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. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, February 7; and, further, that when the House adjourns on Friday, February 7, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 11, for morning hour debates.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, and I appreciate his interest in changing my title, but that will not happen for another 2 years, at least. Before I discuss next week's schedule, I would like to note for the gentleman and other Members of the House a very significant historical event that took place in the House of Representatives during this week back in 1815. Mr. Speaker, the Library of Congress was established back in 1800, and the Library was housed here in the Capitol, as many of us know, until 1814 when the British troops set fire to the building and destroyed most of the books in our collection. Retired President Thomas Jefferson graciously offered his personal library from Monticello as a replacement, and Congress purchased the library 188 years ago today for the sum of $23,950. Now, after the job he did in the Louisiana Purchase, one would have thought Mr. Jefferson would have negotiated a little higher price from us, but, in any case, it was a great deal for America and a gracious gesture for our great champion of ideas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, the House will convene on Tuesday in pro forma session. On Wednesday we hope to consider the conference report on H. Res. 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 Wednesday. In addition, we may consider some measure under suspension of the rules. A list will be provided to all offices by Monday evening. There will be no votes in the House before 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, and on Thursday we expect to consider H.R. 395, the Do Not Call Implementation Act, to restrain rampant telemarketers, and finish with legislative business for the week by 1 p.m. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer any questions.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, parties, both in the minority and the majority in both Houses, are speaking and talking to each other as we meet. Obviously, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations in the House and the chairman in the Senate will do their own scheduling when the formal conference would be held. We are hoping that, working with the minority and the ranking Members of both Houses, and working hard through the weekend, as hard as they can, that they will come to some sort of resolution next week. That is the schedule that the House would like to see happen; but we know, as all these things happen, it could leak and we would have to do another continuing resolution for another week. Hopefully, by then all the work would be done.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, as well as this gentleman, having served on the Committee on Appropriations, understands that this is a very unusual process that we are going through. In fact, I do not think we have gone through this process anytime that I have served on the Committee on Appropriations, so we are sort of feeling our way trying to get the appropriations done. I remind the gentleman that the Committee on Appropriations in the House passed out every one of the 13 bills out of committee, so we do have something to look at as to what at least the committee had done in the House; and they are trying to reconcile that with what the Senate did or what the other body did. As far as bringing it back, it is the tradition of this House and has been the tradition of this House to bring back a conference report on an appropriations bill under a closed rule. To be honest, I do not know that we would want to change that.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding again. The gentleman is correct in correcting me, that we only did 11 bills out of the committee. I do remind the gentleman that the chairman introduced a Labor-HHS bill, and it is my information that that is what they are working from. Secondly, I would say that the conference committee as named has 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats on it, so the minority is very well represented on the conference committee, and will be, obviously, consulted and worked with in as open a manner as possible. I would also point out the fact that conference reports are privileged resolutions, and it would be highly unusual for us to change the precedent and the rules governing privileged resolutions. So we are trying the best we can to accommodate any Member that is interested in what is going on in that conference, whether they be Democrat or Republican, by opening up the process as much as possible and having a process that Members can plug into so that their voices can be heard in the consideration of the conference.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman makes a very good point. We want to be fair to all concerned. We want to have this as open a process as we possibly can make it. I just want the Members of this body to know that we just received the paper from the other body last night, so it is going to take probably the entire time of the gentleman's retreat for the staff to go through that paper and get it ready for Members' consideration. Obviously, the Members that are interested in having an impact on this conference will probably have an opportunity, or I know they will have an opportunity, starting Sunday or Monday, to have input into that process. I offer to the gentleman that if anybody feels that they have been shut out of the process, our office is open and we are more than willing to work with them.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, January 31, 2003; and further, that when the House adjourns on Friday, January 31, 2003, it adjourn to meet at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, February 4, 2003.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, in recent days we have heard a loud and relentless chorus of critics who are attempting to hamstring President Bush and restrict his ability to defend this country. These foreign and domestic apologists for inaction would subordinate U.S. national security decisions to an international litmus test. They are subverting the real issue beneath the false allure of avoidance and a smokescreen of diplomatic double-dealings and evasions. Under their specious logic, the burden of proof shifts from Saddam Hussein's evil regime to the free and democratic nations insisting that he disarm. It is a known fact that Saddam developed, deployed and destroyed thousands of lives with weapons of mass terror. It is not a question of whether or not he has terror weapons. American soldiers found and destroyed chemical weapons depots 12 years ago. Saddam later confirmed our fears with the thousands of corpses that littered the Iraqi countryside. Here is the real question: Where and when will he choose to use the countless terror weapons he still has? Will it be here in the United States? Will Saddam's agents launch the attack, or will Saddam quietly transfer his chemical or biological weapons to al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization? Will they be leveraged to blackmail freedom- loving nations into inaction in the face of future aggression? The answer is that we cannot know what this dictator will do, and for that reason the only acceptable outcome to the United States is that either Saddam Hussein voluntarily destroys all the materials related to his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons development programs or a coalition of free nations will do the job, and this brings up a widespread misperception. The purpose of the U.N. inspectors in Iraq, a purpose that is either misunderstood or it is being manipulated by the left, is simply to verify that Saddam is declaring and destroying his known but hidden weapons of mass destruction programs and weapons caches. It is not the inspectors' mission to fruitlessly scour the Iraqi countryside in a feckless search for Saddam's terror weapons. In a country larger than the State of California, that would be an empty objective doomed to fail. Outside observers cannot hope to uncover the truth within an uncooperative and hostile regime. It is an impossible task to discover weapons of mass destruction within a ruthlessly wicked and oppressive dictatorship that refuses to cooperate. Iraq is not destroying its weapons. Let us just be clear about it. Saddam is an evil tyrant. He illegitimately holds power by controlling the thoughts and the behavior of the Iraqi people with a climate of state-administered terror. His secret police coerce the Iraqi people into a terror-driven code of silence. Time and time again over the 20th century the West learned that the scale of crimes committed by totalitarian regimes was far worse than we even knew. It was not until those brutal regimes fell and their victims documented the full extent of the monstrous abuse that we learned the truth. We saw it in Hitler's Germany. We saw it in the Soviet Union. We saw it in Cambodia, and eventually we will see it in Cuba, and once Saddam fails and falls, the Iraqi people will shock and disgust the world by revealing the full ghastly scope of Saddam's oppression. This much is obvious today. We will never get to the truth about Saddam's weapons so long as his regime holds power. We need to recognize that it will be extremely difficult for Saddam's past and future victims to tell inspectors what they know. When they, their friends and their families are subject to brutal and wicked reprisals, including rape, torture and murder at the hands of Saddam's secret police, U.N. inspectors cannot approach the truth in Iraq. And it is not their job to discover Saddam's weapons. No, the onus is squarely on Saddam Hussein to prove to the world that he has disarmed. Unfortunately, many observers continue claiming that the United States has to round out the indictment of Saddam Hussein's regime with additional evidence. No such evidence is needed. No more facts need emerge before America can rightfully take action against this regime. We have all the evidence that we need. The pages of history. There has never been a threat confronting the United States that was overcome or improved through inaction or the counsels of contrived evasions and equivocations. The American people expect us to face our threats squarely and directly. Many observers would have us pin the security of the United States to a fading fallacy, the discredited notion that a U.N. inspections team, operating within a hostile regime, can adequately secure our security. They cannot. There is great danger in so elevating the trappings of international consultation and the rituals of multilateralism that they become a surrogate for our true purpose: we have to protect ourselves and the world by disarming Saddam Hussein. Some observers refuse to acknowledge the grave consequences of allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in power. In the hierarchy of aggressive and military regimes, Saddam's dictatorship is a clear and present danger to the United States. And by providing Saddam added time, added time to supply, train and support terrorist groups, these endless pleas for patience convert a virtue into a vice. Any nation which naively denies the clear threat from Saddam Hussein's regime is placing the free world at jeopardy by ignoring this dictator's infamous past and evil aspirations. Regardless of what others may say, the final authority governing American action is not the United Nations. It is the Constitution of the United States and the decisions of our own elected government. If and when President Bush decides America must confront Saddam Hussein's regime, he will be exercising his authority as commander in chief and expressing the broad support already demonstrated by Congress through the Iraq Resolution passed months ago. The Left is attempting to turn us from our purpose with another bit of sophistry. They claim our imperative to confront Saddam Hussein's dictatorship is a diversion from the war against terrorism. Well, far from a diversion, confronting Saddam Hussein is a central and defining measure of our commitment to win the war on terrorism. If President Bush determines that America must act, he can be confident that the unified support of the American people will be with him until the danger is defeated. The President should know that we stand beside him and that the United States will not shrink from our obligation to defend freedom. While we seek the broadest possible coalition of freedom-loving countries in this effort, we cannot let a hunt for international consensus divide us and deter us from our purpose. We will not be dissuaded from taking action to defend America.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 5) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) or her designee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for debate purposes only. I ask unanimous consent that the time allocated to me be controlled by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the first session of the 108th Congress: number one, on legislative days of Monday, when the House convenes pursuant to House resolution, the House shall convene 90 minutes earlier than the time otherwise established by that resolution solely for the purpose of conducting morning hour debate; and, number two, on legislative days of Tuesday when the House convenes pursuant to House resolution (a) before May 19, 2003, the House shall convene for morning hour debate 90 minutes earlier than the time otherwise established by that resolution; and (b) after May 19, 2003, the House shall convene for morning hour debate one hour earlier than the time otherwise established by that resolution. And, three, the time for morning hour debate shall be limited to 30 minutes allocated to each party, except that on Tuesdays after May 19, 2003, the time shall be limited to 25 minutes allocated to each party and may not continue beyond 10 minutes beyond the hour appointed or the resumption of the session of the House; and, four, the form of proceeding to morning hour debate shall be as follows: the prayer by the chaplain, the approval of the Journal, and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag shall be postponed until resumption of the session of the House; initial and subsequent recognitions for debate shall alternate between the parties; recognition shall be conferred by the Speaker only pursuant to lists submitted by the majority leader and by the minority leader; no Members may address the House for longer than 5 minutes, except the majority leader, the minority leader, or the minority whip; and following morning hour debate, the Chair shall declare a recess pursuant to clause 12 of rule I until the time appointed for the resumption of the session of the House.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, your committee appointed on the part of the House to join a like committee on the part of the Senate to notify the President of the United States that a quorum of each House has been assembled and is ready to receive any communication that he may be pleased to make has performed its duty.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 2) to inform the Senate that a quorum of the House has assembled and of the election of the Speaker and the Clerk, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 4) authorizing the Clerk to inform the President of the election of the Speaker and the Clerk, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 3) authorizing the Speaker to appoint a committee to notify the President of the assembly of the Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the chairman has done a lot of hard work on this bill, and I rise today to support the terrorism insurance legislation before us and to highlight the important work still to be done on this issue. I had my doubts about this legislation from the very beginning. The most accurate assessment of the risk to Americans is developed by the private marketplace, free from government interference. However, terrorism insurance is not always available, and sometimes it is available only at prices people cannot pay. But the most troubling aspect of this bill is the flaw that leaves American taxpayers holding the bag and trial lawyers running away with the loot. The House passed a bill containing strong liability protections. The most important was an outright ban on punitive damages. We now have a conference report that lacks this ban. Mr. Speaker, President Bush's top four economic advisers explained it best in a June 10 letter. They said very directly, ``Punitive damages are designed to punish criminal or near criminal wrongdoing. American companies that are attacked by terrorists should not be subject to predatory lawsuits. The availability of punitive damages in terrorism cases would result in inequitable relief for injured parties, and threaten bankruptcies for American companies.'' I wish these were the only problems with this bill. But the most troublesome aspect is the prospect that taxpayer dollars may be negotiated away in an out of court settlement. There is no sufficient mechanism in this bill to protect a raid on the Treasury by predatory trial lawyers. Unfortunately, there is an industry in America today that profits from tragedy and suffering. Businesses and property owners and victims who have lost their lives are innocent bystanders in terrorist attacks. My concern is that we are handing this industry additional tools to take advantage and compound these tragedies. President Bush repeatedly said during this election that we need to stand with the ``hard hats'' and not the trial lawyers, and I agree with that. However, this bill falls very short of the President's intent. The Wall Street Journal described its weaknesses as a ``bonanza for trial lawyers.'' I raised these concerns with President Bush. He agreed that there is more work left to protect victims of terrorism and the Federal Treasury, and he pledged to work with us next year to resolve these flaws. I want to thank President Bush for that pledge to protect the taxpayers. As long as I have been in Congress I have guarded the taxpayers, and we are working to fix the problems with this bill. We are going to lock the doors of the Federal Treasury against trial lawyers who would exploit flaws in this new law to soak the taxpayers. I am going to stand with hard-working Americans. I am going to stand with those ``hard hats,'' and I am going to oppose anyone who seeks to plunder the Federal Treasury.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to honor the man who just finished the bill on bankruptcy reform, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) who has served in this body for 20 years, has worked on the bankruptcy reform bill for over 10 years, probably the whole 20 years that he has been in Congress, just stood up here and took all the abuse that could be hurled at him and showed what kind of man he was and passed that bill and sent it over to the Senate where we hope that it will receive the consideration that it deserves. This is a man that has worked so hard, has been so collegial with the other Members of this body, who lost his last election. Tonight he is closing down the Congress with a bill that he has worked on his entire career and it is sort of indicative of who we are and what we are here. He is a man that is so humble that he would not even stick around on the floor tonight. He went and left the floor after passing his bill because he knows that many other Members had worked on the bill. He is a humble man, a man of great musical talent, a man that has served on the Committee on the Judiciary, went through all the things that the Committee on the Judiciary works on and not the least of which was the impeachment, a very difficult time for this House, was a stalwart, and the kind of legislation that came out of that committee, was a subcommittee chairman for the last 8 years and honored this House by his presence and honored this House by his service, a very distinguished service that we greatly appreciate. We honor tonight George Gekas who closes the 107th Congress by passing a bill that he has worked on for so long.

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

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

Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

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

Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.