Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the comments of my colleague and friend, Shelley Moore Capito from West Virginia. When I was elected, I sought to find those who were interested in and concerned about the uncivil manner in which the Members of the House communicated with one another and, of course, there were not a lot of people walking around with signs saying I would like to work on civility.

But I did read in some booklet that Shelley Moore Capito was one of those individuals interested in this issue of civility. So finding someone who shared my feelings that the people's House could and should do a lot better, we began to discuss what we felt would be an appropriate way to deal with this subject.

The truth of the matter is, that Mrs. Capito and I disagree on the issue of the tax cut, and we will debate that issue passionately in just a few minutes. But perhaps it would be important for me to say before we actually get into that subject that we have different backgrounds. We have different political affiliations. Our districts are vastly different. But we do passionately agree that there is a need to promote civility in the halls of Congress.

There are many, many days that I leave this House disgusted, not so much about a vote, as I am over what was said prior to the vote. I have heard all kinds of things fall from the lips of otherwise good and decent men, who were elected to represent a constituency here in this body. I have unfortunately heard, even at times religion used to hurl an attack at another member.

I agree with Mrs. Capito, it is not one party, the insults have fallen from the lips of people on both sides of the aisle, unfortunately. But I would like to just end my opening comments, Madam Speaker, by saying that some suggest that we are in a culture war.

If you accept the notion that we are somehow at war, then I think it is easy to accept the fact that whenever there is war, there is always collateral damage, and collateral deaths. And in the sense that we are having a cultural war, I would suggest that the collateral deaths or the damage is being done to the United States of America.

I am not sure that there are a lot of mothers and fathers watching this session tonight who, on a regular basis, summon their children to the television set to say to them, look, we want you to watch Congress in action and they will teach you how to get along with people when you disagree. I do not think that happens very often in this country and it is sad.

I yield to the gentlewoman

Please. Seniority. I think it would be good if we had, you know, we do not get in much free-wheeling debate on the House floor. So if you feel you want to move in on something, go ahead, and I will let you interrupt, and you can let me interrupt and we will go like that.

Let's talk about tax policy. In the United States Congress, since I have been here, we have passed two very meaningful tax bills. We have passed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Act in 2005, and we also passed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act.

We have to look at where we were, in my opinion. Where we were was we were post 9/11, we had a corporate scandal, we were in the beginnings or in the middle of a recession in our economy, and we were having difficulty pulling ourselves out for a lot of different reasons.

With the leadership of the President, we followed through in Congress to pass those two tax relief Acts. I think I would like to go to the numbers and talk about some of the things that I think are significant in terms of the numbers and how it has influenced Americans.

I always like to personalize everything to my State, so I have some State numbers as well. For instance, this year, who will gain tax relief? 111 million taxpayers will see their taxes decline by an average of $1,877. Significant numbers.

Five million total individuals and families will see income tax liabilities

completely eliminated, because we moved the tax, the lowest tax bracket, down to 10 percent.

Forty-four million families with children will receive an average tax cut of $2,493. That is because we have moved down significantly the child tax credit. Fourteen million elderly individuals will receive an average of $2,000, and 25 million small business owners will save an average of $3,641.

So those are the numbers in terms of what could possibly be saving, average savings through the tax relief. But I think we need to look at where we are right now. We have an economy that is moving in excess of 3.5 percent in gross national product.

We have created, over the last several years, 1.85 million jobs over the last 12 months alone, and 5.4 million since August of 1993. What I think this translates to is more small business owners having more money to create jobs, to buy more equipment, which creates more jobs.

I think we also have individuals who have more discretion over their own dollars. They can say what they want to buy, when they want to buy it because they have fewer Federal taxes to pay. I think that empowers them to consume more goods, which then translates to more business to more jobs.

So I see it as an engine that is moving in the right direction. I believe that the tax relief package and the tax cuts that we passed are a large part of that.

If the gentlewoman will yield. First of all, I agree with your numbers. The job gain during this administration from 2003 to the present does bring the total jobs to 5.4 million. My disagreement with the numbers is that the numbers do not include 2.7 million jobs lost prior to the growth period.

And so if you subtract the 2.7 million jobs that were lost, you actually will have a 2.7 million jobs increase instead of 5.4 million. And I have my own chart. And I do not quarrel with your numbers. But I have taken the numbers in a different direction.

In 2005 dollars, income in 2005 dollars, this chart reflects the tax savings for Americans. And if an individual earned between $10,000 and $20,000 annually, their tax savings will be $2.

$20,000 to $30,000, $9. $16 if you are between $30,000 and $40,000. If you earned $75,000 to $100,000 your tax savings is $403. And it goes on up, $500,000 to a million your tax would be $4,499.

And the point I want to make here is that the people who earn the most get a huge tax cut, and people who do not earn much at all end up at the bottom in terms of the tax cuts. And so all of America cannot celebrate the tax cuts because all Americans are not getting a tax cut that will have any kind of impact in their day-to-day lives.

I would not support giving any additional tax cuts to people who are already paying virtually no taxes. The earned income tax credit, I think, adequately, appropriately and significantly deals with the people who are at the very lowest end of the income level in this country. And they are paying virtually no taxes.

However, I do think that the tax cuts are inevitably going to be disproportionate because of the disproportionate income. But the problem that I am having with that, in addition to the fact that they are not as equitable as I think we could design them, we are the only Nation in the history of the planet that I can find out that actually moved for a tax cut during a time of war.

Generally during a time of war, we ask the people of the Nation, particularly our Nation, to make sacrifices. And so we are making significant spending a part of our day-to-day living in this country with a conflict going in Afghanistan, a conflict going in Iraq, and who knows what will happen with all of the troubles now in the Palestinian territories as well as in Lebanon.

So I think that we missed a rare but a very, very key opportunity to challenge the people of our country to make sacrifices during this particular time. And one of the sacrifices I think we should have pushed on the American public is that we cannot have tax cuts at a time of war.

Because we are borrowing all of the money. Most Americans probably do not realize this, we are borrowing all of the money we are spending to fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When people in the country read that we are considering supplemental budgets, they probably do not realize that when we say we are just approving a supplemental budget, it means that we are going out to sell our paper, we are going to out the market the full faith and credit of the United States. We are borrowing money from the U.K., from China, from Japan, and particularly, the Pacific rim countries that are exploding with growth.

I expected that.

If the gentlewoman would yield, and I want to talk about the increase in tax revenues, but I want to make sure before we leave this subject, this particular area, that one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans, this one-tenth of 1 percent who earn $1 million per year or more will receive 43 percent of the tax cut, while everyday Americans, men and women who earn $50,000 or less, will get 2 percent of the tax break. They will receive a $10 yearly tax cut, or enough to buy barely $3 worth of gasoline. And so the people in

the lower end, as I said earlier, are hurt.

But with regard to the tax revenues that are surprising Democrats and Republicans alike, I would like to just quote Bruce Bartlett, who was an economist with President Reagan and also with the first President Bush. And he said, ``I do not see how President Bush's tax cuts can be given any credit for the booming economy. All we have seen is the upturn we get after every recession. In other words,'' he says, ``without any tax cut at all, we would be pretty much in the same place economically.'' And then Bernanke, the new Fed chief, said, ``I think it is unusual for a tax cut to completely offset revenue loss.'' And I agree certainly with former Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan who said that tax cuts should be made in the context of a PAYGO resolution, which I support very strongly, and I know there are Republicans who support the PAYGO resolution as well.

And for people who are watching us, what Alan Greenspan is saying is that, yes, tax cuts can be healthy, but the government must become a disciplined body and that they must pay as they go, that we cannot afford to just become ravenous in our spending to the point where we push our country into a very, very dangerous place economically. We are $8.4 trillion in debt, and we have raised the debt ceiling repeatedly to the point now where it is over $9 trillion. And the problem with that constant raising of the debt ceiling is that we are borrowing our children and our grandchildren into significant trouble down the road.

And $1 trillion is very interesting. Most people have difficulty with 1 trillion, and I do, too. However, $1 trillion would equal essentially if a person spent $1 million a day from the time they were born until they were 75 years old, $1 trillion. We are $8.4 trillion in debt. And with that kind of debt, we can ill afford to subtract dollars out of the Federal budget that would generally be coming from tax dollars while we are taking money out, not only with the debt, but with the interest payments, which I will speak to a bit later.

I agree with you that we are taxed heavily in this country, all the way from these Chambers, this Chamber all the way to city halls around the country. But I do believe in tax cuts, and I think that we would be wise or certainly we would have been wise to have some tax credits to the corporations who engage in a certain amount of research and development. I think if the tax credits can be linked to research and development, then we know that those dollars are going to recirculate, they are going to come back into the budget.

I also think that we ought to give tax credits, that the one we had has expired, for parents who are sending their children to college, they ought to get tax credits. We are going to be locked into a very, very tough competitive battle with India, with China, with Japan, and even with Taiwan; and so we have got to educate as many children as possible, and we have got to make it easy for parents to pay for that college.

But the reason we won't be able to do that, and this is another thing that should cause us to reconsider the tax cuts, is the interest payments on the debt. Now, the interest payments are obligatory, and it is right now the third largest expenditure in the United States Federal budget; and that is very, very dangerous. We can cut Veterans Affairs, we can cut homeland security, we can cut education; but we can't cut net interest because the interest on the debt is obligatory. And it doesn't matter what else happens economically in this country. We have got to pay at least the interest on the debt because the Chinese, the European market will not have an understanding that we are not paying this interest.

And I also think that is extremely dangerous, because we are borrowing money from countries that in all likelihood we are going to have some difficulty with. We are even borrowing money, $50 billion so far, from OPEC.

And how does this fit in with the tax cut? Well, the problem is that we are continuing to borrow money, taking money out of the budget with the tax cut, and the interest is rising. And the interest payments do in fact have a very, very direct impact on taxes. And we would obviously be able to lower taxes if we were able to lower the interest rate.

We have become a debtor nation, and that is not healthy. We owe everybody around the world, and in fact we will end up borrowing $36 million during this 1-hour debate, $36 million during this one hour of debate. And when we are borrowing that kind of money and then giving tax cuts that will not come into the Federal coffers, it seems to me we are working against ourselves.

Yes.

No. I think we eliminate the tax cuts, which would allow us to begin to retire our debt. And if we just eliminate the tax cuts, and I will have to fumble through my papers to find out the exact amount of money that we would bring back into the Treasury, but it would be so significant that it could essentially put us in good stead with regard not only to our debt but the interest we are paying, or not only the interest but the debt we have.

Yes.

That would be true, but we cannot do everything that we need to do and give the tax cuts. I mean, I think we have to keep in mind the growing cost of the war against terror, and we do not even budget for it. Most of the Americans will probably find it amazing that we do not even budget for the war, and the supplemental budget, of course, is supposed to be for unexpected costs. We did not even budget for the rebuilding of the gulf coast region. All of that finds its way into the supplemental budget, and I am saying that we are borrowing money that we might not have to borrow if we had it in the Treasury, and we would have it in the Treasury if we had not given it in tax cuts.

Now, I want to say that the economic stimulus, the administration's tax cuts in 2003 had particularly low bang for the buck. The moderate economic growth has not been disbursed, as I said two or three times a night, to most American families. After accounting for inflation, the typical American family's income has decreased every year of the Bush presidency for a total reduction of $1,700. Now, that is when you factor in the inflation. It has dropped to $1,700.

The GDP growth in the first quarter this year was, as you said, a strong 5.6 annual rate, but most forecasts, including the economists in the White House, see the growth moderating to around 3 percent over the next few quarters. So, whether you take the economists who lean on the Democratic side or on the Republican side, the truth of the matter is they all agree that things will moderate shortly to around 3 percent in the next few quarters.

So I do not argue with the facts, and we all ought to be happy there is some life injected into the economy right now. I just do not think that we ought to come to the conclusion that it is long lasting, number one; and number two, I think that it would be wrong to assume that all is well in this government so we can give the people a tax cut back because it lulls them into believing that we have no problems.

I want to say that we do have some major problems, some major economic problems, not the least of which is the growing debt that is eating away at us. I thought this was interesting. If we pay $1 per second, it would take us 284,000 years to pay off our debt. 284,000 years to pay off our debt if we paid $1 per second, and that is scary.

The other numbers, if we laid dollar bills side by side all around the globe, we would be able to go around the globe 34,196 times with dollar bills reflecting the debt we have, and we cannot afford to give tax cuts, fight the wars, handle the many issues that come before us at the same time. We just cannot do it.

My final argument is, and I think this is a very, very good example or illustration of the disparity between the recipients of the best ends of the tax cut.

Lee Raymond, who was the retiring CEO of ExxonMobil, owns 7.7 million shares of their stock. Now, at the current dividend rate, he would generate, if he sold his stock today, $10 million. On top of that, he will have a $2.5 million tax cut. I think when we see that kind of disparity it has to pull at us that something is dreadfully wrong.

Now, I am not upset with Mr. Raymond. I do not even know him. He may be a nice person. He may want to tithe to the church I pastored, but what I am concerned about is the fact that his total retirement package came close to $400 million, including his 7.7 million shares of stock. That is far more than one human being needs to earn, and I think that people who are earning $34,000, $45,000 a year are going to look at a $2.5 million tax cut for this gentleman and wonder about themselves.

My final point that I have continued to make, as my uncle says sometimes I make the argument poorly, but it is that we cannot do everything. We cannot do everything. We cannot fight a war, $87 billion a year; we cannot fund all of the programs that people lobby you and me every day to fund; and we have used up every single nickel of the Social Security surplus. That is devastating, and we have got to come to grips with pay as we go, like all other Americans. If they want a refrigerator, they try to wait and pay for it.

But what we have done is has been to demonstrate that to the people of the United States that the amount of credit they have, credit debt does not matter. In 2004, we saw the average credit card debt for Americans rise by 63 percent. Now, Asians save on an average of about 20 percent. The savings rate, Mr. Speaker, for the United States, this is embarrassing, is minus zero. We go on the other side. We are not saving any money at all.

So the country looks at us, the Congress of the United States, we are spending wildly, and they have joined in. Because the American public is not saving, the government cannot borrow domestically. We are borrowing some domestically, but when we get ready for the heavy lifting, we are travelling around borrowing money from Caribbean Nations.

I think that reeling in the tax cuts will allow us to address some of those other problems and reduce the amount of borrowing.

I thank the gentlewoman. I actually have read George Washington's book on civility. Russ Carnahan, my colleague from Missouri who is from St. Louis, gave me that book shortly after we arrived because I was talking all the time with many of the freshman Members about the issue, and so he very kindly gave me that book.

I think neither of us are likely to change our opinions on the tax cuts, and I think that people who watch, particularly Members of Congress, hopefully realize that talk does not have to be toxic, and in many instances, that is what has happened on this floor. The more convinced we are that our position is sound and moral and ethical and right, the less hostility we need to speak of it.

To give you an example, Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Junior, both believed so deeply in what they were doing and the moral world coming to their side that they were so civil that they were willing to be beaten and to even go to jail. They did not respond in kind to the things that were done, and so on this floor, if we believe deeply in what we are saying, that is even more reason to be civil.

When I was elected to this body, and my father and my sisters and my wife and our 4 children and nieces and nephews all came to Washington, I was very excited over the fact that I was elected to this body. Only 18,000 people in the history of this republic have been able to sit in this Chamber and debate, and we are the only office in the United States that must be elected. You can ascend to the presidency without being elected; you can ascend to the vice presidency; you can ascend to the Senate, to governors, to lieutenant governor, to the to the U.S. Senate and so forth. We have to be elected here.

If a vacancy occurs, nobody can appoint anyone. We have to be elected. That means that this is a special body. There is nothing like it.

And so I assumed when I came here I would join the likes of James G. Blaine and Cordell Hull, who came to this floor and demonstrated a wizardry of words. Once upon a time, the level of debate and oration in Congress was the envy of the world. We had the example of the silver- tongued spellbinders like Daniel Webster and John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay. And the amazing thing that many Members of this body may not know is that Henry Clay was in the United States Senate, but became so enamored with the debate in the House, that he did something that people would never even think about doing today. He left the United States Senate to become a Member of the House of Representatives, to stand in that well to debate the great topics facing the Nation.

That is one of the things I thought about when I came to this body. Henry Clay was known as the great compromiser, not as the great bomb thrower, but the great compromiser. He is remembered in history because he knew how to work with people on all sides, a compromiser. And somehow we have to come to the conclusion if we want to be remembered, maybe, just maybe we can be remembered better for our ability to work with one another.

We had a situation when I first came here with 25 jobs being lost in Kansas City, and some people told me that I needed to go to war. We were going to lose it anyway, so I needed to go to war with a Republican, Frank Wolf. It didn't sound right to me. So I did something that was completely stupid. I called Frank Wolf on the phone, went to his office, we met, we talked about the issue, and he said, Cleaver, you're right.

Twenty-five jobs were saved because I refused to go to war with someone just because he was a member of the other party. And I am convinced that much more could be accomplished here if we worked together.

I have heard this story more than once. Barry Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson are about to launch their Presidential races. Barry Goldwater calls the White House and made a request that would be laughed at today. He asked that he be allowed to ride around the country with LBJ on Air Force 1 and they would stop at various cities and debate the issues. That is the kind of leadership that we need now in this Congress.

I believe a part of the reason that the tone in this Chamber has plummeted so low is because the volume is too loud, literally. Too frequently Members fail to extend the courtesy of attentive and respectful listening to other Members when they speak on the floor. Too frequently volume is so loud in this Chamber with disrespectful and discourteous conversations that Members end up shouting to be heard, and that only contributes to the incivility here in the House.

Let me conclude by saying that as we were thinking about this debate, I looked at everything I could look at, and one of the things that surfaced was that civility derives from the Latin word civitas, which means city, especially in the sense of civic community. Civitas is the same word from which civilization comes, the age-old assumption behind civility is that life in the city has to be civilizing. People could not live in a city without civility. And I believe that we cannot and should not dare to walk into the people's House without a strong and irreversible commitment to civility.

I would like to thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia for this opportunity. I hope that next month we will have other Members of this body joining us for a discussion on something that we feel very passionate about, and will probably not convince the other side, but I think the public will benefit by the debate.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall 384, the Watt amendment to H.R. 2389, I was recorded as a ``no.'' I had intended to vote ``yes'' on the Watt amendment.

Mr. Speaker, like millions of Americans, I, too, am disappointed with the President's veto. In Kansas City, Missouri, a man by the name of Jim and his wife Virginia Stowers started a company called American Centuries. It became one of the most successful companies in this country. A few years ago they decided that they would give back. Both of them are cancer survivors, and so they founded the Stowers Institute. It is an institution in Kansas City, Missouri, designed and funded by this great couple to research all kinds of medical cures. I will tell them later today that no Federal funds can be used.

Behind all of the opposition to stem cell research, there seems to be a subliminal religious tone. I am a fundamentalist in that I believe that the Holy Bible is the inspired and interminable word of God. But I am baffled by my fellow fundamentalists who seem to be utterly opposed to and terror-stricken by the advancement of science, including stem cell research.

The propagation of knowledge by some in our faith seems to be a foreboding foray toward undermining or diminishing the glory of the Creator. However, the opposite is true. When the human intellect makes strides that sets the world agog, it is God from whom all knowledge stems who is honored.

And keep in mind that scientific advancement is not an enemy of faith, but rather a bold statement that God is still active in this universe.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by just saying that it is a great testament to God if we are able to advance science. It means that His power is supreme.

Because I accept the Bible as the inspired and interminable Word of God, I consider myself to be a Christian fundamentalist. I accept, as an inseparable component of my faith, the omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience of God. Therefore, I am baffled by my fellow fundamentalists who seem to be utterly opposed to and terror-stricken by the advancement of science, including stem cell research. The propagation of knowledge and the dismantling of the boundless awe- inspiring mysteries of God's world are viewed by some in our faith as a foreboding foray toward undermining and diminishing the glory of the Creator. However, the opposite is true. When the human intellect makes strides that sets the world agog, it is God, from whom all knowledge stems, who is honored. Let us keep in mind that scientific advancement is not an enemy of faith, but rather a bold statement of Praise.

Contemporary men and women of faith, as always, stand at the crossroads. In a real sense, religion has always been impelled to wage war in some area or another. The pressing question is shall we march across the battlefields of faith with open arms toward the magnificent revelations of God's great truths, or, do we use our inherent power and influence to signal a retreat from the bright and simmering sunshine of expanding scientific scholarship. The potential life-saving issue of stem cell research is before us. The scepter is in the hands of the enlightened community of believers. Our failure to speak out on the medical need for stem cell research will allow earnest but erroneous or misguided souls who wish to constrain such study to force us back to a time when the faithful waged its fiery finger of scorn at the irreverence of scientific inquiry. Like the majority of people of faith, I totally reject the notion that today's community of believers are as troglodytic as our ancestors who refused to peer through the lens of Galileo's telescope. Nonetheless, this is a testing time.

Doctor Harry Emerson Fosdick, the legendary Baptist clergyman of the first half of the 20th century, profoundly addresses the issue of flowering faith in his wonderfully inspiring book, The Modern Use of the Bible: ``If there are fresh things to learn concerning the physical universe, let us have them, that we may find deeper meaning when we say, `The heavens declare the glory of God.' ''

If there is a great possibility to uncover new cures for the beastly diseases which besiege the human body, the community of faith must implore the researchers to explore, seize, and use them. After all, the One we claim as the Imminent Source and Guide of the Universe is befitting of our very best.

Sure, the scientific research on stem cells must be moral. The institutions of scientific research must understand that there are moral mandates that cannot be infringed or ignored with impunity. When the sway of the intellect becomes extreme, the religious must repudiate and guide it back to equilibrium and reason. Additionally, when the community of faith clings to the debilitating conventionalism of a petrified past, some among us must push against that as well.

Should science succeed in fulfilling the much vaunted optimism expressed by advocates of stem cell therapy, much of the credit should go to the community of faith. Every experiment that leads to greater medical breakthroughs is a discernible display of the earthly presence of God and of the presence of particles of his divinity in us.

Mr. Speaker, I probably perform more marriages than all of the other Members in this body, collected. When I perform a wedding in Los Angeles in August, it will push me over the 400 mark for my career as an ordained United Methodist pastor.

I am baffled over what is taking place on this floor. When Rome ruled the world, every now and then Roman soldiers had to go back to Rome and pledge loyalty to the Emperor. It was called sacramentum. In my tradition, the Christian tradition, we took that word to use as our word sacrament, our pledge of loyalty to God.

The generic marriage ceremony, which almost every denomination uses, begins by saying, marriage is an honorable estate instituted by God and signifies to all the uniting of this man and this woman in His church.

The point, Mr. Speaker, is that the domain of the church is the place where definitions should be made with regard to marriage. Every denomination has struggled or is struggling with this issue. The United Methodist Church voted last year not to allow same-sex marriages. The Episcopalian Church voted to do the same.

I resent a body of legislators telling me, a member of a denomination, that they will decide who can and who cannot get married. It is the responsibility of the church not the Government. If the Government is going to become involved in this sacrament, then why not communion? Why does the Congress not then begin to deal with how many times a month a church should do communion?

Friends, this is the saddest day for me since I have been here, because I can see clearly that this body is willing to trespass on the domain of God. Marriage is a holy institution. It was created by God. And we say in my tradition that Jesus ordained and beautified marriage when he performed his first miracle at the wedding in Cana of Galilee, not on the floor of Congress.

The church controls this issue. If this body would like to move to have the civil marriages restricted, that is fine. People who want to go to the courthouse, or want to get married on a ship, that is fine. But in terms of the church, keep your hands out of the church.

The church is a sacred institution. I did not come to this floor to make enemies but to make a point. And my point is this. This is off base. This is wrong. I wish we had time to debate the theology of this issue, because I would do it with anybody in this place.

Mr. Speaker, in 1974, I was ordained as an elder in the United Methodist Church after having completed 3 years of seminary, 4 years of undergraduate work. I have been pastoring for 32 years. As of today, I have never, ever been asked to perform a wedding between same- sex partners. I do not even know of a minister who has ever been made that request.

And so I am not sure how significant this is, except for the fact that I am not here to defend anything except the church. We have people sitting in the gallery and people looking at this broadcast all across America. And the chances are really high that almost 100 percent of them have marriage licenses signed by a member of the clergy, and not a Member of Congress.

Marriage was ordained by God, and in all of the weddings the words are read, ``Marriage is an institution by God signifying the uniting of this man and this woman in holy matrimony''.

And then we go on to say that, in my tradition, ``Christ adorned and beautified marriage when he performed his first miracle at the wedding in Cana of Galilee.

Marriage is sacred. It is holy. It is an institution created by the church. Now, the United States Congress is going to trespass on the property of the church?

I am concerned that we have gone too far. Every judicatory or denomination in the world is debating this issue, and it should remain in that domain, not on the floor of Congress. I don't want Congress to approve or disapprove how we perform marriages in my church.

I sat on the front row in December, and I thought about Exodus: For 6 days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a sabbath of rest for the Lord. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

As I thought about that, we were sitting here on a Sunday morning debating the defense bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to Mr. Dick Champion, director of the Independence, MO, Water Pollution Control Department.

True to his name, Mr. Champion is exactly that--a ``champion'' for clean water. He is an exceptional leader and public steward dedicated to the improvement of Missouri's and the Nation's environment and public health. It is my pleasure to congratulate Mr. Champion on becoming the new president of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, NACWA, formerly the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, AMSA. Mr. Champion is ideally suited for this national leadership position.

Mr. Champion began his career in water pollution control in 1969. He has been with the city of Independence, MO, Water Pollution Control Department for the past 27 years and has been director of the department since 1983. The Department is responsible for the Sanitary Sewer Utility, the Storm Water Management Program, the Household Hazardous Waste Management Program, and related environmental compliance.

In 2001, he was appointed by the Jackson County executive and legislature to the newly created Jackson County Stormwater Commission, to coordinate regional stormwater policy and planning. Mr. Champion has been serving as vice-chair of the commission throughout his tenure.

Dick has been an active member of NACWA since 1992, was elected to the Board of Directors in 1999, and now serves as NACWA's vice president and chair of the Strategic Planning Committee. Mr. Champion will become NACWA's president later this month--an impressive accomplishment and one that will no doubt help further NACWA's role as the leading advocate for sound water quality policies.

Mr. Champion earned a bachelor of science degree in political science with an emphasis in local government and public administration from Central Missouri State University in 1973. As a student and throughout his career Mr. Champion has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to public service and the improvement of water quality in Missouri. The fish and fishermen of Missouri owe a great deal to his tireless work to guarantee clean water.

With Mr. Champion as President, NACWA will no doubt build on its reputation as the leading advocate for responsible national policies that advance clean water and a healthy environment. Simply stated, when I hear the term ``environmentalist'', I think of public servants like Dick Champion.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues of the 109th Congress to please join me today in congratulating Mr. Dick Champion on becoming president of NACWA and for his tireless commitment to Independence, the Fifth District, and our country. I am certain the association will continue to flourish under his able leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I am a Democrat, and I am glad about it. The reason for this joy is over the fact that the party to which I belong is pushing back against this Republican-led Congress and their out-of-control spending. Let us take a look at the facts. President Bush and congressional Republicans have turned a $5.6 trillion surplus into a $4 trillion deficit, a change of $9 trillion.

This is the most fiscally irresponsible American administration. We owe China almost $150 billion. My hope is that we never have to go to war with them because I don't believe they are going to finance it.

Secondly, it is absolutely unacceptable that the United States is borrowing almost all the money they are using to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to my dear friend Hila ``Dutch'' Bucher Newman for being recognized and honored by the City of Kansas City, Missouri in naming a segment of Westport Road, the Honorary ``Dutch'' Newman Drive. A special on-site event will be held on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, so that family and friends can participate in the official christening of ``Dutch Newman Drive,'' a fitting tribute to a lovely lady that has contributed so much to our community.

Dutch and her family have woven the fabric of the history of Westport, Missouri, now a vibrant neighborhood incorporated into the City of Kansas City, Missouri. Their family's connection to Westport dates back to the 1800's family patriarch, Sam Bucher, who helped settle the small frontier town. Her great-grandfather, Robert Bucher, served the city as Marshall. It could be said that Dutch learned a tradition of service most directly from her father, Harry Bucher, who protected the city as Chief of the Vice Squad for the Kansas City Police Department. He also helped stimulate the Westport economy by opening three businesses in the area, including ``The Wrestlers Inn'' which was located in the oldest building in Westport.

Dutch continued the family legacy of making Westport home while immersing her energies into enhancing her beloved community by providing direction through her leadership skills. Dutch was born in Westport, educated in Westport, married in Westport, owned a business in Westport, and continues to live in Westport. During World War II she served on the Civil Defense Program, planning the Blackout Tests. She holds memberships in the Daughters of Westport, The Westport Historical Society, and the Westport Neighborhood Crime Watch.

As U.S. Representative for Missouri's Fifth District, I am keenly aware and appreciative of Dutch's political contributions, knowledge, and experiences. As any elected official in our region can attest, if you need sound advice, political or otherwise, you count on Dutch. I proudly selected Dutch to represent the State of Missouri as a delegate to the White House Conference on Aging in 2005. She is a strong advocate for promoting dignity, health, independence and economic security for current and future generations of seniors. Dutch has a gift for examining you with her intense blue eyes and then providing you with the straight scoop.

Currently, Dutch serves on the Missouri Democratic Party's State Executive Board; is a Missouri State Committee Member; Chairperson of the 10th Senatorial District Committee; and has been the 5th Ward Democratic Committeewoman for over 30 years. Dutch is the Founder and President of the Westport Landing Democratic Club, former founder and Past President of the 5th District Women's Democratic Club, former Vice Chair of the Fifth Congressional District Committee, former Vice Chair of the Jackson County Democratic Committee, Past President of the State of Missouri Women's Federation Democratic Club, and was the first woman appointed by the Governor of Missouri to serve on Senatorial Redistricting Committee. Dutch has represented the State of Missouri as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention eight times. She has received many honors, including the Harry S Truman Award, Women's Fifth District ``Woman of the Year Award'', the Rodger A. Gooden Award for her strong commitment to social justice and inclusiveness, and the Combat Community Mother's Award. As an institution in the local Democratic Party, Dutch has stood prominently beside U.S. Presidents and other officials during their visits to Kansas City.

Mr. Speaker, please join me today in recognizing the matriarch of Westport, Hila ``Dutch'' Bucher Newman, for her unyielding commitment to the Westport area and the Fifth District. With this honorary naming of Westport Road, we pay tribute to a lifetime of work and dedication to the betterment of her community. I urge my colleagues of the 109th Congress to join me in congratulating Dutch on her well-deserved honor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express gratitude for the passage of H.R. 5574, the Children's Hospitals GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2006. This bill will extend funding through fiscal year 2011 for children's hospitals that provide approved graduate medical residency programs. Hippocrates once said, ``Healing is a matter of time, but is sometimes a matter of opportunity.'' Kansas City's Children's Mercy Hospitals and Clinics continue to provide numerous opportunities for the children of Missouri and Kansas to receive the best pediatric healthcare available. The services Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education (CHGME) provides are invaluable. The $7 million received by Children's Mercy Hospitals and Clinics in the Greater Kansas City Metropolitan Area trains 125 interns and residents from the University of Missouri-Kansas City Medical School each year. The CHGME program ensures that children will continue to receive excellent healthcare and our Nation's pediatric health workforce will remain strong and competitive for years to come.

Since Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City is the only children's hospital between St. Louis, Missouri and Denver, Colorado, I know it is essential to continue to provide this vital funding. These valuable funds will keep the hospitals running efficiently while training our future pediatric care providers. I will support the restoration of CHGME's full funding for $300 million when the House considers the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2007.

Children's Mercy Hospitals and Clinics provide services spanning from Wichita, Kansas to Springfield, Missouri, and the passage of H.R. 5574 will ensure on-going financial support for over 60 children's hospitals, including Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City where the program started. From heart surgery to brain tumors to burn treatment, patients at Children's Mercy Hospitals and Clinics know they are receiving the best medical care possible and parents will never forget the ``angels'' who saved their children's lives. I am proud to support a program that has improved the lives of countless children nationwide, especially in my district, Missouri's Fifth Congressional District, while also expressing gratitude to the Missouri and Kansas delegation for their unending support.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in expressing our pleasure at the passage of this bill, and also to Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City for providing such a valuable service to so many families. The residents of Missouri's Fifth Congressional District take comfort in knowing the medical experts up at Children's Mercy Hospital are constantly on call ensure our children's well being. The health and safety of our children should remain a national priority, and today, I am proud to be a Member of Congress as we pass H.R. 5574.

Mr. Speaker, today, June 19, 2006, I was unavoidably detained in my district by flight delays caused by inclement weather.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall vote 289 on H.R. 5540, the Sgt. Jacob Dan Dones Post Office Designation, I would have voted ``yea''; had I been present for rollcall vote 290 on H.R. 5504, the Larry Winn, Jr. Post Office Designation, I would have voted ``yea''; and had I been present for H. Res. 826, Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives that a National Youth Sports Week be Established, I would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the comments of the

ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, Mr. Ike Skelton. Had I not been called away to perform a funeral, I, like him, would have voted against this resolution, or, may have even walked out to protest this mockery in the People's House.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall vote 288, for H. Res. 861, I would have voted ``nay'' on this non-binding and toothless sham of a resolution, that was not a meaningful legislative document.

Mr. Chairman, I want to address two issues in H.R. 5576, the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, Judiciary and District of Columbia Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (TTHUD) that are of great interest to the Fifth District of Missouri: first, the need to redesignate funds in the SAFETEA-LU program to address critical traffic problems along a stretch of highway known as ``Death Valley,'' and second, the woefully inadequate resources for housing and community development.

Let me begin by thanking Chairman Joe Knollenberg and Ranking Member John Olver both of the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation and Chairman Don Young and Ranking Member Jim Oberstar both of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for all of their hard work on this measure. I know it is through their efforts that we have this bill and I will have the opportunity to help my district fix an alarming problem.

I prepared a very simple amendment to make a technical correction to redesignate funds, and alleviate traffic at one of the most dangerous intersections in Missouri's 5th Congressional District: the intersection of M-291 Highway and Courtney Road in Sugar Creek, Missouri.

Originally, this SAFETEA-LU allocation would have designated $1.6 million for one highway project in my district, and the amendment would have fully transferred the designation to the City of Sugar Creek, so that they could have alleviated the traffic problems along a different stretch of high-traffic highway known as ``Death Valley.''

Within a 22 month span, there were 31 traffic accidents. In 1997, there were 87 accidents and 2 fatalities. In the summer 1998, five people died within two days in traffic accidents.This stretch has truly earned its nickname, and the area has only grown busier.

Overall, there is a large number of truck and car traffic crossing from the outer roadways of M-291 at an uncontrolled intersection North of Kentucky Road and South of Courtney Road. This redesignation would facilitate construction to finish the East and West outer-roadways to Courtney Road to allow for traffic to move safely through controlled intersections.

Until now, the City has only been able to do minimally protective measures, such as reducing the speed limit and adding a red light violator camera system. This redesignation would improve public safety by finishing the extension of the East and West outer roadways and adding desperately needed traffic outlets.

Mr. Chairman, I withdrew my amendment after conversations and assurances with the good Chairmen and Ranking Members, that a more appropriate vehicle for this technical correction and redesignation would be coming up for consideration shortly. I look forward to working with the Chairmen and Ranking Members so that we can put an end to ``Death Valley.''

Today, I reluctantly cast my vote in favor of H.R. 5576. While this legislation allows current 2006-level funding for vital programs affecting

the citizens of the 5th Congressional District such as Section 202 housing for the elderly and Section 811 housing for the disabled and slightly increases Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and Home Funds for programs that directly affect low to moderate income families in our neighborhoods, it also zero's out several programs that have had and would continue to have a significant impact on the revitalization and continued growth of the cities and neighborhoods of the 5th District. The programs targeted to receive no funds include the CDBG Section 8 program, Brownfield program, and Youthbuild program.

In Kansas City, Missouri alone the Section 108 and Brownfield programs have been successfully used to fund job producing economic development like the Vista Hotel, the first Section 108 HUD loan in the nation, Quality Hill neighborhood, 18th and Vine, the Westside Industrial Park (DST plant), H & R Block National Equipment Repair Facility on Brush Creek, Swope Park Health Facility and a number of commercial developments, to name a few. Neighborhoods such as Brooklyn Heights (the old Municipal Stadium site), Little Sisters of the Poor Housing Redevelopment, and subdivisions such as Citidal Gardens and Renaissance Place and elderly developments such as the Residences at West Paseo (the old Robinson Hospital) utilized these programs. None of these developments would be here today without Section 108 and Brownfield funds.

Youthbuild programs have provided vocational training and job opportunities for numerous young people in our district to learn building trades. By combining classroom and practical experience, Youthbuild has enabled participants to get decent jobs that pay a livable wage. In Kansas City, Swope Community Builders in KC received a $700K Youthbuild grant this year (2006) to train 60 youth ages 16 to 24 in homebuilding trades and build two affordable houses for sale. Participants can also get a GED if they didn't graduate from high school. Funding for this program was eliminated in the bill.

Because the House majority leadership has chosen to ignore the successes of these programs and turn a blind eye to the needs of cities that require these ``community building tools'' for future revitalization, I am calling on the Senate, including Missouri's Senators Bond and Talent, to restore these beneficial programs in the Senate appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, having come to Congress in this 109th, I am come to the conclusion that it is not good for any party to have complete power here in Washington. It creates a hubris that then, I think, does immense damage to the Nation. Over the last 6 years, we have seen the control of Congress and the White House by Republicans; and for whatever reason, it appears that the economic direction that we have taken in the country is in favor of the upper class, and the benefits are supposed to trickle down.

Mr. Speaker, there is a tsunami of frustration rolling across America. People are hurt. The average family is now paying $1,200 more a year for health insurance. College tuition has jumped 40 percent and gas prices have doubled. Housing is the least affordable in the last 14 years. A tsunami of frustration is rolling across America.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we can do better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Beverly Garrett, a remarkable and compassionate woman whose life has touched so many Kansas Citizens. Mrs. Garrett passed away on June 1, 2006. Her passing is a deep loss felt by her family, her community, and all who have been touched by her tireless dedication and service to helping others.

Beverly was employed by the federal government in the Social Security Administration for more than thirty years. Motivated by her dedication to her work environment and fellow employees, she became active in the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1336, in the 1980s. Her leadership, character, and determination grew with each year, eventually garnering the position of president. In addition Beverly was a member of the local AFL-CIO's Labor Council, where she proved to be a mentor and trusted friend. Beverly's commitment went beyond the work place as she found great satisfaction serving on the board of the Heart of America United Way Campaign. For two years she provided leadership and direction as Co-chair and most recently as Board Secretary.

Though she achieved positions of great trust and honor, she maintained an admirable and inspiring humility. With a touch of kindness and a touch of toughness she always found a way to create a positive impact.

Beverly's trademark was her optimistic, jovial spirit that uplifted everyone she met. Her sense of humor and quiet grace brought people together even when they were in conflict. Beverly's attitude toward life was inspiring. Always smiling, she never hesitated to go out of her way to help someone in need. Because she was devoutly religious, she always found meaning and an opportunity to learn through each experience.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in expressing our heartfelt sympathy to her sons, James and Jason, and her daughter, Kim; and all of her other relatives, loved ones, and friends. I urge my colleagues to please join me in conveying our gratitude to her family for sharing this great woman with us, and to accept our condolences for their tremendous loss. She was an inspiration to so many, and she will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Michael Charles on his 50th Music Anniversary. Born in 1946 in Kansas City, Missouri, his musical road began with singing locally in the Novice Choir at Mariah Walker A.M.E. in 1956. He is known as a ``Son of Psalms'' and as an individual whose name has become synonymous with excellence in sacred music in many religious circles.

Dr. Charles has sung individually and with various gospel and church groups, locally and across this country. He is fortunate to have performed at the Apollo Theater in New York City, and in many notable venues across our Nation. At one of his unforgettable engagements, Dr. Charles was able to meet and receive advice from the late, great, Mahalia Jackson, the First Lady of Gospel music.

Through his association with various gospel groups, churches, and church related associations, in 1992 the ultimate recognition, an Honorary Doctorate in Sacred Music, was bestowed upon him by the Maryland School of Theology and Theism of Baltimore, Maryland. On a more personal level, I have been honored to have Dr. Charles' expertise as the Minister of Music for Saint James United Methodist Church, of which I am the Senior Pastor. He has shown enormous energy while facilitating our music ministry which consists of eight singing units, two liturgical dance groups, and a seventeen member music staff. This has lead to the recording of two compact discs, ``I Will Lift Up Mine Eyes Unto the Hills,'' and ``A Celebration of Praise.''

Dr. Charles composed a tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. the day after he was assassinated, called ``Freedom After While.'' This composition is sung as the finale each year at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference's Martin Luther King Celebration in Kansas City, Missouri. It is sung with such feeling and emotion that there is hardly a dry eye in the crowd. I may be biased in my praise of him because he is one of my parishioners, but I am privileged to hear Dr. Charles' music and deeply appreciate the time and care he takes with our congregation. May God continue to bless him and give him inspiration.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in expressing our heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Michael Charles for his fifty years of utilizing music as a means to bring people and God together, not only within the boundaries of Missouri's Fifth Congressional District which I represent, but within the United States and the entire global community. He represents the best in all of us. I urge my colleagues of the 109th Congress to please join me in congratulating Dr. Michael Charles on celebrating his 50th Musical Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mrs. Lea Ann Pitcher as being named one of the most `Outstanding Mathematics Teachers in the United States' by The Presidential Award for Excellence. This award was established in 1983 by an Act of Congress and is administered for the White House by the National Science Foundation. Offered every other year to high school teachers, only two teachers per state are bestowed this great honor. Recognizing only the most exceptional teachers from across the United States, this awards' program is designed to honor teachers for their ingenious contributions to the classroom and to their profession. Mrs. Pitcher personifies excellence both in the classroom and as a professional. ``Awardees serve as an example for their colleagues, inspiration to their communities, and leaders in the quality of mathematics and science.'' As a high school math teacher, Mr. Pitcher does just that.

Mrs. Pitcher's work at Lee's Summit Senior High School is exemplary. She educates our children in one of the areas we need strengthening the most--mathematics. After a decade as a pharmacist, she left to pursue teaching. Her students respect and rely on her knowledge; her peers emulate her dedication and teaching practices of using debate and discussion in math; and I know that Principal Faulkenberry considers her to be one of the school's greatest assets. She has truly touched our community and changed the lives of students in Lee's Summit throughout her 11 years as an educator. As a longtime resident, she has shown her dedication to our community, her students, and education throughout her long career as a teacher in the Greater Kansas City Area, having worked at both Hickman Mills High School and Lee's Summit High School.

Mr. Speaker, please join me today, May 9, 2006, on National Teacher Day, in thanking Mrs. Lea Ann Pitcher for her unyielding commitment to education, but more importantly, thank her for her significant contributions to the students of Lee's Summit Senior High School in Missouri's Fifth Congressional District. This year's theme of National Teacher Day is ``Great Teachers Make Great Public Schools'' and is a fitting description of Mrs. Pitcher's contribution to our society. Rarely do people touch the lives of students and communities in a way that will follow them forever. I want to thank her again for her outstanding work and her extraordinary commitment to the Lee's Summit students. As one former recipient of the Presidential Award exclaimed, ``I think of this as the Nobel Prize of my profession.'' Mrs. Pitcher has truly attained the highest honor in her field. This accolade is something to celebrate because it recognizes someone to emulate. I urge my colleagues of the 109th Congress to please join me in congratulating Mrs. Lea Ann Pitcher on her well-deserved recognition.