Tom DeLay

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. Madam Speaker, the coming debate on cloning raises a fundamental issue: Is it ethical to turn human reproduction into a scientific manufacturing process? To me, Madam Speaker, the answer is an unequivocal no. There is no moral justification for human cloning. Some people claim that, in this case, the ends justify the means and we should just ignore the ethical connotations of creating cloned human embryos, for whatever purpose. But let us establish the first principle here: every life is precious and every life is unique. The procedures contemplated by opponents of a full cloning ban are no better than medical strip-mining, and they would trample the dignity of life. This we cannot and will not allow.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for the hard work that he has performed, not just in bringing this bill to the floor, but the work he has done over the last 6 years, which has had meaningful impact on many Americans' lives. I also want to congratulate the chairmen of the other committees which have participated in this meaningful, historic legislation. Mr. Chairman, welfare reform is a signal achievement for our House Republican majority. It offers a striking contrast between the core beliefs that inform our political party's appreciation for the proper role of the Federal Government in helping people in need. We believe that for people in need, it is the job of the Federal Government to empower people mired in dependency to determine their own destiny. Republicans understand that people who need a hand-up still aspire to pursue their American dream. But Democrats still do not trust people to make this vital transition to independence themselves. They just do not get the downside to dependency. They simply cannot or will not see the unintended negative consequences flowing from programs that raise barriers to work. Instead of requiring Americans to earn a paycheck and to discover the nobility of work, the Democrat approach leaves them mired in perpetual dependency with only the program to cling to. Even now after all the reforms we put into place during 1996, and the extraordinary successes that these reforms sparked, the vast majority of welfare recipients still do not go to work every day, like the rest of the country. That is really a sad, sad, sad statistic. And the reason that is really a tragedy is because the people who have climbed up out of welfare and stepped up into the workplace are leading fuller, more satisfying lives. They are moving forward with lives of meaning. Mr. Chairman, in this country we honor any type of work or vocation which is taken seriously and done well. All work is honorable, and we are doing all that we can to get this economy moving forward, so we will create millions of new jobs to inspire the people who are leaving welfare behind. These people are everyday heroes, and they are earning our deepest respect. They are showing their own children a powerful example of perseverance and hard work. They are unleashing their own creativity and seizing control of their own lives to build bright and favorable prospects for their children. This awful substitute forgets every lesson we have learned over the past 7 years. It would turn back the clock to a fundamentally flawed approach that substitutes access to benefits for work. It is preaching a lie. It is a one-size-fits-all, top-down, big-government, budget- busting boondoggle that forgets every fundamental lesson learned over the last 40 years. It places the institutional appetites of the welfare bureaucracy and the political instincts of the left over the squelched hopes and aspirations of dependent Americans. It offers false comfort to the needy. It is a bountiful blessing to aspiring bureaucrats. Mr. Chairman, there is one indelible lesson that should guide all of our actions on this subject. Democrats defend their approach with an erroneous syllogism and they are trying to put it over on us with sophistry. This is what they say: More money on welfare programs universally translates to greater help for needy people. That just is not so, Mr. Chairman. This primitive, retrograde substitute amendment is a dangerous summons to step back in time. Its approach is fundamentally and inherently flawed. It did not work before. It will not work now. And, for a host of obvious and compelling reasons, it will go down to defeat this afternoon.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, America's success in reforming the dysfunctional welfare system during the mid-1990s is one of our House Republican majority's proudest hours. We reached out with the hand of hope to millions of Americans who lost control of their own destinies as they fell, trapped within the grip of a destructive Federal-funded life-style of apathy and ambivalence. Welfare reform gave millions of families a powerful message of inspiration and achievement. They had not been written off. They were not trapped behind. They were not the perpetual prisoners of perverse incentives. Our House Republican majority said, Your American dream is alive and we appeal to each of you to discover your passion and follow your heart. Millions of formerly dependent people seized the challenge. They lifted their family to security, stability, and they discovered the inherent nobility of work, all types of work. There is virtue in hard work of any kind. A job done well earns our respect in any arena. This success also taught Republicans a potent lesson. When we trust our principles, they work. By applying Republican principles to social policy, we demonstrated that our approach works even better in practice than it appeared on paper or theory. And our principles will work just as well when we apply them to many of the other difficult social problems that are diminishing young lives, straining families, and weakening our broader society. We need to be confident. We need to engage our Republican approach to individual empowerment across the full spectrum of problems that we are confronting as a country. And we need to guard against the erosion of the important principles that are turning lives around in cities, counties and States from north to south, ocean to ocean. Specifically, we have to promote work to foster independence; improve young lives by lifting children from the grip of poverty; strengthen families by fostering respect for the institution of marriage; and finally, to boost the fortunes of every single American by unleashing a broad economic expansion that will spread opportunity to every willing worker. Mr. Speaker, that is our dream for the people of this country, fulfilling America's promise for every man, woman and child.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I greatly appreciate the chairman for bringing this resolution to the floor at this time. It is a timely resolution, as we all know. Madam Speaker, most of us feel something very special for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). We feel a profound sense of gratitude to every American who has suffered greatly in defense of freedom. And prisoners of war frequently suffer levels of abuse that most of us could scarcely imagine, let alone endure. Each of our American prisoners of war should know that the people of this country cherish their service. They have our solemn gratitude and our solemn appreciation. Let me say a few words about my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), because there is a lesson in Sam's story for the rest of us. Even during the most trying and emotionally wrenching experiences that life can possibly confront us with, the eternal qualities endure and they will sustain us. Sam emerged from those years of brutality with his essential virtues only that much stronger. His captors attempted to strip away the qualities that took him to Vietnam, but the torturers' twisted objective utterly failed, because far from eroding Sam's defining principles, the abuse only tempered his convictions and raised them to a new plane upon which they were forever beyond the reach of evil or intimidation. Sam Johnson came home with his love of country, his passion for family, his reverence for freedom, and his faith in the Lord immensely strengthened. And, as it was for Sam Johnson in the Hanoi Hilton, so too will it be for the United States during our war against tyranny and terrorism. Our enemies may think that acts of brutality and mass murder will divert Americans from our purpose, but they do not understand America. As Sam Johnson and most Texans would tell them, we have drawn our line in the sand and will never back down until every last terrorist stands before judgment. Thank you, Sam Johnson, for your service to your country. God bless you, and God bless America.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. I greatly appreciate the gentleman giving me some of his time. The gentleman is on this floor on a very regular basis making some very important remarks about very important issues, and he will continue that, but the gentleman is right, Mr. Speaker. Tonight is a very, very important night. There is a debate going on in this town that is highly important to the future of this country. The debate is so important that I hope the American people are tuning in and understand what is going on in this country. Because, Mr. Speaker, there is a gentleman that has been nominated to serve on the D.C. Court of Appeals bench. The gentleman's name is Miguel Estrada. Miguel Estrada is exactly the type of highly qualified lawyer that America needs on the bench in this country. His story also mirrors America's best heritage of individual achievement and the blessings available to those who choose to hitch their futures to our republic. He represents the best tradition of hard work, perseverance, dedication and integrity. He built a strong record of academic excellence in leading universities. The left often opposes conservative judicial nominees on the basis of an unfavorable rating from the American Bar Association, but in this case, Mr. Speaker, even the ABA recognizes that Miguel Estrada is well qualified. In fact, Al Gore's close legal adviser and former chief of staff Ron Klain had this to say about Estrada: Miguel is a person of outstanding character, tremendous intellect and with a deep commitment to the faithful application of precedent. The challenges that he has overcome in his life have made him genuinely compassionate, genuinely concerned for others and genuinely devoted to helping those in need. Former President Bill Clinton's Solicitor General Seth Waxman said, During the time Mr. Estrada and I worked together, he was a model of professionalism and competence. In no way did I ever discern that the recommendations Mr. Estrada made or the analyses he propounded were colored in any way by his personal views or indeed that they reflected any consideration other than the long-term interests of the United States. I have great respect both for Mr. Estrada's intellect and for his integrity. There, Mr. Speaker, we have it. Objective observers from the other side of the aisle recognize that Miguel Estrada is a highly qualified and intellectually gifted legal superstar who would immediately raise the standard of the bench on his first day. There is no substantive basis for opposing his candidacy beyond the vicious and intellectually dishonest tenets of an all-consuming leftist ideology that is driven entirely by an appetite to destroy anyone standing beyond its control. The left is inflamed by any prospective judicial candidate with the courage to oppose their unrelenting, small-minded, intolerant hostility to the traditional foundations of American life: faith in God, reverence for tradition, respect for the true rule of law and the recognition that we are all ultimately accountable for our actions. That last point in particular, Mr. Speaker, summons the deepest venom and bile from the left. They attempted over the four decades beginning in the 1960s to put forth a vast and sordid swindle upon the American people. The left claim that men and women could take any action, that they could ignore our most sacred and sacrosanct traditions, that in service of convenience they could callously destroy and step forward without consequences. Now we know better. We know that the left's malevolent campaign to undermine the notion of truth itself comes at a frightful price. Their malignant hold over the intellectual life of this country must be exercised, and men and women who are willing to speak the truth offer our only hope of reclaiming our culture from the grip of a hedonistic, reckless and destructive descent into nihilism. They oppose anyone who would reject the long reckless reach of the plaintiff's bar into everyday lives with frivolous and destructive lawsuits. The left are wracked with malice by the prospects that a Republican judicial appointee would approach the Constitution with reverence as a fixed defining document that offers a true north for the breadth and reach of the Federal Government. The left prefers instead legal anarchists who approach the Constitution as a malleable document, subject to political manipulation and susceptible to the faddist legal theories of the moment. Because Miguel Estrada is committed to upholding our founding principles and preserving the integrity of the rule of law, the left is targeting him for destruction. This we cannot and we will not allow. Mr. Speaker, I must say that the other body is working late into the night, and I hope that the American people will tune in to C-SPAN that is carrying the other body's debate because it is a critical debate to what is going on in this country today. It is a critical debate, a debate that the Nation is having today, a debate that is so vitally important to the future of this country. To take a man from Honduras, an immigrant that has worked his way up, realizing the American dream, going to college, getting his law degree, working in courts and working for the President of the United States, trying to advance an agenda that is vitally important to American people; but because he may have a name that is different than most, because he is a Hispanic, he is a danger to the left, and they are treating him as dangerous. Mr. Speaker, I think it is vitally important that we as Americans stand and support Miguel Estrada in his quest to serve on the D.C. Court of Appeals, and I would urge this House to stand up with Estrada on this evening, a very important evening for this country, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. It is rather strange that it is okay to be Hispanic, but a person has to be Hispanic with a particular point of view. In this country, can my colleague imagine that a person has to be a Hispanic that only believes one way, that only believes the way that the left would have them believe, that is only controlled by the left? But to have somebody that has brought himself up from poverty and present himself to the United States for a very important prestigious appointment, to have to kowtow to the control of the left because he may not think the same way they do, that he may not believe in the same things that they do, is just outrageous, and the American people need to see what is going on here in this town tonight. They need to understand what is going on in this town tonight, and they need to reject those that would reject Miguel Estrada.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman being here and I appreciate him yielding time to us, and I think I and my colleagues are going to go over to the other body and witness what is going on.

Mr. DELAY

Mr. DELAY. Mr. Speaker, on the basis of abominations like Libya's recent election to chair the Human Rights Commission, it's plain that the U.N. has tripped over the final precipice and is now descending ever-deeper into the abyss of moral relativism. We've seen from the U.N., for decades, a flagrant pattern of amoral accommodation, calculated appeasement, and even the willful suppression of the distinction between good and evil itself. We see a disturbing lesson at work: In the United Nations of the Twenty-First Century, a documented record of state-sponsored terrorism, aggressive militarism and systematic brutality are no impediment to a country's rise within the U.N.'s bureaucratic hierarchy. From the International Criminal Court's excesses, to Iraq's chairmanship of the disarmament conference, and Libya's chairmanship of the Human Rights Commission, the U.N. is utterly marginalizing itself. The free world can't delegate international security decisions to an organization capable of absurd actions like the elevation of Libya to the Human Rights Commission or Iraq to the Disarmament Conference. Let's not hedge the truth: The U.N. is legitimizing indefensible regimes and at the end of this path lays utter irrelevance. The free nations of the world face a number of grave problems and we can never allow illegitimate regimes to dictate the terms of our freedom or security.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 51) expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives to the families of the crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration pursuant to the following order: Debate on the resolution shall be limited to 2 hours equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees; and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion.

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 H. Res. 51.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I begin by observing that Members of this House share a special reverence and appreciation for Americans who risk their lives in the service of freedom. So on their behalf, let me extend our deepest gratitude and condolences to all the people who have entrusted the United States with their loved ones aboard Columbia. Let us also offer the same spirit of solace to the men and women of Israel. We hope that, through faith, God's healing comfort will lift our friends with heavy hearts to the ``place of broad rivers and streams'' with their grief receding upon the far shores. Space is an American mission. And our accomplishments in space have led to some of our proudest hours as a country. During wartime, it is even more important to pursue goals that are more capable of rallying all of us. Americans will not be motivated by petty goals or timid objectives. Appeals of this sort fall on deaf ears. Only bold ideas and audacious goals seize our attention in this country. So what will it take? We need daring dreams that strain the bonds of conventional wisdom. We need to begin journeys that are capable of challenging innately American qualities of ingenuity and determination, curiosity and courage. An American always seeks to climb the next hill, to cross the next river, and to reach the next valley. We are born with an insatiable hunger to look over the horizon. It is a quality that runs through the special clay from which our maker formed us, and it holds true for Americans wherever they are born, because the magic of our principles exerts a magnetic pull upon people who are destined to be Americans. They are drawn home to us, just as Colonel Ramon, a man of determined actions and courageous curiosity, was drawn to Texas to share life's dream with our six intrepid Americans. We are special. The people of this country will reject shallow goals. We need a space program that aspires to meet our lofty expectation. Ronald Reagan liked to quote the poet Carl Sandburg who wrote, ``The Republic is a dream. Nothing happens unless first a dream.'' We know what we have done, but only in our dreams do we learn what we can do. Space exploration is destined to remain the highest expression of our national dreams. President Theodore Roosevelt properly summed up the spirits that have driven so many of our fellow citizens to cross countless boundaries. ``Far better it is,'' said Roosevelt, ``to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.'' For 4 decades, Americans have known that human space flight is the most dangerous and daring endeavor human beings have ever attempted. The seven men and women of Columbia risked their lives to dare bold dreams and advance the boundaries of human knowledge. This courage is the work of our creator. As we lost sight of our heroes through flames in the forehead of the morning sky, we can take great solace in knowing that they are now beyond pain. All of them have now been safely returned to the folds of our master's cloak. For comfort and for consolation, let us turn to the Psalmist: ``The highest heavens belong to the Lord, but the Earth he has given to man. It is not the dead who praise the Lord, those who go down to silence; it is we who extol the Lord, both now and for evermore. Praise the Lord.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if I could, in order to even out the time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth). (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the Chairman of the Committee on Science, manage the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) and send condolences because the gentleman's wife is part of the NASA family and has also suffered this loss. (Mr. FEENEY of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DeLAY

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland 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 at that time. There will be no votes in the House before 6:30 p.m. next Tuesday. On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m.; and we expect to consider H.R. 395, the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act, to restrain rampant telemarketers. Additionally, we hope to consider the conference report on House Joint Resolution 2, which will finish up the 2003 appropriations process. However, if the conference report is not ready for floor consideration, the House will need to consider another continuing resolution. On Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. We expect to consider the Welfare Reform Reauthorization Act. I am happy to answer any questions the gentleman may have.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I have talked to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. He is working all through the weekend. As the gentleman may know, the Republican Caucus is going to spend this weekend in retreat. The chairman and some of the conference members are not going on that retreat so they can work through the weekend. They hope to be able to have a formal conference meeting Monday, Monday evening, and start the formal process at that time, hopefully getting the conference report to the floor by Wednesday.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I cannot advise the gentleman on what procedures may be available to them on the floor. As the gentleman knows, the conference report is a privileged motion not subject to amendment. The Members, I do not know about the gentleman's side of the aisle, but my side of the aisle are very aware that the appropriations process is ongoing. I have been overwhelmed with requests and issues that are in that bill, as the chairman has, and Members are working as hard as they can to make sure their concerns are taken care of in the appropriations bill and in that process. We are hoping that the Members will have sufficient time. This is, again, an unusual process, and the bill itself is huge, but we are hoping that we can give the Members sufficient time to review the bill. But if Members are interested, they ought to be consulting with the staff of the Committee on Appropriations right now as to what is in the bill and what might come to the bill so they might be prepared for voting on it on Wednesday.

Mr. DeLAY. I retract that remark.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, we intend to use an unusual procedure to bring the bill straight to the floor because of many reasons, not the least of which is that reforming welfare, as the gentleman knows, has been an incredible success. The reauthorization was vitally important; and many of these programs, these successful programs, are working under short-term extensions. We think it is vitally important to get this program reauthorized and, most importantly, get to the Senate. I might remind the gentleman that we passed the welfare reform I think 2 years ago and never got through the Senate and sat on the desk, and it never was considered by the Senate. That bill, by the way, has had more than 20 hearings and multiple markups, and we feel that Members have had plenty of opportunity to consider the bill. We want to expedite the process and not jeopardize the great success that we have seen over the time of the welfare reform. As far as the Committee on Rules is concerned, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it will go straight to the Committee on Rules discharging from the committees. The chairman is standing right beside me. I would anticipate very soon that he will announce a filing deadline for amendments this evening and will meet sometime next week to consider those amendments.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Speaker, I have watched the chairman of the Committee on Rules work for many years now, going on 9 years as chairman of the Committee on Rules, I believe. The whole time that he has been chairman he has, I think, treated the minority with utmost and extreme fairness.

Mr. DeLAY. I think that he is ultimately fair and will treat the minority fairly as it comes to the welfare reform bill. To be serious about it, I think the minority deserves to be heard on welfare reform, especially welfare reform, and the chairman will treat them fairly.