Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the content of this amendment

should be a part of the debate that we are having on every agency that we are going to fund this year through the Federal budget. Over the last generation, this government has made this country less and less competitive through the regulatory process.

If you look to last year, last year we had a $670 billion trade deficit. Our Federal budget deficit grew and we saw a lot of outsourcing of jobs. Well, if you combine that with what we are seeing happen across the world, pointed out by Thomas Friedman in his book ``The World is Flat,'' China is graduating 350,000 engineers every year. India is graduating 80,000 software engineers. They are attempting to create an Asian Union, which would be an economy of about 3 billion people.

The world is becoming more and more competitive, and part of the reason that we are becoming less and less competitive, part of the reason why we are seeing this trade deficit is because of our regulatory process. But it just does not stop there. We also have problems with litigation, and we need to reform our system because right now the lawsuits are driving up the cost of American products. A good example of how this could change is when common sense limits are put on litigation, such as the statute of repose, where the aircraft industry accepted through the legislation common sense limits on liability and 4,000 jobs were created the very next year. We could apply that to other industries.

Our health care system needs to be reformed. Today, in Kansas, for every hour of health care it takes an hour to comply with regulations, actually, more than an hour, 1.1 hours, on average, of regulatory compliance.

We need to reform our tax policy, our education policy, and our trade policy. We need to have research and development enhancements and we need regulatory reform. Regulatory reform can be a biting part of our government that can stop and stall the economic progress.

If you look at the current regulatory burden on businesses today, about 12 percent of the cost of any product is buried in complying with regulations. If we could cut that in half, we would be at least 5 to 6 percent more competitive worldwide.

So if we are going to find solutions to balancing our trade deficit, to balancing our Federal budget, and to start bringing jobs into America instead of seeing them outsourced out of America, we need to look at every agency and not promulgate regulations that conflict with the competitiveness of American businesses.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to see if the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee thinks we could work together to see that we do not get regulations that would be overly burdensome on American businesses through the Department of Homeland Security. Does the gentleman think he could help me with that task?

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for those good words and, hopefully, through the effort of our combined work we can make sure we do not have any overly burdensome regulations.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Yogi Berra said that predictions are hard to make, especially when they are about the future. But that does not mean we should not look ahead. In fact, if you do sit down and think about what America is going to be like 5, 10, 20 years from now and how our economy is going to be in relationship to the rest of the world, I think we should all be very concerned.

Right now, China is in the beginning stages of trying to start an Asian Union, much like the European Union,

where the yuan is the euro or the monetary means. They are trying to combine the people in Southeast Asia, which could make an economy of about 3 billion people. The European Union is now absorbing new European countries, plus they have a natural bond to the Islamic world based on their current immigration trends, and they could easily develop an economy of 1 billion people.

So if you look downstream, the very likely position for our economy could be third place, unless, unless, we change the environment here in America.

Last year we had a trade deficit of $671 billion and a Federal deficit. If we are going to bring jobs back to America, we have to change the environment by making our country more competitive.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 81, expressing the sense of Congress regarding the two-year anniversary of the human rights crackdown in Cuba.

The people of Cuba have suffered under the authoritarian dictatorship of Fidel Castro for more than 45 years. Rather than allowing Cubans to thrive and live prosperous lives, the Castro regime has instead created a legacy of suppression, harm and failure. Cubans are ready for freedom, but their government does not want them to have even a taste.

Freedom-loving countries widely recognize that human rights violations against innocent Cubans are a sign Castro is afraid. Whether it is fear that Cubans will love freedom more than socialism, fear that a faltering economy will lead to more unrest, or fear of political opposition, it is clear Castro's government is a regime of fear. Rather than securing rights for the good of the people, Fidel Castro has imprisoned those who have spoken against human rights violations and other injustices within Cuba.

I hope with the passage of this resolution we will again unite our voices with those who dream of a free Cuba and join with those whose voices have been silenced by a repressive government.

In March 2003 Castro arrested 75 people who were bold enough to speak out against harmful policies of the government. Men and women whose occupations included librarians, union organizers and civic leaders were charged with innocuous crimes and sentenced to long prison terms. While a few of those arrested have been conditionally released, most of these voices of freedom remain behind bars.

Ignoring international condemnation for its actions, the Cuban government continues down its path of suppression.

However, as history has shown, when one group of voices are silenced, other voices will fill the void and cry out. The yearning for freedom within the human spirit can be suppressed, but it cannot be extinguished.

One Cuban group speaking on behalf of Castro's political prisoners are the mothers, daughters, wives and sisters of those arrested more than two years ago. Every Sunday for the past two years, a band of 30 women, called the Women in White, attend mass at Santa Rita Catholic Church before proceeding down a sidewalk on a silent protest. Even after intimidation from Castro's thugs, this little band of women are determined to peacefully expose the injustice of what is happening to their relatives. I hope the Women in White, along with thousands of other Cubans, will have the strength to continue fighting for the right to live in freedom.

I urge my colleagues to join me today in voting for H. Con. Res. 81 and send a strong message that the American people stand in solidarity with all freedom-loving Cubans.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This comprehensive energy bill is a bipartisan effort to bring lower energy prices to consumers while spurring our economy toward growth for the future. Hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, energy conservation will be promoted and our environment will be cleaner as a result of the policies in this bill.

House Republicans have a track record of passing energy legislation in both the 107th Congress and the 108th Congress. But we were unfortunately not able to get a bill to the President due to unwillingness by Senate Democrats.

I am hopeful this year will be different and that Congress will finally pass an energy policy that will take our country forward. I know Kansans in my district are tired of paying high prices for gasoline, and they want a good energy bill passed soon. The longer we wait to pass a national energy plan, the longer it will take to counter rising energy costs. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is a huge step in the right direction and will help both the public and private sector address our energy needs for years to come.

H.R. 6 promotes clean coal technology and provides incentives for renewable energies such as ethanol, biomass, wind, solar and hydroelectricity.

I am very pleased H.R. 6 includes a Renewable Fuels Standard that will help introduce up to five billion gallons a year by 2012. The more ethanol and biodiesel is used by drivers across America, the cleaner our air will be. Plus, we will be providing America's farming communities with alternative income opportunities for commodities such as corn and soybeans.

I have spoken to numerous Kansas farmers who say over and over again that the ethanol provisions contained in the energy bill are good for our struggling rural communities. Many counties and small towns in Kansas have faced years of declining populations. Whenever we can provide increased economic opportunities for rural communities while providing for our nation's energy needs, we create a win-win situation.

Another promising renewable energy source is wind energy. There are plenty of places in the great State of Kansas where landowners are eager and willing to work with private investors to capture this abundant natural resource and turn it into usable energy. Anyone who has visited our State will know we have plenty of wind. By reauthorizing the Renewable Energy Production Incentive program to provide renewable energy production incentives for wind, we are giving landowners and businesses the assistance needed to tap into this underutilized energy source.

This legislation also establishes a Department of Energy rebate program for renewable energy systems installed in homes or small businesses. And the Federal Government is directed to use more renewable energy in future years with a goal of using 7.5 percent or more by 2013.

By promoting forms of renewable energy, we are helping move our country toward a more sustainable energy future.

In addition to promoting renewable energy sources and looking toward the future, this energy bill also addresses the realities of our energy needs today. Americans everywhere are frustrated with high gasoline prices. One of the contributing factors to high fuel prices is the fact that the United States has not built a large-scale refinery in over 20 years. And since 1981, half of the refineries have been shut down. When we not only cease building new refineries, but we reduce the number of facilities needed to produce fuel, it is no wonder gasoline prices continue to steadily rise.

H.R. 6 helps address rising fuel costs by providing an accelerated review and approval process for new refinery facilities in a refinery revitalization zone. The energy bill designates certain areas as refinery revitalization zones based on a region's previous refining or manufacturing experience and current unemployment rate.

The United States depends on foreign sources of oil for 62 percent of our Nation's supply, and that percentage is projected to increase to 75 percent within 5 years. Not only is our demand for oil rising, but global crude oil demand is increasing, particularly in countries like China. We must take action to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

This energy bill has several provisions that help us do just that. It expands our domestic supply by increasing domestic oil and gas exploration and development on non-park Federal lands. And by requiring five billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2012, we will save 1.6 billion barrels of oil by 2012.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 promotes a cleaner environment by encouraging new innovations and the use of alternative power sources by launching a state-of-the-art program to enable hydrogen fuel cell cars to compete in the marketplace by 2020. This is just one example of how we are encouraging ideas to move from conception to application in the marketplace.

H.R. 6 requires the Department of Energy to develop a plan outlining technical milestones as well as technical and non-technical hurdles to hydrogen vehicles and their associated infrastructure. The hydrogen program is to be conducted as a partnership between public and private enterprises to address the production of hydrogen from diverse sources.

Hydrogen can be produced from fossil fuels, hydrogen-carrier fuels and renewable energy resources, including biomass and nuclear energy. The program also addresses pipeline hydrogen transmission, convenient refueling, advanced vehicle technologies, hydrogen storage and the development of necessary codes and standards.

The legislation authorizes $200 million for the ``Clean Cities'' program, which will provide grants to state and local governments to acquire alternative fueled vehicles.

H.R. 6 will improve our Nation's electricity transmission capacity and reliability. By providing for expedited siting processes on both Federal and private lands, transmission lines will be able to be more efficiently and quickly placed so power can be transmitted across the country. The bill also greatly improves the operation and reliability of electric transmission networks by providing for open access to transmission lines not previously subject to the same open access requirements. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is directed to do an incentive rate rulemaking and to provide for participant funding.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 promotes investment in the electric sector by repealing existing Public Utility Holding Company Act requirements and replacing them with authority for Federal and State regulators to examine relevant books and records.

H.R. 6 promotes more natural gas exploration. Many Kansans rely on natural gas to fuel stoves, furnaces, water heaters, clothes dryers and even backyard barbeques. Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, resulting in approximately 50 percent less carbon dioxide than coal and a third less carbon dioxide than oil. But those who rely on this energy source have seen their bills skyrocket.

Provisions in H.R. 6 allow for more natural gas exploration and development by providing royalty relief for deep and ultra-deep gas wells in the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Improved access to North America's abundant

natural gas resources will help reduce high utility bills, create jobs and provide more than $500 million of increased revenues for the U.S. economy.

Businesses depend on natural gas to produce steel, glass, paper, clothing, aluminum, brick and most importantly, electricity. Even farmers rely on it to produce fertilizer needed for the crops that ultimately become food on our tables. And cities rely on natural gas to comply with tough air quality standards.

H.R. 6 also extends daylight savings time by two months. This extension will reduce energy consumption by the equivalent of 100,000 barrels of oil each day. Studies indicate the proposal to adopt extended daylight savings time from the first Sunday in March to the last Sunday in November will lower crime and traffic fatalities. This provision will also give families more daylight hours to enjoy outdoor recreation and opportunity for increased economic activity.

If America wants to be more competitive globally, we must pass a comprehensive energy bill that allows businesses to operate with sustainable, low-cost forms of energy. H.R. 6 moves us in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to help make America more competitive by voting for the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

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

Some people may say the majority party is in full retreat, that we were wrong in processing substance with the new rules. Well, that is incorrect. The new rules were fair and just, and according to the rules of the House, were passed by a majority vote.

Where the fault lies is with those who use the ethics rules for pure political attacks, those who use the failure to act as an attack against one Member. The opposition claims these existing rules are unethical. That is also incorrect. What is unethical is to unjustly smear someone in order to destroy their character.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is the attempt here, to unfairly attack one Member and use the House rules to do so. I admire the efforts of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) because I think the gentleman has gone above and beyond the call of duty to go back to the previous set of rules so we can move the process forward and continue the hard work, the successful work of the Republican-controlled House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. I believe passage of this important bill is long overdue, and I congratulate Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Oxley for their leadership over the past several years in crafting meaningful bankruptcy reform.

The bill we are voting on today will help foster greater personal responsibility and make it more difficult for those who use bankruptcy as a tool for fraud to cheat their way out of debt.

Bankruptcy filings have escalated in recent years, which have had negative consequences on our economy. Yet, numerous studies have shown many bankruptcy debtors are able to repay a significant portion of their debts. If this alarming trend continues, all Americans will pay the price in the form of higher costs for goods, services and credit. These higher costs not only harm consumers, it also stymies growth for businesses.

By addressing bankruptcy abuses, S. 256 will play a role in creating a better environment to conduct business in America, which means more jobs for those who need them.

Some have expressed concerns S. 256 will limit people from filing under Chapter 7. However, estimates show only a small percent of Chapter 7 bankruptcy filers would have their petitions dismissed or forced into Chapter 13 or Chapter 11 bankruptcy. One study cited by the Committee on the Judiciary suggests as few as 3.6 percent of Chapter 7 filers would be moved into repayment plans under the new means test.

I recognize there are cases where families and individuals need to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy for very legitimate reasons. Sometimes hardships and unforeseen circumstances happen in life, and bankruptcy is a needed last option to help families survive.

However, the United States cannot afford to continue down the path where high consumer debt is routinely directed toward bankruptcy as a first stop rather than a last resort. I am pleased S. 256 addresses common bankruptcy abuses while continuing to offer Americans who need to file for bankruptcy the means to do so.

The consumer bankruptcy provisions of S. 256 address the needs of both creditors and debtors. With respect to the interests of creditors, this legislation responds to many factors that have contributed to the increase in consumer bankruptcy filings, such as lack of personal financial accountability.

The bill provides many debtor protections such as provisions allowing debtors to exempt certain education IRA plans, fortifying exemptions for certain retirement pension funds, and enhancing the professionalism standards for attorneys and others who assist consumer debtors with their bankruptcy cases.

S. 256 ensures debtors receive notice of alternatives to bankruptcy relief, requires debtors to participate in debt repayment programs, and institutes a pilot program to study the effectiveness of consumer financial management programs.

I am also pleased S. 256 contains several provisions that will help make American businesses more competitive. By cracking down on bankruptcy abuse, we eliminate another obstacle small businesses face as they compete in the global marketplace.

Currently, a business can be sued by a bankruptcy trustee and forced to pay back money previously paid to it by a firm that later filed for bankruptcy protection. Under the reforms of S. 256, small businesses will have an easier time successfully defending against these suits.

The reforms will promote greater certainty in the financial market place as well. S. 256 reduces systemic risk in the banking system and financial marketplace by minimizing the risk of disruption when parties to certain financial transactions become bankrupt or insolvent.

S. 256 addresses the special problems presented by small business debtors by instituting firm deadlines and enforcement mechanisms to weed out those debtors who are not likely to reorganize. It also requires the court and other designated entities to monitor these cases more actively.

Under the current law, nearly every item of information supplied by a debtor in connection with his or her bankruptcy case is made available to the public. S. 256 prohibits the disclosure of the names of the debtor's minor children and requires such information to be kept in a nonpublic record, which can be made available for inspection only by the court and certain other designated entities. In addition, if a business debtor had a policy prohibiting it from selling ``personally identifiable information'' about its customers and the policy was in effect at the time of the bankruptcy filing, then the sale of such information is prohibited unless certain conditions are satisfied.

These are just a few of the several provisions that make this bill good for American consumers and businesses. I urge my colleagues to join me today in voting for S. 256 so we can limit abuses within our bankruptcy system and promote a stronger America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005. This bill would put an end to the estate tax, commonly referred to as the death tax.

My only disappointment in voting to eliminate the death tax this year is that we must again wait for the Senate to follow suit. The House has already voted to permanently repeal this tax in both the 107th Congress and the 108th Congress. Unfortunately, the Senate has not been able to pass this permanent repeal.

I am very pleased, however, that the House has once again listened to the people and will try to nail the coffin shut on the death tax. Asking families to pay taxes on what is left behind when a loved one dies is simply not the right way for a government to collect taxes.

Throughout our history, Americans have worked vigorously to achieve great success despite extraordinary hardships. Farmers have tilled the earth, inventors have exercised their ingenuity, builders have constructed, entrepreneurs have established businesses, and in the process of becoming successful, wealth is created. When a person successfully pursues a dream and wisely manages resources over a lifetime, the federal government should not reward those accomplishments by seizing a significant portion of what he intended to pass along to the family.

As is often the case, family farmers or small business owners make plans to pass the family business to their children after they die. Unfortunately, due to burdensome death taxes, there are countless examples of families who have been forced to sell the business or purchase it back from the government.

As a result, a business that has been in a family for generations can be lost overnight because of the enormous burden of the death tax. And when a business leaves its family roots, there can be a loss of pride in the fundamental traditions that helped make the business successful. This is not the legacy parents want to leave their children and grandchildren.

Aside from the harmful effects the death tax has on family small businesses, there is an inherent injustice in re-taxing assets. Because taxes have already been paid on accumulated gains over a lifetime, the death tax constitutes a double taxation. Re-taxing a person's assets when they die is equivalent to purchasing from the government what already belongs to a family.

Resources that otherwise would have been utilized to hire more employees or invest in capital are underused when families are forced to make alternative plans for dealing with the death tax. This results in fewer jobs and a less robust economy.

According to the Joint Economic Committee, the death tax results in a reduction of stock in the economy by nearly $500 billion. When businesses cease to grow efficiently, fewer jobs are made available to the unemployed.

South-central Kansas has experienced several years of high unemployment following the economic downturn after 9/11. We must do all we can to help bring jobs back to those who need them. Permanently eliminating the death tax is one way we can help the economy fully rebound, which means more high-quality, high-paying jobs for Americans.

Because small businesses are so important in providing jobs for Americans, the death tax is a tax on jobs. Small, family-owned businesses are especially vulnerable to the death tax because most small-business owners have the entire value of their business in their estate.

According to one study, more than 70 percent of family businesses do not survive the second generation, and 87 percent do not make it to the third generation. The threat of the death tax forces small-business owners to pay for expensive ``estate planning'' just to keep the business in the family. Instead of helping families maintain and grow their small businesses, the Federal Government will be able to seize about half the business unless the death tax is repealed.

I urge my colleagues to join me today in once again voting to end this tax that has caused so much harm to so many American families.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in rising to honor the life and achievements of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, and to express profound sorrow on his death. This week is bittersweet for people of faith throughout the world. We mourn the loss of a great leader and a man respected by people of many different faiths, yet we also celebrate his life and rejoice that he is now enjoying his eternal reward.

From the selection of the first Polish Pope and the first non-Italian Pope in over 400 years, Pope John Paul II's leadership of the Catholic Church was truly historic. Rightfully credited with helping bring about the end of communism, he also maintained a voice of morality during a time of overwhelming secularization of the West. The Pope was a stalwart in the fight against what he termed a ``culture of death.'' He was unrelenting in his promotion of a culture of life.

Many talk of the Pope's legacy and presumed sainthood, but it seems the only legacy Pope John Paul II ever desired was a world of hope that celebrates life.

Our great 40th President, Ronald Reagan, is credited with restoring optimism to Americans, but even before Reagan, Pope John Paul II began his mission to restore hope to a pessimistic world. In carrying his message, Pope John Paul II tirelessly traveled all ends of the globe as no Pope and no leader has done before. Even as he was in great physical pain, he did not stop visiting people of all ethnicities, cultures and faiths to bring Christ's message.

Pope John Paul II inspired even the most cynical demographic of the human population, young adults. The Pope's message to the students of freedom and faith led to the success of Solidarity. In later years, the annual World Youth Days were filled with students eager to hear the Pope's message of faith and hope. The Pope challenged them to a life of service in all walks of life. He said, ``Jesus, Servant and Lord, is also the one who calls. He calls us to be like him because only in service do human beings discover their own dignity and the dignity of others.''

Mr. Speaker, the young people touched by Pope John Paul II will continue to carry out his work as they come to shape the world in coming years. It is fitting that Pope John Paul II was carried back home to the Lord

on the vigil of Divine Mercy Sunday, a feast day he instituted. His last message to the world, which was read posthumously, should be repeated often across the globe: ``To humanity, which at times seems to be lost and dominated by the power of evil, egoism and fear, the risen Lord offers as a gift his love that forgives, reconciles and reopens the spirit to hope. It is love that converts hearts and gives peace. How much need the world has to understand and accept Divine Mercy.''

Mr. Speaker, we pray that John Paul II's message will be burned in our hearts and guide us through the current and future world challenges. We also pray for the repose of his soul and are delighted that he is in the company of the Lord he dutifully served his 84 years on Earth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our nation's great manufacturing base. My colleague Rep. Gillmor introduced important legislation, H. Res. 16, to support National Manufacturing Week, congratulate manufacturers and their employees for their contributions growth and innovation, and recognize the challenges facing the manufacturing sector. I join him in applauding America's manufacturers.

I especially want to highlight aviation manufacturing, the manufacturing sector predominant in my district, where Wichita is known as the Air Capital of the World. Wichita is home to 4 major aircraft manufacturers, numerous suppliers and other support industries. I am very proud of all the men and women today and in years past who have brought that distinction to our great city.

According to the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, General Aviation manufacturing contributed over $6 billion to the U.S. economy in 2004, exporting nearly $1.5 billion. Approximately 80 percent of the world's GA aircraft is manufactured in the United States. The total U.S. aerospace manufacturing industry exports $58.5 billion in products--the largest net export segment of all U.S. industry.

General Aviation Manufacturers directly employ nearly 169,000 workers around the country. Aircraft manufacturing workers are the highest- paid, highest-skilled workers in the manufacturing sector. They earn an average wage of $47,700 annually--35 percent more than the U.S. average.

In addition, for every aviation manufacturing job created in the U.S., three additional jobs are created in other industries. In 2002, the last year for which we have complete numbers, the total impact of civil aviation on the U.S. economy exceeded $900 billion and 11 million jobs. This amounts to 9 percent of the U.S. GDP. General Aviation contributes approximately $102 billion (or 12 percent of the total civil aviation contribution) and 1.3 million jobs.

General Aviation manufacturers make aircraft for fire-fighting, law enforcement, scientific research, search and rescue, and agriculture. Currently General Aviation and aerospace employees are working on the future of flight: advances in propulsion, including quiet supersonic flight, new energy sources including hydrogen, and integrating satellite technology for navigational and safe flight purposes.

Manufacturing employees across America are building our future as I speak. I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding their hard work, and to commit to ensuring that our manufacturing base thrives for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 18, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for President Bush's decision to seek a ruling from the World Trade Organization regarding the legality of subsidies to Airbus SAS from various European governments, as well as his decision to withdraw from the 1992 agreement in which the United States agreed to allow a reasonable amount of these subsidies.

Twelve years later it is clear that this aid, particularly launch assistance, has done tremendous harm to fair and open competition in the large aircraft marketplace.

It is unfortunate that this pact withdrawal and appeal to the WTO was necessary. However, our friends and allies across the Atlantic chose not to recognize that Airbus SAS is now a profitable company and that they no longer need this overly generous government assistance.

Mr. Speaker, this is a step towards creating a level playing field for America's workers in the aviation manufacturing industry.

I commend the President for taking this important step and I look forward to this Congress continuing to work with the administration to ensure that the men and women of our aircraft manufacturing workforce-- the finest in the world--are able to continue to compete in the global market.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 106 offered by Representative Marilyn Musgrave.

The resolution, if passed by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate, and if ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, would amend the United States Constitution with the following language:

``Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.''

This nation once again finds itself wresting with monumental social questions of family. The way in which we choose to answer these questions will have far-reaching consequences upon ourselves and our descendants.

Throughout recorded history, civilizations have existed and perpetuated themselves with basic principles of social structure. Some cultures have emphasized different principles such as community responsibility while others have emphasized individual responsibility. But all civil peoples have survived and prospered only where raising children was ideally the responsibility of their mother and father.

Over the past century we have seen many changes in American culture. We have witnessed an explosion of new travel opportunities, access to information and advances in medicine. Certainly social norms have shifted. We have made progress, in the truest sense, such as recognizing the fundamental human rights of all people no matter their color or creed. And we have also made egregious regressions such as legalizing the aborting of unborn children. Even in this advanced age, we must continue to wage battles against injustices.

But with all the change the United States has undergone and will continue to undergo-- there will always remain the goal to ensure that our children are able to perpetuate life and all things good. Any changes we allow to happen and support through legislation that affects this goal should be scrupulously considered.

The resolution before the House today seeks to articulate what constitutes a marriage--not because we have some new definition, but because a small number of judicial activists and social re-engineers are seeking to impose a new definition and experiment with the structure in which children are encouraged to be raised. If we do nothing and allow the courts to re-define marriage, State and Federal governments will soon have little or no authority to ultimately restrain any imaginable form of marital contract between couples and groups of people and even animals.

It is no secret marriage has been under assault in recent decades. With rising occurrences of extra-marital affairs, divorce, spousal abuse and teenage mothers becoming more commonplace among our population, many wonder why marriage is worth preserving at all. But just because the institution of marriage has experienced turbulent times is no reason to give up on it as the ideal for which we should strive.

I want to emphasize that millions of single moms and dads across this country are struggling to do what is right for their children. They love their children and want them to do well and succeed and someday have an opportunity to have a healthy family of their own. As we debate how to best help sustain the institution of marriage, we should acknowledge that these parents are doing a terrific job raising their children to the best of their ability. They should be commended, especially the single moms who probably have the toughest job in America.

While recognizing the honorable single moms and dads, we should also work to help reduce the number instances where children grow up in homes without both their mother and father as a part of the family.

As a representative to the United States Congress on behalf of the people from the Fourth Congressional District of Kansas, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The preamble to that great document states that two of the Constitution's purposes are to ``promote the general Welfare'' and ``secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.'' I consider how we raise our children and with whom that responsibility lies to be among the most crucial decisions we face in promoting the general well-being of all Americans and our descendants.

As the government seeks to provide for the general welfare of its citizens, I believe it should promote that which provides the maximum protection for our youngest generation. A child is best nurtured and protected when both the mother and father are sharing the responsibility of raising the child.

While not everyone who enters into marriage desires children or is able to have children, the context of their marriage is an example of how a man and a woman should live together in a way where children could be raised and cared for. We all know kids are observant and curious, and they watch how friends, neighbors and relatives live. And most children grow up mimicking the behaviors observed from adults.

So while two people of the same sex may express love for one another, it does not mean that the State has an obligation or duty to grant them marital status. Marriage is a privilege the State should protect, but it is not a right for same-sex partners, multiple partners, or any configuration of people and animals that express love for one another.

Fighting to protect marriage in America will likely be a very long and difficult process, but so is the struggle for a lot of worthy things in this country. Women fought for decades before they were finally allowed to vote. The struggle for slaves to become free and ultimately to have their full civil rights recognized was a terribly long process. But we must not give up. It is my hope that more and more Americans will realize the significance this issue has for all for us as Americans. I hope that as the debate continues on the issue of marriage we will have a growing concern for who this affects most: our children.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 528 I was unavoidably delayed. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, in July, the 9/11 Commission released its report. This report detailed the terrorist mindset, the hatred, the religious fanaticism, the unimaginable degree of commitment to harm us and destroy our culture. Today we are considering legislation based on the 9/11 Commission's recommendations that is making the most sweeping changes since the CIA was created more than 50 years ago. I believe the most important part of the bill is the creation of a national intelligence director for intelligence community management, which will unite the intelligence community, leaving the day-to-day duties of running individual agencies to their directors.

This legislation mandates a network designed to share information across agencies and promote the distribution of information. The legislation will also reduce the barriers of our domestic law enforcement and forward intelligence activities by creating a National Counterterrorism Center.

This bill has the strong support of all of the committees of jurisdictions, so I ask my fellow Members to give it their full support. September 11 showed us the danger of Islamic terrorism. It also taught us the deficiencies of our own system. It is important, as Members of Congress, we do not let it happen again, and for that reason I urge that we pass this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 10--the 9/ 11 Recommendations Implementation Act.

On September 11, 2001, life in America was irreversibly changed. That day we were quickly drawn into a war to confront a threat we did not fully understand.

In July, after months of hearings and research, the 9-11 Commission released its report on the events leading up to, including, and following that infamous day. The report laid it all out in a straightforward manner that the public easily understand. I don't think any government publication has ever landed on the bestseller list, which speaks not only to the Commission's work but also the level of commitment of Americans to understanding and stemming terrorist activity. I'd like to thank the Commission for their work and also the families of the victims for their unwavering commitment to improving national security.

The 9-11 Commission report detailed the terrorist mindset; the hatred, the religious fanaticism, the unimaginable degree of commitment to do us harm and destroy our culture. Osama bin Ladin's Letter to America of November 24, 2002 states that the Islamic nation ``desires death more than you [America] desire life.''

The 9-11 report tells us that: ``Plans to attack the United States were developed with unwavering single-mindedness throughout the 1990s. Bin Ladin saw himself as called to . . . serve as the rallying point and organizer of a new kind of war to destroy America and bring the world to Islam.''

We are fighting a war like this country has never seen. A war against an enemy that doesn't value life, that does not in their own words ``differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians; they are all targets in this fatwa.'' This makes our job to literally protect our way of life much harder.

Today we are considering legislation that addresses the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. It proposes the most sweeping changes to our national security apparatus since the CIA was created more than 50 years ago. Most importantly, we are creating a position, the National Intelligence Director, that will have broad authority over the entire intelligence community. Divisions and tensions between the different intelligence agencies have hampered our ability to effectively target al Qaeda. This legislation will provide the authority necessary to unite the intelligence community and address problems before they materialize.

The new National Intelligence Director will have enhanced budgetary and personnel authority over the elements of the intelligence community--and will dedicate his full attention to the job of intelligence community management. This will leave the day to day duties of running intelligence agencies to their directors.

The 9-11 Commission identified deficiencies in the ability to share information that is essential to preventing future terrorist activities--and we are fixing that.

This legislation mandates the National Intelligence Director to create a network designed to share information across agencies and break down the barriers. There will be uniform security policies that will promote sharing information rather than hoarding it for one agency's use.

This legislation will also reduce the barriers between our domestic law enforcement activities and our foreign intelligence activities by creating a National Counter Terrorism Center.

There are many additional provisions in this act that will strengthen our capability to protect Americans at home and abroad.

This bill has the strong support of all the committees of jurisdiction.

So, I ask my fellow Members to give it their full support.

If Osama bin Ladin was here today, he would surely oppose it. For a divided intelligence community, and a divided America would allow him to operate more freely in carrying out his war against our culture and our people.

September 11, 2001 showed us in the danger of Islamic terrorism. It also taught us that deficiencies in our own system made it possible for terrorists to operate right under our noses.

Our most important duty as Members of Congress is to protect our Nation from ever experiencing that lesson again. For that reason, we must pass this legislation and improve our intelligence capabilities.

Mr. Speaker, on September 28th, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 473. Rollcall vote No. 473 was Representative Pelosi's Motion to Instruct Conferees on the DOD Authorization Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the motion to instruct. I would ask that my statement appear in the appropriate location in the Congressional Record.