Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, September 16, Texas and the Nation lost a patriot and a true public servant, Mr. Ted C. Connell. My friend, our Nation's friend, passed away at his home in Killeen, Texas, after a courageous battle with cancer. Ted Connell lived a life of service to others and to his beloved country. He was a World War II combat veteran, was elected Commander- in-Chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. He was a great friend of my political mentor, former Congressman Olin E. (Tiger) Teague, and he was a friend of President Lyndon Johnson and the Johnson family. Ted Connell was born in 1924 in the small town of Hamlin, Texas, the fifth of ten sons. He dropped out of high school, but finished his diploma while serving in the U.S. Army field artillery on the island of Guam during World War II. During his 30-month tour in the South Pacific with the 316th Tank Destroyer Battalion of the 98th Division, he also fought in Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa. He eventually rose to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Reserve. While on Okinawa, in one of the bloodiest battles of the war, Ted Connell rescued a young Marine who had been shot in the chest. He sat with his mortally wounded comrade for 3 hours, comforting him in the last moments of his life. When Ted returned to the United States, he traveled to the Marine's hometown in Colorado to tell his parents in person about their son's death. That mission of comfort and solace opened a new chapter of service in Ted Connell's life. The Marine's father was heavily involved in veteran's affairs, and encouraged Ted, young Ted Connell, to do likewise. He did just that, becoming active in his local VFW post, and rising to the leadership at the State and national levels, culminating with his election as national Commander-in-Chief of the VFW in 1960. Ted Connell was a friend and confidante of President Lyndon Johnson, coordinating and advancing Presidential visits to Guam, Uruguay, Central America, South Vietnam, Australia, and Pakistan, and serving as an on-scene coordinator for a meeting with Pope Paul VI with the Vatican. He served on several congressional and Presidential fact-finding missions, taking him to Vietnam five times, to Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, and Korea. Ted Connell also served the State of Texas with great distinction as a member of the Texas Veterans Land Board, chairman of the Texas Veterans Commission, and as a member of the Sam Rayburn Foundation. When his hometown of Killeen needed leadership, Ted Connell answered the call to duty once again, spearheading efforts to build the Lake Belton Dam, Central Texas College, and Metroplex Hospital, and to strengthen the U.S. Army's Fort Hood. He served two terms as mayor of Killeen, was director and president of the Killeen Chamber of Commerce, the Industrial Foundation, a director of the Metroplex Hospital, and chairman of the hospital's building fund campaign. Somewhere in all of this service to the public Ted Connell found time to operate his successful car dealership for 46 years, and to further leave his mark by bringing local airline service to his community. He opened an airline in 1965, eventually merging it with Hood Airlines and with Rio Airways. By 1974, Rio, serving small- and medium-sized cities in central, north, and south Texas, had become the seventh largest commuter airline in the country. Fittingly, the Killeen City Council recently named the new passenger terminal at the about-to-be-completed, over the next few years, Fort Hood-Killeen Joint-Use Airport in honor of this great veteran and community leader. Ted Connell fought for his Nation, Mr. Speaker, in time of war, and served his community and country in time of peace. His indomitable optimism and love of country were quintessential American values. He represented the special spirit that makes me optimistic about our Nation's future. As a businessman and community leader, Ted Connell worked tirelessly for jobs, prosperity, and opportunities for central Texans. His unparalleled record of public service and his enduring legacy to his community are matched only by his countless quiet acts of caring for those in need. All those who knew or were the beneficiaries of Ted Connell and his humanity were enriched by his life and are diminished by his passing. Winston Churchill once said, ``We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.'' By that high measure, Ted Connell's life was a true success. Mr. Speaker, if I could just finish with one story, at Ted Connell's funeral recently in Killeen, Texas, a friend of his, Gaylen Christy, told the story, in the last 2 years where he and Mr. Connell were sitting in a coffee shop, but this time Ted was a patient of chemotherapy. Rather than worrying about his own concerns, he heard a middle-aged couple at a table nearby talking about their problems. Their son had just been assigned to Fort Hood, but recently thereafter was asked to go to serve his Nation in Bosnia as a helicopter mechanic. Their problem was they did not know how to get their son's belongings to the airport in Austin to be freighted back to Pennsylvania to their home, and then to get their son's car back. Mr. Connell, having heard their concern over their son's matters, walked over to their table, gave them a card, and said, come talk to me at my car dealership and we will take care of your problem. He proceeded to provide a driver and a car to take that son's belongings to Austin, Texas, and then provided a driver to drive their son's car back to Pennsylvania, and paid for that driver to fly back to Texas. When Mr. Connell made this offer to this great family, they responded to him by saying, ``Sir, we don't know how we can pay you back.'' Ted Connell's answer was, ``You have already paid me back by raising a son who was willing to serve his Nation in uniform.'' That was the man, Ted Connell. Our Nation will forever remember and be better for his spirit and public service.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill, but it is an important first step toward protecting the viability of our Nation's air transportation system. For that important reason, I am going to support these rules and support this legislation today. But, Mr. Speaker, I also want to send a very clear message to the airlines that will receive these taxpayers' funds today. That is that those of us who represent hundreds of thousands of people from mid- sized cities and rural areas will be watching to see whether they take our Federal tax dollars in one hand and with the other hand cut off service to middle America. That should not happen, it cannot happen; and if it were to happen, I think when the second round of this airline support legislation inevitably comes back before this House, it would be very difficult to encourage and convince the taxpayers of middle America and rural America to continue supporting airline viability if there is no viability in rural areas because they have already cut off service. With that caveat, we will support this legislation, and hope Members on both sides of the aisle will do so, as well.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, with this vote of resolve and unity, we become stewards of the American values expressed so eloquently 40 years ago by a new President, John F. Kennedy, ``Let every Nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.'' Today a new President and a new generation are handed the torch of liberty that has been kept alight by the untold sacrifices of past generations of Americans. Those terrorists who now challenge the will and values of this generation of Americans will soon find out that the awesome power of our military might well be matched only by our tenacious national unity in defending Americans' life and liberty. In this vote and in our prayers, we in Congress speak for the American family, in strong support of our Commander in Chief and say, yes, we too will ``pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship,'' and ``oppose any foe'' to protect our land of liberty.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday our Nation was shocked by a despicable act of cowardice. Today, even as we grieve and pray for those killed, injured and missing, America will show the world that our national spirit cannot be broken by the acts of terrorists. In times of threat and tragedy, the American family has always come together, and we do so again today. With strong faith and resolve, we are already working together to help the victims and their families, to punish the guilty, and to move our Nation forward. Those who underestimated the American spirit should know that today our President and Congress are working in unity to carry out the business of our Nation and to hunt down the perpetrators of this attack against all of the American people. Once again, American military personnel have sacrificed their lives and service to our Nation. May our country honor them and the courageous rescue workers and all who have died with our prayers, our unity, and our firm commitment to protect Americans' freedom and security.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago when the Speaker of the House said this bill is not a new idea, the gentleman was absolutely correct. The idea of having tax dollars subsidize our churches and houses of worship was debated 200 years ago by our Founding Fathers. In answering that question, they felt so strongly about it that they not only put it into law, they embedded it into the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights, the proposition that religion in America is best served when we keep the hand of government regulation out of our houses of worship. When supporters of the bill today say we voted on funding of subsidizing religious discrimination in the past and we voted to directly fund churches in the past, they fail to point out that most of those debates were at 1:00 a.m. or 12:30 a.m. on the floor of the House with only two or three Members here on a 20-minute debate. I know because I have one of those three Members. Mr. Speaker, this bill was wrong at 1:00 a.m. in the morning, and it is wrong today. Direct funding of our churches was wrong 200 years ago, as evidenced by our Founding Fathers' writing of the Bill of Rights; and it is wrong today.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the question before this House is not whether faith is a powerful force; it is. The question is not whether faith-based groups do good works; they do. The question is not even whether government can assist faith-based groups in their social work; the government does, and has so for years without this bill. Mr. Speaker, rather, the vote on this bill boils down to two fundamental questions: First, do we want citizens' tax dollars funding directly our churches and houses of worship? Second, is it right to discriminate in job hiring when using tax dollars? By directly funding churches and houses of worship with tax dollars, this bill obliterates the Bill of Rights' wall of separation between church and State. As all of human history has proven, entanglement between government and religion will lead to less religious freedom and more religious strife. Government funding of our churches will absolutely lead to government regulation of our churches, and it will cause religious strife as thousands of churches compete for billions of dollars annually. Mr. Speaker, to my conservative colleagues I would say this: No one should be more concerned than true political conservatives about the idea of the long arm of the Federal Government and its regulations extending into our sacred houses of worship. I would challenge any Member of this House to show me one nation anywhere in the world that funds its churches and has more religious liberty, more religious vitality or tolerance than right here in the United States. Regarding the religious discrimination subsidized by this bill, I would say this: No American citizen, not one, should ever have to pass someone else's religious test in order to qualify for a federally funded job. Sadly, under this bill, a church or group associated with Bob Jones University could put out a sign that says, ``No Catholics Need Apply Here'' for a federally funded job. That is wrong. This bill is wrong for religion, it is wrong for our churches, and it is wrong for our Nation.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, as a person of faith, I believe in the power of faith to change lives, and I believe in the good work of faith-based groups. Yet today I join with over 1,000 religious leaders across America, and with civil rights groups, such as the NAACP, and educations groups, such as the National PTA and the National Association of School Administrators, who strongly oppose this bill. Mr. Speaker, when Members cast their vote on this bill today, I hope they will ask themselves two fundamental questions: one, should citizens' tax dollars be used to directly fund churches and houses of worship? And, two, is it right to discriminate in job hiring when using Federal dollars? I believe the answer to those two questions is no, and that is why I oppose this bill. Sending billions of tax dollars each year directly to churches is unconstitutional under the first amendment. It will lead to government regulation of our churches, which is exactly why our Founding Fathers rejected the idea of using tax dollars to fund our churches when they wrote the Bill of Rights. It would be a huge step backwards in our Nation's march for civil rights to allow groups to fire employees from federally funded jobs solely because of their religious faith. Having a religious test for tax-supported jobs is wrong. No American citizen, not one, should have to pass someone else's religious test to qualify for a federally funded job. Mr. Speaker, this idea was a bad idea when Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson and our Founding Fathers rejected it in writing the Constitution two centuries ago. It is a bad idea today. This bill will harm religion, not help it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this unfair rule and ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, no American citizen should ever have to pass someone else's religious test to qualify for a federally funded job. No American, not one, should ever have to be fired from a federally funded job solely because of his or her religious faith. It is ironic that a bill that was designed supposedly to stop discrimination against religion ends up authorizing, and then subsidizing, religious discrimination. Mr. Speaker, unless this motion to recommit is passed, a group associated with Bob Jones University could receive our Federal tax dollars and put out a sign that says, ``No Catholics need apply here for a federally funded job.'' That is wrong. Say no to discrimination and yes to this motion to recommit.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today the House was scheduled to vote on H.R. 7, the so-called Charitable Choice Act. However, the House Republican leadership had to delay the vote because of objections from both Republicans and Democrats alike that this bill would allow discrimination in job hiring based on a person's religious faith when using Federal funds. Mr. Speaker, the truth is that we all support the good work of thousands of faith-based charities across this country. But the truth is also that, as more Members of Congress and more American citizens learn about what is actually in H.R. 7, the support for this bill is faltering badly. Over 1,000 religious leaders, pastors, priests and rabbis have signed a petition urging this Congress tomorrow to oppose the President's faith-based charity bill. Why? Because it would harm religion, not help religion. Why? Because it would not only allow discrimination in job hiring using Federal dollars, it would actually subsidize such discrimination. Mr. Speaker, let me mention some of the diverse religious and education and civic groups and civil rights groups that stand firmly opposed to the passage of H.R. 7: The American Association of School Administrators; the American Association of University Women; the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; the American Federation of Teachers; the American Jewish Committee. The Anti-Defamation League opposes this bill, along with the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Education Association, and the National PTA. Mr. Speaker, the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. opposes this bill, along with the Episcopal Church U.S.A., the Interfaith Alliance and the United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society, along with many other religious and civic groups strongly oppose the passage of this bill on the floor of the House tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, let me talk about what is wrong with this bill. Let me emphasize three points: First, the bill is unnecessary. It is unnecessary. Under long-standing law in this country, the Federal Government has been able to support faith-based groups under several conditions and several proper conditions. First, that they not be directly churches or houses of worship. That if churches want to do faith-based work with Federal dollars, they should set up a separate 501(c)(3) secular organization. Then those groups cannot proselytize with tax dollars, and they cannot discriminate in job hiring with those tax dollars. Under those limited but important conditions, for decades faith-based groups such as Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services have received Federal dollars to help social work causes without obliterating the wall of separation between church and State. So the bill is simply a solution in search of a problem. Secondly, as I mentioned, this bill not only allows discrimination against American citizens based on their religion, it subsidizes it. Let me be specific. If this bill were to become law and a church associated with Bob Jones University were to receive a Federal grant under the program, that church could use our tax dollars to put out a sign that says no Catholic need apply here for a federally funded job. Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. In the year 2001, over 200 years after the passage of the Bill of Rights, no American citizen should have to pass someone else's religious test to qualify for a federally funded job. No American citizen, not one, should be fired from a federally funded job simply and solely because of that person's religious faith. Next, I would point out that this bill basically is built on a foundation of a false premise, the false premise that somehow if the Federal tax dollars of this government are not going directly to our houses of worship and our synagogues and mosques, that is somehow discrimination against religion. I think Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson would be shocked by that suggestion of discrimination against religion. I think they would have argued that the Bill of Rights for 200 years has not discriminated against religion. The Bill of Rights has put religion on a pedestal above the long arm and reach of the Federal Government, both Federal funding and the Federal regulations that follow. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7 is a bad bill for our churches, our religion, our faith and our country. I urge a ``no'' vote tomorrow.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow this House will vote on H.R. 7, the President's faith-based initiative. The question before the House is not whether faith is a powerful force; it is. The question is not whether faith-based groups do good works; they do. The question is not even whether government can assist faith-based groups in their social work. The government does and has so for years. Rather, the vote on this bill boils down to two fundamental questions. First, do we want American citizens' tax dollars directly funding churches and houses of worship, as this bill does; and, second, is it right to discriminate in job hiring when using Federal dollars. I would suggest the answer to both of those questions is no, emphatically so. The question of using tax dollars to fund churches is not a new one. It was debated at length by our Founding Fathers over two centuries ago. They not only said no to that idea; they felt so strongly about it that they embedded the principle of church-State separation into the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights by keeping government funding and regulations out of our churches for over 200 years. Mr. Speaker, America has become the envy of the world when it comes to religious freedom, tolerance, and vitality. I challenge the proponents of this bill to show me tomorrow one nation in the world, one nation where government funding of churches has resulted in more religious liberty or tolerance or vitality than right here in the United States. All of human history proves that government involvement in religion harms religion, not helps it. Our Founding Fathers understood that fact, and today's world proves that fact. Just look around. In China, citizens are in prison for their religious beliefs. In the Middle East, religious differences have perpetrated conflict and death. In Afghanistan, religious minorities are being branded with Nazi-like tactics. In Europe, government-funding of churches has led to low church attendance. As a person of faith, I thank God that our Founding Fathers understood that religious liberty is best preserved by keeping government funding and regulations out of our churches. To my conservative colleagues, and to those across this country, I would suggest that they should be the first to fear the government regulation of religion that would inevitably result from billions of taxpayer dollars going directly to our churches and houses of worship. Surely it was one significant reason why over 1,000 religious leaders, from Baptists to Jews to Methodists, have signed petitions opposing H.R. 7. These people of faith understand that direct Federal funding of our churches would not only be unconstitutional, it would result in government regulation, audits, and yes, even prosecutions against our churches and religious leaders. Mr. Speaker, I have great personal respect for President Bush, but on the question of Federal funding using tax dollars to fund our churches, I must stand with Madison, Jefferson, and the Bill of Rights. The principle of church-State separation has protected Americans' religious freedom magnificently for over 200 years. We tamper with that sacred principle at our own peril. Mr. Speaker, now let me address a second question I raised regarding this legislation: Is it right to discriminate in job hiring when using Federal tax dollars for those jobs? I believe the vast majority of Americans would say no. Under H.R. 7, citizens could be denied or fired from federally-funded jobs because of no other reason than their personal religious faith. I would suggest that having the government subsidize religious job discrimination would be a huge step backwards in our march for civil rights. No American citizen, not one, should have to pass anyone else's religious test in order to qualify for a federally-funded tax-supported job. Under H.R. 7, a church associated with Bob Jones University could put out a sign ``Paid for by taxpayers. No Catholics need apply here for a federally-funded job.'' That is wrong. Under H.R. 7, federally-funded jobs could be denied to otherwise qualified workers simply because of their personal faith being different from that of their employers. That is wrong. Under H.R. 7, churches that believe women should not work which use Federal dollars could put out a sign saying, ``No women need apply here for a federally-funded job.'' That is wrong. Mr. Speaker, we all understand why churches, synagogues, and mosques could hire people for their own religious faith with their own private dollars. But it is altogether different, altogether different as night to day to allow tax dollars to be used to subsidize job discrimination for secular jobs. There is also something ironic about a bill that is supposedly designed to stop religious discrimination but actually ends up not only allowing but subsidizing religious discrimination. Mr. Speaker, this is also a bill built on a false foundation, the premise that not sending tax dollars to our churches and houses of worship is somehow discrimination against religion. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the Bill of Rights, our Founding Fathers wisely built this sacred wall of separation to protect religion from government and politicians. This bill would obliterate that wall and ultimately put at risk our religious liberty, the crown jewel of America's experiment in democracy. To Members who genuinely want to help religious charities do good work, I would say that present law already allows Federal funding of faith-based groups if they agree not to proselytize with those Federal dollars or to discriminate with Federal funds. This bill is thus a solution in search of a problem. Should we have Federal funding of our churches? The answer is no. Should we discriminate in job hiring based on religion when using Federal dollars? The answer is no. And if Members' answers to these two questions is no as well, they should vote no on H.R. 7. Protecting our churches from government regulation and our citizens from religious discrimination are fundamental principles. They deserve our support today, tomorrow, and every day. By voting no on H.R. 7, we in this House can defend the principles embedded in the Bill of Rights that have protected our religious freedom so magnificently well for over two centuries.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out, not knowing the facts, since there was not a committee hearing on this, that some of the corporations whose charitable contributions are in effect being criticized today might not want to give to some faith-based groups because they do proselytize. I know the gentleman from Kentucky talked about groups that do not proselytize. There are many faith-based groups that provide soup kitchens, alcohol and drug rehabilitation programs, and they do not proselytize. But there are many other faith-based groups that part of their very mission as a religious, pervasively sectarian entity is to proselytize, to sell their faith to others to try to change their lives. So not knowing what the policy is, these corporations, that might be one valid reason why many of these corporations choose not to give their philanthropy to faith-based organizations. Again, I commend the gentleman from Kentucky today for pointing out the good work done by faith-based groups of many different religious faiths across the country. But Mr. Speaker, as we begin this opening chapter in the debate this summer on the role of government and faith- based organizations, I think it is important that we keep in historical perspective the reason why our Founding Fathers felt so strongly about the separation of government and its ability to regulate religion. Mr. Speaker, many Americans would be surprised that God is not mentioned in America's governing document, our Constitution. Was this an unintended omission? Did our Founding Fathers intend to show disrespect toward God and faith? Did they not understand the importance of religion in our country? One could imagine modern-day politicians railing against this ``discrimination'' against religion shown by our Founding Fathers. Worse yet, they could be attacked for beginning the Bill of Rights with these words: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.'' Were Madison, Jefferson, and others guilty of anti-religious, anti- faith discrimination? The truth is, our Founding Fathers did not mention God in our Constitution not out of disrespect to God or religion, but out of total reverence for religious liberty. They believed human history proved that government involvement harmed rather than helped religion. Jefferson wrote reverently of the wall of separation between church and State. Mr. Speaker, that wall of separation is not designed to keep people of faith out of government, but rather, to keep government and its regulations out of religion and our faith. Were our Founding Fathers right or wrong in separating politics from religion? Let us fast-forward to today's world. In Denmark, churches are subsidized by taxes, and church attendance is extremely low. In China, citizens are put in prison for their religious beliefs. In Afghanistan, the government is taking religious minorities and forcing them to wear identification symbols that evoke Nazi tactics. In the Middle East and Sudan, religious differences have been the basis for conflict and hatred and terrorism. In contrast to those countries where government and religion are so entwined, in the United States religious faith and freedom, tolerance, and generosity are flourishing. The difference is that in the other countries, government and religion are intertwined. But in the United States, our Bill of Rights prohibits government from direct involvement in our religion and our own personal faith. Madison and Jefferson were not so anti-religion after all when they created the wall of separation between church and State. As I said, that wall is not intended to keep people of faith out of being involved in government or having a voice in government, but rather, it was clearly intended to keep government from being able to control religion. How wise they were in establishing that wall. Maybe our Founding Fathers expressed true reverence in recognizing that faith should be a matter only between an individual and God, with no need for government interference. Despite the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and all the lessons of human history, I believe it should alarm Americans of all faiths that the administration and some Members of Congress propose other legislation, in contrast to this, that would allow the Federal government to send billions of dollars directly to churches, synagogues and houses of worship. This proposal, soon to be voted on in the House, is known as charitable choice. Unlike this resolution, it would have the teeth of law. So-called charitable choice legislation is a bad choice. Direct government funding of our houses of worship would inevitably lead to government regulation of religion. Government simply cannot spend billions of tax dollars without audits and regulations. Do we really want Federal auditors and investigators digging through the financial records of our churches, synagogues, and houses of worship? Do we really want prosecutors going after pastors and rabbis who have not handled their faith-based Federal money properly? It would be also a huge step backwards in our march of civil rights for charitable choice legislation to not only allow but to actually subsidize religious discrimination. Under that bill, a religious group using tax dollars could refuse to hire someone for a secular job simply because of that person's sincere religious faith. Do we really want government officials deciding which religions and which houses of worship should receive billions of Federal tax dollars? I could not think of a better cause or a better basis for religious strife in America than to encourage the competition between churches, synagogues, and mosques, causing them to compete for billions of Federal dollars. Even the short recent debate over the charitable choice issue has already caused religious tension in our country as some religious leaders have recently said they do not want other religions different from their own to receive Federal tax dollars. The President even several weeks ago accused those opposed to his faith-based initiatives as being skeptics who do not understand the power of faith. Forgetting the fact that numerous religious leaders oppose the President's proposals on church-State grounds, is it healthy to have a President challenging citizens' religious faith because they differ with him on a public policy issue? I think not. In the face, Mr. Speaker, of religious strife throughout the world, I would hope that Americans would understand that religious freedom and tolerance, protected by the Bill of Rights, is the crown jewel of America's experiment in democracy. We tamper with that freedom at our own peril. As a person of faith, I am willing to say that this resolution today is well intended, is intended to voluntarily encourage corporations to give their money to faith-based organizations if they believe those organizations are doing good work for our country. But let us be very clear in drawing the line between this voluntary-type Sense of Congress Resolution and actually using the power of government to regulate and fund our faith in our houses of worship. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure exactly what role Congress should have in trying to dictate to American families or American corporations how they should contribute their charitable contributions and to whom they should contribute those dollars, but I would point out that this particular resolution has, in effect, no real legal teeth to it. Much of it is a sense of Congress, and to the extent that the goal of this resolution is to say to individuals and corporate leaders to take a look at faith-based organizations in America, they are doing a lot of good work addressing social problems, then I endorse that approach. Were this resolution more than, in effect, a sense of Congress and was actually going to dictate policy to corporate trusts, I certainly would have thought it would have made sense for the House committees to have met either the Committee on the Judiciary, or the Committee on Commerce, to at least have a hearing on this to try and direct $1.9 billion in charitable giving. It is my understanding that there was no House committee hearing of either the Committee on the Judiciary or the Committee on Commerce on this measure. However, because this resolution is basically a voluntary message to corporations to consider the good work of many faith-based charities, I would not adamantly object to the principal goal of this. But what, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on today is why this voluntary approach toward giving to faith-based charities is much more acceptable to me and other Members of Congress and religious leaders than the President's faith-based initiative. The President's faith- based initiative in contrast to this has several fundamental flaws, and if this bill had any of these flaws built into it in the essence of law, I would oppose this resolution. First of all, the President's faith-based initiative as exemplified in H.R. 7 would, for the first time in our country's history, direct Federal tax dollars going immediately into the coffers of our houses of worship, our churches, our synagogues, and other houses of worship. I think that approach to supporting faith-based charities is patently unconstitutional. I think giving billions of Federal dollars directly to faith-based organizations, tax dollars to faith-based organizations would inevitably and absolutely lead to government regulation of religion and our churches. Thirdly, I think the administration approach toward faith-based initiatives as exemplified in H.R. 7 would lead to religious strife, as thousands of different faith-based groups would be coming to Washington, D.C. competing for tens of billions of Federal tax dollars. If one wants to write a prescription for religious strife in America, Mr. Speaker, I could think of no better way to do it than to have thousands of churches and houses of worship coming to our Nation's capital and competing before Cabinet Members for tens of billions of dollars of Federal money. The fourth problem I have with the faith-based initiative and the President's program in contrast to this resolution is that the President's faith-based initiative would actually subsidize, subsidize religious discrimination. It would actually take Federal tax dollars and allow a faith-based group to put up a sign, paid for by our tax dollars, that would say, no Jew, no Catholic, no Mormon, no Baptist need apply here for a federally funded job. I think that type of approach to helping charities is really a great retreat in our 40-year march toward greater civil rights in America. The fifth objection I have to the President's proposal on faith-based initiatives versus this sense of Congress resolution is that the President's proposal really puts Congress and faith-based groups into a Catch-22. If we say that they cannot use Federal dollars to proselytize, to push their religion and their faith upon others, then, in effect, what we are doing is giving Federal dollars to faith-based groups and saying that one cannot use their faith in carrying out one's social mission. So in effect, the President's program, if implemented, would actually take the faith out of faith-based organizations, the very thing I would believe the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and I would agree makes many faith-based organizations so special, the fact that they can inject their faith into their process of turning around people's lives and solving their problems. So my point, Mr. Speaker, is this: I am not sure exactly whether this should be a top priority today for Congress, and in fact a sense of Congress resolution, to be telling corporate foundations how to spend billions of dollars, but I do applaud the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) in what I interpret is his basic approach, to send a message to America to say, look at the good work of faith-based organizations. As a person of faith, I believe these organizations are doing excellent work in many cases. Not in all cases, but in many cases, they truly are changing people's lives in a positive manner. But I think it is very important for Members to know that in supporting this resolution today, they are not adopting the provisions of H.R. 7 as proposed by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and others. We are not endorsing those resolutions that would actually allow Federal tax dollars to go directly to houses of worship. I would passionately oppose such a bill, such a proposal, or such a resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I will say to the gentleman, I honestly do not recall that discussion. I have dealt with this issue since 1974 when I worked for former Congressman Tiger Teague, and I think I would remember if we had a discussion any time in the last 12 months on this. My request is simply one of common courtesy. I would like to work with the gentleman on this. I would like to work with the chairman on this. I would hope that we would not make any decision today on this. Let us work in good faith and sit down, since this is entirely, completely within my congressional district.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, not in the last month, not in the last year that I can recall. My request to the gentleman would be this: This bill still has a long way to go. I am more than willing to sit down with the chairman of the subcommittee, the ranking member, and the gentleman from Texas and see if we agree on this. But I would think before we shape the future of my congressional district, that I would have some input on this.

Mr. EDWARDS. It would have been common courtesy to approach me personally and say, I am going to come to the floor today to talk to the chairman of the subcommittee about something that is not in my district that is within yours.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I had no idea this issue was coming up. It is wholly within my district. I am the only Texan of either party on this subcommittee. I do not know that I would have objection; I do not know if I would support the gentleman's request, but it seems like it would have been common courtesy to approach me personally.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I am a little surprised because I represent both Hill County and Bosque County. This is the first I have heard about it, and none of this is in the gentleman's district. I respect the fact that he has family ties in the area, but as a member of the subcommittee, I would have at least asked the gentleman to contact me to ask me if I am aware of what he is trying to do.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important legislation, and I would like to speak about both its process and its product. Regarding the process in developing this bill, I want to commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), who is not new to a position of being chair in this House, he is not new to the subcommittee; but this is his first term as a chairman of this subcommittee. Through his leadership, working with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member, this was truly put together on a fair and bipartisan basis with the intention of what is good for the country in different regions of the country, not what is good for one party or another. Mr. Chairman, I regret sometimes that the amount of press attention to legislation in Washington is inversely proportional to the importance of that legislation and how well it is handled. There may not be a lot of coverage of this today in many parts of the country, because it was done on a bipartisan basis without squabbling and infighting. In terms of the product of this bill, I rise to speak about it because many people in this House and throughout the country do not pay a great deal of attention to the work of this subcommittee, especially because much of its work is designed for prevention, flood prevention and nuclear proliferation prevention. If this committee does its work well, people never know how important the work of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water has actually been to their lives. Mr. Chairman, let me pay special tribute to the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) for his strong leadership efforts supported by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) in seeing that at a time of great flooding, in the wake of Tropical Storm Allison, we did not cut the funding for the Army Corps of Engineers flood control projects as had been originally proposed. In an area of which I have great personal interest, the area of nuclear nonproliferation, I think most Americans would be surprised to know that in Russia today, there is enough nuclear grade plutonium and enriched uranium to build 80,000 nuclear bombs. This subcommittee's work is to try to help Russia to get control of that nuclear material so that, God forbid, we do not wake up some day, weeks or months or years from now and read about a major American city having lost millions of its citizens because of the terrorists getting their hands on some nuclear material from the former Soviet Union, not putting it on the tip of a nuclear missile, but putting it in a backpack and parking it in a pickup truck in a major American city. The gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) especially deserves the appreciation of American families for saying that we must make an increased investment to ensure that that nuclear material should not get into the hands of terrorists throughout the world. We may never know how much of a debt of gratitude we owe the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), as his partner in fighting to increase that funding. But I thank the gentleman from Alabama personally as a Member of Congress and as a father for the effort in that particular area, as well as the important work of this subcommittee and flood control and energy renewable research. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. It was handled well. The product is a good one.

Mr. EDWARDS. Not in the last year.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I think what the gentleman from Alabama has suggested makes eminent sense; I respect that. I would look forward to being a part of that conversation along with other Members, but the gentleman from Texas's comments only focused on a lake in my district, not in any other district.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am stunned that this came up on the floor today, quite frankly. But despite being stunned on both sides, let us sit down and talk this out as two Members of Congress from the State of Texas and see if we can proceed.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote for this tax cut. It would be a politically easy vote. I could tell my constituents in Central Texas, including President Bush and my own family, that this bill would reduce their taxes. However, I believe we have a moral obligation to our children and grandchildren to pay down our $5.6 trillion national debt. I believe we have a moral obligation to provide a strong national defense and to support our servicemen and women, 60% of whom live in housing that does not even meet modest Department of Defense standards. I believe we have a moral obligation to provide a better education for all children and to protect Social Security and Medicare for our seniors. In my opinion, this tax bill puts those key national priorities and moral obligations at risk. This tax bill is a riverboat gamble. It is part of a ten-year budget built on a foundation of optimistic assumptions at best and false assumptions at worst. This budget assumes uninterrupted national growth for 10 years, with little or no consideration for the impact of economic recessions, regional wars or natural disasters. If this budget's national growth projections are off by only four-tenths of one percent, then a trillion dollars of the so-called surplus disappears, and with it our dream of paying off the national debt. I have asked my constituents whether they would bet their own family's financial future based upon the assumption that a government economist's 10-year economic forecast would be perfectly accurate. Their answer is ``no''. If families would not bet their own futures on such an unrealistic assumption, then Congress has no right to risk the American family's future on that assumption. This bill leaves little or no room to fund priorities that this Administration says it supports, including a stronger national defense, real pay raises for our servicemen and women, a national missile defense, new investments in better schools and a prescription drug benefit for seniors on Medicare. Who knows what unexpected needs might develop over the next decade? One little known fact is that the so-called $5.6 trillion surplus is not real--it is a hoped for surplus. Even worse, 70% of the hoped for surplus does not materialize until seven to ten years from now. What is real is our $5.6 trillion national debt, which cost American taxpayers $223 billion in interest payments last year. That, on average, is approximately $800 in taxes for every man, woman and child in America. Paying off the national debt would provide huge benefits for American families. Lower interest rates on homes, cars and credit cards would, in effect, be a significant tax cut. In addition, reduced interest on the national debt could result in reduced taxes for all Americans. The final tax bill was put together late at night and voted on early the next morning without Members of Congress having time to review the bill or its cost. What can one say about a bill that repeals estate taxes nine years from now, but then repeals the repeal twelve months later? To call that an estate tax ``repeal'' borders on false advertising. This bill is full of gimmicks to try to hide its true cost. Repealing all of its tax benefits at the end of the ninth year of a ten-year bill is a blatant way to try to hide this bill's real cost. Further, should those tax cuts be continued in year ten, the cost of this bill triples in the second ten years. Unfortunately, that is exactly when baby boomers start retiring and putting tremendous demands on the Social Security and Medicare systems. Thus, this bill truly puts Social Security and Medicare at risk for today's and tomorrow's seniors. I will never forget what my predecessor, Congressman Marvin Leath, told me before his recent death. He said that his greatest regret during his 12 years in Congress was his vote for the 1981 tax bill, which he felt exploded the national debt. That bill promised lower taxes, increased defense spending and balanced budgets. Former OMB budget director David Stockman, a key architect of the 1981 tax bill, later wrote of it, ``I knew we were on the precipice of triple-digit deficits, a national debt in the trillions, and destructive and profound dislocations throughout the . . . American economy.'' Twenty years later, the 2001 tax bill promises lower taxes, increased defense spending and balanced budgets. Unfortunately, I believe the results will be the same as 20 years ago--deficit spending, a larger national debt, and higher interest rates. Mr. Speaker, I hope I was wrong. I hope our economy has another decade of growth without recession or serious slowdown. I hope we have no natural disasters or wars. I hope Congress will show strong discipline in cutting spending. I hope we can protect our family farmers without disaster payments. I hope energy price spikes won't slow down our economy. I hope all of these things occur, but I am certainly not willing to put at risk our children and grandchildren's future based on such hopes becoming certainties. Cutting taxes by over a trillion dollars may be politically popular, but by voting ``no'' on this bill and voting ``yes'' for paying down our $5.6 trillion national debt, I believe I can look my own children in the eye and say, ``I did what I believed was right for our country and its future.''

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, in today's Washington Post, President Bush was quoted as saying those who disagree with his faith-based initiatives ``do not understand the power of faith.'' He then referred ``to the skeptics of faith in our society.'' Mr. Speaker, I personally respect the President and his right to offer his proposals. However, I do not think it is fair to question the religious faith of decent Americans who happen to disagree with his policy proposals. Challenging people's religious faith because of public policy differences is not a way to bring Americans together; rather it is a prescription for religious divisiveness. Numerous groups such as the Baptist Joint Committee and the American Jewish Committee differ with the President on faith-based initiatives, not because they question the power of faith, but because they want to prevent government from regulating our faith. As we proceed in the debate on faith-based initiatives, I urge all sides to focus on the specific issues at hand and not to challenge the religious faith of those with differing views of conscience.