Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I just thought it was important for me to come down to the well and congratulate not just the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) for doing an incredible job on this piece of legislation, a very courageous job on this piece of legislation, but to commend the House of Representatives. If we would have listened to some in this House, we would have sent the President a seriously flawed piece of legislation. In their haste, the other body, Mr. Speaker, passed a bill that was seriously flawed, did not even cover entire airports, for the security of entire airports; took the issue of security and put it under the Department of Justice; did not even cover the baggage in the hold of the airplanes. So many flawed issues in the other body's bill, Mr. Speaker, that it took the courage of the chairman to stand up to what was a railroad moving through this country and stop implementing a seriously flawed system. This bill is a House bill with a few changes from the Senate. This is the House bill. Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) because on all the issues, other than one, he was right there writing a very, very strong and important piece of legislation that we find in this conference report. We have a real and important frame work under the Department of Transportation to create the new security administration. We get a uniform, consistent security system nationwide. We do not have the small airports being treated differently from the big airports. Everybody will be treated the same and have the same sort of security. We have the flexibility that we wanted for the President and the Secretary of Transportation to put the kind of tools necessary, including private sector security to ensure safety of the traveling public. A very important provision that the American people instinctively know is to require every screener to be a United States citizen, something that the Senate did not seem to want to put in their bill. So I am very proud of the fact that this is basically the House bill that passed out of here a few weeks ago, a House bill that took its time to be written; and it was done right. And most importantly, covers all modes of transportation, security for all modes of transportation, not just aviation. I congratulate everyone that was involved.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the debate, which is sort of an extension of the debate that happened last week. I wanted to come down to the floor to congratulate the chairman and the ranking member for bringing this motion to instruct. I support the motion to instruct, but I wanted to explain a little bit about my perspective in this and, hopefully, clear the air. What people need to understand, and I hope this House would understand, is that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) came to an agreement on a bill. The bill of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is basically identical to the bill of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), except for one part, and that is whether to nationalize the baggage screeners or to federalize them. From our perspective, we think we ought to federalize them. From the point of view of the gentleman from Minnesota, he thinks they should be nationalized and Federal employees. That is the only real bone of contention on this bill. The two men, the three men came together, as well as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) too, came together and wrote a very good, strong security bill, which I congratulate everyone for doing. Of course, it got mired in the discussion of whether we ought to have the Senate bill, which is a fatally flawed piece of legislation, or the legislation that was almost worked out by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. So we get down to this one issue, because the difference between the House bill and the Senate bill is miles apart. It is a huge difference, because the Senate bill did not cover the airports, it only covered airlines and screeners. It did not cover the Tarmac. It did not provide security for the perimeter, the parking lots, the vendors, the caterers, and everything else. They did not do anything about other modes of transportation: bridges, ships, trains and others. The House bill did. So it comes down to the screeners. Now, some, particularly in the other body, Mr. Speaker, they are comparing screeners to Capitol Hill Police. I have heard people say that the Capitol Hill Police protect us; why can the American people not at least have that kind of protection? Mr. Speaker, I have to say that is an insult to the Capitol Hill Police. I have worked very closely with the Capitol Hill Police. They are highly trained law enforcement officers that deal with all kinds of issues. They are police that carry guns. In fact, there were two wonderful Capitol Hill officers that died in this building, one of them in my office; so I have the utmost respect for the Capitol Hill Police. We are not asking highly qualified and highly trained law enforcement officers to stand by a screening machine and watch bags go through. We are saying those people should be highly trained, comply with the standards laid out by the Department of Transportation, comply with the criteria laid out by the Department of Transportation, and they should be certified by the Department of Transportation. And once we do that, we add value to that person. That person has a certification. That person is worth more, and it will attract highly qualified people. The second issue, most people do not understand that the entire judicial branch contracts out their security. The Supreme Court contracts out their security. Even the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Agency, contracts out their security. So the Federal Government understands for specific cases they might want to use the private industry, and those kinds of individuals that are brought to this issue in the private industry. My point is what we are trying to do is to design a model, a very good model by the way, according to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), a model that brings security to all of our modes of transportation, part of that being the airlines and the airports. What we are asking is to follow a model that has already been tried in Europe and Israel. A nationalized model is the model that they tried back in the 1970s and 1980s, and it was a disaster. This model brings the flexibility of private industry under the accountability of the Federal Government. We will have badged law enforcement Department of Transportation people at each station where bags are being screened. We will have baggage screeners that are well trained and certified sitting there screening the baggage. Mr. Speaker, my point is and what this argument is over is whether we nationalize these employees or federalize them. Nationalize them means, as an example, we want to nationalize all of the pilots that fly these planes. Right now we have a federalized system. The Department of Transportation through the FAA licenses these pilots; yet these pilots work for a private company. The same with flight attendants and mechanics. It works quite well. In fact, I would submit that it would be horrible if we nationalized the airlines and nationalized flight attendants and mechanics. The point here is that we have tried a nationalized system, as examples in Europe show us, and it does not work. To bring the best security that we know how, we have designed in the House bill that is going to conference a system that actually brings security to the flying public and now people on the ground, a system that the President of the United States understands and supports and will bring us the security that the American people deserve.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and that explanation of real economics. I hope the other side of the aisle was listening. Maybe they can really understand it. The gentleman from North Dakota and many on this side of the aisle keep quoting underlings in the administration, that keep quoting the Secretary of the Treasury. But let us look at the man who actually speaks for the administration, the President of the United States, George W. Bush, who just an hour ago in a major speech outlined for America what a true growth package is. And it is the package that we are debating, the package that came out of the Committee on Ways and Means; and he urged the House of Representatives to pass this package, not the substitute. The President of the United States, it does not matter what everybody that works for him says, what matters is what the President of the United States said. Secondly, the gentleman from North Dakota was talking about deficits, and this bill is going to cause deficits. Well, he ought to know. He is an expert on deficits. For the last 40 years when the Democrats were in control of this House, they created all kind of deficits. And under their watch, deficits flowed and debts went up. But under our watch, not only is the public debt going down, but we actually balanced the budget for the first time in over 40 years. So I think we know what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker. There is no doubt that someone has probably already stood up and recklessly labeled the Democrat substitute a panacea. Well, I disagree. It is worse than that. Panaceas are ineffective but harmless. The Democrat substitute actually raises taxes and grows the size of government. Their plan is a prescription for retarding economic growth, not sparking it. It is a lingering relic sired by discredited economic fallacy, that is, higher taxes, government spending and new regulations on the pathway to prosperity. Now if that is true, what about Russia? Where is the Soviet Union? If that is true, why is Japan's economy still in the tank? They have been trying to spend their way out of recession for the last 10 years. We need a package that is a stimulus in more than just name. The package that the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) put together is well-balanced. It has incentives for both sides of the aisle. I would prefer to see more tax relief for workers and families. However, I understand that we need to compromise on a plan that everyone including those on the left could support. But we ought to begin with the first principle, that most important principle, that is a stimulus plan has to actually stimulate economic growth. Unfortunately, some Democrats just cannot resist playing that old tired, tired, tired class warfare card. H.R. 3090 is the right medicine for our economy. It is the best way to put people back to work and create jobs. This bill does that with incentives for business to create jobs and put America back to work. Members should vote against the substitute and for the underlying bill.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time; and I thank my good friend from California for bringing this resolution to the floor. This is a resolution that is coauthored by me and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall). Mr. Speaker, we have seldom seen a time in which it would have been more fitting than the present moment for America's leaders to come together as a unified body before God and demonstrate that we seek grace, guidance, wisdom, and reconciliation for our Nation. In the work ahead, the old labels and divisions over which we have quarreled must be set aside to accomplish the larger purpose to which we are called as a Nation. We believe that this resolution has the capacity to draw us together and to cultivate the meaning, direction, and inspiration needed to achieve our special potential in the destiny of nations. I have from time to time disagreed vigorously with my colleagues across the aisle. We have had honest disagreements and crossed swords over both practical and philosophical points. But I speak from my heart when I say that my firmest friends and most committed adversaries can all join me in supporting this initiative, because it is solely designed to advance the Nation towards a goal that all of us share. Every Member should approach this resolution with fresh and open eyes. This resolution is without any partisan aspect, motivation, or effect. Its aim is the betterment of every American as our country draws closer to the high aspirations our Founders outlined for us. It was specifically drafted to include everyone and to exclude no one. The National Day of Reconciliation acknowledges that we are all equal before God and, consequently, it is tailored to accommodate the specific face of every Member. It is ecumenical in substance and universal in its aspirations. Everyone can confidently embrace the spirit and purpose of reconciliation we advance with this proposal. We make way for all faiths. Our goal is to have every Member join us in seeking reconciliation. Our victory is to see every Member and Senator taking part in keeping and practicing with their own personal faith, judgment, and beliefs. Our fondest wish is for every elected representative to gather and petition God for his blessing, stewardship, and forgiveness. We want to approach him to reconcile our country. While we are all welcome and encouraged to take part, no one is obligated under this resolution to do anything at all. The National Day of Reconciliation compels no action of any kind. Participation is entirely voluntary. Let me reiterate that point to dispel any misguided concerns. Members can support this resolution with the certain knowledge that it places no obligations on anyone. All it will do is to permit Members and Senators to come together voluntarily in private fellowship within the House Chamber to seek repentance and reconciliation for our Nation. What we seek is an open climate of communal prayer and repentance. So many of us have gathered meaning and direction for our own lives through power of prayer. Both Houses of Congress acknowledge this by beginning each legislative day with an invocation. We started work on this resolution many months ago. We were looking for a way to reconcile our country. Recent events have only deepened our conviction that reconciliation is needed and necessary. In the wake of September 11, the imperative underlying a National Day of Reconciliation takes on a heightened sense of urgency and weight. In the past, the American governments have responded to periods of danger and uncertainty by seeking God's blessing and forgiveness. One of our greatest Presidents healed a horrible national wound by leading us toward the pathway to reconciliation. He explained that by embracing our founding principles and seeking God's blessing, our Nation could overcome a great crisis. Abraham Lincoln held the Nation to account in 1863 as he urged Americans to reflect on all we had inherited and what was expected of us. He said: We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other Nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self- sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and reserving grace, too proud to pray to the God thus! It behooves us, then to humble ourselves before the offended power, to confess our national sins and pray for clemency and forgiveness. Abraham Lincoln was right. If we want America to be united under the fellowship of reconciliation, we must humble ourselves before God and ask to be healed and brought together. We have heard suggestions that other spaces within the Capitol would be more fitting and appropriate venues than the House Chamber. I could not disagree more strongly. Please let me explain why. Our House Chamber is the symbolic heart of American democracy. It is right here that we do our work. It is here that decisions bearing heavily on our destiny are decided. It is here that all three branches of our government assemble during moments of great national gravity. From right up there, Presidents speak to America. And in here we can come together to demonstrate to the country that America's leaders have the strength, compassion, and courage to seek guidance and forgiveness. We should not be afraid to admit that America's work requires God's interest, assistance, and guidance. Our purpose in introducing this resolution is threefold. We believe that by setting aside a day for the leaders of our Nation to come together in prayer, we will enhance our unity, send a powerful petition for guidance and wisdom, and, by humbly gathering, send a strong message to the American people that their leaders earnestly wish to bring about a national reconciliation so that we can go forward as a united people. Members should also know that this resolution raises no constitutional barriers. It has been vetted thoroughly and poses no challenges to law. To alleviate another concern, Members should know that we intend the entire scope of the Day of Reconciliation to occur without TV broadcast. Members should have no fear that this format could breach their privacy. Privacy in worship will be respected by this gathering because it will not be recorded. It is a chance for America's leaders to approach God. We know we have all fallen short of our potential. We know that our Nation has also failed to achieve all that it could. Members can take a firm step toward realizing those twin objectives by supporting this resolution. Remember, all we ask is that willing Members be permitted to gather to humbly seek the blessings of Providence for forgiveness, reconciliation, unity, and charity for all the people of the United States, thereby assisting the Nation to realize its potential as the champion of hope, the vindicator of the defenseless, and the guardian of freedom. A national day of reconciliation will be good for each of us as elected officials and men and women, but it will be even better for America. It is time to come together, and I believe that this resolution will be an immeasurable help in solidifying our country. So, Mr. Speaker, for that reason I ask Members to support the resolution.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Thank you for yielding, because as the gentleman from Minnesota was talking about his experiences in 1994, it revived some memories of my own when the leadership of this House in the minority come about in 1991 or 1992 decided for so many years the minority had acted like a minority and it was time to act like a majority. That was inspired by Rush Limbaugh. Even though he was not on all the stations that he is on now, we knew of Rush Limbaugh. He was telling us to act like a majority, understand what you believe in, stand up for your beliefs and have passion in it, and work for it and work to get the majority; and we came together and we started strategizing to get the majority. It came to about 1993, going into 1994, the election of 1994; and we came up with this idea called the Contract with America, which told the American people what we would do if we got the majority. I am glad to say that over 70 percent of that Contract with America is law today, and we got most of it in the first year or two that these two gentlemen gave us the majority. But during that time, especially that election of 1994, obviously the national media, the Washington media, did not pay much attention to us. We did not try to ignore them; we just bypassed them. We went straight to Rush Limbaugh and many other conservative radio talk show hosts all over the country. And you could be driving up into the lakes of Minnesota, driving for 3 or 4 hours to get to that ice cream social where 10 people showed up to support one of our challengers, or driving into Arizona, and you could hear the Contract with America. You could hear the Contract With America. You could hear from Rush Limbaugh the evaluation of what was going on in Washington and what he dreamed of happening if, by whatever chance in 1994, we actually gained the majority. All over this country, wherever I went, I went to 85 to 100 different districts in 18 months, and everywhere we went people were talking about Rush Limbaugh, what he was talking about, what we could do if we had the majority in this country, and what we have been able to do is a tribute to Rush Limbaugh. All the wonderful things: The balanced budget, the tax cuts, the welfare reform; I could go on and on and on, all the wonderful things we have been able to do because we have had a majority, particularly in the face of a President that fought us every step of the way while he took credit for everything that we did, but we had a voice out there and that voice was sending our message loud and clear. The best part about it was, and we sound like Rush Limbaugh was our campaign manager; Rush Limbaugh did not take his direction from us, he was the standard by which we ran. He was setting the standard for conservative thought. He understood what the American people dreamed about and could implement, and he understood that the only way that that could happen is if the Republicans took the majority in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. He played a huge part in what happened in 1994 and, thereby, played a huge part in all of the successes that we have been able to do over the last 7 years. So again, Mr. Speaker, we owe so much to Rush Limbaugh. This country owes so much to Rush Limbaugh. We can never thank him enough.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the gentleman from Georgia bringing this special order on Rush Limbaugh, particularly following what we saw just right before us, in the special order right before us, the Democrats out here talking about security in airports. Rush Limbaugh, I am sure, would have a lot to say in answer to what the Democrats were saying. It is quite amazing to me. I saw one gentleman, I believe it was the gentleman from Mississippi, talking about we should have the security that they enjoy in Israel and in Europe. Actually that is what the President is trying to do and the Democrats are trying to thwart. They want to nationalize this system. They do not want to federalize the system; they want to nationalize it, something Europe tried, by the way. And after just a few years, the hijackings and the bombings and the threats that came against the airlines coming out of Europe were so bad that they threw away the nationalized system and imposed the system now that the President is trying to bring as a model from Europe and from Israel. Israel has not had a hijacking because they have the right system, the system that the President is trying to see implemented here in the United States. What that system is basically changes the present system that we know has a lot to be desired and changes that system so that the Federal Government comes in with standards and criteria and even certification of those that screen at the airports, but that you use employees in a private entity so that you could get the best work and the best employees to do the job. Rush Limbaugh would understand that, and has understood it and talked about it a lot on his show. But, Mr. Speaker, anyone who heard the bad news about Rush Limbaugh's ailment and thinks this is a time to hang our heads does not know Rush very well and does not understand why his audiences tune in every day. Rush is not interested in anyone's pity. He wants our passion. He wants us to succeed. People listen because Rush celebrates the opportunity that America offers to every man and woman with a dream and the passion to achieve it. He reminds all of us that America is the world's best place to enjoy a happy, fulfilling, and meaningful life. Rush cajoles us all to chase our visions and he tells us to never give in to doubt, fear or failure. Rush has not let go of his dream. He arrives at work every morning with the same passion for his job that he has always had. He is not going to let a tough break define who he is or even what he does. He is going to work through the problem. He is going to adapt and overcome it. Rush practices what he preaches. He urges his listeners to pursue their own passions, to work hard to achieve excellence, to overcome life's problems, to remember our roots, to laugh at adversity, to honor our principles, and to an insist on an American vision that expands opportunity and celebrates freedom. What Rush does every day is simply to tell America to roll up our sleeves and go about the business of building Ronald Reagan's shining city on a hill. Rush understands the American spirit, and he urges all of us to live up to it. He has never dwelled on the depths of the problems that confront us. He has never been susceptible to second guessing about America's role in the world. He understands that what a person does after a setback will tell you more about them than anything else. That is why Rush's commitment to continue his program reminds us of who Americans are: we do not quit, we do not back down, and we do not let go of our dreams. We need to keep the faith, keep the passion, and keep working to build an American society that equals all of our hopes and our aspirations. That is Rush Limbaugh. That is the Rush Limbaugh that we will continue to enjoy on the radio. That is the Rush Limbaugh that understands what true airport security and airline security is. That is the Rush Limbaugh that understands what the conservative movement is all about. That is the Rush Limbaugh that leads us every day in understanding what is good for America. We all applaud Rush Limbaugh for what he has done and what he is about to do. We all are sorry for his affliction; but at the same time, we all pray for him. We thank you for bringing this Special Order.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum in Shanghai will tell us a great deal about the Communist Chinese leadership's true intentions for engagement with the world. Specifically, the question is whether or not China embraces the moment by allowing full participation from member states with a common interest in advancing trade, encouraging investment, and expanding economic growth around the Pacific Rim. Although they haven't yet invited President Chen of Taiwan to attend the APEC Forum, the Communist leaders in Beijing can still demonstrate that they are serious about addressing and eventually resolving their differences with Taiwan in a thoughtful, productive, and enlightened way by offering President Chen a chance to join other leaders at the table of consultation and negotiation. Beijing should take this opportunity to broaden their approach and lower tensions in the region by extending an invitation to President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan to attend the APEC Summit in China. The decision to invite President Chen would send a strong signal that China was committed to seeking peaceful resolutions to issues of mutual concern between the people of China and the people of Taiwan. The key to resolving tension between China and Taiwan begins an open and wide ranging dialogue that encompasses all the issues important to both parties. China can take a critical step on the pathway of constructive engagement by inviting President Chen to attend the summit. The United States seeks the fullest possible trading relationship with all APEC members. We want all nations to experience the benefits of globalization and sustained economic growth. We hope that China signals its support for this goal as well by reaching out to Taiwan and allowing President Chen to travel to Shanghai.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, all of us have been heartened by the way the Americans have pulled together after the attack of September 11. We have seen the best qualities of America at work, pride, patriotism, courage. Passengers on the plane that went down in Pennsylvania foiled their hijackers' diabolical objective by fighting for freedom. Police, fire, and rescue workers disregarded grave risks to their own lives just to save others. The President rallied America to our purpose through his determination and his grand leadership. And from across the country, we feel a wave of love and support and patriotism. We saw the best of America after the raw hand of evil struck our Nation. We are left with a defining question. How will we best protect our way of life from those who would destroy freedom to lower an evil nightmare over the free world? It starts with our mindset. Too many people thought that threats to the United States ended with the Cold War. The first thing we have to do is to reinvigorate the idea that freedom is never free. Our way of life has a price tag. Our founding fathers knew that price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Now we truly understand that obligation. Now our eyes are wide open. We will never become complacent again. Complacency in the face of evil lays the foundation for the end of liberty. The international terrorist networks are a cancer growing on the heart of freedom and a direct threat to civilization itself. The events of September 11 reminded us that we must do whatever it takes to defend freedom and root out tyranny and terrorism. That mission begins with good intelligence and a more robust military. For far too long the people we asked to defend America have been fighting our enemies with one arm tied behind their back and that must change. Today we added to that effort by passing the Intelligence Authorization Act. We need to renew our commitment to our national defense. We must once again rebuild our military by arming our forces with the tools that they need to meet the full scope of threats to our security. We need to spend what it takes to defend America. It is time to begin upgrading our capabilities to defeat and deter those who would target freedom. We need better human intelligence. Good intelligence is essential to protecting our Nation and our allies, and it is vital to ensuring that our military has the information it needs to safely and effectively carry out its mission. We need to cultivate and develop sources of information that will reveal the movements, activities, and identities of the people plotting evil schemes against people of freedom and civilization. What might be the most important change, we need to provide our defenders with the flexibility to protect America effectively. The men and women working to save our freedom must have those tools that they need to defeat those who are thinking the unthinkable. As we move forward in the campaign to save civilization, we need to remember that there is no quick victory just around the corner. We will suffer additional losses. We will lose more great Americans, and we will have to make additional sacrifices here at home. But freedom is worth it. All of us need to understand that. This war against the cancer of terrorism is a perpetual obligation. It never ends. So we can never drop our guard again. We cannot be confused about the nature of this threat. This conflict is larger than one man or one terrorist network. It is a struggle between all of those who wish to live in freedom and those who wish to enslave the world beneath an oppressive, evil totalitarian ideology. It is a new battle between every American and all of the terrorist networks. We also have to remind everyone that this is not a conflict over faith. Millions of people in the world draw meaning and fulfillment from the Islamic faith. The extreme views of this splinter movement do not reflect the wishes of millions of Muslims who only seek a better life for their families. There is additional danger in the campaign against terrorism. We have got to remember that the traditional threats have not receded. If anything, the terror networks exacerbate the long-standing threats we have always faced. One thing we could do is reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Our dependence, a 57 percent dependence on foreign sources of energy weakens our national and economic security. We need to move towards energy independence and energy security. It will take weeks, months, and years; but America must reduce our dependence on energy from volatile corners of this world. This is a test. It is a test of this generation of Americans. An evil movement thinks it can extinguish that wonderful light of freedom. Terrorists send people to die because they believe we have forgotten who we are. They believe that we lack the resolve to defend our way of life. They hate America and not because we act but simply because we exist. Americans know who we are. During World War II, America defeated the forces of fascism because that generation risked all that they had to secure freedom for their children. So today we face a crisis that is every bit as serious as that crisis in World War II. It is going to take sacrifices; and unfortunately, it is going to cost lives. But the American people retain the determination, the conviction, and the love of liberty to resist this ongoing aggression and vindicate freedom. We will defendant freedom. We will keep freedom alive.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, sometimes words that are said on the floor are very unfortunate. This amendment has nothing to do with bigotry; it has to do with tradition and understanding what is marriage and what is the role of marriage in this country. Members should support the Weldon amendment because it defends the traditional understanding of marriage. The Weldon amendment rejects a broad new recognition of relationships that would extend the benefits of marriage to people who have not made that special commitment. Marriage can only take place between a man and a woman, in my opinion. Mr. Chairman, introducing domestic partnership benefits would have broad consequences extending far beyond the specific action contemplated here. We would be walking away from the traditions and virtues that we have respected and honored since our country was founded, and even before. Doing so would radically undermine the special privileges and incentives of marriage by distributing them without requiring the unique commitment between a man and a woman. When married couples forsake all others and bind themselves together, they form a vital unit to rear their children and they strengthen society immeasurably. Mr. Chairman, we should protect the sanctity of that special bond called marriage. Members should support the Weldon amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, Members should support this resolution because it affirms the President's authority to firmly direct America as we identify, isolate, and eliminate the networks of terrorism. This international network of terror is a cancer growing on the heart of every free Nation. We must hand President Bush the tools that he needs to defeat our enemies. We must fortify our Armed Forces with the certain knowledge that a united America marches behind them, and we must convince our enemies that America will ultimately vindicate freedom, no matter how depraved, twisted, or evil our enemy's ideology may be. We do not walk an easy road. Our Nation faces a long and demanding conflict with forces of determined evil, but the fiber of our American spirit and the strength of our faith will sustain us as we do what needs to be done to protect freedom and secure victory. Every American should anticipate and prepare for a prolonged and sustained campaign. They should understand that this war will be measured in years, not months. They should prepare themselves for additional assaults at home. They should expect casualties as we take the battle to our enemies. But they should take pride and draw confidence from the great reservoir of American patriotism and resolve. We are made of sterner things than our enemies know. We will show the world that we retain the qualities that made us the leader of the free world. We will do it by holding firm to our mission. Deeds, not words, will save America and the free world. When the President draws that sword of American justice, he needs to do it with all of us standing right beside him. Mr. Speaker, this resolution rallies our Nation behind the President, and I ask the Members to support it.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I think all of us send our condolences and prayers out to every American family that was harmed by this cowardly act to our Nation. We want the victims to know that none of them is alone. Every American grieves with them. We are standing beside them, and we will never, ever forget the Americans who fell yesterday. We have all been unified by this tragedy, and we will get through it together. Just as it has in every crisis before this, the strength of our faith will strengthen our Nation. Faith endures as the great and abiding source of our fortitude. Every American is grateful for the countless acts of heroism from the men and women who fought through the chaos to aid these victims. Their actions make all of us so proud to be Americans, and we salute their courage. Today this Chamber has no divisions. We stand united behind President Bush. Our President should use any and all means necessary to avenge the lives of our fallen countrymen. Yesterday, agents of evil may have declared war against freedom, but they failed to bend the iron of American resolve. Tempered by tragedy, our commitment to America's founding principles and the service of freedom has only grown stronger this afternoon. We are at war with the forces of terrorism. We will draw no empty distinctions between those who physically carry out these acts and the people, organizations, and governments who aid, abet, and shelter the enemies of freedom. The United States is fully committed to sweeping this aggression from this Earth, and our enemies will eventually discover the most powerful force on Earth is the united will of the American people when we are behind a single objective. Today that mission is clear. Our duty as Americans requires unending hostility against the forces of terrorism. The architects of this calculated wickedness will find no safe harbor in this world. We will chase our enemies to the furthest corner of the Earth. It must be war without quarter, pursuit without rest, victory without qualification. We will not take a single step backward. We will not be dissuaded. We will not yield. Our retribution is certain, and America will never rest until we destroy this threat to liberty by defeating the agents and supporters of terrorism. With the strength of our convictions and the grace of God in a righteous cause, we will prevail. Mr. Speaker, I, too, ask for God to bless America.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, Members should oppose the Markey amendment because it undercuts our energy security. Opening ANWR to safe exploration is the most powerful tool we have to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. The logic supporting ANWR exploration built a broad base of support across our economy. Labor unions, employers, families, and industry experts all agree that the benefits to our energy security and economic strength make a compelling case to put the resources in ANWR to work for America. Opponents cloud this debate with a fog of unfounded assertions to the effect that opening ANWR will subject a wilderness to utter devastation. It's simply not true. We can develop ANWR responsibly. We can produce its resources within strict environmental guidelines that conserve the natural beauty we all want to protect. Members will expand our energy security by opposing this amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the kind words for Texas coming from the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). I greatly appreciate it. It is probably the only time we have heard good words about Texas coming from Louisiana. We appreciate that very much, Mr. Chairman. I congratulate the chairman for bringing this bill to the floor and his participation in it. I ask the Members, Mr. Chairman, to support this bill because it makes substantial progress towards strengthening America's energy security. We find ourselves facing energy challenges that we simply cannot ignore any longer. Under the President and Vice President's leadership, the country has taken a hard look at both our short-term energy supply problems and the broader implications of long-term demands mandated by our expanding population and economy. I want to thank the chairmen of so many committees for doing outstanding jobs in putting together this very important package: the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I also want to thank the ranking members, particularly the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) from the Committee on Energy and Commerce. This is a very, very good package. This bill takes important steps to meet both those objectives that I was talking about. The SAFE Act, the Securing America's Future Energy Act, addresses our energy security with a thorough and comprehensive approach. It encourages conservation methods to enhance the dramatic improvements America has made over the past 20 years. Today we are much more efficient, a much more efficient society than we were only shortly ago. This bill will help us become even better, and it spurs progress by offering incentives that will put our ingenuity and technological prowess to work. We best meet a challenge in this country by identifying the problem and by liberating the American people to solve it with entrepreneurial know-how. New regulations and measures that deny choices to consumers are the wrong direction. This bill gets it right by offering incentives, not mandates. The SAFE Act targets a significant problem: our growing dependence on foreign sources of energy. America faces a serious degradation of our national security unless we move at once to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. This bill takes important steps in that direction by promoting initiatives that will allow us to produce more energy at home. We need to take control of our own destiny, and this bill gives the American people much more control over their energy security. Members from both parties, I ask support for this bill.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think and I hope that Members will support the Weldon bill and oppose the Greenwood amendment. Mr. Speaker, this is not about making fun of the Pope or making fun of the Bible. This is not about politics. It is not even about stem cell research. This is about a very real problem in this country, a potential problem, and that is cloning human beings. The connotations of this debate raise very broad and disturbing questions for our society. So-called therapeutic cloning crosses a very bright-line ethical boundary that should give all of us pause. This technique would reduce some human beings to the level of an industrial commodity. Cloning treats human embryos, the basic elements of life itself, as a simple raw material. This exploitive unholy technique is no better than medical strip-mining. The preservation of life is what is being lost here. The sanctity and precious nature of each and every human life is being obscured in this debate. Cloning supporters are trading upon the desperate hopes of people who struggle with illness. We should not draw medical solutions from the unwholesome well of an ungoverned monstrous science that lacks any reasonable consideration for the sanctity of human life. Now, some people would doubtlessly argue if we use in vitro fertilization to help infertile couples create life, then we ought to allow scientists the latitude to manufacture and destroy embryos to produce medical treatments. But these are far from the same thing. Cloning is different from organ transplantation. Cloning is different from in vitro fertility treatments. Cloning is an unholy leap backwards because its intellectual lineage and justifications are evocative of some of the darkest hours during the 20th century. We should not stray down this road because it will surely take us to dark and unforeseen destinations. Human beings should not be cloned to stock a medical junkyard of spare parts for experimentation. That is wrong, unethical, and unworthy of an enlightened society.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members of this body to oppose this amendment because it will seriously damage our space program. I say to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Chairman, that our vision is circling the Earth. The vision is the Space Station that is circling the Earth. I say a fully functioning Space Station is the linchpin of our vision of human space flight. The intention of this amendment, make no mistake about it, is to kill the Station. It effectively denies NASA its flexibility to ensure that the Station remains viable. The prohibition against deferring the habitation module, the crew return vehicle, and the propulsion module seems designed to help the Space Station; but in fact it does not. This amendment requires NASA to develop these parts of the Station under a cap, without the flexibility of working within their budget. And this amendment, make no mistake about it, kills the Station. The fact is we have an obligation to our international partners. The United States is the leading pioneer in space travel, and we ought not renege on agreements we have made to the nations that are following us into space through the International Space Station team. More importantly, we have an obligation to protect the investment of American taxpayers and the vision that we see in space travel. I implore Members to reject this amendment. I hope they will support the underlying bill, because it will provide the necessary resources to achieve our human space flight goals.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for the VA-HUD Appropriations bill. I share the concerns of some Members that the designated emergency spending within the bill is at odds with our broader imperative to uphold the principles of fiscal discipline, and I applaud my colleagues for their conviction. Yet, at the same time, it is imperative that we ensure FEMA has the necessary funds to be prepared for disasters and emergencies. Every year emergencies and catastrophes arise that draw down the account FEMA maintains to fund expenses stemming from emergency response efforts. In Houston, we just got hit with several feet of water in one day. Houston, if you have not been there, is built on a plain. There is only so much water that our system can accommodate. We got hit with a lot more than that. Now we are facing billions of dollars in damages. That is catastrophic damage. It is the exact reason that we classify some events as legitimate emergencies. Mr. Speaker, I have opposed and will continue opposing attempts to manipulate the process by lumping wasteful spending in with the legitimate expenses that we incur by responding to actual emergencies, but that is not the case here. The FEMA account generally has emergency funds in contingency reserve to deal with true emergencies, and the flooding from Tropical Storm Allison caused a real emergency in Houston and all through the South. We know that cleaning up the damage has nearly wiped out FEMA's funding, so several weeks ago on this floor I opposed the partisan fear tactics that were used by some of my colleagues on other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that FEMA has the funds necessary to carry out their duties for the remainder of this fiscal year. FEMA has the funds to make it through the year. The responsible thing to do is to restore the funds to the account. It will enable FEMA to assist Houston's recovery, and as we move into hurricane season it will enable FEMA to stand ready to meet any short-term contingency as well. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) as we move through this process, and I ask my colleagues to vote for the rule.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I was sitting here watching the debate. It was almost identical to debates of old, when we were fighting for freedom in the Soviet Union, when we were fighting for freedom in El Salvador, when we were fighting for freedom in Nicaragua. History proved us right and proved you wrong. Allowing travel to Cuba is a terrible mistake. The benefits of free trade cannot flow to people who are ruthlessly oppressed by a rigidly controlling totalitarian regime. Supporters claim that American tourists will help average Cubans. But letting Americans travel to Cuba will strengthen Castro and do nothing to improve the lot of average Cubans. Freedom cannot penetrate Castro's Communist cadre because it operates more like an organized crime syndicate than a legitimate government. But surely, we are told, joint ventures with foreign investors will change all that. All joint ventures in Cuba remain under Castro's thumb. Those businesses cannot even hire a Cuban worker without Castro's blessing. All the property in Cuba belongs to Castro. All the income that comes from these Americans will go to Castro. We are also told that if we support trade in China, we ought to support it in Cuba as well. But China and Cuba, I think, is a poor comparison. In China, the government is allowing the rudiments of a market economy to form. Trade with China does benefit average people. Cuba is a monolithic island under the heel of Castro's regime. Under this dictatorship, the only entrepreneur is Castro. Castro's thugs cannot meet the basic needs of their people. This tyrant is teetering on the brink of an abyss. Why in the world would we reach out now to draw his evil, abusive regime back to safety? Let it fall. Let it fall and liberate the Cuban people.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago have now passed since the hot, sad day that an act of senseless violence took our friends, Detective John Gibson and Officer J.J. Chestnut, from us. The tragic shock of their loss is gradually receding and the weight of their absence is settling on us more deeply. It weighs on us because of the special men that they were. And when we reflect back on our lost friends, their bearing, conduct and commitment reminds us of David's words to Solomon. He said, ``Be strong and courageous, and do the work. Do not be afraid nor discouraged, for the Lord God, my God, is with you.'' As we know, David charged his son Solomon to build a great temple for the Lord. Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson were the protectors of a great tradition: open and accessible democracy. Our fallen fellows and friends served their country and the cause of freedom in the United States Capitol, a building that stands as the world's foremost temple of liberty. But the Capitol could never have been built without an older American tradition of sacrifice and defense of the core freedoms that support our society. No less than other heroes who fell far from American soil, J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson are a part of that noble group. Three years ago, hundreds of people were in grave danger. And as they operated under dire circumstances, Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson stood tall for all of us. When America needed them to be courageous and strong, they were. And I know that they are with the Lord now. They have our deepest respect and our deepest gratitude. We will never forget them or the values that they embodied. Today our hearts and prayers go out to the Chestnut and Gibson families. God bless them.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I come to this debate today in a very solemn mood, but a very excited mood at the same time, it is kind of a conflicting emotion, because this is the beginning of a debate that we have been looking for for a long, long time; in fact, my entire adult life. This is the beginning of a very real debate in this country over two very distinctly different world views. For 40 to 50 years, we have had the world view, as exemplified by the opposition all day long today, a world view that has been going on for 40 or 50 years, and that world view basically is man can build Utopia, and what can undermine that building of Utopia is bringing God into the mix. So they have spent 40 to 50 years getting God out of our institutions, and they have fought very long and been very successful at it. Yet now we have a President that comes along and says, no, faith is important; what you believe is important. What you believe is what you are, and we need to bring it back in, because the world view that says we are going to build Utopia by building huge government to do everything for you, faith does not have to enter into it. Do you know what the result of that is? Look at what has happened over the last 40 or 50 years to the culture, the fabric of the culture of this country. I do not have time to list it here, but we all know what I am talking about. The culture, very fabric has been ripped apart, the culture of this country. Now we want to bring it back in, and part of rebuilding that culture is faith, faith in something bigger than yourself, and that, to many of us, is God; and we want to bring God back into it. But they want to continue to discriminate against those that want to bring in faith- based institutions, that have proven to be successful. Right in my own district, Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship took over an entire prison on faith. Do we know what the recidivism rate of that prison is? Mr. Speaker, it is 3 percent. Because we know that changing the heart and mind and soul of men through faith is how they are changed. That is what we are talking about here. It is more fundamental than the petty arguments that we have heard here today. This is vitally important, the future of our country and the rebuilding of our culture. We must pass this bill without amendment. Vote for the bill and against the substitute.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to reach ahead in the bill.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to offer an amendment that will stop any payment from being sent from the United States Government to the Communist Chinese Government that is related to the downing of our Navy EP-3 aircraft and the detention of our crew members. I take this amendment, quite frankly, from a bill authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), a more extensive bill than this amendment; but I appreciate the fight that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) is putting up, and I appreciate him in this regard. I must say that in offering this amendment it must never be American policy to pay tribute to aggressive regimes. Such a payment would not only violate a hard-won tradition of confronting international aggression, it would force America to abdicate a role as the leading defender of free movement through the world's international skies and waters. And it is not a duty we are willing to duck. The brazen audacity of some demands can almost take on a kind of a comic grandeur. At first glimpse, the preposterous suggestion that the United States is somehow indebted to the Communist Chinese Government for the costs associated with downing our plane and detaining our air crew appears to fall into that camp. And for that reason, we are tempted to dismiss the Communist Chinese Government's demand for compensation as the deluded daydreams of a despotic regime. But as illogical and unbelievable as it may sound, today Communist leaders in Beijing are soberly demanding that the people of the United States pay them $1 million in compensation. The idea that American taxpayers should start rewarding Communist piracy is as contemptible as it is unlikely to happen. This Congress will never allow a single dollar to be used to compensate the perpetrators of an international aggression. This is simply the latest example of the reckless, ruthless, and irrational mindset of China's Communist government. President Bush is standing firm for freedom. We need to support the administration by staking out a very clear position because, if history has taught us anything, it teaches that appeasement is nothing more than a downpayment on further trials and added hardships. To export our American values, we must always be prepared to defend our interests. We must remain engaged with China. We owe it to the billion Chinese people who are victimized by an oppressive and abusive Communist government. We know that once the Chinese people begin to sense the opportunities and blessings of self-government they will soon shake off the shackles of communism. We look forward to that day. But until the Chinese people are liberated to determine their own destiny, we must stand firm in defense of our commitment to freedom. This amendment does just that. It will send a clear signal to the Communist rulers in China: If you thought intimidation would persuade the United States to abdicate the defense of freedom, it failed. We support open ties with all peoples, especially Chinese families struggling beneath communism. We seek the free exchange of goods, services and democratic ideals with men and women around the world. We wish to cultivate stronger ties between the Chinese people and the United States. But Jiang Zemin and his circle of apparatchiks will never deter America from flying patrols to the frontier of freedom. Mr. Chairman, I ask support for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), and I want to make it clear that this amendment does not go against the people of China. We all support the people of China. This is a statement against the Communist government of China and some of their outrageous actions.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, Messrs. Brady and Culberson, join me in casting our votes against the motion to instruct because it attempted to tie the hands of appropriators as we go to conference. This procedural vote is a party line vote and has no practical effect on Houston. We can, should, and will continue to meet our commitment to Allison's victims and still meet our commitment to fiscal responsibility. Similarly, we can, should, and will continue to put people before politics. While it was premature and petty for the Democrats to essentially try to go to conference on the House floor today, rest assured that we will continue to work together for Houston in the most prudent, responsible, and effective way. Notwithstanding the demagoguery from the other side, Houston has nothing to fear. The Appropriations chairman indicated during the debate on the Democrats' motion to instruct conferees on the supplemental that if they would limit their motion to just the removal of the FEMA rescission, he would accept it. The Democrats declined his offer. ``We will provide whatever funds are necessary to meet these disasters in Texas and nationwide. We have always done so. We will meet our responsibilities with the necessary dollars,'' said Chairman Young. We express our appreciation to Chairman Young for his commitment to the victims of tropical storm Allison and vow to fight to restore funds to FEMA as the bill moves through conference.