Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Lamar National Little League All-Stars of Richmond, Texas, on their magnificent performance in the Little League World Series this year. I want to thank Jim Michalek, the team's manager, not only for leading the Lamar All-Stars to Williamsport for the second straight year, but for doing it the right way--by teaching his players the fundamentals of baseball and of teamwork and sportsmanship. If he keeps this up, I wouldn't be surprised to hear the Astros want him in their dugout next year. Mr. Michalek and his coaches--Tommy Abraham and Bobby Murski--gave more than their time and energy to this team. They gave themselves to it, and the character the boys displayed during their tournament run showed the Houston community and our nation once again that there is no substitute in a boy's life for the strong influence of good men. I want to thank them for their dedication and example. As for the players--Joey Scheurich, Dustin Moehlig, Chance Murski, Stephen Michalek, Tyler Ford, Steven Crawford, Cody Abraham, Ray Cervenka, Randal Grichuk, Christian DeLeon, Matt Daniels, and Daniel Homann--well, I'm certainly glad these young men are from my district. They did Richmond and Fort Bend County proud this year, and I'm honored to represent them and their families here in Washington. It is often said that sports teach kids important lessons about life. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the Lamar All-Stars taught us a thing or two this year. Throughout their season, they modeled the virtues of hard work, perseverance, courage, and determination. Their amazing performance this summer is a testament to their talent, certainly, but most of all a testament to their character. I offer every player, coach, parent, and friend who followed the Lamar All-Stars this year my congratulations for their success, but more importantly, my thanks for their example.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, as we return this week for the home stretch of the 108th Congress, it bears repeating that our focus for the remainder of this legislative session will be the same focus we have had for the last 2 years: growing our economy, defending our national security, and protecting the American family. The first order of business will be reforming the way that we secure our homeland in the wake of the 9/11 Commission's investigation. When the commission released its report, many rushed to either condemn or rubber stamp its conclusions, but we in the majority took a very novel approach: we actually read them. Six committees held more than 20 hearings on the report's findings and are now in the process of developing a comprehensive 9/11 Commission Implementation Act. Considering the opportunity that the 9/11 Commission has given us, Congress cannot in good conscience satisfy itself with a watered-down, politically-convenient bill that just Scotch-tapes over a few vulnerabilities. We are the first Congress elected after 9/11, and we were elected specifically to make the difficult, but necessary, choices to protect our constituents. That is exactly what a comprehensive 9/11 Commission Implementation Act will force us to do, and I hope everyone on both sides of the aisle will rise to the occasion and support its passage. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, Congress cannot adjourn before we finish our work protecting American families from the snap-back tax hikes that many Democrats hope to foist upon our economy before they skip town. Unless Congress acts, the marriage penalty will return, the $1,000 per child tax credit will disappear, and the expanded 10 percent tax bracket will shrink, representing a massive tax hike targeted directly at married couples, parents and working families, just in time for the holidays; and we will not let that happen. Over the last 2 years, the economy has rebounded from recession, corporate scandals and terrorism; 144,000 more new jobs were created just last month, 1.7 million more since last August. Congress did not create this growth; the American people did. Our job now, as they build our economy to ever loftier heights, is to stay out of their way and not spend too much of their money while we are at it. Toward that end, this week, the House will continue to work on Federal spending bills for 2005, according to the common-sense budget that the House passed this spring. Our goals for the next several weeks are clear, and as far as our Nation has come in these last 2 years, we owe it to the American people to work as they have to protect our homeland, our economy, and our families.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I asked the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for the privilege of opening this debate so as to lay before the House not only the arguments in favor of the Marriage Protection Act, but also, and perhaps more importantly, to appeal to Members on all sides of this issue to conduct today's debate with the compassion and civility that it deserves. Mr. Speaker, I repeat my appeal to Members on all sides of this issue. I would hope that Members would conduct today's debate with the compassion and civility that it deserves. I really feel that, I fear that the debate about homosexual marriage, which has recently been thrust upon the entire Nation by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, has begun to deviate from a productive conversation about public policy. Too often proponents and opponents seem more interested in talking to themselves than to each other, and if we truly seek a national consensus on the future of marriage, little can be gained by an afternoon spent hectoring each other. So those who oppose homosexual marriage need not be lectured about compassion any more than those who support it need to be lectured about morality. You think this bill is cruel and we think same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. Saying so at the top of our lungs for the next few hours will do little good for anyone, least of all the millions of American homosexuals who deserve respect in this debate as American citizens and as human beings. Mr. Speaker, we are elected to judge policies, not people, and the policy before us today, the Marriage Protection Act, would reaffirm the current national consensus on homosexual marriage by leaving to the States and to the American people the right to define marriage in this country. This is the position that many Democrats say that they support, all 50 States deciding for themselves how to define marriage rather than a one-size-fits-all definition being imposed on them from above, and this bill is their opportunity to publicly adhere to that argument. If you support the States and respect the will of the American people, you must support this bill. The overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, provides uncontradicted testimony to the consensus opinion of the American people, an opinion shared by every civilized society in history. That consensus is simply that marriage is the union between one man and one woman. The consensus of the American people is simply that marriage is the union between one man and one woman. It is not a contract of mutual affection between consenting adults. It is, instead, the architecture of family, the basic unit of civilization, and the natural means by which the human species creates, protects and instills its values in its children. Traditional marriage is the most stable, enduring and efficient means of raising children, laying down the roots of community life and establishing the necessary and sustainable predicates of nationhood. This is the evolution of civilization. Individual men and women, with the innate qualities of their gender, come together in shared sacrifice to raise children. They each make their own unique contributions to the raising of boys and girls as male and female models for their male and female children and create the ideal family unit of mother, father and children, an ideal established by nature, sustained by human experience and supported by decades of social science. It is not a collection of individuals but of families that come together to form a community of shared values and common purpose, and communities in turn come together and bind each other by those shared values and common purpose to establish a common nation. If any link, if any link in that chain breaks, like, for instance, the erosion of the traditional family that has occurred in this country over the last 40 years, the institution of marriage suffers, but so does the Nation. Children need their community and their Nation to help stabilize their social environment so that they can have the same chances in life we and every generation of Americans have had before them. That is why there has always been and always will be a compelling government interest to protect the institution of marriage from corrosion within or artificial social engineering without. If it is true what the Massachusetts Supreme Court says, and I do not believe that it is, that ``marriage is an evolving paradigm,'' then should not that evolution be an organic, natural evolution and left to the collective and evolving wisdom of the American people? And if, on the other hand, no such institutional evolution exists, does not the arrogance of judges who would impose on our society their own contrary and misguided prejudices fundamentally undermine American democracy? In both cases the answer is yes, and in both cases the Marriage Protection Act will ensure that we take the proper course. We are a nation of laws, not commandments, and neither the conservative politician nor the liberal judge by himself has the right to define marriage for a nation of 270 million people. That responsibility, that responsibility lies with the people we all serve, whether it is in Sugar Land or San Francisco and everywhere in between. So I urge my colleagues, let us have a debate. Let us have a civil debate. But in the end I hope my colleagues understand that that responsibility lies in the body of the House of Representatives and you will vote yes on the bill before us.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 683, I offer a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 479) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Pinar del Rio, Cuba, somewhere in the dungeon bowels of Prison Kilo Ocho, Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet-- prisoner of conscience--turned 43 years old. Dr. Biscet is a hero of the kind that men and nations yearn for their entire lives. He is a human rights activist, a man of peace and justice, and therefore a sworn enemy of Fidel Castro and his terrorist regime in Havana. A student of Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Dr. Biscet has led nonviolent opposition to Castro and his murderous, kleptomaniac government for years, whether on the streets of Havana or in the foul cages that pass for prison cells in Castro's Cuba. Despite years-long separation from his wife and family, untreated illnesses, and ongoing abuse by prison guards, Dr. Biscet remains in high spirits today. He is an inspiration to all who suffer for the cause of freedom, a threat to all who seek to undermine that cause, and a stinging indictment against free men the world over who would ignore the cries of injustice ringing out from an imprisoned island. But this House and this Nation will not ignore, or forget, or bend in our determination to see human rights and human freedom restored to Cuba. Mr. Speaker, these brief remarks may be little noted by journalists today and historians tomorrow, but they merit the saying just the same. That somewhere in Cuba today, an honest man suffers so his countrymen--so that all men--might be free is a heroic thing, one the world owes it to him, itself, and our Creator to notice. I recognize Oscar Biscet today not because he needs us, but because we need him. And I honor Oscar Biscet today, as we all should, Mr. Speaker, because by the life of service he has chosen, he honors all of mankind. I wish him and his family health and strength for his 43rd birthday and send my hopes that this will be his last separated from his loved ones and suffering under the bootheel of evil.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric of class warfare has never worked, and it certainly is not going to work today, particularly when we see opportunities proceeding for Americans all over this country. So rather than sit back and enjoy the historic success of the 2001 and 2003 tax measures this Republican majority has passed into law, which have accounted for opportunities, certainly for more than 1.3 million new jobs already this year, we have developed legislative proposals to address longstanding impediments to prosperity in this Nation. Rather than simply looking for new taxes to reduce, we looked around for other friction heaped upon the free market by this government, and we came up with an eight-part strategy to increase the competitiveness of our economy for years to come: The 21st Century Careers Initiative. We began to look at ways to make the health care system even more flexible and responsive to the needs of American consumers. We began the process of reforming the way that the Federal Government regulates small businesses in this country. We began a rethinking of the role of the government in lifelong learning programs, so that Americans never stop increasing their skills and their earning power. And this week we began what we hope will be a long debate about the future of taxation in the United States. While tax relief has been part of the Republican agenda for decades, the time has come for us to not simply lower taxes but to reform the way people are taxed in the first place. And so we come to the Tax Simplification and Reform Week on the House floor. We will begin with consideration of two bills that begin to fix our Tax Code so that it will make more sense for Americans. One will increase the income limit to qualify for filing the form 1040-EZ income tax return for the first time in more than 20 years. The other will create the first-ever short-form tax return specifically for seniors. Now, the debate about tax reform and simplification, like the other components of the career initiative, is not designed to score partisan points, but, instead, to move our economy past the artificial shackles of over taxation, over regulation, and over litigation, which keep the American people from enjoying the full benefits of their economic competitiveness. This week, Mr. Speaker, we will take another step closer to a friction-free environment that our economy demands and our people deserve.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, at 10:56 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, 35 years ago tonight, the United States achieved the greatest single feat of ingenuity in human history when Neil Armstrong stepped onto the surface of the moon. In the three and a half decades that have passed since that awesome night, an entire generation of humanity has been born never knowing a time before the Apolo 11 mission. And while this is the necessary and proper way to human progress, those of us who remember staying up that night, glued to the living room television--our muscles tired from tension and fear and anticipation--we know what our children have missed. In the last 35 years, space travel has been made--because of the brilliance and courage of NASA--into something seemingly almost routine. but those of us who were there 35 years ago know it is not-- and never was--routine. Space exploration, then and now, represents the apex of humanity's quest for knowledge and of every obstacle standing between us and the unknown. For thousands of years, mankind dreamed of what it would be like to fly birds, and then in less than 70, the people of Earth got from Kitty Hawk to the moon. ``One giant leap'' indeed. Thirty-five years ago, the world stopped to watch and listen--to learn--as two men walked into history. Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins command as much respect today as they did when they left their footprints on the lunar surface, and it is for us--we who remember--to not let those who do not, every forget. A generation of Americans have been inspired by what they saw 35 years ago. What will our children remember of us 35 years from now? Will we have sought our great challenges, sought to take the next ``giant leap for mankind''? Will we have dared mighty deeds to leave our own footprints on history? There can be only one truly American answer to that question, and it was answered for all times by the men of Apollo 11.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Let me see if I have got this straight: The United Nations has created an International Criminal Court, a shady amalgam of every bad idea ever cooked up for world government. The United States, its President, this Congress and the American people has categorically, unequivocally and completely rejected the ICC and its insistence on threatening the American people with prosecution. We reject its laughable legitimacy, we reject its U.N.-American denial of civil rights, and we reject its anti-American politics. And yet the ICC still asserts jurisdiction over the American people, including American soldiers fighting the war on terror and still salivates at the prospect of prosecuting one of us for anything the U.N. does not like. Now, some nations who receive economic support from the United States may use the money we give them to arrest and hand over American citizens to the U.N.'s kangaroo court? I do not think so. President Bush has shown great leadership by removing the United States from the treaty creating the ICC, and Congress has passed legislation, the American Servicemembers Protection Act, to ensure our soldiers and peacekeepers around the world are protected from prosecution in it. Federal law now requires all countries who seek American military assistance sign an agreement assuring us they will not hand over our soldiers to the ICC; and, since its enactment, more than 90 countries have signed such an agreement. The ASPA has proven to be a valuable tool in the war on terror, and the Nethercutt amendment takes that leverage to the next step, making American economic support contingent on a promise not to turn over our troops to the ICC. The Nethercutt amendment will forestall any attempt by a foreign country that receives American economic aid to arrest and extradite American soldiers to Kofi Annan's kangaroo court. Now, let us be real clear: The ICC presents a clear and present danger to the war on terror and Americans who are fighting it all over the world. The United Nations just last month refused to extend protection from the ICC to American troops abroad. This was at once an ominous sign of things to come and an urgent call for Congress to do its duty and protect our men and women in uniform. That is exactly what this vote is. If you want to go home to your constituents and tell them that you think that their tax dollars should go to foreign countries who allow American soldiers to be imprisoned and shipped off to Brussels without their constitutional rights, then, by all means, vote no on the Nethercutt amendment. If, however, you think American troops should retain their human and constitutional rights even when they step on foreign soil and if you think American economic support should only go to countries who guarantee such protection for our soldiers, then stand with the American people, the President and the men and women winning the war on terror and vote yes.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Monday at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules. A final list of these measures will be sent to Members' offices by the end of the week. Any votes on these measures will be rolled until after 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and the balance of the week, we expect to consider additional legislation under suspension of the rules. We also plan to consider several bills under a rule: the fiscal year 2005 District of Columbia appropriations bill; H.R. 4837, the fiscal year 2005 Military Construction appropriations bill; H.R. 4842, the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement; H.R. 3574, the Stock Option Accounting Reform Act; and H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act. Finally, I would like to note that we are expecting a very busy week heading into the August recess. Members should expect to work some late nights and possibly into Friday evening as we resolve these important pieces of legislation. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and will be happy to answer any questions he may have.

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

Mr. DeLAY. I would expect to see the stock options bill legislation and the D.C. and Military Construction appropriations bills earlier in the week. The U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement and the Marriage Protection Act would be Thursday or Friday.

Mr. DeLAY. Later.

Mr. DeLAY. Thursday or Friday.

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

Mr. DeLAY. I have every expectation that the DOD conference will be finished and ready to go and voted on sometime next week, but I am not advised as to when during the week that we might anticipate voting on it.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. We have been working to extend the child tax credit, the 10 percent tax bracket, and the marriage penalty tax relief provisions from the 2001 and 2003 tax bills. I would anticipate that the bill, well, I cannot say what else might be in the bill. The conference has yet to be called into a meeting, but in discussions with the other body, it seems to be that most want to keep this bill as simple as possible; and I hope we can find a way to send these tax measures to the President before the August recess.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, that is speculation and I hate to speculate, but I know that this House has voted several times on these issues, and I know that the House wants to see a 10 percent tax bracket, the marriage penalty, and the child tax credit provisions to be extended and funded; and I would tend to think that the bill would have to come back with at least those provisions in it.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I expect that that will come on Thursday. As the gentleman knows, sometimes these appropriations bills take longer than we anticipate. If they do, then it could be pushed over into Friday, but our intention is to bring that bill to the floor on Thursday.

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

Mr. DeLAY. I would have every reason to believe that if we can get the other body to call the meeting, then, surely, the Democrats on the conference committee, along with the Republicans, would all have invitations to that meeting.

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 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debate.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, sometimes our speeches get away with us and trivialized. The oppression of people in Cuba, sometimes in making a speech we joke about what is going on in Cuba as if it does not even exist. I think that is pretty unfortunate. People are dying in Cuba. They are imprisoned in Cuba. The entire island is nothing but a prison of a Communist dictator. The author and proponent of the Flake amendment does not intend to help Fidel Castro's brutal regime grind its boot heel of tyranny deeper into the necks of Cuban people, but that is exactly what this amendment will do. The premise upon which the Flake amendment is based is that gift packages sent from the United States to Cuba will be delivered to their addresses by some chipper little mailman with a wink and a smile. No, Mr. Chairman, it works more like this: A family of refugees in Miami hears that their relatives in the proletarian paradise that is modern Cuba are short on capitalist luxuries like clothing or soap. So this family gathers together a package of supplies to help their relatives get through the month. The U.S. Postal Service delivers the package to Cuba where it is taken to a central depository. Once the package is secured by Castro's goon squads, the relatives are notified of its arrival and of the price that they must pay to have it released. More than a billion dollars of charitable goods are given to the Cuban people by their friends and families from America every year, either in gift packages or personal deliveries by relatives. That is $1 billion that Castro does not have to spend on government services but instead can spend on overtime for his secret police. Meanwhile, under this arrangement, Castro's regime has pocketed more than $36 million over the last 2 years in revenues from ``delivery fees.'' Now, whether this $36 million went to fund international terrorism, more efficiently torture political prisoners, or simply put in an Olympic-size jacuzzi in Castro's rec room, we do not know. What we do know, however, is that Fidel Castro gleefully, gleefully, profits off the generosity of Cuban-Americans and the desperation of the Cuban people. This is Totalitarian Dictatorship 101, Mr. Chairman. There is practically a chapter on it in the Communist Manifesto. And it is the very arrangement that our Commerce Department will curb with these new regulations. The new regulations ensure, I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), ensure that the goods sent to Cuba are truly humanitarian. They will thereby cut into Castro's profits. They are supported by the Cuban-American community and, given the chance, they will work. The Flake amendment, however innocuous it would seem, would undo those regs, further underwriting Communist oppression and welcome Castro's vile snout back to the trough of American charity. That is why this amendment will not do. And that is why I urge my colleagues to stand with the Cuban people and vote no.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to recognize some special constituents of mine, the members of the Elkins High School varsity softball team from Missouri City, for capping off their perfect 2004 season with the school's first Texas State championship. To Coach Jim McClanahan, and assistant coaches Jim Smittle and Amy Mattes, thank you for the enormous amount of time and effort you gave to this team and for helping these girls live up to their potential. Without your hard work and dedication, this team could not have gotten where it is today. And to the team itself--Alyssa Garza, Caryn Danielson, Abbie Palmieri, Amy Palmieri, Brittni Taylor, Courtney Cornett, Erin Howe, Erin Tresselt, Jamie Hinshaw, Jessie Rodriguez, Rachel Isenhower, Ragan Blake, Sam Dyess, Tiffany Williams, Ryan Graybill, Jenna Lamoreux, Shallon Watson, and Ashley Patterson--congratulations! I'm proud to represent you all in the House of Representatives. While it's pretty clear from their record that there's a lot of talent on this team, you can't win 39 straight games on talent alone. It takes hard work, perseverance, and dedication--virtues this team has exemplified during its stellar season. It's great to have talent, but it's better to have commitment. As someone once said, ``It doesn't matter how good you are if you don't work hard.'' These girls set themselves a goal this year and accomplished it. To have gone an entire season without a single loss is an amazing achievement and a testament to the character of these young ladies. I am honored to enter their names and accomplishments into the Record today.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of June 22, 2004, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 685) revising the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 as it applies in the House of Representatives, and ask for its immediate consideration.