Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a very difficult issue for me for quite some time and I think for many of my colleagues also. It involves deeply held convictions by conscientious people of good faith, by some of my closest friends, on both sides of this question.

So I would like to begin with some things we can all agree upon. Principles about which there is no real debate today.

First of all, this bill is not about the legality or illegality of embryonic research. Surprisingly, I have had constituents say to me that they weren't asking for Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, only that it be legal. This represents a misunderstanding of existing law.

So let us be clear at the outset. Embryonic stem cell research is legal today, has always been legal, and few people are suggesting that it be otherwise.

Secondly, there is currently a great deal of embryonic research going on today. Over the past 6 years, under the Bush guidelines, more than $130 million has been devoted to human embryonic stem cell research. Such research is also being conducted by State governments to the tune of $140 million. I happen to believe that this type of research is ethically troubling, but for my colleagues who feel otherwise, let us at least acknowledge that a lot of embryonic research is being done under current law.

Next, I think we can all agree that the Federal Government alone cannot possibly fund all the medical and scientific research we would want. The annual appropriation for the NIH is $28 billion. But even if that figure were to be doubled or even tripled this year, we couldn't afford all the potential research that is out there.

It is our job as Federal legislators to pick and choose. We have to allocate scarce resources, and we can't do it all.

Which brings us to the real philosophical difference in the debate today. For me and many of my fellow Americans, the destruction of a human embryo involves profound ethical and moral questions. This is a matter of conscience for millions of taxpayers who are deeply troubled by the idea of their tax dollars being used to destroy another human life.

We have been told by proponents of this bill that all they want to do is use embryos from fertility clinics which would otherwise be thrown away. I do not believe it will end there. After a period of time with no progress, we will be asked to approve and fund therapeutic human cloning, the creation of a human life for the express purpose of destroying that embryo for research purposes. This is the very real slippery slope upon which we are perched. Indeed, many proponents of this bill have voted against legislation to prohibit human cloning.

So, Mr. Speaker, given the admitted ethical problems involved in destroying human embryos, given the lack of any results so far from embryonic research and the proven cures and accomplishments from adult stem cells, given the great potential of germ cells, cord blood cells and amniotic stem cell research without the ethical drawbacks, and given the limited Federal resources and the fact that we can't fund everything, shouldn't we concentrate Federal dollars on research that does not involve the destruction of human embryos?

Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that there has been so much confusion about the current state of embryonic stem cell research in our country. The choice is not between conducting the stem cell research or not conducting it. That is not the choice. Embryonic stem cell research is legal in America, and nothing in the administration's current policy affects that legality; 400 lines are currently being used to conduct embryonic stem cell research, both in the private sector and by the Federal Government. Indeed, the Federal Government spent $41 million last year on embryonic stem cell research.

The administration's policy simply provides that Federal taxpayer dollars are not used to destroy human embryos. It is false to suggest that medical breakthroughs come only through government research. In fact, the private sector has been responsible for such breakthroughs as the heart drug Sildenafil, Prozac and ibuprofen. Private researchers discovered penicillin and the polio vaccine, conducted the first kidney and lung transplants, and identified the role DNA plays in directing our biologic makeup, all without Federal dollars.

And where is the private sector spending its dollars now? The overwhelming portion of nongovernment money is going to adult and germ cell research, because that is where the promise is. There are over 72 known treatments using adult stem cells. A huge breakthrough with regard to juvenile diabetes has occurred just in the last 6 months. Ductal cells from the patient's own pancreas can be induced to become stem cells that then produce insulin-producing cells. This process was created in the U.S. and has cured eight people of diabetes in Europe using adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells.

But, Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that this debate involves a profound ethical and moral question. This is a matter of conscience for millions of taxpayers who are deeply troubled by the idea that their resources are being used to destroy human life, and it is a vote of conscience for me.

The private sector can go forward, if it must, with destruction of embryos for questionable and ethically challenged science. But spend the people's money on proven blood cord, bone marrow, germ cell, and adult cell research.

Mr. Speaker, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has described the G8 as ``a group of democracies . . . fully committed to free market principles, free trade, rule of law.''

On July 15, the Russian Federation will chair the Group of Eight, G8, for the first time since its full integration in 2002 by hosting the annual G8 Summit in the city of St. Petersburg. While Russia's presidency of the G8 was originally intended to showcase its economic and social progress and demonstrate its further integration with the global community, a growing number of observers strongly feel that Russia is not meeting the democratic and free market principles that are the basis of the G8.

I share with my colleagues a recent letter that was circulated prior to the G8 Summit, from nearly 100 diplomats, politicians, academicians and civil society leaders from Russia, Europe and the United States. The letter, which includes notable figures from each of the G7 nations and Russia, was designed to bring attention to Russia's faltering democracy and human rights record. It was released at ``The Other Russia'' summit, organized by Garry Kasparov, former world chess champion and Russian political activist, to examine these problems and to highlight what they will mean for the future of Russia.

Mr. Speaker, Russia is an important ally to the United States in many ways although we face a number of disagreements with them on pressing global issues. What should not be at issue is the need for an open society in Russia that advances democracy, human rights and free enterprise. This goal is critical for the development of U.S.-Russia relations and the future of Russia itself.

An Open Letter to the G7 Leaders ``The Other Russia''

We wish to express our gratitude to the courageous men and

women attending ``The Other Russia'' Summit today and

tomorrow in Moscow. This alternative to the G8 summit has

been organized by Garry Kasparov, Lyudmila Alekseyeva and

other Russian human rights and political leaders. The

laudable purpose of the ``Other Russia'' Summit is to focus

the world's attention on the increasingly autocratic and

repressive policies of the Russian Government.

``The Other Russia'' will bring together distinguished

diplomats and politicians, academicians and civil society

leaders from Russia, Europe and the United States to examine

the deplorable state of human rights and the rule of law in

Russia. Experts will document Russia's alarming number of

political prisoners, the Kremlin's control over the media,

the dangerous increase in government corruption, the

continued violence in Chechnya and the return of a one-party

state.

``The Other Russia'' Summit will examine these economic and

political trends, hoping to provide the Russian people with a

clearer picture of what the further loss of human and

political rights will mean to them. The gathering is also

meant to impress upon the G7 leaders, who will be meeting

with Russian President Vladimir Putin this coming weekend in

St. Petersburg, that there is another Russia--a Russia at

odds with the corrupt, authoritarian regime which President

Putin and those around him appear resolved to impose.

We urge our leaders--Prime Minister Tony Blair, President

George W. Bush, President Jacques Chirac, Prime Minister

Stephen Harper, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, Chancellor

Angela Merkel and Prime Minister Romano Prodi--not to

equivocate when they meet the Russian President this weekend.

He must be put on notice that Russia's

current domestic and foreign policies are unacceptable to its

neighbors, to the international community and to many of its

own citizens.

President Putin must be made to understand that fairness

towards his political opponents and critics, the release of

political prisoners and Russia's constructive engagement with

its neighbors in Asia, the Middle East and Europe, are the

standards by which his Government will be judged. Russia must

meet these standards of justice, freedom and of

internationally acceptable diplomacy if it wishes to remain a

member of the G8 and of the community of democratic nations.

Today, Russia is moving in the wrong direction.

With the re-imposition of state control of the media, the

nationalization of the YUKOS Oil Company, the abolition of

elected governors, overt and covert meddling in the affairs

of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Lithuania and outright support

for the dictatorship in Belarus, the new NGO law restricting

the work of human rights groups and other non-government

organizations in Russia, and the imprisonment of

political opponents like Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Mikhail

Trepashkin, the Government of Russia is deliberately

turning back the clock.

We appeal to the G7 leaders to raise these issues directly

with President Putin this weekend in St. Petersburg. And we

salute those who are in Moscow today, meeting in a hostile

and dangerous environment to prove that a democratic Russia,

``The Other Russia,'' does indeed exist.

Signatories: (Institutions are listed for purposes of

identification only.)

Dimitar Abadjiev--European Parliament Observer, Bulgaria;

Dr. Patrick Aeberhard--President, Medecins du Monde;

Vo Van Ai--President, Forum Asia Democracy;

Doron Arazi--Historian;

Timothy Garton Ash--Oxford University, UK;

Brian Atwood--Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs,

University of Minnesota, US; Former US Agency for

International Development (USAID) administrator;

Paul Berman--Writer, US;

Carl Bildt--Former Prime Minister of Sweden;

Roberta Bonazzi--Director, European Foundation for

Democracy;

Elena Bonner--Honorary Chair, The Andrei;

Sakharov Foundation;

Michael Bourdeaux--Founder/President, Keston Institute,

Oxford University, UK;

Pascal Bruckner--Philosopher, France;

Ian J. Brzezinski--Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of

Defense for European and NATO Policy;

Hans Christoph Buch--Writer, Germany;

Vladimir Bukovsky--Cambridge University, UK;

Leos Carax--Film director, France;

Patrice Chereau--Film and theater director, France;

Daniel Cohn-Bendit--Member, European;

Parliament, Germany;

Pierre Daix--Writer, France;

Prof. Nicholas Daniloff--Northeastern University, US;

Ruth Daniloff--Writer, US;

Fertilio Dario--Comitatus libertates;

Franco Debennedetti--Senator, Italy;

Martin Dewhirst--University of Glasgow, Scotland;

Freimut Duve--Former member of the German Bundestag;

Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)

Representative;

Dr. Marek Edelman--Former dissident, Leader of the Warsaw

ghetto uprising;

Humphry Crum Ewing--Chairman, The Standish Group;

Edourad Fillias--President, Alternative Liberale, France;

Paolo Flores de Arcais--Director, Micromega, France;

Carl Gershman--President, National Endowment for Democracy;

Andre Glucksmann--Philosopher, France;

Alex Goldfarb--Foundation for Civil Liberties, US;

Adam Gopnik--Writer, US;

Veronique Nahoum Grappe--Anthropologist, France;

Andrew P. Grigorenko--President, General Petro Grigorenko

Foundation, Inc;

Robert Halfon--Political Director, Conservative Friends of

Israel;

Daniel Hamilton--Johns Hopkins University, US;

Arthur Hartman--Former US Ambassador to the Soviet Union

and France;

Satu Hassi--Member, European Parliament, Finland;

Roger Helmer--Member, European Parliament, UK;

Mary Holland--New York University, US;

Marie Holzmann--President, Droits de l'homme in China,

France;

Robert Hunter--Former US ambassador to NATO;

Toomas Hendrik Ilves--Member, European Parliament, Estonia;

Bruce P. Jackson--President, Project on Transitional

Democracies;

Kjell Olaf Jense--President, Pen Club, Norway;

Alan Johnson--Director, Democratya, UK;

Tunne Kelam--Member, European Parliament, Estonia;

Bogdan Klich--Member, European Parliament, Poland;

Bernard Kouchner--Former UN ambassador to Kosovo; Founder,

Medecins sans Frontieres, Medecins du Monde, France;

Irina Krasovskaya--President, We Remember Foundation,

Belarus;

Guntars Krasts--Member, European Parliament; Former Prime

Minister of Latvia.

William Kristol--The Weekly Standard, US;

Girts Valdis Kristovskis--Member, European Parliament,

Former President of the Lithuanian Parliament;

Vytautas Landsbergis--Member, European; Parliament, Former

President of the Lithuanian Parliament;

Bernard Henri Levy--Philosopher, France;

Ekkehard Maass--German-Caucasian society, Germany;

Giwi Margwelschwili--Schriftsteller, Germany;

Cliff May--President, Foundation for the Defense of

Democracies;

Michael McFaul--Stanford University, US;

Alan Mendoza--Executive Director, Henry Jackson; Society,

Mr. Speaker, what is the status of our effort in Iraq today, and where do we go from here?

Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle see the situation getting worse and worse. I see real progress. I see three successful elections, I see the completion of a national unity government, and I see the elimination of Abu Musab al Zarqawi. But more than anything else, Mr. Speaker, it is the returning troops I talk to who convince

me that our mission is succeeding and that their sacrifice is accomplishing a valuable service for our effort and for our people. I haven't surveyed many seventh graders, but the soldiers I see express support for what we are doing and frustration over the coverage they see in the media.

Now, as to the question of where we go from here, two things are certain: Iraq is ground zero in our global war on terror. And the decisions we make will affect U.S. credibility for decades to come.

Al Qaeda attacked our homeland unprovoked on 9/11, and it is that same al Qaeda we fight today in Iraq. We must defeat them there and anywhere else until their terrorist threat has ended. But make no mistake, this is the same enemy that demolished the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon.

Another argument we have heard today is that this war was a mistake to begin with; that it was unnecessary; that it was in fact based on a lie. This view, of course, ignores the fact that intelligence agencies not only in the U.S. but from Israel, Great Britain, Germany, and France, to name a few, were unanimous in their conclusions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright cautioned that it was a real possibility Saddam would use these weapons or share them with terrorists intent on attacking the U.S. again.

But if you think about it, Mr. Speaker, what such an argument really advocates is a present day Iraq with Saddam Hussein still in power. That would have been the logical result of their point of view. An Iraq still ruled by intimidation, humiliation, rape, and torture. A Saddam Hussein still free to continue his proven network of chemical and biological weapons research. A Saddam Hussein with plans and advanced designs for long-range missiles to threaten our allies and our interests.

To some, this may be an acceptable alternative. But it is not to me. The world is a better place because Iraq is free of Saddam Hussein, and the world will be safer if we maintain our resolve. The administration has embarked on a sound plan for freedom and stability in the region and for better security for our citizens. Stay the course.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps at the end of that 2 minutes, I might ask the Chair's indulgence for a little more time.

I do appreciate the chairman's opposing the amendment, and I think it is instructive at this point to talk about the congressional spending procedures that we have in place. We receive the President's budget, and the Congress then acts on that budget by the adoption of a resolution. We decide at that point the level of discretionary spending this Congress will spend on a variety of issues. It is at that point, at the point of the budget resolution, that we decide how much we will spend on domestic discretionary dollars. In other words, upon our adoption of the budget, the level of spending in the discretionary category is decided.

Now, we find ourselves today further down the process. We are today at the appropriations stage. The level has already been decided. Our decision today is how we allocate the funds we have already decided to spend through our budget resolution. The funds set aside for this subcommittee will be spent. That decision has already been made. The decision that we are going to make today is the question of where those funds will be spent.

Now, having said that, Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to explain to my colleagues the nature of this project. And I have often thought, Mr. Chairman, if I ever had the chance to speak to a national audience about Rowan Oak and the William Faulkner Museum, I would take that opportunity. If I ever do get such a chance, I will tell my colleagues what an absolute jewel is located in my district in the form of Rowan Oak and the Faulkner legacy.

Of course, William Faulkner is one of the greatest authors in American history. The recipient of the Nobel Prize for literature, the recipient of two Pulitzer Prizes. William Faulkner is one of the preeminent figures in the history of this Nation, and I have in my congressional district, I am fortunate to say, the home where he not only lived for 32 years, between 1930 and 1962, when he died, but where he wrote so many of America's great treasures, including Sanctuary; As I Lay Dying; Light in August; Absalom, Absalom; A Fable; The Unvanquished; Go Down, Moses; and the Reivers.

Thousands and thousands of tourists come to Rowan Oak and the University of Mississippi each year for the express purpose of seeing the legacy of William Faulkner. Our guests have included Prince Edward of England, numerous Members of this Congress, foreign Parliamentarians, and people from all over the world.

I want to congratulate my friend from Arizona, and he is my friend, for being consistent. If it were up to people like my friend from Arizona, perhaps we would never spend any money at the Federal level on higher education. Perhaps no Federal dollars would ever go to a museum of any type. It is an entirely honorable position to say that no local economic development project should ever be funded. That is an honorable viewpoint. I do not think it is the position of the Members of the House of Representatives, but it is a worthy opinion nonetheless.

I would simply say that at this point the decision has been made to allocate the money to the subcommittee. Our decision today is whether the allocation will be spent on priorities outlined by the elected representatives of the people or whether these funds will go back to an agency where a nameless, faceless, bureaucrat will make the decision about where these funds will be spent.

I urge the defeat of the amendment.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I rise in opposition to the amendment and urge my colleagues for a strong vote against this ill-advised initiative.

In debate on the House floor some 2 years ago, some of the advocates of this amendment today rose and very eloquently spoke basically on the other side of the argument, saying that this would be ill advised, it would be unilateral action against a friend of ours.

I thought those remarks were correct at the time. And I am disappointed that some of the advocates of this amendment have changed their minds over 2 years' time. What has happened in 2 years?

Well, one thing that has happened is they have had a presidential election in Egypt which has represented progress. Now, we were not happy with everything that happened with the parliamentary elections, and it was not exactly a perfect presidential election in Egypt. But they had multiple parties, they had an open process. And I think almost every person who watched this on the international stage said it represented progress. So what has happened between 2004 and now is actual progress in Egypt. I commend them for that. But let's talk about why we have this bill at all. I meant to get down here for general debate to discuss this. We do foreign assistance for altruistic reasons, certainly for humanitarian reasons, of course. But the main reason we do foreign assistance is we

do it in the American national interest. This bill is a very important part of our national security package. And let me tell you about the national interest. Those of you who have been to the Middle East know that we do not have a lot of friends over there. But one friend we have in that area is Egypt. Since Nasser kicked the Soviets out, since Sadat helped with Camp David, with the beginnings of that Arab-Israeli peace process up until today, Egypt has been our strategic friend and our strategic partner.

Talk about national interests: When we went in with Operation Iraqi Freedom, some of our allies, Turkey, for example, would not let us through. How much trouble did that cause us, because we were not able to go into Iraq through Turkey?

By contrast, Egypt has allowed us to use the Suez for that purpose. They have allowed us continuous overflights. And just recently, they have been instrumental in helping with the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza. They have helped us when it counted.

How many American soldiers are alive today because Egypt was our friend in Operation Iraqi Freedom? How many billions of dollars have we saved for the American taxpayers because Egypt has been our friend?

An amendment that was stronger than this was offered in the Appropriations Committee, and it was rejected overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. The authors of this amendment have attempted to soften it here on the floor. And one of the things that they have tried to do is take the money from Egypt and give it to programs that we all like--AIDS in Africa, Darfur, things of that nature. It is hard to resist. It sounds good.

But my friends, these people in Egypt have stood by us in a tough, tough neighborhood. And I do not think this amendment is the sort of thing we do to our friends. It might make us feel good, but it is terrible foreign policy, and I believe the House of Representatives will reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I accompanied the gentlewoman on the delegation to Egypt. Will she acknowledge that we met with Mr. Mubarak, Jr., and that he outlined a roadmap for further constitutional democratization in Egypt that is a positive step and that the gentlewoman was impressed with that? Would she acknowledge that?

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman agree that if this Obey amendment passes today, the headline tomorrow in Egypt would be that the United States House has taken a slap at our allies in Egypt and that it might make it harder for moderates in Egypt to continue down that path?

Mr. Chairman, I seek this time in order to enter into a colloquy with Chairman Hobson. The colloquy is regarding the construction of mooring facilities on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway in Columbus, Mississippi.

A new $800 million steel plant, SeverCorr, is bringing over 500 jobs to Lowndes County. Given that the average wages for hourly workers will approach $70,000 annually, each one of these jobs is likely to be transformational for the families involved.

The SeverCorr project is the largest private construction project in the United States this year. A large amount of SeverCorr's raw materials and finished product will be shipped utilizing the Tennessee- Tombigbee Waterway beginning in June 2007. The company expects to use approximately 50 or 60 additional barges each month. However, there are no mooring facilities along this portion of the Tennessee-Tombigbee.

Presently, if an operator needs to moor a barge temporarily or overnight, the operator may tie the barge to one of several trees along the bank. This situation will clearly present a significant threat to navigation safety once the steel plant begins operation. Absence of a mooring facility could also present operational challenges to the smooth and safe transport of materials and inhibit this critically important economic activity.

I understand that the bill continues a moratorium on new projects by the Corps of Engineers. However, I hope the chairman will work with me to identify ways the committee can help support the important economic development taking place in my district along the Tennessee-Tombigbee.

I thank the chairman.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, may I say initially that I certainly support the passage of H.R. 5385 and urge my colleagues to cast an ``aye'' vote. But I rise at this point to enter into a colloquy with Chairman Walsh regarding Columbus Air Force Base in Columbus, Mississippi.

During fiscal year 2006 military quality of life appropriations process, funding was authorized and provided for the first phase of the mission support complex at Columbus Air Force Base. Currently, mission support facilities are spread across the base and are too small for their functions. The proposed mission support complex will consolidate many of the command and control functions into one complex adjacent to the wing headquarters. Also, this new facility will meet new force protection antiterrorism standards.

Funding for the second and final phase of this complex is needed to complete the project. I realize this project was not authorized in the House version of the 2007 Defense Authorization Act, and this fact prevented the project from being funded in this appropriation bill, Mr. Chairman. However, I hope the chairman will work with me as this bill moves through conference in order to complete the project on schedule.

I thank the chairman very much for yielding and this colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida, who could also have mentioned that spending on Federal health research has almost tripled in the decade of Republican rule in this House of Representatives. So I am proud of the accomplishments we have made in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of debate tonight about the growth in the national debt, and certainly it is something we are very interested in. In the debate on the previous rule, accomplishments were pointed out on the discretionary spending side. That is spending that is controlled by the appropriations process. But we will never get a handle on deficit reduction, we will never be able to accomplish this challenge of the growth in the national debt unless we get a handle on our mandatory spending, those entitlement programs that are on autopilot. They spend year in and year out, whether there is an appropriation bill or not.

Mandatory programs will grow this year at a growth rate of over twice the inflation rate. If we do nothing about the mandatory spending programs, they will increase from their current 54 percent of the Federal budget to an unbelievable, unchecked 62 percent of total Federal spending in a decade. So clearly this is the key area in budget deficit reduction, and that is why we have a plan to implement reforms to provide savings for the American people in the area of mandatory programs.

One example, of course, would be the Medicaid program, a program which Governors, Democrat and Republican, from around the country have come to Congress about, saying please help us to save this valuable program by slowing the growth rate. Under the underlying bill that this rule would provide, Medicaid will grow at a rate of 7.5 percent over the next 10 years, instead of a rate of 7.7 percent. For these reasons, I support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from California asked just a few moments ago, what is it that Republican budgets do? I will tell you what Republican budgets do, and I will tell you what this Republican budget does. It provides a plan to give savings to the American people. It provides a plan to slow the growth rate of some of the most important programs that we have in the United States of America so that we can save those programs, programs mentioned in the motion to instruct conferees, such as food stamps, funding for child support enforcement, Medicaid benefits, and student loans.

Republicans acknowledge, as most Americans acknowledge, that these are important and valuable programs. But, Mr. Speaker, we must slow the growth rate of these programs; not cut them, but slow the growth rate in order to preserve those programs.

What do Republican budgets do? Republican budgets also keep intact those tax policies that have grown this economy for 10 straight quarters, a growth rate of 4.1 percent in our GDP currently.

Now, what do Democrat budgets do? They consistently advocate increased spending, increases in discretionary spending, that done by the Appropriations Committee; and higher spending on the entitlement programs that we are talking about in this motion to instruct conferees. Also, Democrat budgets consistently call for higher taxes on the American people.

It is just a difference of philosophy. But that is what Democrat budgets do, and that is contrasted to what our responsible and reasonable Republican budget does today.

Now, I will mention one program, if I have the time, and that is Medicaid. Democrat Governors from around the country, Republican Governors from around the country have come to Congress and said, please, implement Medicaid reforms so that we can protect our budgets, so that Medicaid will not completely eat up State budgets in the 50 States, so that we can continue to provide this valuable service for our citizens.

The Democrat motion would allow Medicaid to grow. The Republican budget, our budget plan, would allow Medicaid to grow just a little slower, at just a little less of a growth rate than the Democratic plan.

Slowing the growth rate of Federal entitlement programs, which is what our Republican plan does, is not a cut in these programs. It is a way to acknowledge the value of these programs, it is a way to say we should preserve them, and it is a way to provide an additional means to protect the tax cuts and the tax policy that have been so successful in having our economy grow the way it has. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support a congressional program that builds character and fosters community service, personal development and citizenship in young Americans--the Congressional Award program. Established in 1979, the Congressional Award is the highest honor Congress bestows upon young people.

Any interested, motivated youth age 14 to 23 may participate. The Congressional Award adapts to meet the needs of each participant. Students set goals according to their own interests and level of abilities. Congressional award recipients represent the best of America. They are required to have committed to bettering themselves and to giving back to the communities in which they reside. It is the making of fulfilling of that commitment that makes these young people so extraordinary.

Over 650 young people in Mississippi are actively pursuing a Congressional Award. Many of these participants are currently involved with Hurricane Katrina relief efforts as a part of their volunteer service commitment. Last year 15 Mississippi youths earned the Congressional Award Gold Medal by serving over 400 hours of volunteer community service and 200 hours each in personal development and physical fitness.

2005 Gold Medal recipient William Fleming of Vardaman, MS, says this of his experience: ``I gained a renewed sense of accomplishment and self worth that cannot be replaced. I got all of this from the activities that I completed in the Congressional Award program.''

Participation in this program is growing rapidly. Over 2,700 Congressional awards were earned in fiscal year 2005--an increase of 100 percent from just 5 years ago. On June 22, 2005, Members of Congress presented 242 young people with Gold Medals--our highest number to date. In 2006, that number will most likely exceed 300. As a long time supporter of the Congressional Award, I encourage my fellow colleagues to reauthorize this outstanding program.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. James A. Boyd of Columbus, Mississippi, on the occasion of his 40th anniversary as pastor at Zion Gate Missionary Baptist Church. I want to join with the congregation, his family, and friends in offering congratulations on this special recognition.

Dr. Boyd's dynamic presence in the pulpit and his leadership abilities have given him the opportunity to travel far and wide in service to God and country. He entered the ministry in 1965 when he became pastor of Zion Gate and El Bethel Missionary Baptist Churches in Columbus. He also taught English in the Columbus School System before choosing to become the fulltime pastor at Zion Gate in 1970.

Over the past four decades, Dr. Boyd has played leadership roles in countless organizations and served as evangelist for revivals, seminars, and conferences all across the nation. He is currently serving as president of the Northeast Mississippi Baptist State Convention, Inc., and is a board member of the National Baptist Convention USA, Inc. He is Trustee/Chairman of the Ministerial Institute and College, Homiletic instructor at the college, and lecturer for the Mt. Olivet District Association.

Dr. Boyd is a native of Oktibbeha County, Mississippi, and graduated from Oktibbeha Training School before earning a bachelor's degree from Stillman College in 1964. He also attended Iowa State University and Mississippi State University. He received a doctorate of ministry at San Francisco Theological Seminary in San Anselmo, California. He also received a doctorate of divinity from Mary Holmes College in West Point, Mississippi, in 2002.

Dr. Boyd is married to the former Kathrene Peterson, and they have two daughters and three grandsons.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. James Boyd for his lifetime of service to God and country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have allotted, I want to talk about one of the important reasons why this bill needs to be enacted, and that is with regard to the reforms we have in Medicaid.

Currently, Medicaid provides medical care for 53 million Americans at a cost exceeding $300 billion each year. It is a great program; but Medicaid is already the biggest item in many State budgets, exceeding elementary and secondary education combined. If unreformed, Medicaid will bankrupt every State in as little as 20 years, absorbing 80 to 100 percent of all State dollars.

Because of these stark realities, the bipartisan National Governors Association has stated that serious Medicaid reforms are needed. The Deficit Reduction Act, which we vote on tonight, takes an important step in that direction by slowing the rate of growth in this valuable program.

Currently, Medicaid grows at a rate of 7.7 percent per year, as indicated by this chart, making it one of the fastest growing programs in the government. The plan included in this legislation tonight reduces the Medicaid rate of growth over the next 10 years from 7.7 percent a year to 7.5 percent annual growth rate. While this is a very small change, the bill includes necessary reforms to address the problem before it is too late.

The plan provides greater flexibility for our States and its governors. Under the current program, governors cannot tailor Medicaid benefits to meet the needs of the people. Under the new plan, they can.

The most irresponsible thing we can do at this time, Mr. Speaker, is to do nothing. I urge the Members to vote for this bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.

Madam Speaker, forces have been marshaled from across the Nation and, indeed, from around the globe to assist in the relief and recovery from Hurricane Katrina. But the biggest asset in

this effort is not the Federal Government; it is the generosity of our fellow citizens. From the corner lemonade stands to the corporate board rooms, people are opening their hearts, homes, churches, and their pocketbooks to assist in the relief efforts. Donations continue to pour in to countless nongovernmental organizations and to the faith community as we begin to take stock in the breadth of Katrina's destruction.

According to the 2004 generosity index, based on IRS statistics, Mississippi is the most charitable State in the country. Now we find ourselves in need of charity. It is something we take great pride in back home, that we are the leader in generosity; and with that in mind, I am thankful to see that the provisions of H.R. 3724, the charitable donation legislation I introduced last week, have been included in the relief package.

Under current law, the amount of individual or corporate deductions is now capped. This bill includes provisions to lift those caps for Katrina-related donations. In doing so, we are unleashing the awesome power of the American public and our capacity to care for our own.

This past weekend, I was part of a caravan of trucks and vans loaded with supplies from north Mississippi to several churches in the ravaged portions of my State. While I saw the pain on the faces of those who had lost so much, I also saw a determination that is strong among our people. We are already working hard on recovery and rebuilding, spurred on by the compassion and generosity of so many Americans. This bill will help provide individuals affected by this tragedy with the charitable assistance they need.