Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, the Committee on Ways and Means has reported a bill to address the repeal of the foreign sales credit last year. We understand the problem. While there have been a couple of deadlines for European retaliation which have come and gone, we understand the threat that now exists beginning March 1. Clearly we need to find a way to address this issue. We are coordinating with the Committee on Ways and Means, the Senate leadership and the White House to resolve the issue in a way that not only ensures our compliance with the World Trade Organization, but also increases the competitive position of all American companies in the global economy.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this week the House will hear a lot, on the floor and off the floor, about the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, also known as Laci and Conner's Law, which acknowledges the victimhood of unborn children injured during attacks against their pregnant mothers. Though the bill says nothing about Roe v. Wade, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, or any abortion law at any level of government in this Nation, we will hear false arguments to the contrary. We will hear the usual arguments, from the usual suspects, that any legislation that in any way recognizes the humanity of unborn children is an assault on the Constitution. Those of us who support this legislation, who, I should add, represent a point of view shared by more than 80 percent of the American people, will be scolded and have fingers wagged at us by people telling us in ominous tones that they ``know what we are doing.'' Well, I should hope so. I hope the whole world knows what we are doing, sees the stands that we are taking on behalf of pregnant mothers and their families, providing justice and codifying common sense. There is nothing in Laci and Conner's Law we should hide from. Indeed, so intuitive is the notion that an attack against a pregnant mother involves two victims, so essential to both natural law and basic human experience, that I would venture to guess that even most children in this country just assume that legislation like the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is already on the books. This is a no-brainer, Mr. Speaker. Of course Laci and Conner's Law should be passed. Of course this House and this Nation can stand up for pregnant women and their families and acknowledge the injuries their children suffer at the hand of violent predators and set penalties accordingly. Defending the family is part of our core agenda in this Congress, and passing Laci and Conner's Law is one of the ways we can fulfill it. After all, what kind of moral leaders would we be if, given the choice, we rejected the natural instinct of all people that they all have to recoil at news of violence against pregnant mothers? Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, come Thursday's vote, we will not have to find out.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill, and I rise in strong support of its passage; but I want to take just a few minutes to speak to a particular provision in this bill and the unfortunately contentious debate that surrounds it. There is a lot of misinformation out there about the government pension offset provision, and I want to make sure everyone understands what we are talking about today. Under Social Security, spouses of covered workers who do not work outside the home themselves are entitled to spousal benefits. But if both spouses work, their spousal benefits are reduced, or offset, one dollar for every dollar of Social Security benefits that they themselves earn. This is true for every single couple in America that is covered by Social Security. In Texas, many of our school districts have opted out of the Social Security system, instead using the Texas teachers retirement system, so that those district teachers and staff pay into the TRS, not Social Security. As a matter of fairness, the law says that if you pay into a different retirement system, like TRS, then your Social Security spousal benefits are offset by the benefits that you accrue in the other system. This is only fair, and it has been the law for a generation. Unfortunately, a loophole exists in that law that says even if you work your entire career in the teacher retirement system and then work for just one day in another school district that uses Social Security, you are suddenly entitled to full spousal benefits under Social Security, as if you only worked one day in your entire life. That is simply unfair, Mr. Speaker. The offset law is in place to protect the spirit of Social Security, and the loophole violates that spirit. Opponents of this provision are correct, though, when they say Texas teachers have been targeted for unfair treatment. They have been targeted by their unions, Mr. Speaker, who have spread misinformation about the spousal benefit loophole. Not only has that misinformation been spread about this debate, but it is poisoning the retirement planning of deliberately misinformed Texas teachers. In recent months some of our offices have gotten calls from single teachers who have been led to believe by their unions that they could qualify for the spousal benefit loophole when they have never even been married. That is the outrage, Mr. Speaker. Not this bipartisan effort to protect the Social Security system from waste, fraud, and abuse. Teachers in Texas and around the country will be just as protected by this bill as everyone else, which is the whole point of the Social Security system in the first place. We are doing the right thing, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, there is one point to make in the debate about the war on Iraq and it is this: we did the right thing. After September 11, President Bush declared war on the terrorists and all the regimes who support them. Saddam Hussein's dictatorship was the very definition of a terrorist regime. He started two wars, invaded two neighbors, and tried to assassinate an American President. He was obsessed with obtaining nuclear weapons and was bent on using them to blackmail the civilized world. He was a merciless tyrant with no respect for human life who butchered his own people and threatened the stability of a fragile region in the Middle East. He worked with terrorists and financed their operations. He was going to kill more Americans and help others to do so. In short, Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein was Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; and he had to be removed. Yet, now in this political season, partisan opportunists suggest that the war was somehow illegitimate because we have not found massive World War II-style warehouses full of missiles. But 9-11 taught us that our enemies need not have conventional weapons to threaten us. If Saddam Hussein had just a briefcase full of one chemical or so much as a vile of another given his past, his hatred of the United States and his ties to international terrorism, he posed a grave and gathering threat to our national security, period. Critics who now undermine the legitimacy of Operation Iraqi Freedom with their slanderous attacks against the President and the international intelligence community undermined our security at the same time. Revisionists these days seem to believe it was someone other than Saddam Hussein who deceived the international community during the buildup of this war. But by doing so, Mr. Speaker, they embolden our enemies. Every world leader, especially those of us with the honor to serve in this body, should stand up and speak with one voice on the war on terror and how it will be fought and how we should win it in Iraq and elsewhere. Undermining our mission in Iraq to score political points dishonors the victory we won there and the legacy of the men and women who gave their lives in its winning. We did the right thing, Mr. Speaker; and we would do it again.

Mr. DeLAY

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour debates and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules. A final list of those bills will be sent to Members' offices by the end of this week. Any votes called on these measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday, the House will convene at 10 a.m. We plan to consider the Senate amendment to H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act. In addition, we plan to consider H.R. 1561, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act and a short extension of the highway program as well. The current extension expires at the end of February, so we must consider a short-term extension while we are working actively on TEA-LU. Finally, I would like to remind all Members that we do not plan to have votes on Friday, February 13. I will be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I think that the committee should be prepared to mark up this very important legislation very shortly after the Presidents' Day district work period. The 4-month extension that we are talking about doing next week should not in any way indicate that we want to postpone the completion of this very important bill until June. The 4-month extension that we are talking about is simply to give highway administrators, especially in the northern States, the predictability that they need to let contracts for the spring and summer construction season. In discussions with the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, he informs me that he is working as hard as he can to get the TEA-LU bill up as quickly as possible. And once they get it marked up, it goes through the Committee on Ways and Means. After that, we will bring it to the floor as quickly as possible.

Mr. DeLAY. I have not seen the actual language. That is being consulted with your side. The last I was advised, it would probably be June 30.

Mr. DeLAY. We do not have a busy week on the floor for next week, but at this point we are inclined to work through Thursday, not through Thursday but at least Thursday morning to early afternoon. This will give committees an opportunity to hold hearings and get some markups completed so we will have legislation ready for the end of February and through March. But I do not expect to have a long day Thursday.

Mr. DeLAY. My friend considers that amendment a very significant amendment. I have a different point of view. As the gentleman is surely aware, the provision that he refers to that just passed is a completely new, unfunded program in a new agency with no experience or competence to handle this issue. Frankly, it was a very clever political stunt and I have to hand it to the gentleman, but if you look at the substance of this, I cannot imagine any member of the conference committee actually voting to allow that to come out of conference. I would remind the gentleman that the unemployment rate today is lower than it was when President Clinton and a Democrat-controlled Congress cut off extended unemployment benefits, and in my opinion the way to help the working class is not to grow the government but to grow the economy and create jobs.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, he did not use all of my quote. I said it was a clever political stunt. Members do vote sometimes, without questioning anybody's motive, do vote for political reasons or whatever reason they may. But the truth still remains, and our side of the aisle feels very strongly that it is more important to provide jobs than unemployment. We understand the gentleman's point of view. We respect his point of view. We have a different point of view. If this was a substantive amendment that had real teeth in it, I do not think the vote would have been the same.

Mr. DeLAY. That is not what I said.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, I have to correct the gentleman. He says a long-held belief. I do not understand what the gentleman's definition of ``long-held belief'' is. When his party was in control in 1993 and the unemployment figures were higher than they are now, the economy was not as good as it is now, his party brought to this floor the cutting off of long-term unemployment benefits. Yet now when the economy is even better, when the unemployment rate is almost to full employment, the gentleman feels very strongly, and it is not for politics, I am sure, very strongly that now we have to extend. So long-held beliefs are in the eyes of the beholder.

Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. It is not inaccurate to state that in 1993, before the Clinton administration took credit for an economy that was created by a Republican Congress, the Democrat-controlled House cut off extended benefits. The gentleman knows that we can use figures all over the place. The gentleman is right, only 1,000 jobs were created in December, but it was very interesting to note that 146,000 long-term unemployed went off the rolls and went to work in December alone. The trends are that jobs are going up, the trends are that unemployment is going down, that jobs are being available and the long-term unemployed will be able to find jobs.

Mr. DeLAY. I lived this history. I very much remember that the Balanced Budget Act of 1996 and 1997 was vetoed twice by President Clinton and then signed by President Clinton with very little changes. The restraint on spending through the whole process, the Welfare Reform Act that was vetoed two or three times if I remember, all of the issues that actually got to the President's desk in those years were resisted by the President while he took credit after he signed it for everything, including the economy. Then we find ourselves coming into a new administration when the recession started in the old administration, and this administration was saddled with a recession as it came in and did exactly what needed to be done, along with the Republican House and Senate and, that is, give the types of tax relief and economic policies that now we see are working and a growing economy that the American people are experiencing, not the economy described by the other side of the aisle. Unemployment is going down, jobs are going up, people are finding jobs. I see no reason to extend after 26 weeks unemployment benefits.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Friday, February 6, 2004, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 10 for morning hour debate.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Friday, February 6, 2004.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, we are heading into the legislative year and we are heading into a campaign year, as we just heard. Campaign rhetoric sometimes overshadows reality and truth. But the Republican majority will be guided by three principal themes this year: Ensuring our security, growing the economy, and defending the family. Everything we do this year in this House will get our Nation closer to one of those goals. First, we will continue to fund the ongoing war on terror and provide our military service men and women with the tools, training, and resources that they need to protect all of us. We will continue to export democracy and freedom to every corner of the globe. Second, we will continue our successful work here at home in growing the economy, creating jobs for the American people, and bringing fiscal responsibility to the government. We will make sure that the $1,000 child tax credit remains the law of the land, something the Democrats opposed. We will not let the marriage tax penalty come back, as it is scheduled to do at the end of this year, something the Democrats want to see the return of. We will fight to keep the 10 percent tax bracket where it is, so that working families can continue to enjoy more fruits of their labors, something that the Democrats do not want to see happen. Members, it boggles my mind to notice that the Democrats have all of a sudden become deficit hawks. It is amazing to me. In the 40 years that the Democrats controlled this House, they never balanced the budget once. Not once. Deficits did not matter. Tax increases mattered. More spending mattered. They fought every tax relief bill every President brought before them. They wanted to spend more money. Not once did they balance the budget. It took less than 4 years for a Republican majority in this House to get to a balanced budget, because we brought fiscal sanity to this House and to this government. So when they talk about the President's budget, what they are screaming about is they want more spending, and the President says no. What they are screaming about is they want to raise taxes, and the President says no. That is what they are screaming about. And what would happen if they raised taxes on American families? They would kill the growth that has come because we gave tax relief. And if we kill the growth, revenues to the government go down. Then they will want to raise taxes some more; take more money to pay. We just heard the minority whip talk about paying this generation's debt. What he is talking about is raising taxes so that they can spend more. Republicans are interested in growing the economy, the Democrats are interested in growing the government. Third, this House will protect American families as they struggle to do their all-important work raising their children, caring for their elders, and building their communities. We will pass the Laci and Conner law to protect unborn victims of violence. We will work with the Senate to finish the reauthorization of the welfare system, to help families get off welfare and into stable and well-paying jobs. We will make quality and affordable health care more accessible to all Americans regardless of their income level. And, finally, we will protect the Medicare legislation passed last year from attempts to undermine the promise of guaranteed prescription drug coverage the Congress has made to our seniors. Mr. Speaker, as Members know, we are heading into this campaign year with a close election facing us in November. But as contentious as our debates probably will be, although we may have different agendas, our goals of peace and prosperity for the Nation are the same; and further remember that this America is best served when our differences bring out the best in ourselves, not the worst in each other.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for bringing this very important resolution to the floor of the House. Mr. Speaker, we can still see their faces. Their friends can still hear their hearty laughter. And their families can still feel their embrace. At every mention of their names or reminder of their courage, our hearts ache with the hollow pangs of mourning and our thoughts and prayers turn to their loved ones. For there is no loss like the loss of a hero. And 1 year ago our Nation and our world lost seven. Though they came from different nations, practiced different faiths, and sought answers to different mysteries, the winding road of providence brought them all to one place on earth where their common calling could be answered. They came to Johnson Space Center. And there, at America's great laboratory of the impossible, they trained and studied, alongside the finest collection of public servants that I know, inching ever closer to their dreams and their destiny. And though we still mourn 1 year later, it is their lives that we honor in this resolution, not their loss. Columbia's ``corps of discovery'' may be gone, but death has no power over the memory of heroes. It is left to us, then, in this House and in this Nation to live up to the challenge their lives of service issued: Will we carry on America's mission in space or will we ignore our deepest yearnings for knowledge and tether mankind to ``the surly bonds of earth''? I think we know what the Columbia seven would say. And if there be any doubt, just walk outside on a clear night, look into the southern sky and ask them. For immortal in death, the Columbia heroes live on at home in the heavens, among the ancient stars that first stirred their souls, looking down on us all with love and hope, lighting our way through the darkness. They will answer you.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Friday, January 30, 2004, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 3 for morning hour debate.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. I thank the distinguished minority whip for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules, and a final list of those bills will be sent to the Members' offices by the end of the week. Any votes called on these measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday, the House will convene at 10 a.m. At 11 a.m. a joint meeting of Congress will convene to receive Spanish President Jose Maria Aznar. Following President Aznar's speech, we plan to consider H.R. 3030, the Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act. Finally, to accommodate scheduling demands next week, similar to those that we have this week, the House will not have votes next Thursday or Friday. I thank the gentleman for yielding and would be happy to answer any questions he may have.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would reserve answering that question. I believe there is going to be an announcement by the Committee on Rules following this colloquy, and I think the gentleman will be very pleased with that announcement; but I would reserve that the Committee on Rules ought to make that decision and announcement.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Friday, January 30, 2004.