Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we all recognize that it is politically correct to be able to attack the tobacco industry in its totality today. In the spirit of full disclosure, I will have to admit that I do represent a large number of tobacco farmers. But this really has nothing to do about tobacco farmers. The Waxman amendment, as has been said by many people before I am speaking right now, indicates, and it is true, that under the Waxman amendment, the Department of Justice will be able to take money from the veterans' medical care dollars to finance a speculative lawsuit under the theory of which the Federal Government has never filed one like this before. So that is one reason to oppose this amendment, that it would take veterans medical care dollars to finance the lawsuit. Now, in September of 1999, the Federal Government filed this lawsuit seeking $25 billion to recover money spent by the Federal military and civilian insurers on smoking-related illnesses. Prior to that, the State attorneys general had filed a lawsuit in which the tobacco companies entered into an agreement to settle for about $246 billion over 25 years. I would just point out that, in 1999, all of the money that was spent on veterans' medical care in the United States amounted to about $17 billion in 1999. I think it will also be interesting to know that the legal fees alone in the State lawsuits amounted to almost $12 billion. So there was almost as much money paid in legal fees in that lawsuit as there was spent for veterans' medical care in its totality. Now, another reason that I would oppose the Waxman amendment is the simple fact that Federal and State governments have known for more than 30 years that smoking does create health risks. Yet, with that knowledge, they all permitted the sale of tobacco products and profited nicely from it, indeed enormously from it from the excise tax. Not only did the Federal Government profit from the excise tax for the sale of tobacco products, but the Federal Government gave cigarettes to its young men and women serving in the military around the world. So how can now the Federal Government tell tobacco companies that they may lawfully sell a product that the Federal Government knew would cause injury and then turn around and sue the companies for causing the injury that they knew would be occurring. That is another reason that I would oppose the Waxman amendment. Then a fourth reason I would simply say this, that the Justice Department's complaint is only the most recent, and I am sure it will not be the last effort to use litigation to bludgeon private firms in order to accomplish a prohibition that government could not win in the Congress. So since they cannot win in the Congress, they go to the courts under novel theories of law to collect on something that the Federal Government already knew was harmful and, furthermore, gave it to men and women serving in the military around the world. So those are four of the reasons that I would ask the Members to oppose the Waxman amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, although I was on the House floor throughout the proceedings for consideration of H.R. 8, the repeal of the federal estate tax, on Friday, June 9, 2000, I was not recorded as voting on that issue. My vote was recorded to defeat Lloyd Doggett's Motion to Recommit H.R. 8, but my vote on final passage of H.R. 8 was not recorded. I was a cosponsor of that legislation and it has been a part of my platform since my election to Congress in 1994. I am disappointed that my vote was not recorded because I have always and continue to be in favor of repeal of the federal estate tax.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise with sadness and regret to call to the attention of the Members of Congress and the Nation the tragic murder of the Honorable Fred Capps of Burkesville, Kentucky. Fred was a friend of justice, a dedicated and respected public official, and a personal friend. He served with distinction and diligence as Commonwealth's Attorney for Cumberland, Monroe, Adair and Casey counties in the southeastern tip of the First Congressional District from 1994 until his death on June 5, 2000. He was murdered in his home shortly after dawn by a gunman who was scheduled to be prosecuted by Mr. Capps later that day. Heroically defending himself, his home and family, Fred was able to arm himself as the intruder shot his way into the Capps' home. Though severely wounded, Fred was able to return fire, mortally wounding the intruder, probably saving the lives of his wife and two children, who were at home during the shooting. Fred Capps was an honest, hard-working prosecutor who brought honor to America's criminal justice system. His public contributions mirrored the way he lived his private life. He was dedicated to his wife Catherine and children John Steven and Lynda, to the law, and to his community. This tragedy reminds us again of the debt we owe to Fred Capps and his colleagues, whose commitment to law and order exposes them to the constant possibility of vengeance and violence. They deserve our support, our appreciation, and our prayers.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a student class from the First District of Kentucky representing the Ohio County High School located in Hartford, Kentucky. Following their victory in the Kentucky State competition, this class was selected to represent the State in the national We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution competition which was held in Washington, DC, on May 6-8, 2000. The We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate students about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and principles of democratic government. The program provides curricular materials for upper elementary, middle, and high school students nationwide. Students who are involved in the We the People program have a greater understanding of democratic processes and institutions, participate or plan to participate more in politics, have a greater confidence in government officials, and are more interested in current events and politics in general. The Ohio County class demonstrated their extensive knowledge of the Constitution while participating in the national event through their skillful application of democratic principles to contemporary issues. The format of the competition was a simulated congressional hearing. Thus the students where required to offer testimony as a witness and answer questions posed by a panel of judges as committee members would. I am extremely proud of the achievements of the Ohio County High School class. The knowledge and experience gained through their participation in the We the People program will be invaluable throughout life.

Mr. WHITFIELD

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman South Carolina (Mr. Graham), for the purpose of a colloquy. (Mr. GRAHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank everyone. We cannot solve this problem without the efforts of everyone. If someone worked in a DOE facility during the Cold War and he is a Federal employee, he is covered under the Federal Employee Compensation Act. If he worked as an agent of a contractor and was exposed to one of these diseases, he did not have any coverage. We need to correct that problem. This is the first step.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity today to speak in support of this bipartisan amendment to the FY 2001 Department of Defense authorization bill on behalf of workers throughout the Department of Energy complex. I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their help to ensure that this amendment would be considered. Last week, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) and I, along with several others, introduced H.R. 4398. Our bill would establish a comprehensive Federal compensation program for Department of Energy contract and vender employees who have contracted illnesses from exposure to beryllium, radiation, silica and other hazardous materials. The legislation is patterned after the Federal Employees Compensation Act, which provides compensation to Federal employees and/or their survivors. I represent the workers at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Paducah, Kentucky. We have a chart down there that shows there are 200 other DOE facilities around the country in 37 states. For nearly a year, the plant at Paducah has been the focus of extensive national and local press reports about workers who were exposed to radiation and other hazardous substances without their knowledge. The same thing occurred in these 200 other facilities around the country. The employees at these plants are Cold War veterans who manufactured and tested weapons systems that kept this Nation safe. They may not have worn military uniforms and they may not have been shot at by the enemy, but the increased incidences of illnesses and deaths that they are experiencing are every bit as dangerous. In my judgment, these workers did their duty, and they deserve to be compensated in a fair and timely manner by the government that put them in danger. This amendment is simply a sense of Congress resolution which states that Congress should move forward on a comprehensive program to compensate these workers. I would urge support of the amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment just offered. This modification has been approved by the minority.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, the modification, and I will give the gentleman a copy, which I should have done earlier, changes one word. In the original amendment that was at the desk, on the last page, paragraph 9, line 19, which is the last time we used word ``action,'' that it is appropriate for Congressional action this year, that is what the amendment shows. The original word was ``review.'' The gentleman who had asked for the term ``review'' to be in the original amendment was the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and this came about after our negotiations with the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of H.R. 853, the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act and the biennial budgeting amendment thereto. Both the underlying budget reform bill and the biennial budgeting amendment are the result of extensive study and deliberation during a process characterized by bipartisan cooperation. The changes in the reform bill and the biennial budget amendment changes address long-standing inefficiencies which hamper the work of Congress and Federal agencies. Each year the Congress is so consumed by the budget process, by the appropriation process, we end up with omnibus bills. We do not know what is in there. This bill increases the accountability for Federal spending, promotes fiscal discipline and encourages long-term planning. It also preserves the progress we have made in reducing the public debt by requiring a vote on legislation that increases the debt. In my view, the most necessary reform which we will consider today is the biennial budget amendment. Biennial budgeting was a key recommendation of the 1993 Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress and the Vice President's National Performance Review, and as has been said earlier, President Reagan supported it, President Bush supports it, President Clinton supports it, Vice President Gore supports it, Governor George W. Bush of Texas supports it, and I believe that is what we should do as well. Critics of biennial budgeting allege that a 2-year cycle will reduce the leverage Congress exercises over Federal agencies through the appropriation process, resulting in a shift of power from Congress to the executive branch. I believe the opposite is true. Currently the budget process detracts from Congress' ability to conduct programmatic oversight and reauthorization. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the amendment and the reform bill.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's Washington Post and also in today's Washington Post there were two articles in which Vice President Gore is scolding Governor Bush, candidate for president, on Social Security. In today's article, Vice President Gore in a speech yesterday to labor union members in Atlantic City said that Governor Bush had a secret plan to gut the Social Security program. Now, the vice president is quite effective in being an advocate for the politics of fear, and it is a shame that he would be using this opportunity to scare those most vulnerable in our society, and particularly those senior citizens who depend upon Social Security for their livelihood. So today I just wanted to take a few minutes to talk about Social Security. The Social Security program began in 1936, and between 1936 and 1998, a period of 62 years, in about 47 of those 62 years there was a surplus in the Social Security account. In other words, there was more money coming in through the payroll tax than was being paid out to beneficiaries. During those 47 years of surpluses, the Democratic leadership controlled the Congress for about 95 percent of that time, and during that time in excess of $800 billion was spent by the government from that fund. Now, the sad thing about it was not only was the Congress during that period of time spending all of the income tax, both personal and corporate, but they were also spending all of the Social Security surplus, and they still were creating deficits, annual deficits, in excess of $200 billion a year in many of those years. So I went back and I wanted to look at Vice President Gore's record while he was in Congress. Now, he served in the U.S. Congress and in the U.S. Senate from 1977 to 1992. During that time, Congress spent $269 billion of the surplus of Social Security. At least from the research that I looked at, I did not see anywhere that Vice President Gore expressed any opposition to spending that surplus money. Then, during that period, from 1977 to 1992, the Federal debt increased by $2.4 trillion. I did not find any record where Vice President Gore objected to that kind of addition to our Federal debt. So I read this article about the Vice President using the politics of fear to scare senior citizens about the future of Social Security, and I said, what is the real issue here? When we have people come to Congress to lobby on Social Security, we obviously have senior citizens who depend upon it for their livelihood. But we also are having more and more young married couples with children coming, and they are paying frequently more in payroll tax than they are in income tax, many of them do not have any health insurance, they do not qualify for Medicaid, their employer does not provide health insurance, and they cannot afford it, and many of them do not believe that Social Security will even be there for their benefit when they retire. So Candidate Bush simply elevated for discussion the possibility which many of these young people want of allowing them the opportunity to direct up to 2 percent of their payroll tax into the equity markets. Now, he did not say that he advocated that, he said that he wanted to explore it, because all of us know that by the year 2032, Social Security will be bankrupt. There is a surplus now and there will be until the year 2013, but at that time, the Federal Government is going to have to start repaying some of the $800 billion that it owes Social Security. So Candidate Bush is looking for some long-term solutions for Social Security and its solvency. Of all of the articles that I have read about Vice President Gore, I do not see that he has ever advocated any solution, but he has been effective in advocating the politics of fear. Now, we know from his record that this Vice President has no objection to the government spending every dime of the Social Security surplus. But, it appears from what he said yesterday and the day before that he does not want to even discuss giving young people just entering the workplace the opportunity to invest up to 2 percent of their payroll tax into the equity markets. We know that historically the Federal Government on the $800 billion of the Social Security money that it has borrowed is paying on the average of 5 percent a year. That is about what it averages out to. We know that historically the equity markets have increased over that period of time by about 14 or 15 percent a year. So I would simply say, it is time for us to stop using the politics of fear as advocated by the Vice President and start looking for real solutions and having real discussions about how can we solve the long- term solvency of Social Security so that not only will it be available for senior citizens today, but it will also be available for those young men and women just entering the workplace today.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend a school in my District--Calhoun Elementary School, located in McLean County, Kentucky. The school was honored on May 2 as a Distinguished Title I School by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Association of State Title I Directors (NASTID) at an awards luncheon in conjunction with the annual meeting of the International Reading Association. Each Distinguished School is nominated by its state. The Title I program provides critical help to schools with students from low-income families. Title I funds are targeted at boosting poor achievement and improving basic skills. The purpose of the Distinguished Title I Schools award is to honor the successes of these schools and provide valuable information so other schools may learn what has made these schools so effective. Calhoun Elementary School is made up of students in kindergarten through fifth grade. Programs at Calhoun Elementary include a computer lab which is incorporated into the science, social studies, reading, and math curriculums. Calhoun Elementary has increased parental involvement by over 100%. The Family Reading Night has tripled in size since its inception last year. Other activities involving parents include parent and child computer night, sweatshirt decorating, and speakers on topics of interest to parents, all of which are planned by the Title I Parent Liaison. Calhoun students participate in a keyboard lab to learn music, history, notes and background. This has enabled students to become more proficient in science and math. Calhoun students have improved achievement scores by at least 16 points. Title I has enabled the school to adopt extensive programmatic and systematic changes to help ensure the success of their students. New teaching strategies have incorporated tasks which require higher order thinking skills used in critical problem solving. Teachers engage students in challenging activities which capture the students' interests. Teachers have also focused attention on addressing the needs of a student body with multiple intelligences and diverse learning capabilities. The students, teachers, administrators, and parents at Calhoun Elementary School should be proud of their extraordinary achievement. Their determination and community-based solutions set an outstanding example for other schools to follow.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, April 4, Mr. Dingell referenced the different waiting times for liver transplants between the two Kentucky transplant centers. As you might know, both centers are in the same organ procurement area (OPA). The different waiting times are the result of the different status levels of the individuals on the waiting list. It is not a reflection of geographic unfairness. Seriousness of condition, not time on the waiting list, is the determining factor for who gets a liver transplant. As the Institute of Medicine report stated, aggregated waiting time is a poor measure of equity in the transplant field. At the request of both Kentucky organ transplant centers, I was pleased to cosponsor H.R. 2418, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Amendments Act. Let's keep important transplant decisions with the physicians and transplant centers who actually save lives. Let's keep the Washington, bureaucrats out of this issue.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the House's adoption of the amendment to H.R. 3908, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson. My District is currently struggling with an explosion in the use, distribution, and production of methamphetamine. The number of methamphetamine incidents in the First District of Kentucky is estimated to be one of the highest in the country. The outbreak of clandestine meth labs is creating a tremendous burden of local law enforcement agencies, especially in rural areas with small police departments. Methamphetamine investigations are time consuming and require unique techniques and specialized equipment. Law enforcement officers in making a meth bust cannot simply arrest the suspect or suspects; they must be certified to dispose of these volatile and hazardous chemicals. This amendment will reallocate much needed funding to DEA for cleanup of hazardous materials at clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. The funds available to DEA for lab cleanups were recently exhausted. Western Kentucky was fortunate enough to receive a $1 million earmark for methamphetamine eradication and cleanup. However, we could still experience a funding shortfall based on statistics provided to me by DEA. During Fiscal Year 1999, there were 58 meth lab cleanups in the State of Kentucky; 50 were in my District. During the first quarter of this year, there were 25 meth lab cleanups in Kentucky and 20 were in my District. This is a serious problem we can't ignore.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, it has been 4 years since the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and I am pleased to report that cable companies are responding to that Act and are delivering state-of- the-art telecommunication services in Kentucky's First Congressional District, as well as throughout the country. Charter company has wired Murray State University with cable modems, giving students and faculty high-speed access to the Internet. Charter is also deploying cable modems in the town of Murray, Kentucky, and will offer residential services there in April. In addition, Mediacom is offering cable modems in Marshall and Calloway counties and continues to upgrade its infrastructure with interactive fiber/coaxial cable facilities. I am pleased that cable companies throughout the country are helping to fulfill the vision of the Telecommunications Act, which was designed to bring competition, expanded investment, and the delivery of broadband services to all Americans. {time} 1015

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and honor a Kentucky student from my District who has achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in her community. Alicia Jackson of Beaver Dam, Kentucky is a senior at Ohio County High School in Hartford. Alicia was named one of my state's top honorees in the 2000 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, a nationwide program under which more than 20,000 high school and middle school students were considered for awards. Alicia is being recognized for her efforts in organizing a week-long series of events to promote Community Traffic Safety Week at her school. Activities organized by Alicia included a crash re-enactment and presentations by guest lecturers. Alicia is an inspiring example of how we as individual citizens can contribute to our community. People of all ages need to think about how we can work at the local level to ensure the health and vitality of our towns and neighborhoods. Alicia should be extremely proud to have been singled out from such a large group of volunteers. I heartily applaud Alicia for her initiative and positive impact on others within her community. She offers an encouraging example of the promise which America's youth offer for the future.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the third National Groundhog Job Shadow Day on February 2, 2000 as an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the importance of students experiencing the workplace firsthand through mentoring and job shadowing. Local companies will recognize the importance of partnerships between schools and businesses to ensure the economic prosperity of Kentucky and the ability of our students to participate in the global workplace of tomorrow. Students will spend one day shadowing various professions in an effort to see how their classroom lessons are put into action in the workplace. Mr. Speaker, Job Corps, America's Promise, the National School-to- Work Opportunities Office, Junior Achievement and the American Society of Association Executives have joined together in a national effort to encourage students to explore and experience a wide range of career choices. My district is fortunate to have two Job Corps Centers participate on February 2, 2000. They are the Earl C. Clements Job Corps Center in Morganfield, KY and the Earl C. Clements Job Corps Center Satellite Operations in Greenville, KY. Mr. Speaker, I offer this statement as a token of my appreciation for the effort by our Job Corps centers and other organizations to provide this valuable learning experiences to young people in the first congressional district.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, this obviously is quite an emotional issue. When people talk about patients' rights, all of us want to protect patients' rights. I can understand how the gentleman from Texas and other speakers on the other side would say this is a partisan issue, because we can make it quite a partisan issue. But the point that I would like to make is that politics is the art of compromise. As the gentleman from Arizona said, many on that side of the aisle have taken the position, it is either our way or it is no way. They also would make the argument that government can best solve this problem. Yes, I think government has a part and an important part in trying to solve this problem. But I would also remind everyone that this patient protection bill, we get the impression that it would affect every patient in America. That is really not true. It affects only those covered under ERISA plans, health plans provided by certain employers. Those employers have a vested interest in helping their employees with good health care. That is why they have initiated many of these plans. The reason that we want some flexibility for these conferees on the House side is that what the Senate passed is drastically different than what the House passed. It would be unwise, it could not work, if our conferees cannot have any flexibility whatsoever. So if the other side really wants to try to solve this problem and have a meaningful bill that can protect patients under ERISA plans, then we need to defeat this motion. They can go to conference; they can have disagreements. We can come back and vote on it again. But to tie their hands before they even get there I think is not only a disservice to the House, not only a disservice to the conferees, but a disservice to the patients whose rights we are trying to protect.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1390.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I want to take just one moment to talk a little bit about how this important discussion came about. On June 29 of this year, the gentlewoman from Idaho introduced House Concurrent Resolution 94 and this body debated that resolution. It was really a simple resolution. The title of it was Recognizing National Need for Reconciliation and Healing and Recommending a Call for Days of Prayer. In addition, it specifically said that, ``Resolved by the House of Representatives that the Congress urges all Americans to unite in seeking the face of God through humble prayer and fasting persistently, asking God to send spiritual strength and a renewed sense of humility to the Nation so that hate and indifference may be replaced with love and compassion and so that the suffering in the Nation and the world may be healed by the hand of God.'' There were a couple of other points that were basically the same, recommending that the leaders and the national, State, and local government and business and clergy appoint and call upon the people they serve to observe a day of prayer and fasting and humiliation before God. A very simple resolution, going back to the very founding of this country on religious principles. And yet, when that resolution came to a vote on this floor on June 29, it received 270 votes, 270 Members voted yes, 140 Members voted no, and 11 voted present. Now, normally it would have passed, but this was on a suspension calendar because no one thought it would be controversial. And since it did not receive two-thirds of the vote of those voting that day, it failed. It is really difficult to imagine that a simple resolution with such traditional values expressing those calling for humility and prayer to help heal this Nation would fail on this floor. Now, I would also tell my colleagues that of the 140 people who voted no on this floor, 136 of them were Democrats. Now, I do not question the motives of anyone who voted no. However, the vote demonstrates clearly that a significant number of Members in this body do not want this body to express itself on religious matters. It is also important to remember that this resolution was simply an expression of the House on this issue, it was not a law, it did not have any mandates, it did not have any inner enforcement, but simply an expression of the House. And even if it had passed the House and the Senate and was signed by the President, it would not have been an enforceable statute, simply an expression of the sense of Congress. Now, the sad thing is people on this body do not want the House of Representatives expressing a view on religion, and yet nearly 200 religious resolutions have been passed by this body over the history of this Congress and many of them passed at the request of Founding Fathers like George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, and others. Now, members from the other party objected to this body doing what scores of former congressmen had constitutionally done. Why? Well, they made it very clear that day in June that they voted against it because they said to encourage a day of prayer and fasting would be unconstitutional. Now, why did they say that? I want to quote from their statements taken from the Congressional Record. One of them said, ``Congress has no business giving its official endorsement to religion. This resolution is an official endorsement of religion and thus constitutes an establishment of religion.'' One of them said, ``To even suggest prayer should be a government dictated, necessary duty demeans the very sanctity of prayer.'' Another one said, ``No matter how this resolution is dressed up, it is an official endorsement of religion and of particular religious beliefs and activities and constitutes an establishment of religion.'' Well, I found that difficult to believe after having read this resolution three and four and five times. There is nothing in here about dictating anything. It does not establish any religion whatsoever. And I wanted to touch on that briefly. One example of the definition of ``establishment'' came from this very body. In 1854, an investigation was conducted by the House Committee on the Judiciary about what is an establishment of religion. After a year of hearings and investigations on what constituted an establishment of religion, the House Committee on the Judiciary emphatically reported. What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed defining what a man must believe. It must have rights and ordinances which believers must observe. It must have ministers of defined qualifications to teach the doctrines and administer the rights. It must have tests for the believers and penalties for the nonbelievers. There cannot be an established religion without these. We know that this simple resolution on this floor on June 9, 1999, did not come close to any of those. And yet most of those opposed said that it established religion. In addition to that, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary reported the same thing, that it must have a creed defining what a man must believe. It must have rights and ordinances which believers must observe. It must have ministers of defined qualifications. It must have tests for believers, penalties for the non-conformists. So from these clear definitions of this body itself, from the Senate judiciary, from the House judiciary, this resolution was not an establishment of religion under any definition. Further proof that it was not, Justice Joseph Story, a legal expert appointed by the Supreme Court by President James Madison and who was called the Father of American Jurisprudence, was very clear on what the word ``establishment'' meant in the First Amendment. In his commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, a work which is still cited regularly in this body, Justice Story began by declaring that government should not only endorse but should encourage religion. And then he would explain that ``the promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being and attributes and providence of one almighty God, the responsibility to him for all our actions founded upon moral freedom and accountability, a future state of rewards and punishments, the cultivation of all the personal social and benevolent virtues, these never can be a matter of indifference in any well- ordered community.'' He went on to say that ``The real object of the First Amendment was to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment by the government, and without that there is no establishment of religion.'' I, for one, and I think others here tonight refuse to submit to the popularity of political correctness that states that elected representatives of the people should not pass resolutions expressing the sense of Congress on religious matters. I do not advocate nor does anyone here advocate the establishment of any religion as defined. We do not want to mandate Hinduism. We do not want to mandate Buddhism. We do not want to mandate Christianity, Jewish religion, Islamic religion. So we do not advocate the establishment of any religion. But we recognize the inseparability of the religious principles from humanity. And if this body cannot discuss it, if this body cannot pass resolutions expressing its view on religion, then who in America can?

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the Caldwell- Lyon Association of Missionary Baptists, composed of 38 Missionary Baptist churches in Caldwell, Lyon, and Hopkins counties in the First Congressional District of Kentucky. The Caldwell-Lyon Association of Missionary Baptists will celebrate its 75th Anniversary on September 27, 1999 at the Princeton First Baptist Church where its first meeting was held on September 24, 1924. The mission of the Association is to enliven missions at home base by providing fellowship, mission activities, and support to assist churches in carrying out the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). Mr. Speaker, the Caldwell-Lyon Association of Missionary Baptists was organized under the leadership of O.M. Shultz, pastor of the Princeton First Baptist Church, C.B. Barnes, pastor of the Fredonia First Baptist Church, Rudolph Lane, pastor of Walnut Grove Baptist Church, and Reed Rushing, pastor of the Donaldson Baptist Church. During the past 75 years, seven pastors have served the Association as missionaries. they are: Gus Marshall, Olen Sisk, Rudolph Lane, Raymond Stovall, George Park, Ralph Tomek, and Harold Greenfield. These individuals and many others have dedicated their lives to furthering the spiritual life of their communities and spreading the message of Christianity throughout the world. Recently, a 12-person team from the Caldwell-Lyon Association joined a 24-member team from Kentucky to spread the gospel of Christ in Mombassa, Kenya. Mr. Speaker, we are a Nation founded on Christian principles. As President Andrew Jackson so eloquently declared, ``The Bible is the Book upon which this Republic rests.'' It is with pride and admiration that I submit this statement in recognition of the spiritual leadership provided by the Caldwell-Lyon Association of Missionary Baptists on their 75th Anniversary.