Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the chairman and ranking minority member of each standing committee and each subcommittee be permitted to extend their remarks in the Record, up to and including the Record's last publication, and to include a summary of the work of that committee or subcommittee.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may have until publication of the last edition of the Congressional Record authorized for the second session of the 108th Congress by the Joint Committee on Printing to revise and extend their remarks and to include brief, related extraneous material on any matter occurring before the adjournment of the second session sine die.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 531) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 871) providing for the printing of a revised edition of the Rules and Manual of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Ninth Congress, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

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 Friday, December 10, 2004, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in H. Con. Res. 531, in which case the House shall stand adjourned sine die pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, your committee appointed to join a committee of the Senate to inform the President that the Congress is ready to adjourn and to ask him if he has any further communications to make to the Congress has performed that duty. The President has directed us to say that he has no further communications to make to the Congress.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and Representatives Smith and Carter of Texas, I would like to include the attached letter from the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense regarding H.R. 5107, the Justice For All Act (P.L. 108-405), into the Congressional Record. This letter responds directly to a statement found on page S11609 of the November 19, 2004 Congressional Record. The mission of the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense is to promote justice and fairness to all indigent persons accused of criminal conduct, including juvenile respondents, as provided by the laws and constitutions of the United States and Texas. The Task Force was created by state law, the Fair Defense Act of 2001, and took effect on January 1, 2002. Since its implementation, the Task Force has awarded over $30 million to 250 counties in Texas in furtherance of its mission to improve legal representation for indigent persons accused of crimes. Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense, Austin, Texas, December 1, 2004. Re H.R. 5107, the ``Justice For All Act''--Congressional Record page S11613. Hon. Tom DeLay, U.S. House Majority Leader, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Hon. Lamar Smith, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. John Carter, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representatives DeLay, Smith, & Carter: In response to an inquiry last week regarding the statements made by Mr. Leahy in his statement on November 19, 2004, I am offering the following for clarification of what I believe is the current state of indigent defense in Texas. I commend the goals of this bill and the willingness of Congress to provide States much needed money in the criminal justice arena. Since the reforms to Texas indigent defense laws known as the Texas Fair Defense Act were originally enacted in 2001, the Task Force on Indigent Defense, the Texas judiciary, arid local government have worked diligently to meet and exceed the mandates of this reform. This reform was hailed by Robert Spangenberg, a leading national expert on indigent defense as, ``the most significant piece of indigent defense legislation passed by any state in the last twenty years.'' Nevertheless, the key to meaningful reform lies in implementation. In that regard, Mr. Bill Beardall, Director of the Equal Justice Center, and leading advocate of indigent reform in Texas recently said that, ``[S]ignificant indigent defense improvements were implemented both at the state level and in most of Texas's 254 counties in response to the new law.'' Worth noting is that Mr. Spangenberg served as the primary author of the Fair Defense Report, which influenced the passage of the Fair Defense Act. In response to the progress made by Texas, he states: ``In three short years, the Task Force has used the limited funding provided to mandate that each county has an indigent defense plan on file. Moreover, these plans are posted electronically and viewable by anyone. This in itself is significant in that what was formerly a closed process is now open to public scrutiny. Also significant is the fact that these are countywide plans, thus providing greater uniformity than before when practices varied from judge to judge. From what I've seen, the Task Force has successfully built bridges with county government and leading advocate and public interest groups for meaningful collaboration and significant reform.'' The following are some of the highlights of what Texas's courts, counties, and Task Force have accomplished. More Indigent Defendants Receiving Court Appointed Counsel--In 2002, 278,479 persons received court appointed counsel. In 2004, 371,167 persons received court appointed counsel. This represents a 33% increase while all criminal case filings are up only 8%. Courts and local government are taking their responsibilities seriously. Public Access--Every indigent defense plan (adult and juvenile) and every county's indigent defense expenditures are posted electronically and available to anyone with access to the Internet. In addition, all model forms, procedures, and rules promulgated by the Task Force are available online at www.courts.state.tx.us/tfid. In response to Task Force recommendations, judges across the state have submitted amendments to bring indigent defense plans into compliance with the law. Also, every indigent defense plan has been reviewed by the Task Force and is in accordance with the law. Accountability--Because of centralized oversight of plan submission, the judiciary is accountable to the Task Force. County officials are accountable to the Task Force through expenditure reporting and because of receipt of state grants. Prior to this act each county and court in Texas was left to its own means on how to provide these services. Training and Outreach--Each year since 2001, the Task Force and staff have provided presentations across the state to 1,200 or more judges, county commissioners, defense attorneys, county employees, and other criminal justice stakeholders on their responsibilities and on the responsibilities of the State regarding effective indigent defense representation. One program of particular interest was designed specifically for State district trial judges who hear capital offenses. This program was sponsored by the Center for American and International Law in Plano, Texas on August 19-20, 2004. Spending Up Almost 50% Since 2001--The State and counties have significantly increased expenditures for indigent defense services statewide to improve the quality of counsel appointed to represent the poor. In 2001, counties expended approximately $92 million on indigent defense services without any state assistance. In 2002, county and state spending together reached approximately $107 million--$15 million more than was spent in 2001. In 2003, county and state spending together amounted to approximately $130--$38 million more than was spent in 2001. And, the most recent reports for FY04 reveal county and state spending together totaled approximately $137 million-- $45 million more than 2001. All in all since the Fair Defense Act passed the State and counties are expending almost 50% more than they did prior to the Fair Defense Act. Neither the State nor the counties are abdicating their responsibilities--to the contrary, the State and counties are providing their best efforts to secure additional revenue sources as well as implementing process changes to ensure tax payers receive the most value possible for their tax dollars. Nine Administrative Judicial Regions Working Collaboratively with Task Force--The Nine Administrative Judicial Regions are responsible for the development of qualifications and standards for counsel in death penalty cases. Notwithstanding the Texas Defender Service report referenced by Mr. Leahy in his testimony, the nine administrative presiding judges take very seriously their responsibilities under Texas law. Through officially published standards and qualifications and a thorough screening process, they ensure that only the most capable and competent attorneys are appointed in death penalty cases. The report that Mr. Leahy relies on was criticized by many criminal justice stakeholders in Texas. I was disappointed with the secretive and surprise tactics utilized by the authors in its preparation. No Task Force members or staff were consulted prior to the report's publication. More significantly, the nine administrative judges were not consulted regarding its preparation or its findings prior to its release. For a Dallas Morning News article regarding this report, I noted the report's lack of methodology and stated that the report's conclusions ``may be a matter more of form over substance.'' John Dahill, general counsel for the Texas Conference of Urban Counties and a former Dallas County prosecutor, was more blunt. ``It just riles me to no end that the Texas Defender Service and the Equal Justice Center didn't bother to inquire of people with knowledge in each of these counties,'' he said. Counties generally follow the regional plan for appointment of counsel in capital cases, he said, and Dallas County follows the plan of the first administrative judicial region. That region covers 34 counties in northeast Texas. Judge John Ovard of Dallas, who presides over the 1st administrative region, said he had not had a chance to read the report but said the county's failing grade surprised him. ``We're in compliance with the task force . . . which is the primary state agency we report to,'' he said. ``I certainly am interested in looking at it and see why they came to those conclusions.'' Task Force staff meets quarterly with the 9 Administrative Presiding judges. The Task Force provides administrative assistance to the 9 Administrative Judicial Regions in posting the lists of standards and attorneys qualified for appointments in electronic format readily available to anyone in Texas. This collaborative effort is not mandated by State law but is being done at the request of the 9 Administrative Presiding judges to ensure that this process is open to the public and administered consistently across the State. Summary--For the first time in Texas history the State is providing oversight, fiscal assistance, and technical support to local government and courts to improve the delivery of indigent defense services. All 254 counties in Texas are in compliance with the state reporting requirements. Each indigent defense plan in Texas has been reviewed by the Task Force to ensure it provides for prompt appointment of qualified counsel and reasonable compensation for appointed counsel. Since the passage of the Fair Defense Act, staff has provided presentations across the state to more than 4000 judges, county commissioners, defense attorneys, county employees, and other criminal justice stakeholders on their responsibilities and the responsibilities of State regarding effective indigent defense representation. The key criminal justice stakeholders in Texas are being trained and the Texas system has improved dramatically since the passage of this law. Furthermore, in what may be its greatest achievement, the Task Force has created an efficient and collaborative infrastructure for continuing implementation of the Fair Defense Act and for future improvements to indigent defense procedures statewide. Thank you for considering my views. If you need any further information, feel free to contact me or any member of the Task Force. We are at your disposal to build on the successes all Texans have experienced since the passage of the Fair Defense Act. Sincerely, James D. Bethke, Director, Task Force on Indigent Defense.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this year, NASA saw the retirement of one of its best and brightest. Sue Garman ended her 17 year career in public service. Sue is one of the most amazing people I have ever met, and NASA lost a tremendous asset when she stepped down. Sue strongly believes the future of our nation rests in our willingness and ability to achieve great things. She recognizes the role NASA serves in feeding the soul of America but inspiring young and old alike and quenching the basic human need to explore the unknown. An incredibly dedicated worker, Sue served two stints away from her Houston home to serve at NASA's headquarters in Washington, DC. In spite of long hours away from her family, she worked tirelessly and seldom complained. She was passionate about the agency and even more passionate about the people around her. Sue was a rare find in the workplace--a visionary with incredible attention to detail, an incredibly bright person with enormous heart. She never sought glory or recognition for herself. Content to work behind the scenes, she strove to help Johnson Space Center and the entire NASA agency achieve greatness. Unlike astronauts or famous scientists, Sue rarely received the public recognition she so greatly deserved. But she did enjoy the respect, admiration, and love of those serving around her and within the Clear Lake community. Every time I've set foot in Clear Lake, I've heard folks sing Sue's praises. A dedicated worker whose loyalty was legendary, a smart lady with vision for how things should be and the dedication to try to get there, Sue is a class act. Her uncommon mixture of inspiration, commonsense and intellect will sorely be missed. But I am happy to know that she will now be focusing her attention on the more enjoyable and important things in life. Her time will now be spent at her beach house quilting and spending time with her husband and new grandchild. Sue, thanks for all your hard work and dedication. You are an inspiration to us all.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I do not know if I am sad or happy that I am coming to the floor today to talk about this bill because this is the last bill that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will handle as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. It is sad that he is no longer going to be chairman of the Committee on Appropriations because for the last 6 years he has done a stellar job under very difficult circumstances. As the gentleman knows, when the committee is trying to put an appropriation bill together, in the end it is very difficult. There is incredible pressure on the chairman. But the gentleman is a man of incredible patience because he has put up with me, has incredible stamina, and big, big shoulders because he has carried big, big responsibilities, particularly in light of the fact that after 9/11 much tougher issues have come before the gentleman because of 9/11. He has the respect of the entire House. Actually, he has the respect of this entire Congress, both the House and the Senate, and certainly the President of the United States and the American people. Mr. Speaker, we greatly appreciate the service of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). We are very excited that he is continuing to serve in the House and on appropriations. I come in support of this bill, and I want to reflect on a couple of things. This has been an interesting week on the same subject, raising the debt limit on the United States and bringing the government appropriations, the government spending bills, here to the floor today. Most of the debate centered around philosophy, economic philosophy on where this country should go. I was amused in watching the debate on the debt limit and on this bill, the comments from the other side of the aisle. They have many ideas about fiscal responsibility, fiscal restraint, how to lead us into the future. Part of their understanding of history is a little off. I lived through that same period of time. The other side of the aisle takes credit for the balanced budget and the surplus in the 1990s because they passed higher taxes and more spending in 1993. And they point to what happened in the late 1990s when we actually balanced the budget for the first time in, I do not know, 30, 40, 50 years, and we were in a surplus. The problem in 1993 was business as usual. I remind the body that in 1993 the Democrats had the majority of the House, had the majority of the Senate, had the President of the United States. They could do anything they wanted to, and they did. So their philosophy was the policy of the United States. It was very interesting if raising taxes and increasing spending, taking money out of the economy so you are not creating jobs or not creating an economy that can sustain this government, it was the right way to go, then why did their subsequent budgets and all of their economists project that there were going to be growing deficits as far as the eye could see? If they were very strong in their philosophy, they would have had their economists look at their philosophy and understand if they raise taxes and they increase the size of government by increasing spending, then we could predict out into the future that deficits would go away, you would balance the budget and you would create surpluses. At no time in the 40 years that the Democrats controlled this body did they ever, ever present a budget that balances or did they ever present a budget that predicted a balance. So to take credit for balancing the budget in the 1990s, which we did, and having surpluses holds no water whatsoever. What actually happened was the Republicans came into the majority in 1995. In 1996 we did what we are doing here today. We did not just freeze nondefense discretionary spending; we cut nondefense discretionary spending. Our philosophy is if you cut taxes, the economy grows; and if the economy grows and there are more jobs created, there is more revenue to the government. That is exactly what happened in 1981 when we cut taxes and we froze spending in 1981 under Ronald Reagan. They should have taken credit for that because they were in the majority in 1981. Unfortunately, in 1982 they started spending again. In 1987 we were able to freeze spending again because the economy dictated it and tried to cut taxes again. They should have taken credit for that because they were in the majority. But right before that and right after that they started spending again. The best part about this debate is if Members really listen to what they are saying, and they criticize this bill, they have said there is not enough spending in this bill. This bill actually freezes nondefense, non-homeland security, the first time we have done that since 1996; and I am very proud that we held the line and made Congress make choices and set priorities because it fits our philosophy. You cut taxes, grow the economy, more revenue for the government. You hold down spending and let those revenues catch up, sooner or later we are going to get to balance. That is exactly what we did in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. By the way, I was also amused in the opening of the Clinton Library, Bill Clinton took credit for that. He vetoed it twice. He never proposed it; he vetoed it twice, and finally he signed it because he insisted over and over again that we were going to balance the budget, not by raising taxes but by increasing the economy and holding down spending. We can do it again. It is much more difficult now that we are at war. At no time has this country ever balanced the budget while we were at war because we will spend whatever it takes to win this war and protect our troops. So it is going to be difficult to balance the budget, particularly if we do not raise taxes. What they really want and what they are so mad about is we are lowering taxes when they want to increase them so they can continue to spend more and increase the size of government. But we are not doing that, and we are not doing it as exhibited in this bill. This is part of our philosophy. This is a part of where we want to lead the country. We have been cutting taxes. In fact, this House has cut taxes every year for the last 10 years that we have been in the majority, and we will continue to cut taxes because we believe American families should keep more of what they earn so they can spend it and invest it and thereby grow the economy. And we will continue fiscal restraint and hold down spending, as difficult as it is, so we will get to a balanced budget because we are the only ones that have the credibility because we have done it before. We did it in the 1990s, we can do it again, and we will because our budgets have a projected balanced budget over the next 4 or 5 years. Actually, if we could do that. If we could implement some of the policies we want to, we will get to it faster. The crux of the matter is when we bring a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to the floor of this House, they will be the first ones to vote against it because they know what it means. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, there are two philosophies. They presented their philosophy in the election; we presented our philosophy in the election. With all due respect, the American people chose. The American people chose, so we are going to continue down this road of fiscal responsibility. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the bill that the chairman has presented. I am very proud of the fact that we actually froze spending for the first time in a long time. I am very pleased to support this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I know some wanted to pick a fight here today, trying to get us to talk about homosexuality and all those kinds of things. We did not talk about them because that is not what this is about. What this is about is marriage and the definition of marriage. Marriage is the most enduring institution in human history--the unique, spiritual bond between one man and one woman. Marriage is a man and woman that can create children. It is the architecture of family and the most successful arrangement ever conceived for the protection and raising of children. A man provides something that a woman cannot provide, just as a woman provides something that a man cannot provide. Women can be great mothers, but they cannot be fathers. Men can be great fathers, but they cannot be mothers. The reason that one man and one woman are necessary to rear children is so that the children can receive the benefits that a man can give them and that a woman can give them. Boys and girls need men and women, moms and dads bringing into their homes every day the complementary and unique characteristics of their genders. Marriage is the basic unit of society, the very DNA of civilization, and if that civilization is to endure, marriage must be protected. Societies transmit their values through marriages and the families they create. A man and a woman come together in marriage to create children and rear them and hand down their values to them. Families come together to create communities. And these communities come together to create our nation. The preservation of our values as a nation starts with one man and one woman having children. If you destroy marriage and people do not get married, several things happen. First of all, you destroy the responsibility that comes with creating children. If you destroy marriage, men are let off the hook. Men can have the sex without consequences, without commitment, without the responsibility of raising the children. That has happened in our society and societies in Europe and other places. On the other hand, if a man has a commitment to a woman, the mother of his child, then he realizes the responsibility of trying to raise that child. So when you ask the question, what is the harm in destroying marriage, the answer is the harm done to children. Children born out of wedlock are more likely to suffer from a variety of social ills, from dependence on drugs to dropping out of school. The recent history of our inner cities shows what can happen when fathers don't marry the mothers of their children. We have seen fathers just having many children by many mothers, and leaving these children to mothers and grandmothers and aunts to raise. And then we see the deterioration of their lives because they are raising themselves because their mothers and aunts and grandmothers have to work in order to raise them to pay for the family. These kids, who are often essentially raising themselves, grow up without the values that would be handed down to them if they lived in a stable family of father, mother, and children. Gang violence can be traced to the pressures that have been put upon marriage and the family. Kids need a mother and father and stable family life, and when they lack these, they look for their identity elsewhere. Gangs can become the substitute for families. Of course there are great parents raising great children in arrangements outside of marriage. There are wonderful children being raised by gay people. There are wonderful children being raised by single moms. But these arrangements are not the ideal. The ideal remains marriage between one man and one woman. To those who say that whatever trouble that ideal is in is due in large part to heterosexuals, I wholeheartedly agree. The last four decades, on the whole, have not been good for marriage in America. Take no-fault divorce. Divorce is a pressure against marriage. No-fault divorce undermines marriage. But I would submit that the rise of no-fault divorce, welfare policies that reward abandonment, the breakdown of the family, and every other challenge to marriage are not reasons to abandon that ideal, but reasons to hold up that ideal higher than ever. For as much as we may suggest that marriage needs us, in fact we need it! Society needs children to be raised by their biological, married parents. This isn't radical or even conservative: it's common sense, affirmed by a vast majority of our countrymen, who support the protection of marriage because they know from their own experiences that without this enduring and beautiful institution, they themselves would be lost. That is why the cultivation of the ideal family of mother, father, and children--an ideal established by nature, sustained by human experience, and supported by decades of social science--remains a compelling government and societal interest. Despite the challenges of recent decades, marriage remains absolutely fundamental to our society--too fundamental to allow a few judges to impose a radical redefinition of it over the will of the American people. But that is exactly what is happening. So when the Massachusetts Supreme Court redefines marriage out of thin air, we get a little concerned, because we have seen it before. And we have seen what happens when we don't stand up to activist judges. We did not stand up on the question of abortion, and there have been 45 million children killed, unborn children killed, because we did not stand up to activist judges using the courts to legislate. Every leader of the groups that are opposing this legislation to protect marriage has announced to the world that they are going to take this to the U.S. Supreme Court. They are already doing it. There are 11 court cases right now. Nebraska has been overturned, Washington state, Massachusetts. There is a huge, huge effort in every state in this union, even though 44 states in this union have laws protecting the definition of marriage. The opponents of this amendment to protect marriage are after those state constitutions, and when they get at those, or using the full faith and credit clause, they can go to the federal courts, and then it begins. Then the Defense of Marriage Act comes down. Then the United States Supreme Court, who has already signaled that they are going to, through Lawrence v. Texas, redefine marriage in this country, will amend the Constitution and redefine marriage. We have been left no recourse. Judicial activism does not understand the word ``restraint,'' nor does it respect the consensus opinion of the American people. The courts have forced on us this question of the future of marriage, and this amendment is our only hope of preserving it. We are starting the effort today. Yes, it may not pass today. I wish it would, but it may not pass today. But this is only the beginning, because this nation will protect marriage. This nation knows the consequences of destroying the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. If we lose today, we will come back. We will take it from here, and we will be back. And we will be back. And we will be back. We will never give up. We will protect marriage in this country.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 518) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 519) correcting the enrollment of H.R. 5107, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

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 Wednesday, October 13, 2004, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 518, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

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, November 17, 2004.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, we have learned a lot about politics today, but this debate should be and ultimately is not about politics but about policy. Unfortunately, politics seems to come in every now and then. The 9/11 Commission's report is a substantive document describing and examining the circumstances that 3 years ago allowed 19 men to conceive, plan, and execute the murder of 3,000 Americans right under our noses. It is a highly detailed, exhaustive, thorough report, 567 pages; and Congress has the responsibility to respond with equal gravity and vigor, and now we have. The bill before us now is the product of seven committees and more than 20 subcommittees. It is a substantive document that solves the substantive problems laid out by the 9/11 Commission report. Every provision, every word, Mr. Chairman, of this bill will make Americans safer and help to prevent terrorism from ever striking our soil again as it did on 9/11. It makes tough choices, it sets tough policy, and it will reaffirm the one fact that too often is ignored by too many: we are at war. The first priority in this war is the protection of the American people, the first priority. I know some have portrayed the House bill as controversial, but the more information about its contents that is revealed, the more support it garners. The policies set forth in this bill before us are so obvious, so self-evidently necessary that most Americans would probably be surprised to learn that they are not already on the books. Forget the spin for a moment and look at the policies. The House bill creates the National Intelligence Director and the National counterterrorism Center. It authorizes law enforcement authorities to track lone wolf terrorists. It cuts off material support for terrorists. It strengthens laws against weapons of mass destruction and enhances airline security. It doubles the number of border patrol officers and triples the number of immigration enforcement agents. It targets terrorist travel and ensures terrorists and violent criminals from other countries are deported, instead of released back on our streets. It streamlines our homeland security and intelligence agency, and it improves Federal funding for first responders. These provisions are not outside the scope of the 9/11 Commission report. They are the 9/11 Commission report. Those eight provisions alone that I just mentioned answer 18 separate commission recommendations, and I just chose them at random. By contrast, consider one of the principal policy initiatives of the proposal preferred by the Democrats, the disclosure and publicizing of the United States intelligence budget. Just think about what that means for a second. Not only would an al Qaeda be able to track every last dollar we are spending to capture and kill them, but Iraqi insurgents, the governments of Iran, North Korea, Communist China, they will know exactly when and where and how our Nation defends itself. The words of President Bush on this issue are worth repeating: ``Disclosing to the Nation's enemies, especially during wartime, the amounts requested by the President, and provided by the Congress, for the conduct of the Nation's intelligence activities would be a mistake.'' In other words, we do not tell the bad guys how exactly we plan to capture and kill them. Those who have crafted the alternative proposal have done so in good faith, I guess, but their final product, Mr. Chairman, is woefully insufficient. It does not secure our borders. It does not provide law enforcement authorities with enough tools to catch and prosecute terrorists, and it does not engage the international community in the diplomatic front on our war on terror. I might say, the substitute that is going to be offered by the Democrats and claim to be bipartisan is a fraud. If it were bipartisan, then why did the Democrats take the Shays-Maloney bipartisan bill, copy it and introduce it as the Menendez Democrat bill? That is not bipartisan. It is a cynical attempt to play politics with the safety of our families. No, Mr. Chairman, this is the bill. This is the bill that will make every citizen in this country safer and make every terrorist hunting our citizens less safe. This is the bill that calls a war a war and a terrorist a terrorist. This is the bill that will help America stay one step ahead of the men who, if they could, would kill every last one of us, regardless of party, race, creed or color. This is the bill that will help us defeat an enemy, win a war and secure a future of freedom for our children. I urge all my colleagues to do the right thing, make the difficult choices they were elected to make and vote for this bill and vote against the substitute.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, in this, the final week of this legislative session, Congress will cap off two years of diligent, important work protecting America's security, prosperity, and families. We have strengthened and improved health care for American seniors, funded the liberation of two enslaved nations, protected our homeland, outlawed partial-birth abortion and protected pregnant mothers, held the line on spending, and provided pro-growth tax relief to millions of American families. And this week, the House will finish its work on the most sweeping homeland security and intelligence reform legislation in decades: the 9/11 Commission Implementation Act. When the 9/11 Commission first released its report, many sought for Congress to either rubber-stamp or reject outright the commission's findings. But we in the House took a novel approach: we read them. And we studied them, in six committees, in more than 20 hearings. The bill has been marked up by five full committees--Armed Services, Intelligence, Judiciary, Government Reform and Oversight, and Financial Services--and two more committees have approved it without markup. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we set out to craft a comprehensive, thoughtful, and valuable reform package, and that's exactly what we've got. The 9/11 Commission Implementation Act takes the findings of the commission, shapes them into legislative language, and then adds in necessary details where the report lacked specifics. The 9/11 Commission's report is not just 41 recommendations. It is 567 pages of problems we face defending America. This bill goes right to those problems and begins the process of solving them one at a time. The bill will reform America's intelligence infrastructure by establishing a National Intelligence Director and a National Counter- Terrorism Center, both strong recommendations of the commission. We will also include provisions that will help our intelligence and homeland security officers better fight terrorists, prevent them from ever endangering the American people, and prosecute those who do. And we will work to better secure our borders from penetration by terrorists, and make it easier for authorities to throw terrorists out once they do get in. These are important reforms, all necessary to the protection of the American people and our victory in the war on terror, the most critical priority of this Congress and the entire government. Passage of these reforms will mark a fitting close to the legislative session, and, I should add, the debate surrounding it will serve--on its own--as a fitting reminder to the American people that those of us in Congress are more interested in winning the war than just winning the next election.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4518) to extend the statutory license for secondary transmissions under section 119 of title 17, United States Code, as amended.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), each be allowed to control 10 minutes of the time currently under my control.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to also thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Herger) and the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), ranking member, for their leadership on this legislation and in this area. They have worked tirelessly to understand the plight of abused and neglected children in this country, and we greatly appreciate the hard work that they have been doing. I would also like to especially thank the staff from the Committee on Ways and Means, Matt Weidinger and Christine Devere, for their help on this bill. Nick Gwyn, from the minority staff, also contributed to this effort. The Congressional Research Service, Emilie Stolzfus and Karen Spar, provided technical advice on this bill that was greatly appreciated. In addition, I also want to thank Barbara Clark and Susan Orr with the Department of Health and Human Services for their work on this bill. But I especially want to thank Cassie Bevan on my staff. Dr. Bevan really shepherded this bill, and she has shown the love that exhibited in this bill is the exact kind of love that she has for children that are abused and neglected, the most innocent that are treated so badly by the adults that should love them and raise them. Dr. Bevan has done exemplary work in this area with this bill and in many other areas. And we are grateful to her. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have authored this bill and recommend it to my colleagues today. This legislation would streamline the system of which abused and neglected children in America are placed in foster and adoptive homes across State lines and brings hope to thousands of children every year who otherwise would spend their precious days in uncertainty and fear. For the first time, it will set Federal deadlines for children's interstate placement to ensure both safety and timeliness by establishing Federal requirements. Today in the United States an abused or neglected child who must be placed in a foster home outside their home State, often with a family member in another State, waits on average 1 full year longer to be placed than a child placed in-state. There is simply no justification for this inefficiency in this day and age. These kids need our help. Yes, prospective families must be found and screened. Background checks must be conducted, and the well-being of the child must always, always be the driving interest. But an extra year just because a second government bureaucracy gets involved? An extra year of waiting for a permanent, forever family? Not anymore, Mr. Speaker. Under this bill before us, once a child is deemed in need of an out-of-state placement, the State has 60 days to find the child a foster home or an adoptive home and 14 days to approve that home. And on top of that, it creates a financial incentive of $1,500 for States that complete their home study in 30 days. These abused and neglected children should not be treated like second-class citizens or lower priorities just because they have to move out of their home State to be loved. To ensure these children's safety, this bill will also set Federal requirements for the criminal background checks States must conduct to screen prospective foster parents. It will end the ability of States to ``opt out'' of Federal criminal background requirements to prevent children from ever being placed into the home of anyone who has had a felony conviction involving violence or children. It also provides 2 years for all States to get into compliance with Federal law so that by October, 2006, every placement in the country will be done with the same commitment to safety and timeliness. Let us just be real clear about what we are talking about here. These children have not known the kind of lives they were meant to lead. They have been abused and neglected by the very people who are supposed to love them the most. They have been beaten, malnourished, terrorized, and in many cases sexually abused. Things have gotten so bad in their lives that the State has been forced to step in to offer the child protection. A family has volunteered to create a loving home for this child, and yet because of bureaucratic inefficiency and out-of-touch policies, these children are left to suffer alone with their fear and their bruises for another lost year of their young lives. Unacceptable. Unacceptable. This bill will get these children out of their personal hells and into the arms of a loving family quickly and safely. Sixty days is more than enough to make necessary background checks and to ensure the quality of the prospective foster or adoptive parents, as evidenced by the widespread support for this legislation among groups dedicated to the protection of abused and neglected children like the National Foster Parent Association, the National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems, the Consortium for Children, the National Council for Adoption, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. The people closest to the movement to reform the foster care system in America support this bill, Mr. Speaker. Current law allows children in need of an out-of-state placement to wait an extra year to find a family and does not ensure that ultimate placement is safe. Current law is a cruel and callous insult to these children and the responsibility of the Nation to care for them. Current law, Mr. Speaker, must change. And if it does not and Congress adjourns without acting and an abused and neglected child dies in a State that has opted out of the Federal system, our failure to act will be the reason. So I urge my colleagues not to let things reach that point. Act now in the interest of abused and neglected children who are today just hoping for a chance to hope. Give them that chance, Mr. Speaker, and support this legislation.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, sometimes, not always, but sometimes a bill comes to the floor of this House after a long deliberative examination of the facts surrounding a difficult issue with compelling arguments on both sides, and we can all come together and find common ground. Sometimes a bill is the result of hard-nosed political wrangling, and a party-line vote pushes a controversial measure over the finish line. And sometimes, Mr. Speaker, on rare occasions like today, a bill is considered on the floor of the House as a practical exercise, to expose a fraud. For months now, the American people have been subjected to and had their intelligence insulted by a manipulative, dishonest and willful campaign of misinformation. This campaign, which started as a whisper and now is being supported on the floor of the House, but it has since been given voice by the leading Democrats in the country today, asserts without any evidence whatsoever that there is a secret Republican plan to reinstitute the military draft. This campaign is a baseless and malevolent concoction of the Democratic Party, and everyone in this chamber knows it. It has one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to spread fear, to spread fear among an unsuspecting public, to undermine the war on terror, to undermine our troops, to undermine our cause and, most of all, to undermine our commander-in-chief in an election year. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a lie. And to prove it, all we had to do was to look in the Congressional Record. And lo and behold there it was, a plan. Not secret, but public. Not hidden by Republicans but openly touted by Democrats, H.R. 163, before us today. H.R. 163 is not the product of a Pentagon cabal, but it is sponsored by six of the most liberal and vociferous critics of the war on terror. The vote on this bill will not be close, and it will not be a party line. Instead, it will be an opportunity for Americans to see who takes the national security of the United States seriously, who respects our armed forces, who wants to win the war on terror, and who just wants to win the next election. This bill is a fraud, and so is the pernicious campaign of deception that has brought it to the floor today. I urge all my colleagues to vote no and expose to the light of truth the craven partisan whisper campaign now poisoning the national debate.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the rule before us and in support of the marriage protection amendment itself. I am well aware that this is not a day many of us in this House relish. Many of us who support the marriage protection amendment are saddened that the need for this amendment exists at all. The definition of marriage seems to us, and the vast majority of the American people, as a matter of common sense and social reality. And many who oppose the amendment, most I would say, see the movement to protect marriage as mean spirited and unnecessary. In either case, most of us in this House would prefer not to have this debate. We would prefer to live in a society in which such debates were unnecessary, but, unfortunately, we do not. The question of the future of marriage in America has been forced upon us by activist judges trying to legislate from the bench and forced upon us in such a way that the only remaining answer is to amend the Constitution of the United States. These are the facts, Mr. Speaker. The majority of the American people want to protect traditional marriage for reasons ranging from the political to the religious to the practical. But a minority of our citizens, a vocal and sincere minority, wish to alter the definition of marriage to include relationships outside the union of one man and one woman. In response to this minority opinion, the American people asserted their consensus in 1996 when a Republican Congress and a Democrat President worked together to enact the Defense of Marriage Act. Its support was and remains bipartisan and overwhelming across the country. DOMA says two things: First, that for the purposes of Federal law, the term marriage describes a union between one man and one woman. And, second, it says that no State, including Massachusetts, can force their will on the rest of us. And no State under its own laws can be required to recognize homosexual unions licensed in other States. That is the law as it currently stands: fair, straightforward, and representative of an overwhelming consensus among the American people. One would think this would be the end of the story, but it is not. DOMA is under an incessant and coordinated constitutional attack in the Federal courts. Despite DOMA's obvious constitutionality, those activist judges, who feel a greater responsibility to their own political ideology than the Constitution, seem not to care. Indeed, inventing rights out of whole cloth, in direct violation of the will of the people, too often seems to be the coin of the realm on the Federal bench these days. In such an environment, it is no surprise to me that legal scholars on both sides of this issue, from Lawrence Tribe to Robert Bork, all but concede DOMA will eventually be struck down because it contradicts the tortured jurisprudence of activist judges. Mr. Speaker, in other words, the definition of marriage will be a matter of constitutional law one day very soon. The question before us is whether that definition will be radical and arbitrary, or based on the experience of human civilization dating back to the origin of our species; whether that definition will be written by individual judges imposing their political biases on the Nation or written by the people of the United States through their elected Representatives in Congress and State legislatures. DOMA passed with broad bipartisan support. To date, 44 States have defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Consensus exists today. And yet the runaway courts keep coming, bent on replacing Congress as the legislative authority of the United States. Let me be plain: The status quo is not an option. Avoiding this issue is not an option, not anymore, not since the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts invented a right to homosexual marriage out of thin air, and not since a State court judge invented a similar right in Washington State, not since 11 States face court challenges to their marriage laws. This issue is not going away. Those who know me know I am not a fan of constitutional amendments in general. And at first I resisted this amendment in particular. But the fact can no longer be denied. If marriage is to be protected in this country, it can only be protected by a constitutional amendment. The timing, substance and necessity of the marriage protection amendment have been forced by the courts and their refusal to be bound by the clear and absolute limits of their constitutional authority to interpret the law. This amendment is the only way marriage will be protected. Now I know it is a difficult issue, and I know it is an emotional issue for people across the political spectrum and across this country, but it is an issue that has been forced. The people must be heard. Congress must assume its responsibility and must respond. This debate today will begin with that response, and, I hope, do so as it should, with civility, respect and sensitivity to all points of view.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 801, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 106) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), the author of this amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 106.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary.