Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield further, the healthy forest bill that we anticipated to be on this floor next week, and we are still working hard to do that, ran into a little problem of jurisdiction. The Committee on the Judiciary has yet to mark that bill up, or their portion of the bill up. They hope to do that next week. If everyone would cooperate, we could mark it up and get it to the floor by the end of next week. If not, then we have every intention of scheduling that bill in the following week.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield further, I would hope so, yes.

Mr. DeLAY. The gentleman is correct.

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 on Wednesday, May 14, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. on Thursday, May 15, for the purpose of receiving in this Chamber former Members of Congress.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order on Thursday, May 15, for the Speaker to declare a recess subject to the call of the Chair for the purpose of receiving in this Chamber former Members of Congress.

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 Tuesday, May 13, 2003, for morning hour debates.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in what the previous speaker had to say. The gentleman from New Jersey just went through the President's economic and job growth package by detail, yet failed to go by detail into the Democratic alternative to creating jobs and stimulating economy because they have no alternative. The gentleman quotes the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities as if they are a think tank with credibility. That group is filled with Democratic Hill staffers and former administration people; and obviously, they are not a think tank, they are an opposition research organization, so they have no credibility in terms of what we need to stimulate our economy and grow jobs. Mr. Speaker, too many Americans ready and willing to work are not able to find work. That is the problem. Companies are not investing or expanding, and jobs are not being created. The President's jobs and growth package which the House will take up this week will help remedy those problems. His proposal will immediately stimulate the economy to create new jobs and provide the framework for long-term economic growth. It will provide stimulative tax relief on dividends and capital gains, move the income tax rate reductions planned for 2006 up to this year, and it will eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It will increase the child tax credit, and it will accelerate business depreciation schedules. Mr. Speaker, that is a real jobs and growth package, and it is not based on some opposition research organization, it is based on history and we understand when we cut taxes we grow the economy. All of these provisions will get jobs into the hands of people who need them, and money in the form of paychecks, not handouts, in the hands of American families. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the Committee on Ways and Means will propose a package to help create jobs for the millions of Americans out of work and help create an economic environment that rewards investment and risk. The President's plan is an American solution to an American problem. Congress should get out of the way and let entrepreneurs and workers create jobs through investment, innovation and hard work. But for them to do that, they need real tax relief, substantial enough to do some good in our $10 trillion economy. We do not need timid proposals or hidden tax hikes in the guise of offsets that will only reinforce current anxieties. Mr. Speaker, after the brief session in 2001, the economic ramifications of the 9/11 attacks and the understandable anxieties during the buildup to the battle of Iraq, we have finally turned this corner toward greater economic recovery. The American people want jobs, and they deserve an economy strong enough to create those jobs. The President's proposal will create jobs and, finally, turn the economic tide away from anxiety and into the favor of workers, small business people, homeowners, parents and retirees. I look forward to the debate and its ultimate passage.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot of speeches on this floor supporting the President's program and supporting ABC and the program of Uganda, yet being opposed to the Pitts amendment. The Pitts amendment is the Uganda program. It is the President's program. So we should support the Pitts amendment because it is what the President is asking us to do. Every day, 2,000 more children are infected with the HIV/AIDS virus. Entire generations of communities in Sub-Saharan Africa are being obliterated by a preventible disease. AIDS in Africa is not just an epidemic, it is an emergency. But there is something we can do about it. President Bush, I wish Members on the other side of the aisle would listen, has called upon us to marshal the virtue and resources of the American people to help save a continent in crisis. This is his initiative, and, as such, our legislation should reflect his ideals for it. Mr. Chairman, abstinence-based prevention programs work, and the President supports the Pitts amendment. After years of trial and error and research, the facts, and the striking success of Uganda's abstinence program, are very clear. No other method has produced the success rates or saved as many lives as Uganda's ABC approach. Because of this, the discovery of a new and effective weapon in the war against AIDS, the President has endorsed the Uganda model. So have experts in the field, who were once skeptical of abstinence as a solution. Despite the evidence, some still suspect proponents of abstinence- based prevention of simply being on a moral crusade. I would say in response that this entire bill is a moral crusade. Not to impose our values on anyone, but to save a continent of the Great Plague of our age. This debate is not about supporting one political agenda over another. It is about supporting proven methods of AIDS prevention over the failed policies that have tragically contributed to the infection of 30 million Africans. The disease is running rampant across Sub- Saharan Africa, and the only places returning encouraging news are those nations committed to abstinence-based prevention programs. It works, and we cannot let the fog of politics obscure that fact. In Uganda, 10 years of the abstinence-based approach have slowed the march of the disease, and in Zambia recent results are showing similar success. To meet the moral responsibility of this crisis, we must promote policies that work, not ones that have been proven failures. So, Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment is a test of our seriousness about this issue. People are dying and politics will not save them. The United States has a real chance to do good in the world with this bill, but only if we do the job right.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, the number one domestic priority of this administration and this Congress is to stimulate the sluggish economy. The President's tax relief proposal will create jobs. It will grow the economy. It will spur investment and innovation in the private sector. And it will put more money into the pockets of the American men and women who earn it. By contrast, the alternative plan being touted is insufficient, and its proponents have some explaining to do. As the President put it the other day, if they agree that tax relief creates jobs, then why are they for a little itty bitty tax relief package? Well, some oppose tax relief because they think the money belongs to the government instead of the people who earn it. The good news is that this is an intellectually consistent response. The bad news is, the only person in the Western Hemisphere who believes it is Fidel Castro. Others say they worry about the deficit, but their argument contradicts itself. The budget was balanced in the 1990s through spending restraint and economic growth. Letting people keep more of their own money stimulates the economy and limits our ability to spend. Those opposing significant tax relief would intentionally hamstring the economy and leave hundreds of billions in Washington, D.C. to be spent like a stray $20 bill in Las Vegas, not exactly a recipe for a balanced budget. Finally, some in Washington just attack everything that the President proposes. This, unfortunately, describes too many Democrats in Congress, more interested in griping than governing. Madam Speaker, whether their reasons are extreme, self-contradictory, or partisan, the enemies of significant tax relief are wrong. We need real tax relief to create jobs, grow an economy that can afford all our priorities, balance the budget, and hold the line on spending. That is, after all, why the American people elected Republican leaders in the first place.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. I rise in support of it because I want to keep an eye on the big picture. The big picture is that we have men and women that are giving the ultimate sacrifice and dying in Iraq. We have spent an incredible amount of time and money bringing freedom to the Iraqi people, and the American people support this effort. We need to support our troops, and this bill does that. We need to support our troops and replace the ammunition, the resources that have been expended so that we do not put our Armed Forces in a vulnerable position. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this because I support the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the ranking member. I do not think I have ever been as proud as I am now of the Committee on Appropriations and the chairman and the ranking member. The chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations understood how important this effort was. When the President of the United States sent up his request for additional moneys to fight the war, they went right to work and put together a package that we can all be proud of, kept it clean and focused on the war, on homeland security, on our responsibilities around the world in order to fight the war on terrorism, and they brought a very good bill to this floor. This House of Representatives passed that clean bill and sent it to the other side of the rotunda. Now, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in this town, we have people that will take advantage of even a war situation and a war supplemental. Mr. Speaker, we have people in this town that just cannot stop their appetite for spending money. In the other body, Mr. Speaker, in the bill that they passed, they loaded the war supplemental, the bill that is to support our troops, with items such as a dairy provision in California, an item such as $5 million for a communications system in Louisville, Kentucky, an item such as a dam in Vermont, an item such as a $1 million earmark for jobs of America's graduates in Alexandria, Virginia, an item such as $529,000 for local law enforcement costs related to the nightclub fire in Rhode Island, not exactly a Federal responsibility, an item such as a land exchange in Nevada, an item such as a provision on ginseng labeling. What does ginseng have to do with fighting the war in Iraq? Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, probably for the rest of the afternoon, listing the items that were put in the war supplemental. Yet our chairman and our ranking member stood up and said, this is not going to happen. We are not going to allow this to happen and we are going to try our best to send the President of the United States a supplemental appropriation that supports our troops and our homeland security. They fought into the wee hours of the night in trying to maintain not only the integrity of the work done by the House of Representatives, but also to provide the President with what he was requesting. I have to tell the Members they did an outstanding job at getting most of this stuff out. But in the end there are two bodies and there has to be something left because the other body just insists on having little, parochial spending. So I have to inform the Members that there is a provision in this bill for a lab in Ames, Iowa, that there is a provision relating to wild seafood being deemed as organic, a provision relating to payments to State agriculture to pay catfish farmers, a provision related to Forest Service grazing, and some provision, I cannot figure out, relating to an Indian school. But that is all that we can be upset about. And we have to really focus on what this is all about, my colleagues, and remove the appetite of some in this body, not in this body, in this town, and understand that the most important part about this is to support our troops and support the war in Iraq. So I urge my Members to vote for this bill and I urge our Members to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, on April 10, 1979, the Taiwan Relations Act became law, and the United States affirmed its friendship with the people of Taiwan. That friendship remains a cornerstone of America's vision for a free, secure, and prosperous Asia at peace with itself and the community of nations. The TRA requires the United States to provide Taiwan sufficient arms to defend herself and demands a peaceful resolution to its dispute with Beijing. Under the TRA, the Taiwanese are assured the United States will not allow bullying or blackmail across the Taiwan Strait. Today, its 24th anniversary, this historic legislation is even more relevant than at its enactment. Though Taiwan is one of America's largest trading partners, our friendship is much deeper than an economic partnership. Our two nations are bound by common values of self-determination, freedom, and economic opportunity. We are also bound by a common resistance to the efforts of any regime to repress man's God-given human rights. ``The price of liberty is eternal vigilance,'' Thomas Jefferson said. Free men and women in Taiwan, whose neighbors on the mainland suffer under the boot-heel of Communist tyranny, have no choice but to live that sentiment every day. Taiwan is a free nation, and must remain so. Her open and tolerant society should be seen by Beijing not as a threat, but a model for progress. I have traveled to Taiwan several times. Anyone who has can tell you it is home to a vibrant, modern nation of free and prosperous people, grateful for America's friendship. It is now our responsibility to ensure that friendship grows even stronger. Our responsibility in such times is no less than to ensure the security of free men everywhere in the world. The House of Representatives understands this responsibility, and has affirmed its support for Taiwan numerous times since TRA, including in its overwhelming passage of the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act in February, 2000. So, too, does the President. He has made it clear the United States will do whatever it takes to defend Taiwan. His Administration has provided Taiwan with essential weapons systems and continues to expand our economic partnership. The House will continue to work with the Administration to ensure Taiwan's security. For 24 years, the United States has cultivated a relationship with Taiwan, whose roots run to the core of our shared love of liberty. Against the harsh winds of despotism, that relationship has bloomed, and through the eternal vigilance of our two nations, billions will one day enjoy its fruit.

Mr. DeLAY

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, and I also appreciate being found. As the gentleman and Members know, a very important conference committee is meeting on the war supplemental. Very intensive discussions are going on. We anticipate, hopefully anticipate that the conference can be wrapped up later on this evening, but there is absolutely no way that we can assure the Members that we can vote on that bill today. We will have no more votes this afternoon, and anticipate coming back to consider the war supplemental tomorrow at noon.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman would continue to yield, it would be beneficial to all Members if we could come to some agreement on the bill. I know that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) have worked very, very hard to protect the interests of the House and this institution, and they are remaining firm. And we should congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for the work they have done. If it works to the satisfaction of those two Members and this body, it would be very preferable to work out some sort of agreement that we could voice the vote; but I must warn Members that it does not guarantee that there will not be a vote.

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

Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate and agree with the gentleman's remarks. I want to tell Members that, as they know, at this point in time in the session it is very difficult to communicate with Members, so I urge Members to stay in touch with their offices because we will be giving all Members updates on an hourly to 2-hour basis as to what is going on with the conference committee and what the future may hold for another session tomorrow.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I would hope we can give it sooner than that. In talking to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), we should have some sort of sense as to what direction the conference will be going in the next hour or two.

Mr. DeLAY. Of course. And we would like to give them even more notice than that, but at least an hour before we would actually ring the bells and go back into session would we give Members notice.

Mr. DeLAY. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. DeLAY. Correct. The only votes we would have, if required, would be on the rules leading up to the supplemental and on the supplemental.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman would yield, it could be three. A same- day rule, a rule for the conference report, and the conference report.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Energy Policy Act of 2003 and congratulate the leaders of all the Committees involved for reporting a comprehensive, balanced energy plan. This legislation will begin to free our nation from its dependence on foreign sources of energy, a vital priority for America's national security. The more energy we produce within our borders, the more we know we can rely on, no matter what international circumstances arise. The bill also contains provisions to allow lower-income Americans to pay their energy bills. This is a real benefit to real people, right now. Finally, the increased production of oil in the United States will help lower America's gas prices, which now are too heavily impacted by the actions of other nations. It has been more than a decade since our nation had a comprehensive energy plan, and quiet frankly, if it were up to the Democrat leadership, we still wouldn't have one. Instead of engaging the debate with an alternative proposal, they complain. They complain about specific measures and complain about our governing philosophy, yet they refuse to offer their own. Take ANWR. The estimated daily production from ANWR would exceed the currently daily production of any individual state. As our economy grows, even as Americans conserve more energy, our consumption of it will rise. The larger an economy becomes, the more energy it will require. This is common sense. ANWR represents an opportunity to produce billions and billions of barrels of oil. The ANWR provisions in this legislation permit development of only 2,000 acres out of a designated area the size of Delaware! The bill answers environmental concerns. Recovery projects under this legislation will either respect the health of local fish and wildlife, or they will be shut down. The facts, then, are clear. Recovering oil from ANWR will help the national economy. It will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, thus improving our national security. It will preserve local fish and wildlife populations and respect the surrounding environment. And in response to these facts, the other side just says ``NO''. No constructive criticism. No alternative proposals. Just obstruction and obstinacy. The American people deserve an energy policy, and the Republican Congress has an obligation to give them one. They can lecture. We will lead.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the conference report on the PROTECT Act of 2003. It contains the best ideas to prevent and punish sexual predation against our American children. First and foremost, it establishes that nationwide AMBER Alert system to help States deploy child abduction warning networks all across this country. But rather than simply helping local authorities rescue abducted children, this legislation will toughen the law to make abductions and abuse less common in the first place. It establishes a two-strikes-and-you're-out policy for child sex offenders, ensuring habitual predators will not be tolerated in our communities. It allows judges to extend court-supervised release for sex offenders, so after they have finished their time in prison, authorities will be able to keep close tabs on these dangerous individuals. This bill will add child abuse and child torture to the legal predicate for first degree murder. It increases the penalty for sexual exploitation and trafficking of children for kidnapping and other related atrocities. In addition to supporting this landmark legislation, Mr. Speaker, I also rise to commend my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his determination to do this job right. This is the most comprehensive child protection legislation the House has ever considered, and we have one man to thank for it, and that is the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). Thanks to the gentleman, in the face of a sensational public debate that demanded immediate action, House Republicans stood up for America's kids, not the television cameras. He knew that this legislation must be based on good ideas and good law, not P.R. He knew that we needed to reform the criminal code and send a very clear message that the United States will not tolerate the abuse of our children. His bill takes crimes against children very seriously. It will prevent crimes against children and punish those who commit them. So, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has stood like a rock in the middle of a political and media storm. America's children will be safer when this bill becomes law and thousands of them whose names we will never know will owe their lives to the gentleman. I thank the gentleman, and I urge our colleagues to support the conference report and this rule.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I might say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, that he is making our case for us. The reason that all these companies are leaving our shores is because the Internal Revenue Code is unfair, it is incomprehensible, it is broken, and it needs to be fixed. Since 1955, the text of the Internal Revenue Code has increased 472 percent to nearly 1 million words. The Code costs almost $9 billion for the IRS to administer, and it costs Americans more than 5 billion hours and $244 billion just to comply with it. For some perspective, let us consider those numbers amount to 2.7 million people or five full congressional districts working full-time just to fill out the paperwork for the IRS. It taxes income when it is earned, spent, invested, and even after death when it is left to loved ones. All of these factors slow down our economy, wasting the valuable time of the American people. In short, our Tax Code is a giant, ugly mess that only a jumble of lawyers, politicians, bureaucrats, and committees could love. We need a tax system that is fair and supportive of American workers and one that does not penalize people for working hard and saving for their family's future. We have taken important steps with the tax bills we have passed over the past 2 years, or over the past 8 years. We can take another this year by passing the President's proposal, including an end to the unfair double taxation of dividends. This commonsense move would simplify the law and bring us closer to reforming the Tax Code once and for all, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to finish the job. I just want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for introducing this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to support it.