Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the American people are responding to the Republican party's economic agenda and we are responding to their needs. Our majority were elected in part to get the economy moving again, and the early evidence suggests we are delivering results for working families. On March 11, when the Committee on Ways and Means held its first hearing on the President's Job and Growth Package, the Standard and Poor's 500 Index stood at just above 800. Yesterday it closed above 1,000, a 25 percent increase in the stock market in just 3 months. The long suffering NASDAQ Composite Index has risen almost 10 percent just since the President signed the Jobs and Growth Package a few weeks ago. All totalled, $1.9 trillion in equity value has been created by the American people in fewer than 100 days. That is college savings, pension funds and individual retirement accounts. That kind of wealth creation leads to more investment, which leads to job creation and, ultimately, leads to economic growths. It may be too soon to call this a bull market, Mr. Speaker, but it is starting to move. And in the face of this positive response from the American people, we are going to keep moving our agenda of job creation, growth and economic opportunity to help our citizens fulfill America's promise. Last week we extended the life of the $1,000 child tax credit, extending its benefits to millions of working and middle class families. We took millions off the Federal tax rolls all together, and got rid of the child tax credit's marriage penalty. Our commitment to a family-friendly Tax Code will not stop there, because this week the House will consider legislation to make the 2001 repeal of the death tax permanent. After all, if we have the right to pass on a family business or farm to our spouse and children, why should our children and grandchildren not have that same right? Of course they have should, because economic security does not come with an expiration date. Mr. Speaker, the Republican agenda for economic growth and opportunity will create new jobs and improve current jobs. That is what the American people expect and it is exactly what we are delivering.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this is a big one. This bill really crystallizes the differences between the two parties, and the American people should know exactly what is going on here today. We are here to answer one question, do you support a $1,000 child tax credit, or do you not support it? This bill that we are debating here today provides $80 billion in tax relief and $77 billion of it extends the life of the child tax credit instead of cutting it off in 2004. At the end of this vote, the American people will see that the Republican Party believes in helping families through the child tax credit and the Democrat Party does not. The record up to now is very clear. In 2001, a Republican Congress and a Republican President doubled the child tax credit to $1,000, and the Democrats voted ``no.'' Just a few weeks ago, the President's jobs and growth package expanded the child tax credit and took 3 million low-income Americans off the tax roles altogether, and once again, the Democrats voted ``no.'' Now our critics said it was too big. Then they turned right around and demanded that we make it bigger. You said working Americans needed additional tax relief, and you know what, the Republicans could not agree more with you. Consider a single mother of two earning $20,000 a year. Under the Clinton tax hike of 1993, her total tax bill, including income tax, payroll tax, local taxes, State taxes and the sales tax was more than $800. Now, after the Bush tax relief of 2001, that same single mother's total tax bill shrunk to less than $100, and under the President's jobs and growth package we just passed, that same single mother's total tax bill is now zero, and in fact, she now gets additional money from the American people because of tax relief that the Republicans passed, and all along the Democrats voted ``no.'' Under the bill we pass today, not only will that same single mother pay no taxes, but she will get more than $400 in additional help from the American people; and yet if this debate is any indication at all, you will still vote ``no.'' Our critics talk a very good game, but this is their chance to put their money where their mouth is. I will ask again, are you for a $1,000 child tax credit, or are you against it? This bill is real simple, Mr. Speaker. It extends the life of the child tax credit. It provides additional help for lower-income families, and it eliminates the marriage penalty. It includes, by the way, tax relief for military families, which you all have been calling for, and revokes the tax-exempt status of terrorist organizations. Finally, it will provide tax relief for the families of astronauts who lose their lives in the service of their Nation in space like the Columbia 7. This is a pretty important point, especially for me. Members from Florida and Texas, whose constituents include astronauts and members of the NASA family, have a clear choice to make. Will they cast their votes with their courageous constituents or with the empty promises of the obstructionists? How can Members from Texas and Florida, how can any Member, oppose this piece of legislation? In this bill, we have given our critics everything that they have said they wanted to help lower-income Americans, and now with the whole world watching and the credibility of the Democratic Party on the line, are you for a $1,000 child tax credit, or are you against it? In just a few moments we will once again see which party stands up for the cameras and which party stands up for working families.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this week we will be taking up another bill that will directly benefit working families: the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003. And as we know, the class action process was designed to help consumers with similar troubles pool their resources for legal assistance and streamline what might otherwise be thousands, even millions, of separate claims. But in the last 10 years, class action filings have risen 1,000 percent. For all their apparent popularity, one would think class action suits have suddenly become more beneficial to consumers, but the evidence suggests in that time the class action system has been abused more often than ever. A suit against the Bank of Boston, for instance, yielded just $8.64 cents for every plaintiff, but cost $90 each in lawyers' bills. A class action against Blockbuster Video racked up more than $9 million in legal fees, but yielded plaintiffs a mere $1 off coupon for future rental at Blockbuster. Class actions have become more popular, but not because they have suddenly started benefitting consumers more. After all, under the current system, the suits get bogged down in State courts where the settlements are often not equally distributed among members of the class. Meanwhile, the cost of all this litigation is being passed on by companies to the American consumer. The courts, the companies, and the consumers are not benefitting them. But who is? Who else? The trial lawyers. The American people get the joke, Mr. Speaker. No matter who loses in class action suits, the winners are always the same: The trial lawyers. Even if their clients do not get any money or are not being paid, the lawyers always seem to be paid. So the reforms we will take up this week will streamline the class action system and provide for new consumer protection against abusive lawsuits. This Republican majority is committed to meeting the needs of the American people and reining in the excesses of our litigious trial lawyer community. So I look forward to the debate on this bill, Mr. Speaker, to see if the same can be said of their friends on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, what has happened here is they also do not want to mention that in the bill signed by the President last week we raised by 10 percent and added more people to the rolls that do not pay income taxes. So this notion that we are not taking care of the poor working families of this country are completely false; and, most importantly, they voted against it. We passed it without their votes, moved forward, gave tax relief to poor working families in this country; and we will continue to do so. When the Senate does something, we always take it into consideration and we will move forward. I would just remind the Members of this House that we have now almost a trillion dollars left in the budget to do more tax relief for the American people, and we are coming back. We are going to have at least two if not three more tax relief packages for the American people. Because we feel very strongly that we need jobs in this country, we need economic growth in this country, and American families need to keep more of their hard-earned money

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, may I have order?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, my, my, my, what a heated debate we are having today. I came to the well to talk about what this debate is all about. A lot has been left out by those Members on the other side of the aisle because they are afraid for the truth to surface, so I wanted to bring the real facts about what is going on here. The child tax credit provision in this new tax law is refundable, and it is refundable to the extent 10 percent of earned income in excess of $10,500, people that make $10,500 get a refundable tax rebate. In 2005, the 10 percent rate goes up to 15 percent. What this fight is over is there was a provision in the Senate that basically said they wanted to accelerate that 2 years, and we may want to do that in the proper way under regular order; but what the Democrats are angry about is that we did not accelerate that spending increase; and thanks to the tax relief passed by Republican Congresses over the last 8 years, 13 million American families have had their entire income tax liability eliminated, eliminated. The gentleman from Texas brings up who are these people. I would like to show my colleagues one. Here is a married couple earning $30,000 with three children. Before the 2001 law, that they voted against, this married couple would be paying a marginal rate of 15 percent, which means their income tax liability is over $1,000 and their payroll tax liability is $2,160. Before the 2001 law, they would get a $1,500 credit, and they would get an earned income tax credit of $782, which means that their income tax liability was zero. They still had a payroll tax liability; but because of EITC, the payment from the government was zero. So after 2001, this same family would have an income tax liability of $688, $2,160 from their payroll tax liability; but they get $1,800 in a child tax credit, and they get a $992 earned income tax credit, which means that their income tax liability is still zero, but their payroll tax liability goes down to $48. After this law that the President passed that they voted against, that the President signed a week ago, this same family is going to have an income tax liability of $525, payroll tax liability of $2,160, but they get a child tax credit of $2,475, and they get an earned income tax credit of $992, which actually helps them pay not only for their payroll taxes; it reimburses them for their payroll taxes. They pay no income taxes. They actually get a check for $782. A check from the American taxpayers. No tax liability, but they get to put $782 in their pocket. Now, let us take a single mother that makes $20,000 and has two children. They are going through the same thing. What has happened to her is she gets a check of over $1,000. Over $1,000. She pays no payroll taxes, she pays no income taxes, and she gets a check for $1,000. They voted against that. They voted against that. Now they want to come and tell the American people they are all tax relievers. Now all of a sudden they are tax relievers, and they want to give more tax relief to the taxpaying public and to people that do not have a tax liability.

Mr. DeLAY. They fail to----

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) be permitted to take the oath of office today. His certificate of election has not arrived; but there is no contest, and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank 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 debates and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of rules. A final list of those bills will be sent to the Members' offices by the end of the week. Any votes called on those measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and Wednesday we expect to consider additional bills under suspension of the rules. We also plan to consider several bills under a rule: H.R. 2115, the Flight 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, to reauthorize programs for the Federal Aviation Administration; H.R. 1115, the Class Action Fairness Act; and H.R. 2143, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act. In addition to these bills, we may also consider H.R. 1528, the Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act. And, finally, I would like to note for all Members that we are making a change in the schedule that was sent to offices at the beginning of the year. We do not plan to have votes next Friday, June 13.

Mr. DeLAY. The gentleman knows that we think we have already done child tax credit in a very meaningful way. Whatever the Senate does, certainly we will take it under consideration, but our schedule and our agenda that has been announced from the first of the year is that we will have several tax relief bills. Of those bills, maybe this provision that the gentleman is talking about could be included. I do not know, but the Committee on Ways and Means would certainly take it under advisement. We have scheduled certainly an international tax bill for this summer. We have already announced that we would like to see the total repeal of death tax made permanent. There will probably be another tax relief bill, so there is plenty of opportunity for the gentleman to talk about that provision that the Senate may have left out of the bill signed by the President a week ago.

Mr. DeLAY. I cannot say no plans. As the gentleman knows, in this business you never say never. I am under the impression that the other body has some sort of package that they have put together. If they pass that package today or tomorrow, the Committee on Ways and Means can certainly take it under advisement and make recommendations to the leadership, and that may happen next week. I just cannot tell the gentleman.

Mr. DeLAY. If the minority on the Committee on Ways and Means wants to participate in the process, certainly in those tax provisions that are being worked on as we speak by the Committee on Ways and Means, they could certainly participate in that process, try to get their provision in, gather the votes to pass it, and bring it out here, and hopefully they would support a tax relief bill.

Mr. DeLAY. As previously announced, we had tried to get Medicare modernization onto the floor before the Memorial Day break. Obviously, there was a tremendous amount of work that needed to be done, and we had to postpone that goal. We have set a new goal, and we hope that we can have Medicare modernization to the floor before the July 4 break. The Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Energy and Commerce are working hard to develop a proposal that would modernize and preserve the Medicare program and provide needy citizens with life- saving drugs. But while the complexity of this issue means that our staffs and committees need to be working and they are working very hard, we still hope to have a bill for the House to consider before the end of the month.

Mr. DeLAY. The gentleman is absolutely correct. We are way behind in our appropriations process. I am very concerned about that. We had hoped that this year that the House and the Senate could work out an agreement of allocation so that we could work together more smoothly than we have in the past as two bodies. We are still hopeful that we can get that kind of an agreement. But I anticipate the mark-ups in the subcommittee to begin, and I am very hopeful they can start beginning next week. But it is still probably a little too early to tell.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, as I have watched the debate, and it has been a good debate, what I have heard from the proponents of the substitute are two factors. One is that this is unconstitutional, theirs is constitutional, and they have made a decision for the courts. I did not come to the House to make a decision for the courts. I came to the House to pass very strong, important legislation and then to fight in the courts for my position. I do not let the courts decide what direction I go. I do not make those decisions in this Chamber. If Members want to make decisions for the courts, then go down to the White House and get a nomination from the President. The second is that their amendment will end late-term abortions, as if they are more pro-life than the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). It is amazing to me. If we took this substitute and put it out here freestanding as a bill, which we may get the opportunity to do, they would vote against it and their outside groups, their pro-abortion groups and pro-choice groups, would be rallying outside these doors against their substitute. So, Mr. Speaker, we have, though, a chance today to make the world a little less cruel for the defenseless. Opponents of this bill have condemned it to the top of their lungs, but we will not mistake volume for veracity. Despite the howls of extremism, all this bill really says is that even in this violent world, we can still tell the difference between right and wrong. We can still recognize that the inhumanity of this procedure has no place in a moral society. We can still recoil at brutality. We should set aside the politics for a moment and just close our eyes and try to imagine what it is we are talking about. Think of the grip of the doctor's hand, like a vice, pulling a frightened baby, pulling on a frightened baby's legs out of the womb and into the world. Think of the frantic wriggling of that little body in that gloved hand. Think of that moment of pure terror when those sanitized scissors puncture the baby's neck. Then ask yourself, is this the best that we can do for unborn children, however unwanted; for pregnant women, however desperate; for the American people, however divided? How can anyone think so? After all, women do not ask for partial- birth abortions. No, its violence is unleashed for the convenience of the doctor, not the health of the patient. Women who undergo the procedure run the risk of infection, future pregnancy difficulties, and infertility. Yet its defenders tell us that this cruel, dangerous, and medically unnecessary procedure is essential to the well-being of American women. Mr. Speaker, it is just not true, but it is an untruth we will not have to bear or hear again after today. After 8 long years and many partial-birth abortions, Congress will finally send the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 to a President who is willing to sign it. When he does, abortion will still be with us. The debate over the rights of the unborn will continue and new battles will be fought. But in the meantime, in the meantime, the American people will take this one stand, this one stand on behalf of the innocent, to tame the savageness of man and to make gentle the life of this world. Take that stand with them now. Vote against this substitute and vote for the bill.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this week, the House of Representatives will implement another item on the President's agenda. We have been voting for 6 years to ban the cruel and unnecessary violence of partial-birth abortion. At long last, Congress will take the same decision our constituents took years ago. We will call infanticide by its name. The House is well aware of the debate, and we will repeat it once again before we finally send this legislation to a President who is willing to sign it. It will become law. And when it does, we will become a slightly better Nation for it. But beyond the specific victory this will be for its tireless proponents, the passage and enactment of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act will be a victory for the American families we were sent here to serve. Last November, in the face of uncertainties about war in Iraq and a sagging economy, the American people elected this Congress to get things done. Our mandate was to rise above partisan gridlock to complement President Bush's leadership instead of undermining it. Five months into our first session, we have passed major legislation not just in the House but in the Senate as well. And we are not just passing paper, we are passing laws. In addition to the partial-birth abortion ban, the Armed Services Naturalization Act has significant bipartisan support and can quickly become law. We are also pursuing the President's initiative to reform Medicare with a prescription drug benefit to help those seniors who need it the most. This is on top of the jobs and growth package to create more than 1 million new jobs and provide for our economic security. And the global AIDS bill to help curb the spread of HIV/AIDS in the most vulnerable regions of this world. And the Child Protection Act to prevent and punish sexual predation against our children. And the war budget to fund the liberation of Iraq and the reconstruction of its government. Mr. Speaker, this Congress is helping this President produce results. And with every law we pass and he signs, we move another step closer to fulfilling America's promise and, just as important, fulfilling our promise to America.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this has been a real interesting debate. It certainly laid out clearly the differences between the two parties, and I appreciate that. I think it is good for America, to lay out the differences between the two parties. But one of the things I noticed in the debate is the differences in interpretation of history. Let me just start by saying, the gentleman from Maryland laid out the history all the way back from Jack Kennedy's time. I would just as soon do it in my time in the legislative body. The gentleman talked about the fact that Ronald Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and the deficits went through the roof. The problem was there was a Democrat Senate, a Democrat House, and they spent $2 for every $1 cut in taxes; and the deficits went through the roof.

Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, following this history, I did not hear all the claims of the born-again deficit hawks about deficits during those periods of time. They just wanted to keep spending money. Then, I have to admit, I voted against President Bush's tax increase. Do you know what happened after Bush's tax increase? We had a recession that cost him his election. I can always remember who won that election and came in, never talking about balancing the budget, who was not a born-again deficit hawk like those we have seen tonight. It was a President that wanted to keep spending it. So he passed another tax increase in 1993. Now, that one I voted against too. I am very proud of that. The problem was for this side of the aisle, as the American people did not like all the spending in 1993 and 1994, they did not like the vision laid out for the American people, so they gave the Republicans the responsibility of being in the majority in the House of Representatives. The born-again deficit hawks say that the 1993 increase gave them surpluses. I do not remember it that way. What I remember was we came in and we told the American people in the Contract with America that we would balance the budget. We did. We had the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. None of you born-again deficit hawks voted for that, if I remember, or some did. I take that back, some of you did. The vast majority of you did not, and told us that there would be just horrible things; we will not be able to spend any more, crying, tears coming down your faces, We cannot spend anymore; we cannot spend any more. Yet we balanced the budget and deficits were going down, and the debt went down, because we paid off over $1 trillion on the debt on our children. Now, for the first time in my legislative career, when George W. Bush took over, revenues to the government actually turned down. Revenues had been going up ever since I have been in the legislative body. But for the first time the revenues actually turned down, which created the problem that we face. Now, if you would have worked with us, you new budget deficit hawks, and made permanent that tax cut in 2001, maybe we would not be losing the jobs that you quote that we are losing, and if those tax cuts would have been implemented immediately, rather than stretching them out, we would have had a better economy than we find now. So we have to come back to the well. What is really interesting to me is the ranking member was very concerned about the fact that there is a conspiracy out there, that this is not the only tax cut that there is going to be this year. There is no conspiracy. We are very, very proud of the fact that this House of Representatives has passed tax cuts every year we have been in the majority. Every year. And do you know what? In 8\1/2\ years there has not been a Federal increase in taxes in this country. That is even more meaningful. And do you know what? This year, this ain't the end of it. We are going to have some more, because our budget says we can do $1.3 trillion in tax relief for the American people, and you bet we are coming back with more tax cuts. So there has been a lot of talk in this Chamber about this bill and what it would do to the government. In fact, one Member of the other side of the aisle said cutting taxes hurts the government. I heard her say that, cutting taxes hurts the government. But the American people want to know what this bill will do for them, because we are here for them. And do you know what? We have an answer to that. The jobs and growth package will create more than 1 million new jobs. It is not as large as some of us wanted; but I remind you, it is just the first step. At any rate, the proof is in the policy, not the price tag. As many of you know, I used to be a small businessman; and I know, as you do, that tax relief for small business means expansion, and to most small businesses, that means one thing, hiring new people. The accelerated rate reductions will increase the purchasing and hiring power of millions of small businesses this year. Add the expensing and depreciation reforms, and you are looking at the circulation of billions of dollars, this year; and these billions of dollars will be in the hands of small business men and women responsible for creating over 70 percent of all new jobs. Now, the $500 increase in the child tax credit invested over the course of 18 years could actually enable a high school senior to look at colleges instead of want-ads. The dividend and capital gains reforms will help steady the stock market and encourage new investment at the very moment that working Americans will start taking home, start taking home, more of what they earn. Economist Lawrence Kudlow said this today about this package. He said it would contribute mightily to the rebuilding of capital and wealth that was decimated in the nearly 3-year stock market plunge, 3 long years. In that time, the American people have faced unprecedented challenges; but they have persevered, and now they are poised to fuel an unprecedented recovery. Interest rates and inflation remain low, anxiety about the war in Iraq have been eased and consumer confidence is on the rise. All the American people need right now is the opportunity that they deserve, not the government, that they deserve. They deserve that opportunity to get this economy going again. So I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. Pass this jobs and growth package and give Americans that chance.

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, June 4, 2003.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 191) and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk will report the concurrent resolution.

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 Tuesday, May 27, 2003, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 191, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

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 on the conference report on H.R. 2.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, faced with unprecedented challenges around the world and here at home, President Bush has taken the road less traveled. He has not hid behind his already strong record. Instead, he has laid out an agenda for America that answers history's call and meets those challenges on our terms, and in the last four weeks, the House has taken action on major legislation involving every aspect of the President's agenda. Since we returned from recess in April, we have passed a robust tax relief package to create jobs and grow the economy. Over the long term, the President's jobs and growth package will help ensure our Nation has an economy strong enough to employ everyone willing to work and meet the emerging needs of the American people. We passed the global HIV/AIDS bill, first announced in the President's State of the Union address, to provide $15 billion to Africa over the next 5 years to stem the tide of the great plague of our age. We have an opportunity to ease the suffering of millions and save the lives of millions more, and thanks to the President's leadership, we will seize it and send a final bill to his desk this week. Also this week, we will take up the Defense Department's reauthorization bill which will provide provisions to modernize the Pentagon's management and bring it into the 21st century. Rigid personnel restrictions will be updated, reflecting more flexible management models that have been so successful in the modern business world. We have tackled adult education and job training and also reformed Federal special education law. Last week, the House made several reforms to retirement savings law, giving employees more control over their 401(k)s, IRAs and their pensions, and this week we will pass another presidential initiative, this one to maintain our environment by reforming the management of our forests. Much remains to be done, Mr. Speaker, but so far this House has answered the President's call to pass an agenda worthy of the American people.

Mr. DeLAY

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