non- profit groups, and even other colleges recruit underclassmen to sign up to become investment bankers and computer engineers or environmental lawyers or medical students. And yet, some colleges--principally the elitist and elite colleges-- refuse to even allow military recruiters on their campuses. Such policies are obnoxious in times of peace, but they are simply intolerable in times of war, and the equal access of our military recruiters to federally funded colleges and universities must be protected. But that, Mr. Speaker, is the easy part. The hard part is understanding why facilities and administrations of these colleges don't want military recruiters on their campuses. Because, at bottom, their opposition to the presence of veterans at their schools is not about academic freedom, or civil liberties. It's about them not liking the military, or the values our men and women in uniform represent. It's about many of them preferring the company of people who blame the United States for 9/11--who compare the World Trade center victims to Nazis--to the company of a soldier or a sailor or an airman or a Marine. It's about academia feeling more sympathy for terrorists than for the women and children they murder. It's about a fundamental misconception about the purpose of a university--the professors are there for the students, Mr. Speaker, and not the other way around. That our military makes our academia possible, and not the other way around. Indeed, the right of tenured academics to be publicly insufferable exists only because of the sacrifices of our servicemen and women. The least they could offer in return is a booth in the field house on career day. Of course, men and women who have dodged bullets and held dying comrades in their arms don't take seriously people who live by the glib professional code ``publish or perish.'' But those elite campuses, who claim to educate our nation's best and brightest, who claim to train our leaders of the future: how can we possibly not allow military recruiters to have the right to talk to such students? What profession, if any in our entire society, needs the opportunity to recruit the sharpest and broadest minds of every generation more than our armed forces? America's armed services have molded great men from all walks of life, and when given brilliant men and women, they have produced legends. How can we let such minds pass through our top colleges without even the chance that they might bump into a veteran recruiter who could change their life? America in the future no doubt will need its brilliant businessmen and lawyers and poets, but what good can such genius do without brilliant admirals and generals to protect them? Mr. Speaker, it's a shame this issue was ever forced on us at all, but the vote on this bill will help to clarify exactly what we each mean when we say we support the troops. We'll finally see who among us really believes the military deserves more than just lip service from those of us they protect. Votes like this, after all, remind us of one of the great blessings of American democracy: that unlike college professors, congressmen don't have tenure.

Mr. DeLAY

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished whip, the gentleman from Maryland, 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 those bills will be sent to Members' offices by the end of the week. Any votes called on those measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will convene at 10 a.m. We likely will consider additional legislation under suspension of the rules, as well as H.R. 418, the Real ID Act of 2005. Finally, I would like to remind Members that we do not plan, do not plan, to have votes next Friday, February 11. And I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I would be happy to answer any questions he may have.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would assume that the Committee on Rules would follow a process similar to the one that they followed for the rest of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, and that is to have a structured rule that allows for a variety of amendments. But I will let the chairman of the Committee on Rules make announcements on that and reserve decisions for the committee on what those amendments will be. I can tell the gentleman that we are contemplating, although actions by the Committee on Rules will need to be taken, contemplating a rule that would merge the border security bill into another bill, another must-pass piece of legislation, not knowing what that would be. But, obviously, the supplement could be a candidate for that.

Mr. DeLAY. That is correct.

Mr. DeLAY. That is correct.

Mr. DeLAY. We are contemplating several major pieces of legislation that we would hope to complete before the Easter break, and we are also contemplating several bills that we contemplate completing prior to the Presidents' Day district work period. The comprehensive energy bill, which we passed in the last Congress and in the 107th Congress, is a very high priority for this year. There is a good chance that we could consider a national energy policy bill before the Presidents' Day district work period.

Mr. DeLAY. Well, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would just say that the gentleman is right. We will try our best to reach out and make this bill as bipartisan as possible. I would just remind the gentleman that this bill, this energy package, has passed, I cannot recall every time, but many times in the last Congress; and it even passed this House as a conference report. Each time that the energy bill has gone through this House, whether it be the House bill or in the conference report, it has enjoyed a very large Democrat vote. So, yes, I would hope that the chairmen of the respective committees that have a piece of this bill, and I would also remind the gentleman that the Committee on Ways and Means has a very big piece of this bill, would reach out to their ranking members and work to put together as bipartisan a bill as possible.

Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, Mr. Speaker. We have not discussed any rule. Actually, we are discussing with the relevant committee chairmen whether we can get it that quickly or not. But I would imagine that the Committee on Rules would have the same sort of rule that we have had on this bill for the last couple of years. So I would not see anything changing.