Walter Jones

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for just a moment, on several points he made, one about the exploration in Alaska, we should remember, and I think the gentleman is a little younger than I am, but we should remember the days of President Jimmy Carter and the lines, and people paying high prices for the gas. Everybody said then, and I was obviously a much younger person, but everybody was saying then that this country needs to have an energy plan. It needs to have a program, a long-range program. We talked about it and we talked about it, but we never did anything. So again, I want to go back and give credit to President Bush, because he has taken this on. He said that the American people need to have an energy plan in this country, not just short term but long term. So we did what the President asked us to do and we passed that legislation, as the gentleman said; and it is now languishing over in the Senate. But they will have to deal with that hopefully sooner rather than later. They have waited too long already. The other point the gentleman was making about his family chose to drive a Suburban. Well, to me, that is what America is about. If I decide I want to drive a small car or a mid-sized car or an SUV, then I should have that right to make that choice and not have the government say, You have to drive a small car. I agree with the gentleman. Actually, I drive an old 1992 Buick, and I am back and forth every weekend from D.C. to North Carolina and back to D.C. on Monday or Tuesday, whenever we have votes, and that is my choice. I think if we ever get to a point, and that is why the gentleman and I happen to be Republicans and conservatives, we both are, is that we believe that the American people who pay the taxes, if they decide that they want to drive a car that only gets 15 miles to a gallon, and the gentleman decides he wants to drive a car that gets 28, that is fine. That is what America is about. We should have the choice.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield another time, Mr. Speaker, that is what is really somewhat discouraging, when they have that entrepreneurial spirit they have down there with that business in the gentleman's district, or in Georgia, and there are a multitude of those exciting businesses that could be benefited if we would do our job up here in Washington. As the gentleman said, the House has done its job; and now it is time for the Senate to move the legislation.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. The gentleman is exactly right. Our farmers in eastern North Carolina are like farmers across this Nation. Many of them have been in trouble. The foreign markets have not been what they had hoped they would be, and for a number of reasons the farmers really need this help. And I want to give the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, and all of the Republican and Democrat Members, a lot of credit for the bill they brought to the floor. It was what I thought a very strong, very helpful agricultural farm bill that would help our farmers. And as the gentleman said very well, it has been on the Senate side for quite a few weeks, and now months, and they need to remember that our farmers are waiting for their action.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield for just a moment, I am on the Committee on Financial Services where the legislation came from that the gentleman just made reference to, the insurance issue. In fact, the gentleman sitting in the Chair tonight, who is from Michigan, is also on that committee. The committee worked in a very bipartisan way to come forward with very important legislation that needs to be, and I want to be very careful because of the statement by the Chair, but the Congress as a whole needs to move that legislation soon.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield for just a moment. There is no question that we always take great pride in the House of Representatives in saying that we are ``the people's House.'' I think anybody in government, whether they are elected or in a professional position, we need to realize that the people of America pay our salaries. And, therefore, if we are responsible for legislative progress, then those of us who are elected to serve in this beautiful Capitol, we need to remember we have a responsibility to do what is right for those people who are our taxpayers. And that means we should work together and we should move legislation expeditiously when we can.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Well, I certainly want to be careful, because of the ruling of the Chair, but I often think about the gentleman from Georgia and other of my colleagues, especially those that live much further than that, particularly our colleagues on both sides of the fence that live out west, because I can drive home in 5 hours from Washington. And I think the difference in why we are so responsive is because we see the people we have the privilege to represent just about every weekend. We are here for 2 years and then we run for reelection. As it is set up by the Constitution, the other side of the Capitol, they are there for 6 years. Now, I am not advocating that they should serve for 2 years, but I am just saying that we are much more in tune with the people we represent than the other body.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. I really agree with the gentleman. I came to the Congress with Mr. Newt Gingrich in the 1994 election, sworn in in 1995, and we have believed ever since we have been in the majority that the people that worked hard in this country, awfully hard for their money, should keep the majority of their money. And, in addition, as the gentleman said, those people who have been laid off work, if we can help strengthen business, small, midsize and large, so that they can get some tax breaks so that then they will be willing to expand job opportunities, that is what America is all about. That is our philosophy, to empower the people, empower the businesses so that the economy is moving and the engine is pumping.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Well, I know we are getting close to the closing, and I am going to leave in just a second, but I have really enjoyed being with the gentleman, and I think he has done a great service really not only for his district but for the American people. There is one thing about it, and the gentleman might be somewhat restricted as to his statements tonight, but there is one thing about it, and I am sure the gentleman has, as I have, a lot of speaking opportunities back in his district, and I am proud to tell those people in my district what we in the House have done. And in that forum, you can certainly call names and you can make references to what has or has not happened. So I want to thank the gentleman. He helped me with my time talking about school prayer. I appreciate the gentleman's friendship, his leadership, and thank him for allowing me to be a small part of this tonight.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, tonight I would like to take just a few moments simply because on November 13 this House debated a concurrent resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 239, and the House actually passed the resolution on November 15 by a vote of 297 to 125, with one Member voting present. I would like to read to the House what the resolution said, and then I want to give the reason why I am on the floor tonight for these few minutes. The resolution said, ``Expressing the sense of Congress that schools in the United States should set aside a sufficient period of time to allow children to pray for or quietly reflect on behalf of the Nation during this time of struggle against the forces of internal terrorism.'' Mr. Speaker, I was a little bit surprised the night of November 13. I should not say ``disappointed,'' because the House is the people's House, and all of us who serve here have the privilege to our own opinions and we can express those opinions. However, on that night, three Members of the Democratic Party came to speak in opposition of House Concurrent Resolution 239: the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), all three of whom I have great respect for; and I acknowledged that night during the debate that I did have respect for each one as a very fine Member of Congress. We just disagreed on this issue. Mr. Speaker, this Nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. There is absolutely no question about that. That night, the three Members who were opposed to House Concurrent Resolution 239 mentioned seven different groups that were opposed to this resolution, one being the People for the American Way. Well, I was not surprised with that, quite frankly. The National PTA, I was very surprised about, and I want to talk about that in just a moment. The third group to be opposed to this nonbinding resolution but sense of the Congress that children would have a moment of prayer or a moment of reflection during this period of war with the terrorists was Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Quite frankly, I was not surprised by that one either. Next was the Interfaith Alliance. The fifth group opposed to the resolution was the American Jewish Committee of Washington, D.C. The sixth group in opposition was Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. Seventh was the Baptist Joint Committee. I would say that the one I was really disappointed in was the National PTA, and I am going to read a couple of sentences from their letter of opposition. The National PTA, the lady's name, I believe she is the President, Shirley Igo, President of the National PTA, she wrote a note in opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 239, to, again, the sense of the Congress encouraging that children during this period of war, and I know a lot of our children, Mr. Speaker, are confused by what is happening with terrorism, the murder of so many American people on September 11, the fact that many of our men and women in uniform over in Afghanistan have children here in this country. So the Congress felt, and, again, it did pass it, that children should be encouraged in the schools to have a moment of prayer or reflection. But the National PTA, Mrs. Igo, says about the resolution, ``Furthermore, because the legislative intent is clearly to endorse religious expression, it does not conform with current constitutional standards.'' Mr. Speaker, that is not what it did. What it said was that the children of America should have a moment of prayer or a moment of reflection. But, again, my point is, I am very disappointed in the National PTA, which is supposed to strengthen families, encourage education and encourage families to be together. Why they would take this type of position, I do not know. But, again, I was very surprised and disappointed that they would. Mr. Speaker, another group that I really should not be surprised about is the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. That is Reverend Barry Lynn, and he and I disagree on a lot of issues, most of the time, quite frankly. Let me read one or two sentences from his letter in opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 239: ``This misguided proposal should not be endorsed by the House of Representatives.'' Well, I am pleased to tell Mr. Lynn that it was endorsed by the House of Representatives, 297 to 125. The second statement he made: ``Mandatory time for classroom prayer on a specific topic.'' Mr. Speaker, it did not do that. It said that the children should have a moment of prayer, whatever faith they might be. Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, or even Muslim, they should have that moment, which we have seen happen since September 11. Also he made a couple of other points that I am not going to take the time to make reference on. The reason I wanted to come down on the floor again tonight was to say ``thank you'' to the Members of the House. Many Democrats, including the leader of the minority party, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), voted for this resolution. I want to read for the record a paper from an eighth grader from my district, a young lady named Rose Ormand, who wrote a paper called ``In Defense of a Little Prayer.'' Ms. Ormand is in the eighth grade. She attends E.B. Aycock Middle School in Greenville, North Carolina. I want to read this in its entirety. ``How would the athletes at your school feel if all athletic activities were prohibited based on the fact that not all students are athletic and some students even feel uncomfortable with athletics? Wouldn't you consider that unjust and absurd? Can you imagine baseball, a sport considered as American as mom's apple pie, being removed from schools because a few are offended? Well, as absurd as that might seem, there is an activity which is even more historically valued than baseball that is being prohibited in our public schools today. That activity prohibited today within the walls of our schools is prayer. A student's right to pray in school in any manner should be upheld and encouraged. First of all, our country has definitely been founded upon Christian principles from its very beginning. When we compare the social and moral climate of the schools when prayer was part of a regular school day to that of our present day, there is quite a difference. Finally, if we trace the roots of public education back to its original purpose, it just doesn't make any sense that our public school system today is a contradiction. Prayer in our public schools may very well be an area we need to look at again as it is so much more important than baseball. ``First of all, our country and its government were clearly built on Christian principles. The arrival of the pilgrims in the New World seeking religious freedom was the birth of our great country. In the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment declares that, `Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Every day the United States Senate and House of Representatives begin their Congressional day with prayer, yet in the same nation, public school students are not allowed to have prayer. While the Members of Congress stood on the steps of the Capitol and petitioned God almighty for his help after the attack on America, public school students were not even permitted to join in the National Day of Prayer declared by the President. It seems to me that students and teachers alike have to shed their constitutional right of the free exercise of prayer when they walk through the public school doors. ``Secondly, the social and moral climate when prayer was permitted in school was surprisingly better than now when prayer is prohibited. The Regent's prayer, prayed every morning in the classroom, was `Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon You, and we beg Your blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country.' On June 25, 1962, the government removed God from public schools and that prayer was never prayed again. The four parts of the Regent's prayer were God's blessings on the students, our parents, our teachers and our country, and they seemed to be the area God's hedge of protections fell. The first area was the students, and since 1962 teenage homicide rose three hundred percent. The second area was the parents, and also since 1962 the divorce rate went up fifty-two percent. The SAT scores plummeted, frustrating the teachers, and the hedge of protection fell from our country as the very next year our President was killed. A coincidence? I don't think so. The only way any of these statistics are going to change will be if prayer is allowed in our school system. ``Some reading this may say that schools are not the place for prayer because they are institutions for learning. Let me refer you to one of the founders of public education within our Nation, Benjamin Rush. He wrote and spoke about educational topics frequently and he believed that education should work along with the principles of democracy. He wrote a prodigious essay entitled, `Thoughts Upon the Mode of Educational Proper in a Republic.' Rush included in his essay that Christian principles should be taught throughout the student's education. ``Funny, isn't it, that now God isn't even allowed where once he was the main focus? Or maybe it's not so funny after all. ``In conclusion, should students be allowed to pray as part of every day school life. Since God was the main reason America was founded, doesn't it make sense that the heritage of this country should continue? Also, if we had prayer back in the school system, our schools, homes, and country would be a lot better off. School now is so different than what it was originally intended to be, and the strength and quality the schools had then could return only if God was let back in the school system. If you really believe in the power of prayer, then call your Congressman and ask for prayer to be returned to public schools now!'' Mr. Speaker, I read that again because they are the words of an eighth-grader in my district, and I think she did a great job of expressing herself and the fact that this Nation is a Nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Let me make just a couple of other points. Again, I wanted to come to the floor because I was so disappointed that the National PTA and some of the other groups that I read about earlier that will be in the Record were opposed to this nonbinding resolution, the Sense of the Congress, that the Congress would say to the schools throughout this Nation and also say to the students that you may have a moment of prayer or a moment to reflect. Just a couple of other points and then, Mr. Speaker, I will bring this to a close. I found it very interesting that William Raspberry recently wrote an editorial and the title was ``Good-Faith Arguments for School Prayer.'' Now, this was in The Washington Post on November 26 of the year 2001, this year. Mr. Raspberry quotes Kevin J. Hasson, President of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, I will use these quotes very briefly. They are short and to the point. Hasson is responding to Chancellor Harold O. Levy's decision for New York schools to accommodate the religious exercise of Muslim students during Ramadan. Hasson says, ``A public school system that pretends to have a comprehensive education but resolutely says nothing about religion for 12 years is not comprehensive at all. Indeed, it sends a powerful message to our children that religion is at best an optional aspect of their human nature and, in doing so, it lies about who and what we are. When a public school sets aside space for children who wish to pray, it sends the opposite message: that faith is a natural part of life.'' ``But doesn't Levy's action violate the separation clause of the first amendment? Not as Hasson sees it. The framers of the amendment never intended to hobble religion,'' he argues, ``only to avoid the establishment of a particular religion. The people who wrote the Bill of Rights hired a congressional chaplain,'' he said. ``A few days after writing his famous letter on the wall of separation, Thomas Jefferson attended Sunday churches in the House of Representatives.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to include Mr. Raspberry's entire editorial for the Record, along with the letter from Rose Ormand. In Defense of a Little Prayer (By Rose Ormond, Persuasive Hall 4) How would the athletes at your school feel if all athletic activities were prohibited based upon the fact that not all students are athletic and some students even feel uncomfortable with athletics? Wouldn't you consider that unjust and absurd? Can you imagine baseball, a sport considered as American as mom's apple pie, being removed from schools because a few are offended? Well as absurd as that may seem, there is an activity which is ever more historically valued than baseball that is being prohibited in our public schools today. That activity prohibited today within the walls of our schools is prayer. A student's right to pray in school, in any manner, should be upheld and encouraged. First of all, our country has definitely been founded upon Christian principles from its very beginning. When we compare the social and moral climate of the schools when prayer was a part of a regular school day to that of our present day, there is quite a difference. Finally, if we trace the roots of public education back to its original purpose, it just doesn't make sense that our public school system today is a contradiction. Prayer in our public schools may very well be an area we need to look at again as it is so more important than baseball! First of all, our country and its government were clearly built on Christian principles. The arrival of the pilgrims in the New World seeking religious freedom was the birth of our great country. In the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment declares that, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .''. Everyday the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives begin their congressional day with prayer yet, in the same nation, public school students are not allowed to have prayer. While the members of Congress stood on the steps of the capital and petitioned God Almighty for His help after the ``Attack on America,'' public school students were not even permitted to join in on the National Day of Prayer declared by the President. It seems to me that students and teachers alike have to shed their constitutional right of the free exercise of prayer when they walk through the public school doors. Secondly, the social and moral climate when prayer was permitted in schools was surprisingly better than now, when prayer is prohibited. The Regent's prayer, prayed every morning in the classroom was ``Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon You, and we beg Your blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.'' On June 25, 1962 the government removed God from public schools and that prayer was never prayed again. The four parts of the Regent's prayer were God's blessings on the students, our parents, our teachers, and our country and they seem to be the areas God's hedge of protections fell. The first area was the students, and since 1962 teenage homicide rose three hundred percent. The second area was the parents, and also since 1962 the divorce rate went up fifty-two percent. The SAT scores plummeted frustrating the teachers, and the hedge of protection fell from our country as the very next year our president was killed. Coincidence? I don't think so! The only way any of these statistics are going to change will be if prayer is allowed in our school system. Some reading this may say, that schools are not the place for prayer because they are only institutions for learning. Let me refer you to one of the founders of public education within our nation, Benjamin Rush. He wrote and spoke about educational topics frequently, and he believed that education should work along with the principles of democracy. He wrote a prodigious essay entitled, ``Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic.'' Rush included in his essay that Christian principles should be taught throughout the student's education. Funny isn't it that now God isn't even allowed where once He was the main focus? Or maybe it's not so funny after all. In conclusion, students should be allowed to pray as part of everyday school life. Since God was the main reason America was founded, doesn't it make sense that the heritage of this country should continue? Also, if we had prayer back in the school system, our schools, homes, and country would be a lot better off. School now is so different than what it was originally intended to be, and the strength and quality the schools had then could return only if God was let back in the school system. If you really believe in the power of prayer, then call your state Congressman and ask for prayer to be returned to public schools now! Good-Faith Argument for School Prayer (By William Raspberry) One of the arguments against prayer in public schools has been that it opens the door for religious zealots to instill their version of religion into the minds of vulnerable children. So wouldn't it be ironic if the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks launched by the world's most zealous theocrats wound up helping the advocates of school prayer? It's easy to imagine the possibility. No matter the country's general lukewarmness about things religious, Americans have been praying all over the place since the attacks: in Yankee Stadium, in special prayer rallies organized by members of Congress, in parks and playgrounds and, yes, in public schools. And there's been hardly a peep of objection. And not only that: The New York City public schools have moved to accommodate the religious exercise of Muslim students during Ramadan. What makes this significant is that no one can argue that Chancellor Harold O. Levy's accommodation amounts to a constitutionally impermissible ``establishment of religion.''-Is this a watershed in the church-state wars? Kevin J. Hasson, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, hopes so. At the very least, he says, it may get us thinking rationally about the place of religion in public life. ``Every culture, our included, has religious elements,'' he told me last week. ``And that's because every culture worthy of the name reflects human nature in all its richness--and does so publicly. We don't live the most significant aspects of our lives in private. We don't smuggle babies home from the maternity ward. We don't usually elope in dead of night or furtively bury our dead. Why should expressions of belief be different?'' But what of the coercive effect of religion in public places--and particularly in public places for children? The answer, says Hasson, whose organization has defended religious expression on the part of a huge range of faiths, is ``not to blanket this facet of our humanity under a layer of secularism but to let a thousand flowers bloom.'' That's why he likes the New York City accommodation of Muslim students. ``A public school system that pretends to have a comprehensive education but resolutely says nothing about religion for 12 years is not comprehensive at all. Indeed, it sends a powerful message to our children that religion is at best an optional aspect of their human nature--and in doing so, it lies about who and what we are. When a public school sets aside space for children who wish to pray, it sends the opposite message: that faith is a natural part of life. Levy wasn't pushing Islam; he was sending a message of respect.'' But doesn't Levy's action violate the separation clause of the First Amendment? Not as Hasson sees it. The Framers of the amendment never intended to hobble religion, he argues-- only to avoid the establishment of a particular religion. ``The people who wrote the Bill of Rights hired a congressional chaplain,'' he said. ``A few days after writing his famous letter on the wall of separation, Thomas Jefferson attended Sunday church services in the House of Representatives.'' But surely Hasson will acknowledge the Taliban stand as incontrovertible evidence of what happens when true believers take over public places. These fundamentalists are so certain they know the will of God that they see themselves as entitled--indeed as compelled--to root out nonbelievers as the enemies of God. And not all the fundamentalists are Muslims or ``over there.'' It's a matter to which the lawyer obviously has given some though. ``The religious fundamentalists and the secular fundamentalists make the same mistake,'' he says. ``They separate truth from freedom. For Osama bin Laden, freedom must be sacrificed for the sake of truth. For our secular fundamentalists, any claims of truth must be abandoned in the interest of freedom. ``Both are wrong, and I think a few more people may be starting to see it.''

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I came here in 1995 with Mr. Gingrich. We became the first majority House and Senate in 40-some years. We came here to reduce the size of government, and as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) has said and as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has said, we have not done the job. There is more that needs to be done. I hope sincerely that the American people understand that this is their government and they need to speak through their elected officials in Congress and in the Senate to let people know that we need to return the money to the people, whether it be through capital gains tax, other tax reductions. But the whole key is what has been said; this government is growing too fast, is too large, and we need to do a better job of reducing the size of government so Americans can keep more of their money. I thank the gentleman for taking the leadership on this Special Order. I will continue to work with the gentleman and my colleagues to do our very best to make sure that we reduce the size of government and we reduce taxes on the American people.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. I want to first thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), as well as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), who has just joined us, for their leadership, both of them, in the area of reducing spending and also reducing taxes. And that is what I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about. As my colleagues know, we have had several conversations about the capital gains tax. I represent the Third Congressional District of North Carolina, which is a great district to represent; and we have a lot of retirees that have moved into our district. We are more than happy to have them living in the third district. Recently, with the downturn of the economy and what has happened in the stock market, I have had many of those retirees say to me, Congressman, why can you all not, in this stimulus package, reduce the capital gains tax? Now, I realize that that would not in the short-term be the answer, but I think, and I would like to have my colleagues' comments, as to the benefit not only for our retirees but primarily those who have retired that are dependent on their investments that they worked 20, 25, or 30 years for. And before I yield back to my colleagues for their answers, many times the other side, the liberals, when we start talking about the capital gains tax, they think we are talking about the rich of America. I am talking about middle-income people who have worked all their lives, and some that really are not middle income but are close to being middle income, who have worked their whole lives, they have invested, and now they are in their retirement years; and they are concerned, and rightly so, as to how they are going to live.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my liberal friends on the other side, we very seldom agree, but I respect you. I always have and I always will. On this subject, I am a little bit disappointed. It is not a nonbinding resolution. We come on this floor every day and we pray. And all we are saying to children who are hurting badly because of September 11, because of evil people who have come to this country and killed their fellow Americans, all we are saying to fifth graders, sixth graders, seventh graders, that we as a Congress encourage. This Nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Whether people like it or not, before Madelyn Murray, they prayed in the schools. If you look at recent rulings that I am going to make reference to in just a moment on a Virginia case, it is coming back whether we like it or not. In a country that respects different religions, whether you are Muslim, whether you are Catholic, whether you are a Jew, whether you are Protestant, we cannot pass a nonbinding resolution to say we as a Congress, who pray every day, are saying to the children of America in a nonbinding way that America needs your prayers. Whether you are young, whether you are old, America is hurting and hurting badly. Mr. Speaker, I go back to my district like everybody on that side and on this side and I go into the school rooms and I listen to the children. At times, like my good friends on the other side who oppose this nonbinding resolution, I listen to the children. Whether they are in the high school, the elementary school or the middle school, they are constantly asking what is happening. The terrorists, where are they in this country? What will happen next? And for this body to be able to say to the young people, we are not telling you that you must reflect, we are not telling you that you must pray, but we as a Congress pray. The President of the United States has asked that we pray. The governors of the States, both liberal and conservative, have asked that we pray. And to have this resolution on the floor just to show support and encouragement to the children of America to reflect or pray, I just respect, again, but I do not understand the opposition to this, but I respect it because that is what makes America great, that we can disagree. I do respect that. I also want to read, if I might, just a moment from the Washington Post, says Virginia minute of silence survives test in high court. Fourth circuit ruling allowed to stand without comment. Virginia's requirement that public school children start their day with a minute of silence passed constitutional muster yesterday when U.S. Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling that the law does not violate the First Amendment. The law, which took effect last year, requires that all students observe a minute of quiet during which they may meditate, pray or engage in other silent activity. The law has been challenged by seven Virginia families backed by the volunteer lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union. They argue that including prayer among the approved activities violated the constitutional ban on State-sponsored religion and conflicted with a 1985 ruling in an Alabama case that struck down a moment of silent law that also included prayer. The ACLU argument was rejected at every court level, and public schools have been observing the moment of silence since July of the year 2000. Let me say to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), with whom I have served on the Committee on Resources and have great respect for his intellectual ability, as well as the other gentleman that has spoken, this is from a news article. It has got firemen around a flag, a moment of silence at ground zero. A moment of silent at ground zero. It says: Students pray at school events, this is 2 weeks ago, despite restrictions. Search for spiritual solace continues. God has made a comeback at the Nation's public schools as students and educators look for spiritual solace in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. At a high school in Texas, athletes and cheerleaders and members of the band broke into an open recitation of the Lord's prayer as they gathered in the end zone before a football game last week. I do not know, and if I mispronounce this, please forgive me, Rancho Carmel, California, and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) can tell me if I did or did not, I want to read from a minister named David Overstreet of the National Network of Youth Ministries in Rancho Carmel, California. I do not know if that is the gentleman from California's (Mr. George Miller) district or someone else's. Let me tell my colleague what he said: Our kids today are reaching out for something and the reality is that these kids are seeking peace, the real peace that is provided by God, observed Reverend David Overstreet. Again, I respect each and everyone that will speak in opposition to this nonbinding resolution, but I will say from the bottom of my heart that a Nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles, if America's future, which is the children of America, cannot be encouraged in this time of war and the death of over 6,000 fellow Americans to have a moment to reflect or a moment of prayer and all we are talking about is passing a resolution, the sense of the Congress, it is nonbinding; but I do again respect those who are in opposition, and I am sure I might have another opportunity before we conclude.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) that, again, whether my colleague agrees or disagrees, this is nonbinding. It does not have the power of the law behind it. It is just for the Congress to make a statement to the children of America. I have three military bases in my district. I have Camp Lejeune Marine Base in Jacksonville, I have Cherry Point Marine Air Station, and Seymour Air Force Base; and I go to a lot of the schools where kids have parents in uniform; and I know the questions and concerns they have been asking since September 11. If by chance, whether this resolution passes or not, if by chance the children will have that moment to reflect or whatever they might do, I am telling my colleague it is just extremely important. Let me share one thing with my colleagues that Billy Graham, who is a well-known man of our Lord and Savior, his daughter Ann was on the CBS Early Morning Show, and Jane Clayson asked her and I will read this, Mr. Speaker, how could God let something like this happen. Ann Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response, and I would like to read her response. She said, I believe that God is deeply saddened by this just as we but for years we have been telling God to get out of the schools, to get out of the government and to get out of our lives. She further stated, In being the gentleman that He is, meaning God, I believe that He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessings and His protections if we demand that He leaves us alone. That is one person's opinion. The point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that again, I am just one Member of 435. I think it is important that this Congress in a nonbinding way say that we understand that the children of America are hurting, and if the children of America would like to have a moment of prayer or a moment to reflect, then God bless the children of America.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman. In the days and weeks since September 11 it has become evident that the United States has a long way to go in order to improve aviation security. There is a critical need to develop a security system that far surpasses anything that exists in Europe or Israel as well as rigorous Federal oversight of security measures that strike a balance to ensure that civil liberties are not endangered while protecting the safety of passengers and crew. HR 3150, the Secure Transportation for America Act of 2001, overhauls the antiquated security systems that failed the American public. It requires the Administration to adopt tight standards for screening passengers and baggage and makes all screening processes, background checks and testing subject to strict federal oversight. HR 3150 also expedites the deployment of more Federal Air Marshals and directs the Federal Aviation Administration to take steps to strengthen cockpit doors. There has been a great deal of talk about federalizing almost 30,000 security screeners at our nation's airports. In the wake of September 11 that sounds on the surface to be positive, but Mr. Speaker, it is not the long-term solution the American people need because it will not automatically improve security. Previous experiences with various federal workforces, in particular the Immigration and Naturalization Service, is an example of a federal workforce that faces difficulties performing at acceptable levels of accountability. Time and again taxpayer dollars are spent to fund agencies that talk a good game while training through a difficult learning curve and providing very little in the way of actual services. Another problem with federalization of airport security would be how to best transition from private screeners to federal screeners. It is unclear how quickly a federal workforce could be assembled, possibly putting security improvements on hold, thereby inadvertently increasing the vulnerability of air travelers and cargo. The bill before us today replaces the current failed system. It requires the federal government to take over responsibility for the screening of passengers and property on passenger aircraft. The federal government can do this by contracting with a security company to perform this task with rigorous Congressional oversight. This is the necessary tool to ensure both a safe and secure aviation system. There is an old saying that the most permanent thing in Washington is a temporary federal program. Our friends on the other side of the aisle want you to believe that a federal aviation security force will be the answer to our problem of airline security simply because the Senate passed the same version 100-0. I would respectfully submit that just because the Senate unanimously supports their plan does not mean that this House will serve as a rubber stamp for bad legislation. The American people deserve to feel safe when they fly. They also deserve and demand an accountable federal government. I believe strongly in the free enterprise system and I further believe that the least economical and least efficient way that you can do anything is to give the federal government more power. Lastly, I want to touch on the issue of arming flight crews. Many of our civilian pilots served in the armed forces as soldiers and airmen and thus have extensive previous experience with firearms. I believe this proposal has merit. As long as the program is voluntary and not compulsory and the cockpit crew has the necessary training in firearms, I believe it is more than appropriate for firearms to be present in the cockpits on commercial flights. The cockpit must be defended and every man and woman on the flight crew has a role in that defense. In fact, according to a recent public opinion poll conducted by the Winston Group, 77 percent of Americans who favor gun control also favor arming flight crews. We have the critical task before us to pass an aviation safety bill that will reassure the travelling public that it is again safe to fly. From bolstering airport security to authorizing Federal Air Marshals to reinforcing cockpit doors, HR 3150 is the first step in ensuring secure commercial aviation.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I will leave in a second; and my good friend and part of our immigration caucus, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), will be stepping up. Let me say, this is what I want to leave to my colleagues here tonight from Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, and Virginia. We need for the American people, we all have been on this floor numerous times with friends, let me say this, that support you, we need for the American people to understand that this is absolutely critical that we reform the immigration laws of this country if we want to protect the national security of the American people. And for that to happen, they need to let their Members of Congress, their Senators, their President know that this is a critical issue. Mr. Speaker, I would like the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) to know that I will do everything I can to help him move forward with this reform because it is critical to the national security of America. I thank the gentleman for that.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am proud and pleased to welcome Pastor Pete Williams and his family and friends to the United States House of Representatives. Pastor Williams and his family live in Goldsboro, North Carolina, in Wayne County, home of Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. Pastor Williams is the pastor of Harvest Freewill Baptist Church in Wayne County. I have known Pastor Williams and his family for 8 years, and I am most grateful for the friendship he has extended to me. Pastor Williams is a true disciple for our Lord and he understands and reminds his congregation that the strength of America comes from God Almighty. In this trying time, I want to especially thank Pastor Pete Williams and all ministers, priests, rabbis, and clerics who have helped all of America remember it is God who we must trust. Again, I would like to thank my friend and brother from Christ, Pastor Pete Williams, for being with us today. God bless America.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 362, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight with a heavy heart. The floor we stand on here is the centerpiece of American democracy. It has been the site of weighty debates, presidential addresses, and critical votes. I have witnessed and participated in many of these since I was first elected to represent the people of North Carolina's 3rd District in 1994. As a servant of the people, these events are all humbling. However the vote we are poised to take today is one of my most significant votes in my congressional career--and the most important type of vote that Congress ever takes. Today we vote to authorize the Commander-in-Chief to send our brave men and women in uniform into harm's way. This is not a vote to be taken lightly. We do so with righteous cause--to respond to the despicable acts of war committed against the American people and the very freedoms and ideals for which our Nation stands. And we do so with the solemn understanding that some of the men and women that we send to fight this new war may not return. They may be from districts around the country--they may be from my own. But the action we take tonight is absolutely necessary. Our Nation was violated, our people slaughtered, our democracy threatened. Justice must be delivered--the victims of this tragedy deserve it and the American people demand it. This resolution will demonstrate to the world--and most importantly those who committed these horrendous crimes--that the United States will respond. And when she does, it will be with the full weight and support of the President, this Congress, and the American people. Let me be clear--this is not just a vote about the use of force or even terrorism. This is a vote to protect the freedoms of the people of the United States of America. I urge my colleagues to join me in that effort by supporting this important resolution. God bless our President, God bless the men and women in uniform who will carry out this conflict, and God bless our great Nation.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in December of 1941, following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto reportedly said, ``I fear that all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant.'' Yesterday, nameless, faceless cowards took aim on the people of the United States of America. They struck without warning with the hope that they could destroy the spirit of our great Nation. Let me say the giant is awake. The deplorable act reached deep into the heart of America and touched not only the families and friends of those who were killed in Washington and New York, but the lives of every citizen of the world who values freedom and democracy. It was not only an act of war, it was a crime against humanity. All Americans are hurting over the cruel and senseless act of these criminals, but the history of America is that her people are strong; and like every national tragedy that has gone before, this one will be answered. The American people demand justice and justice they shall have, not through cowardly acts of terrorism, but by pulling together as a Nation to do what is required. The cowards who initiated this act of war have failed. Rather than bring our country to her knees, the American giant has new strength. The Book of Nehemiah tells us that the God of heaven will give us success as we, his servants, start rebuilding. Mr. Speaker, our faith in God and the strength of our democracy will help ease our Nation's sorrow, will help us rebuild and, importantly, will help us ensure that justice is carried out. We will rebuild; we will have justice. The people of America deserve no less. On behalf of the people of the third district that I have the privilege to serve, I pledge my support to our President as he moves to bring swift justice to these criminals and vote my full support for this resolution. God bless America.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take just a few minutes tonight to talk about the raises that the executives in the post office decided to give themselves, which is kind of ironic when small businesses in America, as well as those who need to send out flyers about their businesses and what they are hoping to do to increase their business, are paying the rates. Let me give an example. I have a Washington Post article that ran last week, and the first part of the article says, ``The U.S. Postal Service is staring at a $2 billion deficit this year, yet the postmaster general has told its top managers that they could see performance bonuses of up to 25 percent of their salaries.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, I think when an agency or a business, whatever it might be, is losing a projected $2 billion this year, yet they are giving bonuses to their top management of 25 percent, with the taxpayers of this country who use the postal system paying the freight for that increase, there is something wrong. The second part of the paragraph says, ``The postal service has increased postal rates twice this year, but United States Postal Service officials are still projecting a deficit of $1.6 billion to $2.4 billion, blaming higher fuel costs and increasing competition from online services.'' Mr. Speaker, the reason I wanted to come forward is because in the year 2000, the post office ended the year with a $1.9 million loss, yet that same year, the year 2000, they paid out $197 million in bonuses to employees. Again, I came to the floor tonight because I think there is something seriously wrong when the U.S. Postal Service is losing that kind of money yet paying those kind of bonuses. In this great Nation that we live, America, we are usually rewarded for being successful, not for losing money and then charging the customer the rates they have been charging. Let me read a couple other points to my colleagues. This is from the Federal Times Postal News, and it says ``The outlook may appear sour for this year for the U.S. Postal Service, which is facing a potential $2 billion deficit, but many postal service executives may be on the brink of a banner year. Postmaster General John Potter told top postal executives if the postal service continues increasing productivity this year, their bonuses could amount to 25 percent of their salaries.'' He says they are increasing productivity, yet they are still losing between $1 billion and $2 billion. That is kind of laughable to me, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker. Let me also mention that in 2000, which I mentioned earlier, they paid out over $208 million while losing money. Mr. Speaker, I guess the reason I wanted to come to the floor tonight is simply to point out that the American people are looking to those of us in the United States Congress to tell the post office to get their act straight, to start serving the people and making some money, and then maybe those bonuses will be worth it. I have put in a resolution that would deal with this. It is a nonbinding resolution, quite frankly, but it would give Members of the House a chance to come to the floor and talk about the fact that they are not worthy of this kind of increase in their bonuses, in my opinion. I will make quick reference to a Washington Times article of this past Friday called ``Going Postal Bonus,'' and it talks about just how absolutely ridiculous it is that the post office is giving themselves this kind of bonus and raise when they are losing money. So, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to say to my fellow colleagues in the United States House of Representatives that I hope my colleagues will support my nonbinding resolution so we can come to the floor of the House and speak on behalf of those small businesses and patrons of the United States Postal Service who are paying a whole lot in increases while the executives, who are losing money, up to $2 billion, are giving themselves a bonus. As my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), would say, shame on them and shame on us if we do not debate this on the floor of the House.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Nursing Shortage Response Act to help address the critical shortage of registered nurses (RNs) in our nation's hospitals. With the number of students going into the nursing profession on the decline and the bulk of nurses set to retire as the baby boom generation hits Medicare age, nursing staffing shortages are quickly becoming a real healthcare crisis. At the same time, mandatory overtime and lack of adequate staffing in hospitals is driving many existing nurses from the nursing profession into other jobs or retirement. Because of this shortage, existing nurses are being over-worked and the quality of care many patients receive is being called into question. The Nursing Shortage Response Act would help alleviate the current staffing problems hospitals are experiencing by amending the Public Health Service Act to give the National Health Service Corp (NHSC) the authority to consider tertiary care or hospital based nurses. The NHSC would establish criteria for including these nurses in determining the number of health professionals in the ratio for designating a health professional shortage area (HPSA). Currently, the NHSC does not take into account the ratio of hospital nurses per patient in designating a HPSA. This designation process is based only on the number of primary care doctors per patient. I believe this is an important first step towards addressing the nursing staffing shortage. By providing the NHSC the authority to consider the number of tertiary care nurses in designating a HPSA, nurses placed in a medically under-served area would be eligible to receive scholarships and/or have their student loans repaid under the NHSC Scholarship and Loan Repayment programs. We must revitalize the interest in the nursing profession for today's students and make the choice to enter the profession a more attractive, achievable option. At the same time, this bill does not harm the status quo. Language in the Nursing Shortage Response Act prevents the stripping of current HPSA designations by the inclusion of tertiary care nurses in the designation process. Additionally, the 10% set aside for advanced practice nurses under the NHSC would not be implicated as this legislation directs that funds are to come from the $87.9 million budget of the NHSC. Please join me in supporting this legislation as a good first step towards addressing the nursing staffing shortages around the country.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to start my brief comments with a quote by Patrick Henry: The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people. It is an instrument for the people to restrain the government, lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. Mr. Chairman, the reason I am speaking in behalf of the gentleman from California's amendment is that I visited his district in June and I had a chance to meet these people. I can honestly tell Members that there is something wrong with the Federal Government when the Federal Government is trying to put people out of business who are trying to make a living and paying their taxes. Down in my district of North Carolina, we have an issue with the piping plover. The piping plover is a bird that the Federal Government is going to make a decision that will have a tremendous economic impact in a negative way on many States in the southeastern part of the United States. I wanted to say and the reason I want to be a small part of this debate is it is a shame when a suckerfish has more influence on the Federal Government than the people who have been promised land and promised water years and years ago. I want to say to my friends on the other side who are in opposition to the gentleman from California's amendment, I certainly understand their position and respect that. Again, this is your part of the United States of America, but when it comes to the Endangered Species Act, the ESA is having a very negative impact across this Nation. What we need to do is to reform the Endangered Species Act and find a balance so that nature and people can move forward.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.