Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan. I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) would like me to yield.

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

Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time, and I commend the chairman and the ranking member for the work that they have done, not just on this but the whole issue of the war on terror. Mr. Speaker, Americans have always had to summon courage to disregard the timid counsel of those who would mortgage our security to the false promises of wishful thinking and appeasement. The perils of complacency were driven home to us in September of last year. We saw in tragic detail that evil is far more than some abstract concept. No longer should America allow dangers to gather and multiply. No longer should we stand idle as terrorists and terrorist states plot to murder our citizens. As a free society, we have to defeat dangers before they ripen. The war on terrorism will be fought here at home, unless we summon the will to confront evil before it attacks. President Bush certainly understands this imperative for action. The President is demonstrating the strong, moral leadership to find and defeat threats to the United States before they strike. Because once a madman like Saddam Hussein is able to deliver his arsenal, whether it is chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, there is no telling when an American city will be attacked at his direction or with his support. A nuclear armed Iraq would soon become the world's largest safe haven and refuge for the world's terrorist organizations. Waiting to act until after Saddam has nuclear weapons will leave free nations with an awful dilemma. Will they, on the one hand, risk nuclear annihilation by confronting terrorists in Iraq or will they give in to fear by failing to confront these terrorist groups? For that reason, regime change in Iraq is a central goal of the war on terror. It is vital because a war on terrorism that leaves the world's leading purveyor and practitioner of terror in power would be a bald failure. Some call Hussein a diversion, but far from being a diversion, confronting Saddam Hussein is a defining measure of whether we still wage the war on terror fully and effectively. It is the difference between aggressive action and misguided passivity. The question we face today is not whether to go to war, for war was thrust upon us. Our only choice is between victory or defeat. And let us just be clear about it. In the war on terror, victory cannot be secured at a bargaining table. Iraq's vile dictator is a central power of the axis of evil. President Bush and this Congress are committed to removing the threat from Saddam Hussein's terrorist state. Only regime change in Iraq can accomplish that objective. Only regime change can remove the danger from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Only by taking them out of his hands and destroying them can we be certain that terror weapons will not wind up in the hands of the terrorists. Saddam Hussein is seeking the means to murder millions in just a single moment. He is trying to spread that grip of fear beyond his own borders, and he is consumed with hatred for America. But I am not here today to offer that definitive indictment of Iraq's tyrant. That has already been very clearly documented and well- established in this debate. In the wicked litany of crimes against humanity, Saddam Hussein has composed a scarlet chapter of terror. Our only responsible option is to confront this threat before Americans die. Time works to the advantage of our enemies, not ours. Under our Constitution, America speaks through the United States Constitution; and our resolution is very, very clear. The enemies of a free and a moral people will find no safe harbor in this world. Today, the free world chooses strength over temporizing and timidity. Terrorists and tyrants will see that the fruits of their evil will be certain destruction by the forces of democracy. Now we seek broad support, but I am telling my colleagues that fighting this war on terrorism by committee or consensus is a certain prescription for defeat. We will defend our country by defeating terrorists wherever they may flee around the world. None of us take the gravity of this vote and its ramifications lightly, but history informs us that the dangers of complacency and inaction far outweigh the calculated risks of confronting evil. In the fullness of time, America will be proud that in our hour of testing we chose the bold path of action, not the hollow comfort of appeasement. So let us just take this stand today against tyranny. Let us take this stand against terror. Let us take this stand against fear. Let us stand with the President of the United States. I say to my colleagues, just trust the cherished principles on which we were founded. Put faith in freedom and raise our voices and send this message to the world: The forces of freedom are on the march and terrorists will find no safe harbor in this world.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman yielding me this time. I have been down in my office watching this debate on television, and I find it very interesting. A lot of the debate is over process. Some are saying, we passed a budget, the Senate did not pass a budget; back and forth, talking about process, bringing bills to the floor, not bringing bills to the floor, and I decided to come up to the floor to try to put it all into perspective. The point is that, yes, in process, I congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. He has done an incredible job in trying to hold down spending and bring a little fiscal responsibility to this process. The President of the United States said when he first took office that we needed to get our fiscal house in order, that we needed to restrain spending, we needed to be fiscally responsible. We wanted to keep the balanced budget that we had. We wanted to continue to pay down the debt. That is what this Republican House has been doing for the last 8 years. I have heard people on the floor say it was the Clinton administration that brought about the balanced budget and the surpluses that we were enjoying and using to pay down the public debt on our children. I see history a little bit differently. In 1993, when Bill Clinton became President, we found deficits to the tune of $250-, $300 billion every year, year in and year out. The two budgets that the Democrat House at that time, in 1993 and 1994, passed had deficits of $250 billion, $300 billion, as far as the eye could see. They never intended to balance the budget. There was no initiation by the President of the United States or this Democrat House, Democrat-controlled House, they never offered a budget that would get us to balance. In fact, they raised taxes as they increased spending, and the deficits continued. When the Republicans took over in 1995, they laughed at our Contract with America, but part of that contract was to balance the budget. They said that we could never do it. I remember the Washington pundits all saying that there was no way we could balance the budget under the present conditions, but we started doing things differently. In fact, I remember the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that the President vetoed, fought over, shut down the government. We fought like cats and dogs out here. They never voted for it. The other side of the aisle never voted for it; yet, we finally got it into law. That was the beginning of fiscal responsibility initiated by this Republican House, pushed by this Republican House, and fought for by this Republican House, which was a great signal to the economy, by the way. That along with the growth in the economy is what created the balanced budget that we were enjoying. We did it in the face of opposition like I have never seen before; yet, after it was done, even this morning, they took credit for it. Now, the problem, as we have seen over the last year, as the President has rightly pointed out, is that we were attacked. We are at war. We have security issues that have driven up spending. The economy is slowing, so the revenues are slower than normal. There are other issues. There are other issues that have caused this problem, but instead of them talking about how do we get back to balance, what this argument has been going on, as I watched it all this morning and this afternoon, is they want to spend more. The reason they vote against the bills for the last 8 years, the appropriation bills, is because it is not enough spending for them. What we are trying to do here during this whole process is to bring some fiscal responsibility to what this government does. They vote against bills that do not have enough spending, and they keep voting. They want to bring bills out here so they can continue to spend more. Their interest is to spend more; our interest is to bring fiscal responsibility to government and, most importantly, protect the taxpayers' money. That is what this argument is all about. The President of the United States said, send me a bill anywhere over my budget numbers, and I will veto it. Do Members know what: The Republicans in the House partner with the President and we say the same thing, so we are not going to send him a bill to veto that is overspending. We are bringing fiscal responsibility to this floor. They want to tax and spend; we are trying to do the right thing. I think the American people appreciate it.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, we're facing a growing crisis in our health care system. In a number of states, there's a continuing exodus of doctors and talented specialists that's drawing down the quality of health care available to many Americans. The reason for it is simple. The plaintiff's bar has been working for years and years to undermine, weaken, and strip-away the legal protections for practicing physicians. Their reckless pursuit of ever-growing legal judgments is placing affordable insurance coverage out of reach for doctors in far too many states. The raw greed motivating plaintiff's lawyers is driving good doctors out of states like Florida, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia, to pick only a few. These states are in crisis. And if anyone doubts if, they can test my assertion by trying to schedule an appointment with a neurosurgeon in one of these states. You'd better not need help in a hurry. Doctors are confronting an awful choice: Abandon the communities and patients they trained to heal or be broken over the unacceptable costs of rising medical insurance premiums. All of this raises a dangerous question. The medical liability insurance crisis creates liabilities for us beyond the practical problems of routine care. What happens in states with over-burdened medical systems if there's a terror attack that produces mass casualties? What happens to the people when doctors have been driven across the border to neighboring states? Mr. Speaker, we need real common-sense reforms and we need them today. The HEALTH Act delivers that relief and I ask Members to support it.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the gentleman from Florida's work and what he has been able to accomplish, and I understand the dilemma that he is facing, and I can answer the question where is the bill. You cannot reconcile with an addict. The Senate did not pass a budget. Therefore, they are spending with addiction. They are addicts. They are spending like I have never seen before. When we have a budget that we have to adhere to in the House, you cannot reconcile. Point of Order

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. When you try to reconcile a bill against with having a budget, it cannot be reconciled with a bill that has increased spending with abandon. It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, that they do not understand that. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this surge of aggression from the other side of the aisle is simply the bitter fruit of a strategy to stymie, frustrate and defeat fiscal discipline at every turn. My colleagues from the other party are infuriated. Mr. Speaker, I am speaking about Members of this House. My colleagues from the other party for this House are infuriated that our Republican House majority is a dike holding back waves upon waves of new Democrat nonsecurity spending. That is not how it used to be around here. They ache to restore the tax and spend policies that robbed the Social Security Trust Fund for decade after decade after decade after decade when the Democrats controlled this Congress. The Democrats ran the House and they fueled an irresponsible culture of spending that drove America's books deep, deep, deep into the red. They spent with abandon. They spent without restraint. They spent blindly. They spent more than the country could bear. They ignored the economic damage that their spending lust had created. They balanced their budgets on the backs of future generations. The other party understands that they have to raise taxes to fund the huge new spending programs that their big spending caucus demanded. Our Republican insistence on lowering, not raising, taxes makes them livid. They complain that lowering taxes causes the deficit, and one made mention that Reagan's tax cut in the eighties created the deficit. For every dollar, revenues actually went up after that tax cut. The problem is for every dollar of new revenues coming in they spent two dollars. The other party understands that and has a single all-consuming ambition, separating the taxpayers from more of their hard-earned dollars and swelling the size of government with waves of new spending, waves and waves of new spending. The Democrat House leadership embraced the decision by the other body to proceed with no governing fiscal oversight called a budget. They attempted to do the same thing here, but unfortunately for the big spenders, the House of Representatives passed a budget. Let us shift our attention away from the specific points at issue. Let us consider things in the realm of the theoretical. For any theoretical elective body, the decision to proceed forward without a governing budget would be foolhardy and grossly irresponsible. It would be a blunder of rank stupidity and extreme fiscal wantonness for any conceivable legislative body to rashly conclude it could sustain fiscal discipline without a guiding and governing budget. Our House Republican majority brought America back into the black. We brought back fiscal discipline. We even started paying down the debt. We are working with the President to hold the line on excessive nonsecurity spending, we are holding firm, and we are motivated by an undeniable truism: The dollars that Washington spends belong to the taxpayers. We respect their hard work. We appreciate the taxpayers' ability to spend their own money better than Washington, D.C., and we are extremely hostile to any scheme that would separate a single taxpayer from any additional dollar. Our friends on the other side of the aisle see 180 degrees differently. The truth is the House Republicans are completing America's business and we are doing it responsibly within a fiscal framework that preserves fiscal freedom. The hostility directed against us today flows from the bitter hunger pains of an insatiable appetite for new wasteful spending.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I could say that all the issues that the gentlewoman was talking about could be taken care of in conference committee if we could get a bill from the Senate and go to conference and work some of these out. The reason that we are here today is very important. We do not have a conference committee, and we do not have a bill that we can work on and work these problems out. Members will vote today to reaffirm the House's commitment to protect workers' pensions and their 401(k) plans. Employees who watch renegade corporate officers raid their pensions want President Bush to be able to sign a piece of legislation to protect their retirement funds from future attacks. Now, back in March the President told Congress to send him some common sense reforms and on April 11 this House answered his call. This House passed the bipartisan Pension Security Act. These powerful protections attracted support from 46 Democrats. They joined the Republican House majority because our pension protections were needed and they are necessary. Members of both parties came together because workers 401(k)s and pensions were in jeopardy and that had to change. Specifically, the House pension protection package gives clear new diversification rights to employees. Now they are vested in only 3 years. Now they can diversify out of company stock. Now they have multiple investment options that are provided to the employees, and now they have more than their employer stock. We strengthened notice rights so that employees will not get caught off guard. We have placed strong restrictions on CEOs. We blocked other executives from trading company stock when the employees cannot trade their stock. Mr. Speaker, the House passed a strong balanced pension security plan months ago, but those potent new protections are not helping the American people yet. The President is still waiting for the Pension Securities Act to reach his desk. He says he will sign it as soon as it comes. He has been waiting since April. Millions of worried Americans are waiting for action on their retirement security. They should not wait another week. There is no reason in the world to postpone action on pension reform. Workers have watched for half the year as their 401(k)s and their pensions have been battered about by politics, and despite the clear need for pension reform, the President continues to wait, unable to sign the bill that the House passed in a big bipartisan way. So I just encourage our Members to support this resolution. Send a very strong message to the American people. Let us demands action on pension security. The Federal Government should put politics aside and vote to protect workers 401(k)s and protect workers' pensions.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it looks like we are prepared to vote on a resolution that lays out exactly why the country needs and expects to see the 5- year reauthorization of welfare reform law finished sooner rather than later. Remember, we only have 7 days remaining before the historic reforms will expire on September 30. There are two things we ought to bear in mind. First, the main reason welfare reform needs to be reauthorized and, second, what it takes to get the job done. Welfare reform has been good for America. It is replacing welfare checks with paychecks. It is fostering independence. It is boosting personal incomes. And it is truly improving the lives of millions of children. We have to reauthorize welfare reform because there is more to be done to help millions of struggling families develop dignity and self- respect. We have been working on reauthorization since January. In February we built the HOPE Action Team. We pulled together committee and subcommittee chairs, administration officials and other Members of Congress. We held weekly meetings to drive both the timetable and the policies to ensure timely passage. We met twice a week. We worked late into the night. We stayed at the table to hammer out our differences so that we could put up a good bill here on this floor. It was a lot of work for a lot of people. At the same time, I urged our Members to learn more about welfare reform by visiting former welfare offices that are now job placement centers. I urged our Members to meet with folks that are involved in the system. Many of us did sit down with both folks who are still on welfare and people who have left welfare for the world of work. We wanted their perspective on the changes that we made 6 years ago and the improvements that still needed to be made. We learned a lot. Back in April, I visited the Texas Workforce Center in Houston. A man told me that welfare reform had changed his life and the changes he made offered his children a powerful lesson in doing things the right way. He said, ``They saw me getting up with them each morning,'' because it was time to go get a job. ``I could see in their eyes that they were happy about that.'' I think that is what it is all about. In closing, I would like to remind the Congress that it takes work to pass a good bill. It takes time and effort to bring everyone together. It takes time to get a bill out of committee. And when you are dealing with several committees of jurisdiction, it takes even more work. Securing final passage of the bill is an even tougher assignment. But the House completed its work. We put in the time and we got the job done for the American people. Our work in the House will pay off for the American people, but it will all be for nothing unless and until Congress finishes welfare reauthorization.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, we gather today within this citadel of freedom. This room is where America unites in defense of enlightened self-government. From this place our Nation draws from the strength and wisdom of our Founders. For this reason, the terrorists targeted this temple to justice as they set out to strike a blow against self-government. And, as the terrorists attacked symbols of might and prosperity, they attacked the spirit of this building. In this way, the Capitol, the Pentagon, and the World Trade Center were all one and the same. This is where the American people exercise the fullest measure of freedom. So, we come together in this hallowed chamber to honor the brave Americans of September 11. As their Representatives, and on their behalf, we launch the debates that chart the course for this country. And, make no mistake, it was the exercise of freedom that terrorists wished to extinguish a year ago. The terrorists failed. And, if their objective was to compel us into abandoning our principles, there may have been no more spectacular a failure in recorded history. My friends, the flame of American freedom is burning brighter and hotter on September 11, 2002, than at any moment in our history. And that flame is sustained by the magnificent heroism in Manhattan, in Virginia, and in the air over Pennsylvania. Freedom continues unabated in many countries around the world. Americans are doing extraordinary things in dangerous places that are known and some that we can't talk about. But when we speak of the men and women defending us at this moment, we can say this for certain: The present generation of Americans stands shoulder-to-shoulder with our proudest generations. And we saw, in Pennsylvania, a stirring example of what it means to be an American: Out of many, one. Strangers, thrown together by Providence, facing certain death, refused to yield in the face of raw evil. Their courage, in the moment of maximum danger, is the essence of what it means to be an American. That's why anyone in the world can become an American. All it takes is a willingness to subordinate our own individual interests to the greater good of the United States. It's a proud tradition of love, tolerance, pluralism, and determination. But we would do a great disservice to the legacy of America's September 11 heroes by casually accepting the passive posture of complacency in the face of danger. The great lesson from 9/11 is the moral imperative to address dangers before they claim the lives of additional Americans. For that reason, we must stand with President Bush as he marshals freedom-loving people to confront gathering evils. We must actively deny the aspirations of evil groups and dangerous regimes. We must bring justice to the most remote caves where terrorists plot. We must protect America by striking our enemies before they can carry out their schemes within our borders. This is the great decision before the Congress. This is the defining measure of our future security. And on this question, all of us will be accountable to the people. Mr. Speaker, we offer our deepest sorrow and solidarity to the families of those who lost loved ones at the hands of evil, 1 year ago. Those who now struggle with grief and loss should know, above all, that they do not stand alone. They should take heart because every American stands beside them. We offer our love and gratitude for the sacrifices and unknown acts of heroism carried out by their relatives and friends. We'll never forget them or what they did for our country. Thank you and God bless America. Mr. Roemer. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support and as a proud cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 464 expressing the sense of the Congress on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. Nearly three thousand American lives were lost exactly 1 year ago today when the United States was suddenly and deliberately attacked by al Qaeda terrorists bent on suicide and destruction of human life. By targeting symbols of American strength and success, these attacks clearly were also intended to assail the principles, values, and freedoms of the United States and the American people, intimidate the Nation, and weaken the national resolve. Although New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania suffered the overwhelming burden of the terrorist attacks, every state and all Americans were affected and continue to mourn that day. We are united by the events of September 11, 2001, and while passage of 1 year has not softened our memory, resolved our grief, or restored lost loved ones, it has clearly demonstrated that Americans will not succumb to terrorists. We observe September 11 not only to recognize the tragic deaths of the innocent souls who perished or who were gravely injured in Lower Manhattan, Shanksville, Pennsylvania, or at the Pentagon, but we also recognize this date to honor the firefighters, police officers, rescue workers and those intrepid eyewitnesses of this tragedy who selflessly faced grave danger in order to aid the wounded and dying in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. As the gravest moments came, many regular Americans, relying on courage, instinct, and grace, rushed toward the flaming buildings in order to rescue people or toward terrorist-controlled cockpits in order to resist their destructive plan. Today we honor the sacrifices and continuing heroism demonstrated by our brave servicemen and women who left family and friends in order to defend our nation. A year later, many servicemen and women remain abroad, shielding the homeland from further terrorist attacks. As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I am proud to serve on the ongoing Congressional Joint Inquiry. My distinguished colleagues and I have spent considerable time reviewing the material and circumstances relating to the events surrounding last year's attacks. However, many important questions about September 11, 2001 remain unanswered. That is why I support the establishment of an independent, blue-ribbon commission to conduct a thorough investigation and to make recommendations based on its findings so that we never again experience another staggering loss of life on U.S. soil. The American people deserve a more thoughtful investigation and the families of the victims of September 11 are entitled to answers about exactly what went wrong and why.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the majority leader for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, we need to move forward, and we need to move forward to provide the President with the tools that he needs to secure our homeland. Our current structure simply cannot meet the demands of an age in which the primary threats to the United States have shifted. New threats have surfaced. We face asymmetrical warfare from rogue regimes. We face grave danger from terrorist organizations plotting to use weapons of mass destruction. America needs an overhauled, comprehensive agency that is engineered to combat the dangers that are unique to our time. We need to move beyond our current dysfunctional organization of domestic security responsibility. We need to apply ingenuity and experience to craft a combined agency whose employees will arrive at work each morning with a single defining mission: protecting the people, resources, and institutions of the United States. To be organized effectively and function efficiently, the Homeland Security Department must be consolidated. It has to be flexible, and its employees must be readily accountable to its Secretary. The President's focus is a department that is lean, focused, and operating under the highest standards of accountability. Unfortunately, many of the amendments that we saw through this process had little or nothing to do with protecting our homeland. We saw attempts to freeze out private enterprise. We saw efforts to water down the Homeland Security Secretary's power to hold the Department's employees to the highest standards of performance and conduct. We saw initiatives to deny flexibility. We saw proposals that would have opened a whole banquet for trial lawyers and dissuaded companies offering high-tech, terror-fighting tools; amendments that would serve a divergent agenda; amendments that would weaken the Department to placate entrenched interests; amendments designed by the bureaucracy to preserve bureaucratic unaccountability. We should be pursuing a common goal. We should only consider change that would increase the effectiveness of the new Department to catch and preempt terrorists. Changes that do not should be rejected out of hand. We do not have the luxury of weakening our last line of defense. Let me just close with a word about the extraordinary job that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) performed in stewarding the President's plan through the Select Committee on Homeland Security process. Mr. Chairman, the majority leader was fair, he was open to constructive ideas, even-tempered, and generous to the minority. He was a true leader in the best sense of the term. Unfortunately, his generosity was not met in kind. He was rewarded with a raw dividend of stale partisanship. I take my hat off to the majority leader. I take my hat off to the majority leader for accomplishing his mission and producing a plan that upheld the President's vision and brought us closer to a safer, stronger America. Members were right to keep a sharp eye against any measure that would cripple our effort. We simply could not afford to invest this new Department with the ponderous inefficiency that hobbles much of the Federal bureaucracy. This is a reorganization that we can be proud of, a reorganization that will ensure our security at home.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Let me first, Mr. Chairman, say that those that are on the cutting edge of technology and wanting to provide it are protected in the base text of the bill by limiting their liability and banning punitive damages, just like we have done in the Transportation Safety Administration and other instances. But, Mr. Chairman, there is an unacceptable demand that America needs to know about right now. Some of the largest and most profitable corporations in the country are attempting to pass off legal liability for their products onto average Americans. These defense contractors are trying to feed the taxpaying public to the crocodiles of the plaintiff's bar. American taxpayers should not be asked to absorb the devastating financial consequences that would flow from creating an enormous new unfunded liability. Taxpayers should not be footing the bill for a gigantic new windfall for trial lawyers. Even now, the plaintiff's bar is eagerly anticipating new ways to exploit the new terrorist attack through litigation against the companies that are developing terror- fighting tools. What is even more outrageous is that multibillion dollar defense contractors have the nerve to come to Congress, hat in hand, to demand that taxpayers foot this bill. If these defense contractors bear the responsibility for the failure of their technology, then they should be held responsible. And if these contractors are being unfairly sued and being penalized only because they contributed to the anti-terrorism effort in this country, then these lawsuits need to be stopped. And that is exactly what our base text ensures. We defang frivolous lawsuits that do nothing but line the pockets of trial lawyers. What we need is broad-base litigation reform. What we do not need are multibillion dollar defense contractors making American taxpayers responsible for the quality of their technology. This would truly be a case of corporate welfare. It is ironic that Members of the minority, who routinely malign Republicans as the party of corporate America, are so willing to subject taxpayers to a bottomless pit of unfunded liability to protect these corporations. Clearly, supporters of this amendment place a far greater weight on the wishes of their trial lawyer friends than they do to the dangers created for fiscal discipline and the American taxpayers. I ask that my colleagues vote ``no'' on the Turner amendment.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, that almost brought a tear to my eye; but I have got to tell you, after Lockerbie, England went for this technology that the gentleman wants to install. It took them 8 years to install it. Eight years. That was 12 years ago. That same technology is what he wants to buy, 20-year-old technology that does not work, or is not as good as other technology that is being suggested. Let me just clear the air here a little bit. First of all, I think it is irresponsible to try to scare the American people away from flying. The rhetoric on this floor is irresponsible in doing that. Let me just say that 100 percent, 100 percent of your bags today are being checked before they go on the plane. What this argument is about is buying a machine, a bomb detection machine to try to make it more efficient to check your bags. They want you to buy a 20-year-old technology that is wrong 30 percent of the time. Let us get how this works. Thirty percent of the time it is wrong; so when it is wrong, you have to take it off the machine and check it by hand, adding to the time of that plane taking off. What we want is technology that is ready, it just needs to be certified, that has less than a 5 percent error rate. Technology is coming on line. And besides, these deadlines that they are so interested in, this House voted 286- 139 for the deadline that is in this bill. The deadlines that were put in there, and I will not argue the deadlines, but what is really interesting about this is that the deadlines that they are so adamant to have and have all this wonderful rhetoric, and a little demagoguery added to it, is that the deadlines have no penalties. Their deadlines have no sanctions. So it does not matter. If they cannot meet the deadlines, they cannot meet the deadlines. You are stringent, we are going to meet these deadlines, and you cannot make them do anything. So what we have done is realized that there is a problem here, that we can put good technology in as quickly as possible; but we need a good, solid process by which to implement this and we are suggesting that process. There is a process that we go through. This makes sense. It makes common sense. It faces reality. Vote down the Oberstar amendment. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, another year has passed since we lost our dear friends, Officer J.J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson. They were struck down as they stood tall for everyone that works in this building that we love so deeply. This past year brought forth a renewed appreciation across America for the virtues that both of these men showed all of us 4 years ago: bravery, fortitude, tenacity, and commitment. Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson inspired all of us with unflinching devotion. They now stand at the proud formation of the New York firefighters and police officers and the soldiers and sailors that also died saving lives on September 11. Mr. Speaker, Churchill once said, ``Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees all others.'' The courage of citizens like J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson has always been and will always be the true, firm foundation of American democracy. The willingness of millions of Americans to place themselves between danger and freedom over the years has always been the most powerful natural force for change in history. Some may have thought that our sense of gratitude and our love for these men would have been dimmed with the passage of time, but the opposite is true. We are now even more sharply aware of the danger present in our world and the enormous debt we owe the men and women who protect us. Our hearts and our prayers go out to the families of Officer J.J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson. They can be certain that we will always cherish the memories of their loved ones, we will always remember their sacrifice, and we will always defend the freedom that they loved.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, while Members may disagree about the impact that increased trade and unrestricted tourism could potentially play in reforming Castro's ruling regime, there is overwhelming opposition to any action that would compromise the war against terror. We have ample reason to suspect that Castro is developing weapons of mass destruction. America cannot allow a hostile regime just 90 miles from our shores to develop the world's most dangerous weapons. That is the difference between Cuba and China. That is the difference between Cuba and North Korea. Ninety miles. For that reason, we must completely be confident that Castro's regime is not either producing biological weapons or supporting terrorist organizations before any steps to relax the embargo are contemplated. Castro's Cuba has a long track record of hostility towards the United States, and freedom in general. Castro has long given refuge to terrorists and violent fugitives, and the Goss amendment raises a firewall between American tourism and Cuban biological weapons development and support for terrorist organizations. Castro's regime is a threat to our national security and a source of daily oppression to the Cuban people. Cuba has sponsored, trained, and directed terrorist groups operating in our hemisphere. History proves it. Cuban officials regularly collaborate with other state sponsors of terrorism. Just last year, Castro visited Libya, Syria and Iran, saying in Tehran, ``Iran and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can bring America to its knees.'' Cuban intelligence seeks to penetrate our Defense Department. A Cuban spy in the Defense Intelligence Agency, just discovered after September 11, could have passed valuable information on American tactics and methods to hostile regimes through Castro's government and endangered our soldiers. A Cuban spy cell, the so-called ``Wasp Network,'' targeted our southern command and passed on information leading to the downing of a Brothers to the Rescue plane with Cuban migs. Despite U.S. appeals, Cuba has done nothing to cooperate in the war against terrorism. The State Department reports that Cuba has not turned over a single piece of useful information on al Qaeda and the terrorism networks. Castro and Cuban officials frequently attack the war on terror as American aggression. On June 8, just last month, Castro asked, ``What is the difference between the American war on terror's philosophy and methods, and those of the Nazis?'' We know that Cuba has been working to develop weapons of mass destruction for years. Under Secretary of State John Bolton recently testified that the United States believes that Cuba has at least a limited developmental biological warfare research and development effort. The Goss amendment protects our national security by shielding funding for travel ban enforcement unless the President first certifies that the Cuban Government does not threaten our homeland security. Specifically, the President must make three very critical determinations that make good common sense: First, Cuba does not possess and is not developing a biological weapons program; second, Cuba is not providing terrorist states or terrorist organizations with the technology to build or use bioweapons; and, third, Cuba is not providing support for our or sanctuary to international terrorists. Very simple, straightforward commonsense approaches. Two generations ago, President Kennedy called Castro's Cuba ``the unhappy island.'' Four decades later, life for the Cuban people has only gotten worse under Fidel Castro's brutality. They are stripped of basic human rights, they are denied political rights, and they are deprived of the hope to improve their lives because Cuba still has not joined the 21st century. We should never stop working to bring freedom to Cuba. But until we can be certain that Cuba poses no threat to our national security, Congress should take no step that inadvertently strengthens the Castro regime and compromises our campaign against terror. Members should support the Goss amendment because it will ensure that the price of Cuban tourism will not eventually be measured in American lives.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this evening I'm taking the opportunity to speak for a few moments about someone very special to me and the whole Whip Team. I want to speak about the enormous contribution my Chief-of-Staff Susan Hirschmann has made by building the most effective staff on Capitol Hill, assisting the leadership of our House Republican Majority, and struggling tremendously hard day after day to advance our conservative, constitutional principles. As a Member of Congress, I've found that one of the most critical factors determining our ability to effect the political process is determined by the qualities and convictions held by the men and women we hire. Fortunately, in Susan, I found a leader with the courage to stand firm for our principles, the vision and creativity to develop effective solutions, and the heart and humor to hold together my committed and boisterous staff. Different observers bring different interpretations about what, precisely, it is that constitutes true leadership but I know it when I see it and this much I know; only a strong leader can command the Whip Team. I've been truly fortunate to have Susan as my right hand for the past five years. Over the years, we've won a lot of battles, we've lost a few battles, but I can't think of single occasion when be backed down from a struggle involving our core principles with a chance for victory still within site. That's a testament to Susan's passion, determination, and strategic vision. I'm gratified to have shared so many close votes with her and pleased that our team has been able to prevail so many times. So, Mr. Speaker, let me close by reiterating the extent of my gratitude for all the sacrifices that Susan Hirschmann made for me, our party, and our country. We've accomplished some amazing things for the American people. And I'm deeply grateful for everything that she's given up to build my staff into the most determined, passionate, and effective organization in Washington. We'll all miss her laughter, her wisdom, and her leadership. We'll send her off with every good wish for future happiness, success and fulfillment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. I just want to answer the last speaker. That kind of attitude that thinks that when a judge speaks that that is the law of the land, well, it does not work that way by the Constitution. There are checks and balances in our Constitution, and what Congress does is relevant to what the judiciary does. Congress is going to stand up in this particular case and fight the judiciary of this country and stop them from running amuck. There is accountability built into the Constitution, as long as this Congress understands that they have a responsibility to defend the Constitution against a runaway judiciary. It appears that this Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has experienced another short-circuit. This court went way too far, and we know that. This Congress is committed to righting that court's wrongs, starting right here, right now, today. Now, according to this absurd logic, the following could be in danger of being outlawed: The four mentions of God in the Declaration of Independence that made our country free; the oath that each President takes to uphold the Constitution, which holds our Nation together; the words etched right here above the Speaker in this august institution that helps govern our Nation; the phrase that begins with each U.S. Supreme Court session, ``God Save the United States;'' the oath of witnesses to tell the truth in courts that protect us; our own currency that keeps our Nation prosperous; and the singing of God bless America on the steps of this Capitol that signaled yesterday our resolve. So as my colleagues can see, this absurd decision was made by a court run amuck; and I urge all our Members, of all political stripes, to send a very clear message and put the stars and stripes, along with the words ``God Bless America'' as the banner for their .gov websites. As upset as we all are, once again we must summon the best in us to defend this one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. This Congress is not going to let anyone strip our Nation of our proud heritage; not now, not ever.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. The House, once again, is revisiting that long debate about whether working families pay too little in taxes or they pay too much. Only the Democrats see cutting taxes as a spending program. Deficits are caused by spending too much money, not by raising too little taxes. So before I explain why this awful substitute must be defeated, we ought to tell the people where we stand and what this debate is really about. Over the last few weeks, Republicans have voted to lower the tax burden on American families. We extended the adoption tax credit to help more vulnerable children in our society find homes where they are safe and loved. The House permanently eliminated the hated death tax, which destroys so many small businesses and farms. In the weeks to come, we will strengthen retirement security by allowing workers to expand their retirement savings through 401Ks and IRAs, and we will raise the child tax credit to $1,000 so parents can keep more of the money that they earn to support their families. All of these measures passed the House with strong bipartisan majorities, but the Democrat leadership's continuing devotion to big government causes them to reflexively oppose anything that lets people keep more of the money that they earn. That is why they are demonizing the President's tax cut. I have seen a lot of Democrat substitutes, and this one is so true to form, it raises taxes $42 billion on over 30 million families. There is rarely a week that passes around here in which the Democrat leadership does not attempt to raise taxes in one way or another. Last week, they even voted to revive the death tax. But the remarkable thing is that my friends are also proposing to weaken the Constitution. Our Constitution clearly states that tax increases such as this one that they propose in their substitute must begin in the House of Representatives. Our Founding Fathers rightly structured our system this way so that voters could hold the people who raise their taxes accountable. The Democrat substitute would empower unelected government bureaucrats to raise taxes on married couples based upon their predictions about the government's balance sheet or the needs of the government. Their substitute tries to pull an end run around our Constitution. Their substitute erodes the ability of voters to hold accountable those seeking to grab more of their hard-earned wages. Members should defend the Constitution and reject higher taxes by defeating this substitute. Vote ``no'' on the substitute and vote ``yes'' to support marriage penalty relief.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, only Democrats believe that cutting taxes is a spending program, that cutting taxes increase the debt. What increases the debt is government spending more than it takes in. That is what increases the debt. Spending increases the debt. Mr. Speaker, the Members really face a clear choice today. It is very basic. Will they stand with the taxpayer, or will they empower the tax collector? Will they stand with mom and pop businesses and American farmers, or will they assist those seeking to confiscate their hard- earned assets? In short, will they revive the death tax, or will they repeal it? They just cannot help themselves. The gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) was talking about we covered 99.7 percent. They cannot repeal a tax. It is just not in their nature to repeal the tax. If you are doing 99.7, which I disagree with, then why not the other .3 percent and be fair and repeal the tax? They just cannot. Do you know why? Because they want to use it sometime in the future to take money from American farmers, money from American businesses, put it in the government's pocket so that they can spend. I hope the voters really watch the vote that is taken here today. The Republican Party agrees with the vast majority of the Americans who believe that the death tax is the most evil tax on the books. Polls show it; the American people understand it. Unfortunately, the voters understand this issue far better than some Members of Congress. Let us place things in their proper perspective. A farmer or a small businesswoman works their whole life, builds a business, nurtures a small farm; and the whole time that they do that, they pay taxes, year after year, decade after decade; but that is still not enough for some of those who support this tax. As the hard-working American passes on, the death tax and its awful terms require that the IRS must confiscate over half of the value of their business and their farm. That is fundamentally wrong, and it is fundamentally unfair even for the .3 percent that they want to continue to tax. It remains to be seen how many Members will exercise sound judgment by rejecting class warfare and voting against this substitute. But let us be clear about exactly what this substitute does. The substitute is a tax increase, plain and simple. The substitute reverses the current law phase-down in the death tax rate and instead increases and maintains the rate at a whopping 50 percent. The substitute does not even index the exclusion. In plain English that means small businesses and farms that think they are okay today may later find out that the death tax reaches back and grabs them down the road; and most importantly, the substitute brings back this evil tax, while the underlying bill abolishes it once and for all. Let us drive a stake through the heart of the death tax. Let us end it for all time. Do the right thing, support the underlying bill and strike down this substitute.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, before we broke for the last vote, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in his wonderful humor put up a chart claiming that the amendment that I have put into the bill to protect men and women in uniform allows us to invade the Netherlands. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has a wonderful sense of humor and I greatly appreciate that. But this is pretty serious business because an International Criminal Court has been created, a court that the United States has chosen not to participate in. We felt it very necessary to pass a bill that is included in this bill, to make sure that not just our men and women in uniform can be arrested anywhere before the world and brought before this court. But there are certain assurances that will happen or authorities that we give the President. The thing missing from the gentleman's chart is the picture in the middle of the chart of a soldier or a sailor behind bars, being arrested by a court that is totally unaccountable for. This provision that is the core of the bill, by the way, simply gives the President the authority to do whatever is necessary to free our people who get snatched by this rogue court, arrested anywhere in the world, can be tried anywhere in the world, but could be taken to the Hague to appear before the International Criminal Court. That authority could even include an array of options including providing legal assistance. Now, at the same time it could make clear that should a country arrest and detain an American, we all should expect that the President would absolutely use the powers at his disposal to free those Americans. Now, if the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is suggesting that the Netherlands, which is our ally, would actually arrest and detain an American, because we continually hear from the ICC supporters that this bill is unnecessary, because there are plenty of protections to ensure Americans will not be held, we would certainly hope that our allies do not intend to arrest our military personnel and try them before the International Criminal Court. The fact that the ICC is centered at the Hague is irrelevant. Trials could take place in any country that is party to the treaty. But more importantly, this is aimed at countries arresting and transporting Americans. Let us just say, for instance, that Iran, who is a party to the court, or even the al Qaeda, could capture an American soldier and could hold them insisting that they were going to turn them over to the ICC. Now, our language says very clearly and I quote, ``bring about the release of any person being detained, imprisoned by or on behalf of or at the request of the ICC.'' Is there anyone here who would honestly say we should not do everything in our power to free that soldier? This provision also serves to make it very clear to any rogue nation who might want to arrest an American for political purposes, we will not tolerate it and we will take action to stop it. Mr. Chairman, that person that is behind bars on that chart could be the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) own constituent. What are you going to do then? What are you going to do for the men and women in uniform? What are you going to do for Members of Congress that could be arrested and brought before the court? What are you going to do for any person that is in the bill, any covered United States person, any covered allied persons or any individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions taken while the individual was a covered United States citizen or a covered allied person? This is a very serious provision in the bill. It is serious because it is timely. In one month all of this can proceed. In one month while our soldiers are in Afghanistan, they can be captured and brought before the ICC. In one month any of our soldiers in Bosnia could be captured and brought before the ICC. This is very serious stuff. It is not funny. Let us protect our men and women in uniform and support the provision.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we do not have the luxury of time today. We do not have the time to divert the vitally needed national security enhancements in this bill by taking a dangerous detour into a thicket of secondary issues that have no direct bearing on our urgent need to secure our country and defeat our enemies. We cannot afford to drag out the relief in this bill to serve an unstated political agenda that seeks advantage at the very expense of swift assistance. The people defending America do not deserve a legislative IOU today. They deserve timely action. On the eve of Memorial Day, this House should not abdicate our mission by dragging out the urgent relief in this bill for our military, our homeland security and our hard-pressed intelligence agencies. As we all know, we have taken great strides since September 11 to enhance our ability to detect, defeat and destroy the international terror networks. We have strengthened our homeland security. We have empowered our military commanders to secure victory. And we are moving aggressively to understand all the lessons from the terror attacks. But we also know that our job is far from over. Our country has serious ongoing liabilities that we address through the relief in this bill. We cover the cost of our operations in Afghanistan and the call-up of Reserve and National Guard troops. We provide almost a half a billion dollars to firm up our coalition. We speed the elimination of unneeded chemical weapons. We supply the spare parts and replace the high tech munitions that our military needs to keep its edge, and we meet pressing needs for our special operations forces. On the domestic front, we give the FBI the sophisticated technology systems that they need to coordinate and manage the flow of information. Clearly this improvement is urgently needed. We send resources to the INS to identify those people that are breaking the law by illegally overstaying their visas. We secure our airports with over a billion dollars in assistance to help detect bombs hidden in baggage. We provide substantial funding to harden our nuclear weapons facilities. In addition, we help the Secret Service build partnerships with sophisticated high tech firms to uncover terror's electronic footprints. And we also boost our intelligence capacity by sending the CIA and other agencies substantial resources to win the war on terror. Today, Democrats, who we are asked to believe are motivated by a newfound passion of fiscal restraint, walked out on our work to provide the resources to improve our national security. They retreated from our responsibility to put politics aside when the time comes to strengthen our country. This campaign of jockeying for domestic political advantages while delaying swift action on our need to send these resources is beneath contempt. It is cut from the same shoddy cloth as the shameful campaign to sow doubt about the President's commitment to protecting the American people. Following decade after decade of deficit spending when they held the majority, the idea that Democrats could now credibly lecture Republicans on the virtues of fiscal discipline just will not hold water. Their counterfeit fiscal discipline could be the most garish and grotesque case of ideological cross-dressing in the history of American politics. House Republicans brought fiscal discipline back to Washington. We are the ones who balanced the budget. We cut taxes every year that we have been the majority party. We paid down over $450 billion in debt on our children. And despite the war and the recession, we are still committed to holding the line on spending. We are the true party of fiscal discipline. Under our budget, we are going to pay down another $180 billion on the debt. And once our economy gains a head of steam, we will pay down much more than that. If Democrats were truly concerned about fiscal discipline, why were they AWOL in March when House Republicans passed our budget by ourselves? They could not even offer a budget, because they did not want to divulge the taxes they are planning to raise or the security spending they are likely to slash. In time of war, we cannot dawdle around in carrying out our constitutional obligations. This bill carries critical resources to defeat the enemies of freedom and we ought to put them to work today. Anyone who leaves town wondering how deep the Democrats' commitment to fiscal discipline actually runs should consider one salient fact: The House passed the President's budget over 2 months ago, but the Senate has not acted yet. They have not passed a budget. Pass this bill and let us go home.