Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his work on this resolution and his indulgence and his stature, and I appreciate his support. I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for his incredible courage and principle in co-authoring this resolution, and I appreciate his friendship. Mr. Speaker, these are very serious times. The principles and virtues that all of us revere and respect about America are under assault today in the Middle East. The people of Israel are resisting a wave of terrorism. As we watch that violence directed against Israel, we are roused to resolve that terrorism, in all its forms, has to be defeated. There is no moral equivalence, there is no moral equivalence between a democratic government defending its citizens and a calculated strategy of death waged by terrorist organizations. Homicide bombings are evil incarnate. On the scales of justice and morality, they are no different from the attacks launched against the United States just last September. They serve only to satisfy the gruesome appetites of pure hatred and unrestrained wickedness, and they demonstrate beyond question that the abiding threat to peace in the Middle East stems from the groups which exist for the single purpose of destroying Israel. The citizens of free nations share a very special bond. It flows from our common commitment to a set of enduring principles. We trust democracy. We defend human rights. We live under the rule of law, and we seek good relations with every country wishing to coexist peacefully with other countries. Israel is the lone bastion of freedom in the region. Within Israel's own neighbors, peaceful transitions are nothing more than accidents of fate. Describing these countries as genuine democracies would be as inaccurate as calling an acorn an oak tree. It is time for every country in the Middle East to pass a fundamental test of a civilized world by unequivocally rejecting terrorism and acknowledging that bombings and other acts of terror render any underlying cause of terror or grievance illegitimate. Mr. Speaker, it is the test that President Bush laid down in this Chamber, right here, when he said, you are either with us or you are with the terrorists. The men and women of Israel must know that we recognize the broader significance of this struggle, that the attacks directed against Israel are attacks against liberty, and all free people must recognize that Israel's fight is our fight. Let every terrorist know that the American people will never abandon freedom, democracy, or Israel. America will never permit the Jewish state to fall to aggression. The search for peace cannot diminish and must not obscure the very key lessons of the past 40 years. Democracies must never negotiate with terrorists. And for that reason, Yasir Arafat strikes many of us as a highly unreliable vessel to carry the hope for peace. To turn from his past, it would be very difficult for him to do. The most promising sign for both the people of Israel and the Palestinian people would be the emergence of a moderate Palestinian leader who truly seeks a negotiated settlement for lasting peace. The United States cannot be a broker between one party that wants peace and the other party that wants terrorism. It cannot succeed. It has not succeeded. The peace process has been a failure for over 25 years. Today, the Palestinian men and women who wish nothing more than just to raise their family in peace have no voice. In fact, they are killed if they raise their head of moderation. Nothing will do more to bring peace to this region than the emergence of a Palestinian leader with the courage and support of the United States to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and a willingness to acknowledge Israel's legitimate security considerations. But until that day comes, every man and woman in Israel should know that they do not stand alone, because America stands with them.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3839, the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2002. I am very pleased that we were able to bring this bill to the floor during April, a month dedicated to commemorate Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention. The bill before us today is aimed at identifying and preventing child maltreatment. One critical provision offered in committee by Mr. Greenwood is particularly important. This provision would require States to develop policies and procedures to inform State child protective workers when an infant is born addicted to drugs. There is a strong link between substance abuse and child abuse. An estimated 40 percent of confirmed cases of child maltreatment involve parental drug use. When parents abuse drugs there is a three-fold increase in the likelihood that their child will be abused or neglected. Nothing is more tragic than the sight of a child born exposed to drugs going through withdrawal. Their pain is clear. These babies cry without stopping. They can't be comforted. They are startled by light and touch. This is particularly heartbreaking because these children are almost always placed into neonatal intensive care units where the lights are never turned off and the noise level is always high. Babies born addicted to drugs often arrive prematurely with subtle brain damage. These babies fail to thrive and struggle to gain weight because they often have feeding problems. When child protection workers aren't told that a baby was born addicted to drugs, that baby is in serious danger. In far too many cases, addicted babies go home to die. In the District of Columbia alone, 11 newborns died from 1993 through 2000 after hospitals sent them home to drug addicted parents without monitoring or services. The bill we will pass today sends a clear message to the States: Drug addicted newborns must be protected. My home State of Texas, and 26 other States, require medical personnel to report the birth of drug exposed babies to authorities. But there is still a troubling lack of attention to the laws that are currently in place and the babies they are designed to protect. This legislation is a good start. But much more needs to be done.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. We did not exclude anybody from any of the process; and the gentleman may characterize it as that, but we passed a good tax cut for the American people the best way we could with the Democrat opposition that we faced.

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the bill because it was the only way we could get tax cuts for American families with the Democrat opposition that we faced.

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, certainly the President signed the only tax cut we could get for the American family in the face of the Democrat opposition that we faced.

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, we opposed that because it was a response to a silly rule over in the Senate called the Byrd rule that does not allow us to make taxes permanent, yes.

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I think it says it all when the gentleman from Texas previous to me said that tax cuts are a spending program. Only Democrats would think that tax cuts, leaving money in people's pocket, is a spending program. Well, Mr. Speaker, a vote against this bill is a decision to bury the middle class beneath a wave of new taxes at the end of the decade; and if the Democrats vote no today, they are inflicting a rash of higher taxes on the American family. They will slice the child care tax credit in half. It falls from $1,000 down to $500 without permanent tax relief. They will revive the discriminatory marriage penalty that punishes families with a greater burden. They will resuscitate the hated death tax that has been stalking American farmers and small businesswomen all these years. They will weaken the retirement security of millions of Americans by slashing the level of contributions to 401(k) plans by more than a third, and they are dropping IRA contributions from $5,000 down to a paltry $2,000. Democrats who vote ``no'' are really saying yes to the largest single-day tax increase in American history. That is the wrong message for American families. It heaps uncertainty on farmers and small businesses, and it sows doubt and uncertainty about our commitment to fiscal discipline and the prospects for limited government. That is the wrong path. We need to reject this tax hike by making the President's tax cuts permanent; and if we do, average Americans will reap a number of powerful economic benefits. Married couples will send $1,700 less to the IRS. Families with kids will pay $1,500 less in taxes. Single moms will keep more than $700, and our senior citizens will see almost $1,000 in additional savings in their tax. All of these steps are positive in their own right; but taken altogether, they will send a powerful economic signal that will encourage growth and job creation and, yes, provide more revenues to the government. So in this way, we will prove to the American people that we believe they should keep more of the hard-earned money that they earned. That is the right message for America. It is what the President wants and I ask our Members to vote ``yes.''

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I will take the 30 seconds, and I appreciate the 30 seconds; but I am not the leader. I am the whip.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, only in response to the Byrd rule. That is the rule. If the gentleman is going to yield, let me answer the question.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, no. Would the gentleman yield so I can answer?

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, America has forces deployed all around the world as we root out the international terrorist networks. We have served notice to every Nation that there is no middle ground in the struggle to vindicate freedom. President Bush divided the world into two camps with a very basic guiding principle: either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. Every country must choose between freedom and a culture of murder and destruction. This misguided campaign to relax the embargo against Fidel Castro's evil regime is a retreat from a very bright line division between freedom and tyranny. We risk clouding our resolve against terror here in our own hemisphere. The supporters of this initiative may believe that by engaging Cuba their approach would bring constructive results, but nothing in Cuba takes place without Castro's blessing, and Castro profits by every business transaction in Cuba. Easing the embargo would only empower a tottering dictator. For decades, Fidel Castro's Cuba has cultivated, trained, and harbored both individual terrorists and groups using murder to make political statements. Castro's Cuba is a temple to violence. Their handiwork cost American lives like the New Yorkers murdered and maimed by the Fraunces Tavern bombing carried out by Cuban-trained terrorists. There is no denying that Cuba is a safe haven for terrorist fugitives. Castro shelters Basque ETA terrorists, Colombia FARC and ELN terrorists, and terrorist officials from the Irish Republican Army. Castro is intertwined in the axis of evil. Just 1 year ago, Castro visited three other state sponsors of terrorism: Iran, Syria, and Libya. In Tehran, Castro said: ``Iran and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can bring America to its knees. The U.S. regime is very weakened and we are witnessing this weakness from up close.'' That was Castro talking. Castro sold advanced biotechnology to the Iranian government. The United States believes that Cuba has at least a limited offensive biological warfare capability. Castro is sharing dual-use biotechnology with rogue states. Ken Alibek, the former Soviet Union's top chemical and biological warfare expert, told Congress that ``Cuba has a perfectly developed system of engineering and is capable to develop genetic engineering agents. They've got the desire to develop genetically engineered biological weapons.'' That is what a former Communist in the Soviet Union said. In other words, Castro is funneling resources to develop the world's most diabolical weapons, and he shares these evil exports with the world's most dangerous and unstable regimes. We can be certain that any economic activity between the United States and Cuba will only serve to supply additional fuel to Castro's engine of repression. The proceeds of joint ventures and trade and terrorism do not empower the men and women of Cuba. They are bled into the Castro regime. We also know that Castro is continuing his attempts to penetrate U.S. intelligence agencies and even our Armed Forces. Last month, last month, the Defense Intelligence Agency's top Cuba specialist pled guilty to spying for Castro over 16 years. There is little doubt that Castro's espionage is made available to our enemies. Perhaps it even makes its way to the al Qaeda. There is no sign that September 11 did anything to shift Castro's reflexive hostility toward democracy and freedom. He smeared America's response to terrorism. Said Castro: ``Their capacity to destroy,'' their being us, ``capacity to destroy and kill is enormous, but their traits of equanimity, serenity, reflection and caution are, on the other hand, minimal.'' We know with dead certainty that Castro systematically brutalizes and oppresses the Cuban people. He drags his people through hardship, servitude, and despair; and any fair appraisal of Cuba's long support for terrorist groups and Castro's current behavior leads to an unavoidable conclusion. Without a clear break from terrorist sponsorship and the adoption of fundamental human rights and democratic reforms, the embargo must be upheld. Even if we set aside our deep reservations about empowering Castro through economic activity with the United States, there are other doubts that remain. What is the likelihood that any American farmer would actually be paid by Castro for the goods exported to Cuba? Castro's track record is just abysmal. Two years ago, Cuba failed to pay money owed to the French. Last year Castro also defaulted on over $500 million in debt owed to Spain, South Africa and Chile. Castro is a bad credit risk. We should be seeking to open real markets with the actual capacity to pay for the products exported to them. Members should reject this motion to instruct by standing with the President against state-sponsored terrorism and tyranny. Vote ``no'' on the motion to instruct. [From the New York Times, Sept. 8, 1985] F.B.I. Aide Testifies to Espionage Confession Less than an hour after his arrest last fall on espionage charges, Richard W. Miller confessed passing a secret document to a Soviet intelligence agent, the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation office in Los Angeles testified Friday in Federal District Court here. It was the fifth straight day the jury heard evidence that Mr. Miller, then an F.B.I. agent, had admitted passing classified documents to the K.G.B., the Soviet intelligence agency. The previous testimony focused on admissions Mr. Miller made in five days of interrogation before his arrest last Oct. 2. But Richard T. Bretzing, the chief F.B.I. agent here, testified that after Mr. Miller was taken into custody he said he had given the secret 53-page ``Reporting Guidance: Foreign Intelligence Information'' to his lover, Svetlana Ogorodnikov, a Russiann emigre, Mr. Bretzing said Mr. Miller made the admission while he was being taken from his home in Bonsall, Calif., to the bureau's San Diego office. Arrested on espionage charges the same day as Mr. Miller, who is 48 years old, were Mrs. Ogorodnikov, 35, and her husband, Nikolay, 52. Both pleaded guilty at their trial earlier this summer and were sentenced to prison. Earlier Testimony Supported The Government contends that Mr. Miller was involved in a sexual liaison with Mrs. Ogorodnikov and agreed to provide Soviet intelligence agents with classified material through the Ogorodnikovs in return for $65,000. The defense, which will open its case next week, contends that Mr. Miller cultivated a relationship with Mrs. Ogorodnikov as part of a one-man mission to infiltrate the K.G.B. and rescue his 20-year career as an F.B.I. agent. Earlier this week a Portland, Ore., woman testified that hours before his arrest Mr. Miller telephoned her and told her he was in trouble. The woman, Marta York, testified that Mr. Miller had said he had ``only passed one'' classified document to Soviet agents. Mr. Miller's attorneys, who characterized the woman's testimony as ``very damaging,'' were surprised Friday when the prosecution presented a witness to buttress her testimony. The witness, Gary Allan, an Oregon social worker, testified that he was in Mrs. York's home last Oct. 2 when she received a phone call from a ``close friend'' named ``Richard'' who was in the F.B.I. After the call Mr. Allan said Mrs. York was ``agitated'' and ``excited,'' and talked about it. ``She said she had learned he had gotten into trouble as a result of his relationship with a woman who she identified as a Soviet agent,'' Mr. Allan testified. Information Termed Secret ``Did she tell you that Richard's relationship with the Russian woman was an intimate relationship?'' asked Russell Hayman, an Assistant United States Attorney. Mr. Allan responded, ``It's fair to say that, yes.'' He then said Mrs. York had told him that her F.B.I. friend ``had shared information with the Russian agent.'' Mr. Hayman asked, ``What type of information?'' Mr. Allan replied, ``She described the information as secret.'' Mr. Bretzing testified Friday that, in the five days before Mr. Miller's arrest, he urged the agent to ``unburden'' himself. The defense contends that Mr. Miller was so overcome by Mr. Bretzing's spiritual appeal that he began confessing. Mr. Miller was excommunicated from the Mormon Church early last year for adultery. Mr. Bretzing is a Bishop in the church. But Mr. Bretzing rebuffed defense suggestions that he exploited Mr. Miller's ties to the Mormon Church to elicit a false confession. ``I believed that he had done things he knew to be unlawful and a betrayal of the country,'' Mr. Bretzing said, referring to Mr. Miller. ``I believed from his teachings in the F.B.I. and as a youngster in the Mormon Church, he had every reason to feel guilt.'' Stanley Greenberg, a defense attorney, asked ``And you tried to appeal to that guilt?''

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the Child Custody Protection Act is such a needed and necessary step because it closes a destructive loophole in parents' rights to protect their children from that lasting physical, psychological, and spiritual consequence that is caused from abortion. As things stand today, the abortion industry actually uses ``No parental consent required'' as a marketing tool within neighboring States that empower parents to protect their children from abortions by requiring their prior approval. That is not just wrong, it is immoral. The CCPA simply makes the act of transporting a minor across the State line for the purpose of performing an abortion a Federal offense. It places parents back in charge of their children, and it issues a warning to those who would actually insert themselves between parents and their daughters to encourage the single most horrendous and emotionally devastating mistake that young women are tragically permitted to make. We know well that parents are in the best position as observers to counsel and advise their own daughters. The CCPA places those parents back in charge by closing a secret loophole. That loophole facilitates the anonymous destruction of innocent life, and it creates the lasting trauma that haunts every young girl who ends her baby's life. I just beg the Members to vote yes on this bill.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important day because we are debating a budget that is a very important budget. It is amazing to me that the other side is arguing, stop the raid on Social Security. When they were in the majority for 40 years, they took the surpluses of Social Security and spent them on big government programs. We are the ones that stopped the raid on Social Security and paid down over $450 billion on the debt on our children. Mr. Chairman, we have a choice to make today. We can stand with the President in funding the war on terrorism, defending our homeland, and balancing the budget, or we can align ourselves with those who offer no budget for national defense, no budget for homeland security, and no budget for Social Security. The other party has come here not to praise any budget but to bury it. They are demonstrating the height of fiscal irresponsibility because they offer no budget at all for our country. These charts offer a very clear picture of the Democrats' budget. This is the Democrats' budget on national security. This is the Democrats' budget on homeland security. This is the Democrats' budget on Social Security. Republicans, though, Mr. Chairman, strike a very responsible balance. Our budget gives the President the resources he needs to wage a war against international terrorism and bolster our homeland defenses. It also puts us on the path to a balanced budget, and puts us on track to pay down more than $180 billion in debt over the next 5 years. Republicans are committed to returning to a balanced budget. We are the ones who balanced it in the first place. This is what our budget does: It returns us to a balanced budget so that we can protect the Social Security trust fund and pay down the debt on our children. For decades, the Democrats have raided the Social Security trust fund, and for years Republicans, by fighting for a balanced budget, have protected seniors. The attacks on September 11 and the recession forced a short-term wartime deficit spending, but as our economy rebounds and as we demonstrate fiscal restraint, we will move back into a surplus. That is why it is important to hold the line on spending right now. So from the other side of the aisle we hear a chorus of criticism, but they offer no answers. Democrats all voted to raid Social Security just last year, and they have not offered a budget this year. We know what they are against, but where is their solution? If they had the courage of their convictions, they would be forced to answer the question that they have been ducking all year long: Do they want to raise taxes, or raid defense and other priorities to pay for more spending? The Democrats need to tell us whether they are raisers or raiders. Support this budget, and let us go forward for fiscal responsibility.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, last month we saw a clear example of irresponsible journalism. In January, National Public Radio aired a story that inappropriately linked the Traditional Values Coalition to the anthrax terror attacks against the Senate, but the NPR story did not present any credible evidence to support the awful association they suggested. NPR's conduct is outrageous and ignores their basic responsibilities as journalists: presenting the facts to the public accurately and without bias. There was no legitimate justification for including TVC in the story describing the anthrax investigation. The only plausible explanation is an attempt by NPR to practice guilt by association. I have worked with the Traditional Values Coalition for many years. They are a principled, compassionate, Christian organization which speaks for 43,000 member churches from across the United States. The Traditional Values Coalition is dedicated to defending the sanctity of life and upholding the dignity of every individual. NPR needs to hold itself to far higher standards. By inserting a group without any possible connection to the anthrax attack into its report, NPR raised serious questions about their presentation of the news. NPR should be cautious about the damage that can be done to a group's reputation by similar association. The public should expect responsible reporting from NPR, and they ought to demand it of themselves.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I do not think there is one Member, Democrat, Republican, liberal, or conservative, that is corrupt in this House. I think what is corrupting in this House is the misinformation, especially the misinformation that we have heard over the last few weeks, incredible misinformation; misinformation, for instance, that we are in this bill banning soft money, we know that is not the truth; misinformation that it is not unconstitutional to stop people from exercising their right to be involved in the political process. Let me just point this out: Those who want to ban soft money, I appreciate that and respect it; I do not agree with it. Those who want to regulate through government the participation in the political process, I respect them trying to do that; I disagree with it. We ought to let the voters decide through instant disclosure to be able to tell and see while people are collecting their money and spending it to decide. We should be empowering voters, not government bureaucrats. But those that constantly say they are trying to ban soft money bring a bill to this floor that is seriously flawed and, in fact, creates new opportunities to raise soft money. It is misinformation like the previous speaker to say that hundreds of thousands of dollars are going straight to candidates. That is not the definition of soft money. Soft money is monies raised from corporations and others that go to political parties, and that is what they are attempting to do is to ban that money. But they are not doing it in this bill. Let me just read the bill. In the bill they first move the effective date until after the election, so they do not want to ban it for this election, because they have a bunch of it in the bank and they want to spend it. But they move it until after the election. Then it says in the bill, ``Prior to January 1, the committee may spend such funds to retire outstanding debts or obligations, both soft and hard money, that are incurred prior to such effective date, election date, so long as such debts and obligations were incurred solely in connection with an election held on or before November 5.'' They want to be able to spend the soft money they already raised, and do we know how they do it? They want to be able to borrow hard money and soft money, and then after the election, between November 5 and January 1, there will be a huge stampede to raise all this corrupting soft money to pay off their loans. That is in the bill. That does not ban soft money. That creates a situation that requires more soft money and a huge move towards that soft money that they think is so corrupting. For the first time, we will be paying off hard money with soft money. I repeat that. We are paying off hard money with soft money, completely changing the situation and the way that we are doing it. Then, then they say that they want to limit the parties' participation in the election. This bill does not contain real reform. Instead, this bill strips citizens of their political rights and unconstitutionally attempts to regulate political speech. The primary protection of our first amendment is the right of average citizens to get together and to freely and fully criticize their government. Political speech is the key to political freedom, and Shays-Meehan would radically weaken our first amendment right by inappropriately and unwisely constraining the right to political speech. Shays-Meehan denies Americans, denies American citizens their fundamental right to criticize politicians for 2 months before the election. Now, we all know that the last days before an election are a very crucial period of political dialogue. That is when voters are really paying attention, and that is the precise reason that this incumbent protection scheme that is in the bill will suppress political speech 60 days before Election Day. Shays-Meehan strengthens incumbents and makes it far harder for their constituents to hold them accountable. This is a sham. It shuts down the system, Mr. Chairman. It shuts down political speech. It shuts down the opportunity to participate in elections. In a country the size of the United States, an individual citizen has very little chance of joining the political debate without banding together with others, so by blocking citizens' groups from participating in days leading up to an election, Shays-Meehan removes a very vital tool that citizens can use to hold elected officials accountable. This is Swiss cheese. It is full of holes. It does not do what the authors want. It is like a fine wine that does not get better with age, it just rots.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this substitute, to the substitute to the substitute to the substitute for Shays-Meehan. With this substitute, I say to my colleagues, if we pass this substitute, we can no longer call it campaign finance reform, it is now campaign finance regulation, because with this substitute more loopholes are created, more changes are made, and those changes are made to satisfy people's own special interests, either in the Senate or in the House. This substitute pits the national parties against special interest groups, unions and others, and weakens our national party system. This substitute, as we found out this morning, when written last night, wanted to protect the good soft money that the Democrat national parties have already raised and the good soft money that they are going to raise between now and the election by changing the effective date. And they changed the effective date until the next election. Now, what is the difference? If it is bad soft money, and if it is corrupting like they say, then what is the difference in doing it now or after the election? The difference is they have a bunch of soft money that they think is good now and they want to use it. Not only that, but this creates a system that allows them to borrow soft money and hard money and then pay it off with soft money, a brand new approach to campaign finance. It is regulation when you pick winners and losers. Now, they have said that they disagree, that my interpretation of their language is wrong, and they tried it out on a couple of lawyers, a Mr. Larry Noble. Mr. Larry Noble happens to be a lobbyist for the Center of Responsive Politics. He is a former FEC counsel that was a pretty bad one. He lost almost every case that he ever brought before the FEC, and he writes that our interpretation is wrong. Then, to add cynicism to this whole process, they sent a person by the name of Trevor Potter over to the Republican Tuesday Group. Now, Trevor Potter is a lobbyist for the Campaign Finance Institute. He is on the board of Common Cause, and he was formerly Senator McCain's Presidential counsel. He spoke to the Tuesday Group, told them one thing, and when we pull up his Website, he says something completely different than what he told the Republican Tuesday Group. Now, when a bunch of lawyers start going around, there is smoke, and where there is smoke, there is fire. The point is that I am no lawyer, so I am not encumbered. When I read this legislation, it is quite clear that they can borrow money, hard or soft, and pay it off with soft money. They can do it. They are opening loopholes everywhere. This is not reform. This is regulation.

Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the NRCC.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just correct the gentleman. It is not an honest drafting error, it is intentional so that they can use their good soft money and pay for it later with other soft money. It is their use of soft money when they stand before the American people saying they are getting rid of this terrible soft money.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me, and congratulate her on a whole year of very hard work, the work she put in to bring this bill to the floor today. I also want to add my thanks to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who was tireless in standing up for the abused and neglected children of the District of Columbia, understanding that the District desperately needs to focus on the welfare of these children and the best interests of these children. She understands that, and in the name of Brianna Blackmond, and maybe we should have named this bill for Brianna Blackmond, because this is the beginning of what I hope is a total reform effort to bring the kind of services and safe and permanent homes for children that are seriously abused. I also thank the staff that worked on it, particularly on my staff, Dr. Cassie Bevan, who is tenacious in her efforts to see that these children receive the kind of services that they deserve. These are children, Mr. Speaker, that are the most oppressed, the most abused, not just in the District of Columbia, but all over the United States. The effort all over the United States is sort of focused here in our Nation's capital in trying to do the best we can. There are 4,500 cases that are currently supervised outside the Family Division that can now be brought into the Family Division of the Superior Court upon the signature of the President of this bill, so maybe we can start working on this backlog and develop a system, a model system for the Nation's capital to take care of these children. These are children that are dying, these are children that have been forgotten, in many cases. I remind my colleagues that this came to our attention not just through the death of Brianna Blackmond, but the child welfare system of the District was in receivership. It was in a mess. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) understood this and worked with us closely, and was the driving force in making this happen. But I have to tell my colleagues, this is only the first step in a reform effort in the District of Columbia that is desperately needed. Just this last summer, over 100 files were lost, 100 files. Let me explain what that means. A child makes an outcry, he or she is being abused and neglected in one way or another; and the stories that we hear of what is happening to children, not just in the District of Columbia, but all across the Nation are just horrendous. But this child makes an outcry for help, and looking for someone to help them, and a file is created on this child and then lost. We do not even know what has happened to these children. The perpetrator of the abuse and neglect on this child knows now that the child made an outcry, and who knows what has been done to that child that made the outcry. This is abhorrent and we can not stand for it any longer and we are not. And by passing this bill, this is the beginning of what I hope is once and for all a process that we will go through in the District of Columbia to bring these children out of an abusive situation, give them the services that they need and, most importantly, find them a safe and permanent home where they can look forward and have hope for a future that other children enjoy today. I think that is vitally important. This is going to be a showcase hopefully for the Nation. And, colleagues, children and families need a court that focuses exclusively on their welfare and their best interest. To realize this objective, the family court absolutely has to keep cases within its boundaries in order to be effective. This bill before us requires that the backlog of 4,500 cases have to be returned; and, second, that these cases which are currently under supervision of judges in the family division, remain there even after the individual judges leave the family bench. But most importantly, it gives us the opportunity to recruit judges that want to deal in this area of the law, that want to work with these children and these families to give these children the kind of future they deserve. This bill also requires that each year a report is prepared to Congress that includes the number of cases retained outside the family court. It is our intention that this number be very low, because one of the major purposes of this Act is to keep all the cases in the specialized family court. So under the D.C. appropriations bill, as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) has said, there is $24 million that has been appropriated to implement this legislation, to upgrade our computer systems, to expand its courtroom facilities and increase the number of judicial personnel to handle this huge backlog of cases. The reforms required in this legislation combined with the money appropriated to support these reforms was designed with a single vital purpose, and that is to save the lives of abused and neglected children in the District of Columbia who are endangered by the status quo. I am very proud to be associated with the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the delegation that serves the D.C. metroplex and, particularly, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who has done an outstanding job in working all this out and bringing this bill to the floor. The children will appreciate it in the future. We have dedicated it to Brianna Blackmond.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to talk about a real stalwart in this House, and to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) for his hard work and to remind our Members about what his leadership and effectiveness have meant to the success of our majority. When Dick Armey first got to Washington, they said his ideas were out of step; but now America has caught up to Dick Armey. He stood firm against communism, and the Iron Curtain failed. He insisted that the welfare system was broken, and millions of Americans are now earning paychecks and have greater self-worth because they have entered the workplace. He took on a tough job of realigning our military base structure and our Armed Forces are more effective today because their bases better support their new mission. Dick Armey said repeatedly that punishing success was not part of the American dream. And he helped Presidents Reagan and Bush pass pro- growth tax cuts that raised our economic security. Many Americans now understand that a rising economic tide lifts all boats because Dick Armey explained it to them. He reminded us that God is a part of all of our lives and millions of people now question why God has been driven out of our national lives. He fought laws that would have weakened our Constitution, and America remains the freest and most secure country in the world. He said that red tape and unneeded regulations were stifling growth and shortchanging job creation and now, despite the blow from September 11, our American economy is the healthiest, most vibrant and most productive in the world. He knew that if Republicans clearly explained our goals as the majority party, we would earn broad support from the American people, and the Contract With America helped build the first Republican majority in four decades. He arrives and departs Washington as fundamentally the same man that stood next to me to take his oath of office in 1985, but the Washington he will leave behind in 2003 is a very, very different place. He is just an ordinary man with extraordinary ideas that helped change America. Since Republicans earned our House majority, the Federal Government has grown leaner, more efficient and more responsive to individual citizens. These changes happened because people like Dick Armey knew we could expect more from our government and they insisted that we do better. Our Republican majority has accomplished great things together, and our Nation is stronger, freer, and enjoys the highest living standards in the world. Several broad principles guided our efforts: We believed that freedom is not free. We worked to ensure that our Armed Forces and the agencies protecting America had all the tools necessary to defend our country. We believed that government answers to the people. We worked to make the Federal Government more responsive, more efficient and more effective in performing its work. We believed that families are entitled to keep more of what they earn. We worked to be careful stewards of their tax dollars and insisted that every dollar was spent as wisely and effectively as it could be. So, Mr. Speaker, let me say to Dick Armey, thank you, Dick, very much, for everything you have done to keep America strong and free. You can be truly proud of what the House has achieved under your leadership. There is no doubt that we will continue improving our Nation over the course of your final year. We must treasure and build upon our gift from previous generations. They left us a great country with a big heart, broad shoulders and the courage to chase hundreds of millions of dreams. Today, the beacon of freedom is burning brightly. We need to stoke the flame, lift the lantern higher and lead freedom-loving people onward to a better and more fulfilling life. I want to extend Dick Armey my deep thanks for everything he has done to make that happen. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me offer a special thank you to Susan Armey for allowing America to borrow her husband all these years. Our country is a better place because of the sacrifices she and her family have made.