Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong and grateful support for the Human Cloning Prohibition Act and for the extraordinary efforts of my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), in conceiving of and promoting this bill over the last several years.

I also urge opposition to the substitute, despite the fact that I know it is well intended, and my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary, with whom I serve, I know bring great passion and compassion to these issues.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, not to demagogue an issue and not to vilify those who would differ with me but to offer a gentle but firm endorsement of a clean ban of human cloning in all of its permutations.

Like virtually everyone in this institution and everyone, as the previous speaker just said, opposed the idea of reproductive human cloning. We see it as deeply, morally offensive and objectionable, and so it is. But I would also offer, in a spirit of humility, Mr. Speaker, that even that which is called therapeutic cloning or the cloning only of nascent human life for the purpose of experimentation is also deeply, morally problematic and that we derive this from two basic principles from an understanding of the history of Western civilization.

That first principle is that which has distinguished Western civilization, with very few exceptions, has been our belief in the sanctity of human life, in the uniqueness and the preciousness of each and every individual human being. That has been something characteristic of Western civilization, and it has caused the laws of this Nation and the laws of every nation of Western civilization since its genesis 3,000 years ago to ever back slowly and respectfully away where human life is in question and where the depriving of human life is involved.

Against that backdrop, not only does history teach us to back away from the awesome power of human life, but it also teaches us not to trust government power; and, in fact, an undeniable truth of history has been that time and time again, each time government had the power to intrude itself on human life, that it abused that power and often trampled on human beings and classes of human beings and races of human beings.

It is against that spirit and against putting us on that slippery slope that I believe that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) has the right prescription here, Mr. Speaker, and we should draw a strong line in the sand, a moral line that says, as we look at human life or even nascent human life, wherever one determines that life begins, that we would back slowly and humbly away, ban human cloning for all of its purposes, ban all development of human life for experimentation and destruction.

As the Good Book says, ``I set before you today life and blessings, death and destruction. Now choose life.'' And it is my hope and confidence we will do so today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 534, the bill just passed.

Mr. Speaker, as our Nation mobilizes in every way, and most especially our military, to confront the war on terror, as our soldiers in numbers exceeding 150,000 prepare in a theater overseas for possible confrontation, a brief word about the citizen-soldier and their role, National Guardsmen and Reserves in this effort, fully 60,000 of which have not only been activated but deployed to that theater overseas.

This week, the historic base, Camp Atterbury in my own district, became the very first State-owned National Guard facility to be activated as a mobilization site in the war on terror. My congratulations to Governor Frank O'Bannon and the Indiana Army National Guard and the 38th Division for their stewardship of this facility, and it is all of our hope and prayer that the men who pass through that place through mobilization go with God and go prepared and come home to their families and their grateful communities soon.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise more as a father than as a Member of Congress. I am, proudly, the father of three small children, all under the age of 11. And today when I introduced the Truth in Domain Names Act, I did it very much with Michael and Charlotte and Audrey in mind.

This legislation, which we first conceived of in the 107th Congress, would punish those who use misleading domain names to attract children to sexually explicit Internet sites. There would be fines of up to a quarter of a million dollars, and even imprisonment of up to 2 years.

As a member of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, I know well, Mr. Speaker, that the Internet can be a force for good, but it can also be a force for evil. At its best, the Web is used to disseminate information and provide educational materials to children. Teachers and parents often encourage children to turn to the Internet for research, school projects, and homework, just as I did with my 8-year-old daughter this last Tuesday night, sitting with her on my knee, doing her homework and searching the Web.

The reality is that there is also the worst of the Internet, equally accessible to our children. The Internet can actually be used to deceive children into viewing inappropriate material. According to a survey conducted in the year 2000 by the Crimes Against Children Research Center, they found that 71 percent of teenagers had accidentally come across inappropriate sexual material on the Internet. An FBI spokesman told the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the Committee on the Judiciary in 1999 that pedophiles often lure children into viewing pornography to ``encourage their victims to engage in sex.''

Even in my own experience this Tuesday night, Mr. Speaker, I found that even though we were entering words in a search engine to help my second grade daughter do her homework, nevertheless the sites we were accessing, I had to cover her little eyes and see first what popped up because of the type of prurient materials that would come with the most innocuous word search.

So I ask my colleagues to join me today in this very simple proposal to provide criminal penalties to those who would name Web sites in a way to deceive children into being exposed to prurient material. The Truth in Domain Names Act is all about protecting the innocent from those who would prey upon them.

The Good Book tells us it would be better to have a millstone tied around their neck and have them thrown into the sea that would mislead and lead astray these little ones. Not a lot of millstones around this city, Mr. Speaker, but we can tie the seriousness of the law to those who would prey upon our children with prurient intent by this session of Congress adopting the Truth in Domain Names Act.

Mr. Speaker, we will confront many issues in the 108th Congress. They will have to do with the economy; our own budget; a debate over cloning, which will come to the House floor this week and to this very Chamber moments from now; reforming Medicare; but nothing can be compared to the issues of war and peace.

In the midst of an incessant barrage of media alerts, Mr. Speaker, and new resolutions being debated before the United Nations, as a member of the Committee on International Relations I rise tonight to stand with the President of the United States and the strong and unwavering leadership in confronting tyranny which he and the Prime Minister of England and the leaders of some 43 other nations have consistently and courageously provided to the world.

Mr. Speaker, I am not a combat veteran; it was not part of my generation. But my father was, having seen conflict and bloodshed in the Korean War. I do not welcome war. I do not hope for it. As near as I can tell, from my late father and veterans with whom I have close enough relationships to hear the truth, war is a wicked and a violent enterprise that can consume our children in a conflagration, unthinkable in ordinary life.

But nevertheless it has come from time to time upon the free nations of the world, and it seems most especially on the United States of America, to be willing to employ the arsenal of democracy to confront force with force as a last resort. We may well be come upon such a time again, Mr. Speaker.

We are hearing a great deal in the national media about what the facts are or are not, what has been proven and what has not been proven. Mr. Speaker, I felt compelled tonight simply to rise and talk about the facts for what they are, for what we as policymakers in the 107th Congress knew them to be, and for what every member of the Security Council of the United Nations knows them to be today.

Mr. Speaker, it is said that facts are stubborn things. I offer tonight a few stubborn things.

For instance, this Congress on this floor and our colleagues in the Senate overwhelmingly gave this President the authority to use America's military power to disarm Iraq. The national legislature of the United States spoke in overwhelming fashion that the need was real and urgent and the President should be empowered under our constitutional authority.

The United States Security Council adopted Resolution 1441. We hear a great deal about new resolutions. I applaud the President's effort to try and exhaust all diplomatic means this week.

But let us be clear what 1441 said. Mr. Speaker, number one, it said that Iraq is guilty. No objective observer doubts that Iraq has violated 17 U.N. resolutions.

Number two, it said that Iraq could remedy its guilt through disarmament and disclosure.

Number 3, if it refused to remedy, it would be a material breach, and serious consequences should flow.

Mr. Speaker, Baghdad is guilty. Baghdad refuses to remedy. Serious consequences are in order. I stand with the President of the United States. I pray with millions of Americans as we will ask, perhaps within the week, our finest to go forward on behalf of liberty again.

Let us focus on the facts and on the true challenges before us.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today reminded of the tribute that we have paid to a former President named Ronald Reagan just a few days ago on what was his 92nd birthday. I think of what Ronald Reagan spoke about as a vision for welfare in America. He said, ``It is not simply to provide for the needy, but more than that, to salvage these, our fellow citizens, to make them self-sustaining and, as quickly as possible, independent of welfare.''

President Reagan would say on many occasions that we measure the success of welfare not by how many people arrive on it, but how many people leave it. And as we look at welfare reform this day, it is undeniable that the welfare reform of 1996, that we continue and expand through this legislation, is an unqualified success.

As this diagram demonstrates, Mr. Chairman, welfare caseloads in the millions: 1994, 14 million Americans on welfare; 2001, 5 million Americans. But that does not tell the story. We can look at the cold and hard statistics: 3.6 million fewer Americans living in poverty today than 1996, 2.7 million fewer children, a million fewer African American children in poverty today since welfare reform.

But as the father of three small children, Mr. Chairman, this is the most compelling statistic to me: Tanya was a single mother, went on public assistance when her twin girls were just a year old. But since completing her program with CalWORKS last year, Tanya has not only escaped welfare, but she has been able to earn enough money to buy her own home for those little girls. Welfare reform has worked, Mr. Chairman, and I oppose the substitute and will stand with the underlying bill in keeping that Reagan vision alive.

Mr. Speaker, it was made official last week: our alert status is high. For many Americans, this call for high vigilance has resulted in high anxieties. And in these days of war and rumors of war, we are even hearing the voice of our enemy echo across the airwaves of the world.

But I offer, Mr. Speaker, that we need to hear a different voice today. It is the voice that comforted our founders and has comforted every American hero throughout our history. As the Psalmist wrote so many years ago, ``He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty. He will say, `He is my refuge and my fortress, my God in whom I trust.' He will save you from the fowler's snare, from the deadly pestilence; he will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge.''

May the favor of the Lord our God rest upon our President, our troops in the field, and all those brave men and women who serve in every Federal place in this Nation this day.

Mr. Speaker, the history of our Nation was forged in the balmy summer of 1787 in what was at the time the statehouse of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. There the geniuses who created the Constitution of the United States created three separate branches of government and a system of checks and balances within that government that would provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty for not only themselves but we, their posterity.

Central to that balance of power, Mr. Speaker, was the notion of an independent judiciary, which, at the level of the Federal Court, would be governed by the appointment of the President of the United States. But again it was not without checks and balances, Mr. Speaker, because the Senate itself, under the Constitution, was given the authority to review the qualifications of individuals that the chief executive would appoint for the judiciary.

And so our Nation proceeded from the basement home of the Supreme Court, which is still in this building today, back when it met just off the House Chamber for one day a year, to the august building and the awesome legacy of the U.S. Supreme Court today. And yet, Mr. Speaker, somewhere along the way, about the time of my youth, our Supreme Court seems, as it has done at different times in its history, the Dred Scott case comes to mind, the Supreme Court seems to

have gotten out of step with the American people, banning innocuous voluntary prayer in the schools in the 1960s; and, as a pro-life American, striking down the laws against abortions in all 50 States in 1973.

Many, and me included, Mr. Speaker, believe that we have a judiciary that has begun to move left when America stayed as a center-right Nation in its philosophies. But we counted on the checks and balances, Mr. Speaker. We counted on the ability, through elections, to correct that imbalance for these lifetime-appointed jurists. When 1980 came along, a center-right majority elected Ronald Reagan President of the United States, and that President nominated to the Court individuals who reflected that philosophy, that center-right majority philosophy in America.

And that is when we all heard of Judge Bork. Because that was at a time, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, and we are seeing it lived out again at the other end of this building this very night, when the Senate of the United States as an institution departed from its historic role of evaluating the qualifications of appointees to the Court to evaluating their thoughts, evaluating their ideology. Before, throughout American history, the ideology or the views of appointees to the Court were decided in elections. The President's values would no doubt be reflected in his appointees to all parts of the government. But beginning in the 1980s, with Judge Bork's defeat as a Supreme Court nominee, we saw a different impact on the process, an activist Senate joining with an activist Court.

This plays out again today in the nomination of an extraordinary man, Miguel Estrada, President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, without a doubt the second most powerful court in the United States of America. This young man, an immigrant born and raised in Honduras, law degree, magna cum laude from Harvard Law, is an American success story, no less than my own immigrant grandfather was, who came to these shores, worked hard, and lived the American Dream. Miguel Estrada is an extraordinary example of the American Dream.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to, however impolite, simply urge his confirmation in the Senate and his expeditious review by our colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives to the families of the crew members of the Columbia shuttle mission.

I have said on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, that the House of Representatives is the heart of our national government, and when the heart of America is grieving, it is all together fitting for us in this place on this blue carpet to grieve with our Nation.

It was my privilege yesterday to travel with some 50 colleagues of this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, to the Lyndon Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. It was a glorious day of extraordinary sadness. Our President and leaders from NASA gathered in that Texas sunshine to commemorate seven extraordinary souls, the heroes of STS-107, the Columbia shuttle. As I sat in the sunshine, my mind wandered back to just 18 months ago when, at 3 in the morning, accompanied by my beautiful wife, Karen, and the previous administrator of NASA, Daniel Goldin, we went into the processing facility at the Kennedy Space Center where the shuttles are prepared for their missions, and we walked just a few feet underneath those now infamous tiles and we stood under the belly of the Columbia, a ship that as one writer suggested yesterday should have been retired to the hallways of the Smithsonian Institution, the very first of its generation of spacecraft, now lost to human memory forever, above us. I stood in every sense, Mr. Speaker, beneath the Columbia as NASA personnel prepared it for its final voyage. And yesterday, at the Johnson Space Center, I stood again beneath the weight of a national tragedy, to mourn and pray with the families most affected by her loss.

It was my privilege on behalf of the people of eastern Indiana to join the President and leaders from the House and Senate for the Columbia memorial service. We came to pay respects to the brave and inspiring crew of STS-107. We came to represent a national sense of loss. We came also, though, Mr. Speaker, to affirm the ongoing mission of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to bring the Earth to the heavens and the heavens to the Earth.

The Bible tells us that without a vision, the people perish. And on occasion, our national government has lost its vision and we argue over that vision, but NASA has never lost its vision since those storied days of the 1950s and 1960s, to lead, with America, and her ingenuity, to lead with freedom and democracy into the unknown realms of space. And as the President said yesterday, and many have said on this floor today, that mission must and will go on.

The Psalms tell us that ``the heavens declare the glory of God, the skies declare the work of his hands.'' But truthfully, this past Saturday morning, the heavens and the skies declared man's glory as well, the courage and ingenuity of NASA written large on the skies of the American south.

We will pray for these families who have suffered the loss. We will pray for their consolation, but we will also rededicate ourselves to the ongoing mission of America leading the world, as she ever has, with freedom and democracy into the vast expanse of space.

Mr. Speaker, it was written long ago that without a vision, the people perish. Tonight, the President of the United States from this very Chamber will offer a vision of moral clarity and purpose and resolve for the American people and the world.

It will be resolve to see our war on terror through to its just conclusion and protect our people; it will be resolve against any rogue state who, through its weapons or associations, threatens our peace and security; it will be resolve to renew our economy during struggling recessionary times and resolve to renew our cities through a faith- based initiative; and it will be resolve to keep our promises to seniors in reforming and expanding Medicare.

The President will describe our challenges at home and abroad as clear; but this President, Mr. Speaker, will make the resolve of the American people to overcome these challenges clearer still.

Mr. Speaker, from the time I arrived in Washington, D.C., now fully more than 2 years ago, I pledged myself to my constituents in eastern Indiana to fight to renew the American Dream; that is that dream of every American, whatever their race, whatever their creed, whatever their color, that they might better themselves and better their families so that not only they but their posterity could enjoy more abundance in this country in every way, material and spiritual, as they pursue that dream.

It is about renewing and restoring the American Dream, Mr. Speaker, that I was proud today to author and to drop into the hopper the American Dream Tax Relief Act of 2003. I am proud that this bill, filed as it is on the very first legislative day of the 108th Congress, is not only my work but the work of some 33 original cosponsors, including many distinguished leaders of this institution and chairmen of major committees.

The American Dream Tax Relief Act, Mr. Speaker, is, quite simply put, an act that would dramatically reduce the taxes on capital gains in this country from their rate, which varies everywhere from 28 percent down to 8 percent, to a single flat capital gains tax rate of 10 percent. The enthusiasm with which this was greeted by my colleagues in just a few short hours of trafficking the idea here on Capitol Hill has greatly encouraged me that this is an idea whose time has come.

Mr. Speaker, I would offer to you that while the President of the United States, traveling as he did to the Economic Club of Chicago, did much this week to set the stage for recovery from recession, now is the time for us in this Congress to go beyond strategies for aiding those who are struggling with unemployment and layoffs, as we did earlier today, to go beyond even the President's thoughtful effort to bring the recession finally to a close. We need to begin to pursue, Mr. Speaker, economic policies that, in sum total, will explode the American Dream for an unprecedented generation of our citizens.

Only a significant reduction in taxes on capital will succeed in unleashing the entrepreneurial energy that is buried in the morass of high taxes and overregulation. Reduced taxes on capital will enable working families to save for the future or use invested funds for immediate financial obligations without fear of excessive tax penalties. American families, not the government, will have a greater power, Mr. Speaker, to decide what it is they do with their money. And for all of our great wisdom in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, it seems like every time we give the American people more power over their own money, the Nation and even the coffers of government benefit.

Now, some will argue as we proceed forward with this tax relief measure that we cannot afford this in these times of Federal red ink and deficits and a growing national debt. But the truth is, Mr. Speaker, that the last time the capital gains tax was cut, 1997, under the Clinton administration, prior to the cut, at 28 percent, the capital gains tax generated some $62 billion per annum to the Federal Government. Within 2 years following the 8 percent cut in the capital gains tax, it became a program that generated $109 billion to the Federal Government.

It is one of those ironies in a dynamic model of economics that when we lower the tax rate, we actually encourage entrepreneurism, encourage investment, and encourage people to move dollars out of passive assets into productive assets. And, in so doing, not only do the American people win, but the government wins with higher revenues.

This has been the unflagging experience of the capital gains tax when President Kennedy reduced it, when President Reagan reduced it, and even when President Clinton signed a reduction in the capital gains tax. As President John F. Kennedy said, not only is it a good thing for government, but in every real sense it is great for the American people.

Some will say it benefits the rich. And to that, I confess, it will. It will benefit the wealthy in this country. It will benefit the middle class in this

country. It will benefit working Americans struggling to start their own small businesses and enterprises. It will benefit every single American. As President John F. Kennedy said so memorably so long ago of the capital gains tax reduction he advocated, a rising tide lifts all boats.

By reducing the rate at which we tax capital, we will unleash an energy in this country that will raise the tide of economic prosperity, and I am proud to author this American Dream Tax Relief Act of 2003.

Mr. Speaker, like many people across eastern Indiana, I was shocked and dismayed yesterday to learn of the complete elimination of over 400 manufacturing jobs from Anderson, Indiana. It is therefore altogether fitting that we would as our first priority in Congress in this majority, Mr. Speaker, pass an extension of unemployment benefits to help Americans like those in Anderson who will be beset by these layoffs. I also applaud the President of the United States, who outlined a jobs package yesterday that I believe is a good start.

But it is written, Mr. Speaker, that without a vision the people perish, and I would paraphrase by saying that without a vision economies perish as well. I would challenge this Congress and leadership in my own party to not just be content, Mr. Speaker, with unemployment insurance extensions, helping those that are laid off, or passing legislation that simply alleviates a recession. We need a new vision for an economy that is abundant and growing at historic levels. We need to bring additional tax relief that will unleash the entrepreneurial energy of the American economy as never before, and part of that must be tax relief designed at encouraging and promoting capital formation.