Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, an important event is soon approaching for a wonderful American lady, my mother-in-law, Alice Moore. She is celebrating her 85th birthday. Alice Stewart Sampson Moore was born on September 28, 1920, in Yonkers, New York.

Her parents, William and Matilda, gave her a good Christian upbringing in the Episcopal Church. She turned her interest and learning into a career teaching education in Yonkers, New York.

She is a proud mother of 11, and a great grandmother of even more. Although no longer working, Alice continues to serve in her community, volunteering at an elementary school and at the hospital in Englewood, Florida.

Last year she suffered through the hurricanes that devastated parts of Florida, and her house did not escape damage. However, drawing on her Irish spirit, she cheerfully dealt with those setbacks and got back to pursuits.

For many men, a mother-in-law is an intimidating figure. Although a stern taskmaster, Alice speaks her mind and she is a delightful person. Her smile lights up the room. She reminds me of Barbara Bush. She is a giving person with a warm disposition and serving heart.

That is why I call her a thousand points of light times two. Mr. Speaker, in recognizing her accomplishments in education and as a volunteer, perhaps I should note another important accomplishment, being the mother of my wife, Joan Betty Moore Stearns. I am eternally indebted to you, Alice, and I wish you all the best. Happy birthday.

Offered By: Mr. Stearns

Amendment No. 2: Page 110, line 7, after ``families,''

insert ``families with one or more children with

disabilities,''.

Mr. Speaker, there is progress in New Orleans. The Port of New Orleans received its first shipment, and more people are back in the area for brief visits to assess the damage to their homes. In areas that were not flooded or the flood waters have begun to recede, citizens and crews began the clean-up process.

The Governor's office reported that 16 of the region's 25 wastewater treatment plants are now operational. And the New Orleans airport reopened for cargo planes just last week. Although service will be extremely limited, the airport reopened to commercial traffic this week.

In the wake of such a crippling disaster, we are already seeing promising indicators of recovery for the city of New Orleans. Our thoughts and prayers are still with the people of the Gulf region, and we in Congress will continue to work to ensure that New Orleans and the Gulf Coast continue to move towards a full recovery.

Mr. Speaker, we have all seen the horrors left in the wake of Hurricane Katrina over the past week. Yet, in the midst of this chaos and destruction, the American people, once again, demonstrated their compassion for those left with nothing. The American people and people from all over the world have opened not only their wallets, but also their homes, cities and schools. This compassion has not been limited to Americans alone. Over 70 countries have offered their assistance as well.

Now, a great deal of criticism has been leveled against the Federal Government's response, and much of it may be deserved. But there is also a

level of criticism due to local and State governments, too. Allowing New Orleans to turn into something out of the Wild West where anarchy reins is inexcusable, and all levels of government need to see what was done wrong. In the meantime, we must work together to ensure that the necessary resources are available.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), my distinguished colleague, the former chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. And like his father, the gentleman is as tough as nails, also with a gentle heart. And I think most of our people on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs where he served with distinction as chairman will agree with that.

I am very pleased this afternoon to bring my resolution to the floor commemorating the 60th anniversary of V-J Day and the end of World War II in the Pacific. I thank sincerely the two Chairs of the committees of jurisdiction for their consideration. First of all, the House Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), who himself fought for victory in Japan as mentioned by my colleague from Kentucky, and the chair of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). Like my father, Chairman Hunter's father, Robert Hunter, served in World War II.

On August 15, 1945, Emperor Hirohito of Japan, in a radio address to his countrymen, announced the unconditional surrender of Japan's military forces. So, frankly, World War II officially came to a close with the signing of the surrender documents on September 2, 1945, aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay.

Throughout the Pacific Theatre, the men and women of the United States Armed Forces fought bravely and suffered brutally. My own father, United States Navy Captain Clifford Robert Stearns, participated in the landing on the island of Iwo Jima. During the battle, a bullet passed close by his temple, striking the bulwark of the ship behind him. He recovered the bullet, brought it home to my mother and I. And while I could never name each of my constituents who fought, I have been honored by many such stories, just like my dad's.

I wanted, in this World War II anniversary year, to focus attention once more on what we call V-J Day.

For years, following World War II, both V-E Day, victory in Europe, May

8, and V-J Day were commonly printed on calendars. But that is not so anymore. And sometimes when I talk to veterans of the Pacific Theatre, they will say, you know, Cliff, we have seen movies like ``Saving Private Ryan'' and ``Band of Brothers,'' and while we take nothing away from the triumph of our brothers in the European theaters, we would like to see our story told also. And I do think this summer we see a renewed interest in just this. From the movie ``The Great Raid,'' to dances, a parade, a V-J 60th speech by the President, to fireworks last Friday night, September 2, on the National Mall, the veterans of the Pacific are getting their due.

When exactly is V-J Day, some will ask me. Some refer to it as the day that the Emperor announced the surrender, which is August 15. This is when many of our World War II allies formally recognized August 15 as V-J Day, namely, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia. In Australia, as a matter of fact, they are particularly adamant about naming August 15 V-J and not V-P, for victory in the Pacific, as some do, because the Australians in the West fought just as strongly in the Indian Ocean. Some Asian islands, such as China and Korea, recognize August 15 as Liberation Day.

Also since the surrender announcement fell on August 14 in American time zones, you may see this date commemorated as V-J Day here.

And finally, it may refer to the date of the formal surrender which was September 2, as I mentioned earlier, in 1945.

I would like to take us back to August 14, 1945. When this news was made public over radios, America experienced a moment mixed with both relief and jubilation. This is the very essence of V-J Day, a collective sense of ease and an express ebullience of excitement. We had endured many years of worry, of rationing, planting victory gardens, buying war bonds, air raid drills and civil defense patrol, blackouts even on our own soil. But on V-J Day this ended. America was thrown open for the Nation's single largest tailgate party, and we were all there rooting for the same team.

In this jubilation, there was no difference between enlisted, officers or civilians. Americans danced in the streets, honked horns, blared radios. Americans poured into village parks, busy city squares in the streets. Libations flowed. Everywhere the noise was deafening.

Even before the surrender, when it appeared imminent, there was some interesting preparation.

In my State of Florida, on August 10, 1945, Governor Millard F. Caldwell issued a proclamation calling for Floridians to maintain the ``solemnity and dignity of the occasion'' by avoiding ``boisterous conduct,'' and to facilitate this, that ``all liquor package stores, bars and tap rooms and places dispensing alcoholic beverages remain closed during that period.''

Now, I do not imagine that he achieved his objective here. I do not think the decorum was what he thought it would be, but everybody was excited with jubilation.

Of course, the image most recognizable to Americans and the world is of the Life Magazine cover of a joyous kissing sailor and nurse which photographer Alfred Eisenstadt froze for all time. In an interview last month, the nurse, now a grandmother, Edith Cullen Shain, recalled the pandemonium on August 14, 1945, when people grabbed anyone and hugged and kissed each other.

Mr. Speaker, I close with the testament that understanding and alliances can arise out of former cataclysms. Today, Japan stands with us as a true and enduring friend, fellow economic world leader and a force for a stable and prosperous Asia.

I believe it is important to bring this resolution to the floor to commemorate that. As the events of World War II pass further and further into history, the deeds of so many must not fade in our memories. The veterans in the Pacific theater brought peace and liberation to millions and millions of people. And as Americans rejoiced on V-J Day 1945, we will continue to salute those veterans for many, many more years to come.

I am pleased that the House is bringing up my resolution Commemorating the 60th anniversary of V-J Day and the end of World War II in the Pacific. I want to thank the two Chairs of the Committees of jurisdiction for their consideration. First, of the House Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois, the Honorable Henry Hyde, who himself fought for Victor in Japan by piloting a landing craft in the Lingayen Gulf. And next, the Chair of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California, the Honorable Duncan Hunter. Like mine, Chairman Hunter's father, Robert Hunter, served in WWII.

On August 15, 1945, Emperor Hirohito of Japan, in a radio address to his countrymen, conceded defeat and announced the unconditional surrender of Japan's military forces. World War II officially came to a close with the signing of the surrender documents on September 2, 1945, aboard the U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay. Thus ended this devastating war.

Throughout the Pacific Theater, the men and women of the United States Armed Services fought bravely, and suffered brutally. My own father, USN Captain Clifford Robert Stearns participated in the landings on the island of Iwo Jima. During the battle, a bullet passed close by his temple striking the bulwark of the ship behind him. He recovered the bullet and brought it to my mother and me. And, while I could never in a million years name every one of my constituents and neighbors who fought in this theater, I have had the honor of hearing so many stories:

1. Writing last Friday for the Gainesville Sun on V-J Day, Bob Gasche of Gainesville was a Marine who saw combat in the Pacific.

And from my hometown of Ocala,

2. James C. Phillips, while we were interviewing him for the Library of Congress' Veterans History Project, quietly described his harrowing experience as a Kamikaze survivor of the USS Luce;

3. Dewey Roberson joined the Army Air Corps and went from New Guinea to the Philippines to Okinawa, dodging bombs every step of the way;

4. Nolie Deas was in the 517th Army Battalion in the South Pacific who invaded the Philippines in June 1945;

5. Leonard Orr served in the 509th Composite Group in the Air Force; and

6. Tommy Needham served in the Naval Reserve in post-war Japan. All of these gentlemen, and many women, brought us to Victory in Japan.

But I did not author this legislation to rehash the horrific, but brave, tales of Pacific battles; this has been done so much before. Instead, I wanted, in this World War II anniversary year, to focus attention once more, as we did 60 years ago, on what we called V-J Day.

For years following World War II, both V-E Day (Victory in Europe, May 8) and V-J Day (Victory over Japan, Aug. 14), were commonly printed on calendars. But that's not so anymore, and I think this is a little sad. And sometimes, when I talk to veterans of the Pacific Theater they'll say, ``You know Cliff, we see movies like `Saving Private Ryan', and `Band of Brothers'. And while we take nothing away from the tremendous triumph of our brothers in the European theater, we sure would like our story told, too.'' And, I do think this summer we are seeing a renewed interest. For example, the movie ``The Great Raid'', about the successful rescue of over 500 Americans from a Japanese POW camp by the 6th Army Rangers Battalion and Filipino guerrillas was released. In my hometown, Ocala, Florida, the Yankee Air Force Inc. had a V-J Day dance on August 6 at the American Legion Post 58. More, the History Channel hosted and aired a commemoration on the USS Intrepid in New York City on V-J Day, on August 14th. Also Sunday the 14th, Moosup, Connecticut held a parade, believed to be the only V-J Day parade still held in the eastern United States. Meanwhile, the President commemorated the 60th Anniversary of V-J Day Naval Air Station North Island San Diego, California. And still, last Friday night September 2 on the National Mall, the National Park Service put on a fireworks display.

So, I think you, Pacific Theater veterans, are getting your due this summer and it is essential and proper that we as a grateful nation honor you.

When I talked about my V-J Day resolution, I encountered questions about when, exactly is it? Some refer to it as the day that the Emperor announced the surrender: August 15th. This is when Many of our World War II allies formally recognize August 15th as ``V-J Day'', namely the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia. In Australia, as a matter of fact, they are particularly adamant about naming August 15th V-J, and not V-P for Victory in the Pacific, as some do, because the Australians in the West fought just as strongly in the Indian Ocean. Relatedly, some Asian lands, such as China and Korea, recognize August 15 as Liberation Day.

Also in the U.S., since the surrender announcement fell on August 14th in American time zones, you may see this date commemorated to as V-J Day. Finally, it may refer to the date of the formal surrender, September 2, 1945.

I would like to take us back to August 14, 1945, to the battlefront, and to the homefront. When this news was made public over radios, Americans experienced a moment mixed of both relief and jubilation. This is the very essence of V-J Day--a collective exhalation of ease, and expressive ebullience.

We had endured years of worry, of rationing, planting Victory Gardens and canning, buying war bonds. Even school children bought many war stamps and pasted them in special books. When the books were filled, the students traded them in for a war bond. We had air raid drills and civil defense patrolled blackouts on our own soil. Civil defense wardens saw to it that people obeyed the rules. According to a North Carolina history museum, one Wilmington, North Carolina department store clerk was even arrested, convicted, and fined ``for smoking a lighted cigarette upon the streets after having been warned by a person in authority to extinguish it.'' We studied printed plane silhouettes to learn the shape of enemy aircraft. Ration coupons for sugar, meat, fabric, and gasoline were a way of life, as was carpooling to preserve rubber and gasoline for troops. Housewives poured off cooking fat to be salvaged for munitions.

But on V-J Day, this was over in an instant. America was thrown open for the Nation's single largest tailgate party, and we were all rooting for the same team. In the joyous celebration, there was no difference between enlisted or officer or civilian, Americans danced in the streets, honked horns, blared radios. Americans poured into village parks, busy city squares and the streets. Libations flowed and everywhere, the noise was deafening.

Even days before the surrender, when it appeared eminent, there was some interesting preparation. In my State of Florida, on August 10, 1945, Governor Millard F. Caldwell issued a proclamation calling for Floridians to maintain the ``solemnity and dignity of the occasion'' by avoiding ``boisterous conduct,'' and to facilitate this, that ``all liquor package stores, bars and tap rooms and places dispensing alcoholic beverages, remain closed during that period''. I do not imagine that he achieved the abstemious decorum he sought, but it all went well. (I would like to enter this into the Record.)

Of course, the image most recognizable to Americans, and the world, is of the Life magazine cover of a joyous, kissing sailor and nurse, which photographer Alfred Eisenstadt froze for all time. In an interview last month, Edith Cullen Shain recalled the pandemonium on August 14, 1945, the day of victory for the Allied Forces over Japan, when people grabbed anyone and hugged and kissed each other. ``I let him kiss me because he had been in war and he fought for me,'' Shain said of the sailor. ``I only wish now I had had a conversation with him or asked his name. I just got lost in the moment,'' said Shain, now an 87-year-old great-grandmother from Santa Monica, California. And never missing the opportunity to point out a Floridian, I share that Elizabeth Harris of Tampa is the lady in the photo peeking over the sailor's shoulder. Also, two Floridians had their own V-J Day kiss. Betty and Dominick Bruno, 79 and 86 today living in Lakeland, never met but conducted a wartime correspondence. They finally met in person in Charlotte, North Carolina four years later, and kissed in the V-J Day bedlam in the streets, and have become local celebrities in Charlotte where they are featured in newspaper stories every decade on the anniversary of V-J Day.

I would like to close with a testament that understandings and alliances can arise out of former cataclysm, today Japan stands with us as a true and enduring friend, fellow economic world leader, and force for a stable and prosperous Asia.

Thank you, again, for bringing this Resolution to the Floor. As the events of World War II pass further into history, the deeds of so many must not fade in our memories. The veterans in the Pacific Theater brought peace and liberation to millions, and as Americans rejoiced on V-J Day 1945, we will continue to salute you for many years to come.

[From: Division of Elections, Proclamations and Executive Orders, 1845-

1995, Series S 13]

V-J Day Proclamation, 1945

The United States entered the Second World War in December

1941, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

For the next fours years Americans participated in what was

arguably the greatest national endeavor in our nation's

history.

World War II had an enormous impact on the state of

Florida. More than 250,000 Floridians served in the Army,

Navy, Marines, or Coast Guard and almost 4,700 gave their

lives. About 170 military training bases of various sizes

were established in the state; while shipyards at Tampa,

Jacksonville, Panama City, and Pensacola turned out Liberty

Ships and landing craft; and Florida farmers helped feed both

Allied soldiers and civilians.

Spessard L. Holland served as Florida's governor for most

of World War II, but Millard F. Caldwell had been elected the

state's twenty-ninth governor in late 1944. He presided over

the victory celebrations that erupted across the state in May

1945 upon the defeat of Nazi Germany, and again in August

1945, when victory over Japan was proclaimed.

On August 10, when it became obvious that Japan was on the

verge of surrender, Governor Caldwell issued a proclamation

calling for Floridians to maintain the ``solemnity and

dignity of the occasion'' by avoiding ``boisterous conduct.''

He urged all establishments that dispensed alcohol to close

for twenty-four hours following the announcement of the

surrender. Nevertheless, when news reached the state a few

days later of Japan's acceptance of surrender terms, joyous

pandemonium ensued. ``News of the Japanese capitulation last

night hit Tallahassee,'' reported a newspaper, ``with the

force of Uncle Sam's new atomic bomb and was the signal for

everybody to unloose that pent-up feeling and start what old-

timers view as the most wild, I spontaneous and enthusiastic

celebration ever witnessed in the Capital City.''

A text version of the V-J Day proclamation is included

below the graphic image.

Proclamation

State of Florida

Executive Department

Tallahassee

WHEREAS, the announcement of victory against Japan and the

final end of the destructive world-wide conflict, in which we

have been engaged since 1941, will be received by the people

of Florida, of the United States of America, and of the

entire civilized world, with gratitude and thanksgiving that

we have been spared further damage and sorrow, and

WHEREAS, the solemnity and dignity of this occasion should

not be marred by any boisterous conduct on the part of the

thoughtless or by any tragic incident that can be avoided,

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Millard F. Caldwell, by virtue of the

authority vested in me as Governor of the State of Florida,

proclaim V-J DAY in Florida as the twenty-four hours next

succeeding announcement of the surrender of Japan upon the

proclamation by the President of the United States that

hostilities are at an end, and urge that all liquor package

stores, bars and tap rooms and other places dispensing

alcoholic beverages, remain closed during that period;

I also call upon the Sheriffs, their deputies and other law

enforcement officers throughout the State to cooperate in

making V-J Day orderly, dignified and law-abiding in

accordance with the spirit and intent of this proclamation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused

to be affixed the Great Seal of the State of Florida at

Tallahassee, the Capital, this the 10th day of August, A.D.

1945.

Millard F. Caldwell,

Governor.

Attest: R. A. Gray, Secretary of State.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and I would like to engage the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) in a colloquy.

First of all, we want to thank the gentleman for his willingness to work with the entire Florida delegation to reach an agreement that will allow the States to increase control of their waters.

Included in H.R. 6 is a provision ordering an inventory and analysis of oil and natural gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf. Many are concerned that this inventory is merely a precursor to drilling off Florida's coast against the wishes of the Governor and our two U.S. Senators and the Florida delegation.

Currently, there is a moratorium against drilling in this area, over here, until 2012, and these areas called the stovepipe and bulge, here and here to 2007. The top of the stovepipe is about 16 miles off the coast of Pensacola, home to a large amount of military operations.

Mr. Speaker, can we have the chairman's assurance that he will continue to work with the Florida delegation to find a solution that encourages and ensures that drilling or exploration will not occur in the areas off the Florida coast against the wishes of the State?

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I would say the importance of this is it be a long-term solution for the State of Florida instead of having to go to reiteration every 2 years dealing with this moratorium. As you know, we worked almost 3 hours in the night trying to come up with a solution. We have a workable plan that we discussed with the chairman, and we very much appreciate the chairman's support, interest, and help.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the full committee for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) for his help here.

I rise, obviously, in support of the Coble-Schiff-Forbes amendment and in favor of the underlying bill. This amendment I think is important to update and improve our seaport security, which obviously is very crucial to protecting America. It also includes three provisions from my bill, H.R. 785, the

cargo theft bill; and it is an issue that I have been concerned about for over 2 years, so I am very pleased that it is part of the bill.

Probably the most important thing with this amendment that we are talking about this evening that it accomplishes is that it requires that cargo theft reports be reflected as a separate category in the Uniform Crime Reporting System, or the UCR, the data collection system that is used by the FBI today, currently, no such category exists in the UCR, which results in ambiguous data and an inability to track and monitor trends.

So I am very pleased that the Committee on the Judiciary incorporated that provision and also raised criminal penalties for cargo theft, which is included in this bill.

As it now stands, Mr. Chairman, punishment for cargo theft is a relative slap on the wrist. Throw in the fact that cargo thieves are tough to catch, and what we have here is a low-risk, high-reward crime that easily entices potential criminals. The sentencing enhancement proposed in this amendment will go a long way in making a career in cargo theft less attractive. So the authors of this amendment are to be commended.

Last, this amendment includes a provision requiring the Attorney General to mandate the reporting of cargo thefts and to create a database containing this information, which will provide a valuable source of information and will allow States and local law enforcement officials to coordinate reports of cargo theft. This information could then be used to help fight this theft in everyday law enforcement.

Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense cargo theft provision, along with efforts to strengthen our seaport security, vitally effective tools in our war on terrorism. I want to thank my colleagues, particularly my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), for their help.

I rise today in support of the Coble/Schiff/Forbes amendment, and in favor of the underlying bill.

This amendment proposes to update and improve our seaport security, which is a crucial element to protecting America.

It also includes three critical provisions from my bill H.R. 785 regarding cargo theft, an issue that I have been concerned about for some time now.

Cargo theft is a problem that has plagued our country for some 30 years, but continues unabated today. It is a problem that travels our highways, threatens our interstate commerce and undermines our homeland security. It is a problem that affects our entire country, costs tens of billions of dollars each year, and demands a Federal response.

There is no doubt that stopping cargo theft and smuggling is a national security issue. We know that terrorists can make a lot of money stealing and selling cargo, not to mention the fact that terrorists have a proven record of using trucks to either smuggle weapons of mass destruction or as an instrument of delivery.

Many of the industries involved in delivering cargo: trucking, shipping, and businesses--are genuinely concerned about how security gaps expose cargo to terrorism. Law enforcement has the same concerns. These groups support this legislation.

That's why the three particular provisions in this amendment relating to cargo theft are so important.

Probably the most important thing this amendment accomplishes is that it requires that cargo theft reports be reflected as a separate category in the Uniform Crime Reporting System, or the UCR, the data collection system that is used by the FBI today. Currently, no such category exists in the UCR, resulting in ambiguous data and the inability to track and monitor trends.

I am also pleased that the provision raising criminal penalties for cargo theft is included in this bill. As it now stands, Mr. Chairman, punishment for cargo theft is a relative slap on the wrist. Throw in the fact that cargo thieves are tough to catch, and what we have here is a low-risk, high-reward crime that easily entices potential criminals. The sentencing enhancements proposed in this amendment will go a long way in making a career in cargo theft less attractive.

And last, this amendment includes a provision requiring the Attorney General to mandate the reporting of cargo thefts, and to create a database containing this information. This database will provide a valuable source of information that would allow State and local law enforcement officials to coordinate reports of cargo theft. This information could then be used to help fight this theft in everyday law enforcement.

These common-sense cargo theft provisions, along with the efforts to strengthen our seaport security, will be vital and effective tools in our war on terror.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for including this language, and I urge this House to pass this amendment and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, as the conference between the House and Senate on the energy bill gets underway, it is long past due for Congress to pass a comprehensive energy bill. U.S. economic prosperity is closely tied to the availability of a reliable and affordable supply of energy. As the economy grows, so will the demand for energy. According to the Energy Information Agency, the United States, by the year 2025, is expected to need 44 percent more petroleum, 38 percent more natural gas, 43 percent more coal, 54 percent more electricity, and 54 percent more renewable energy.

Record increases in the prices at the pump and in overall energy cost underscore the long-term need to enact a comprehensive national energy strategy. So, Mr. Speaker, the time is now to do so.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 347, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. Rangel

Mr. Speaker, last week, on this Floor I saluted the Supreme Court for a ruling that made citizens more free. Also, yesterday we passed H. Res. 312, Recognizing National Homeownership.

However, the Supreme Court I lauded was not ours, but the Canadian Supreme Court, for freeing the sale of health insurance. And in fact, USA homeownership may not be so liberating. Last Thursday, our Supreme Court backed that local governments can co-opt private property, and give it to another private entity, for economic development. This is under the power of eminent domain, and is an expansive setback to property rights advocates and all homedwellers.

The Fifth Amendment to our Constitution allows the government to take private property with ``just compensation''. Historically, it's been interpreted only for ``public use'': a highway, military base or other such infrastructure. Increasingly, and confirmed by Kelo v. New London, the Federal courts have said that private property could be taken for ``public benefit,'' including tax revenues and job creation. Revitalization for the neighborhood trumps individual ``homeownership''.

Former bustling, now depressed New London, CT seeks to develop a private, commercial enterprise. They must compensate, but

two homeowners don't want to budge. Susette Kelo has extensively remodeled her waterfront-view home. Wilhelmina Dery was born in her house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life.

You ask, why worry, how often? According to Institute for Justice, the public interest law firm litigating for the homeowners, nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years.

Of the majority (Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy), Justice Kennedy provided the dimmest hope, that states are free to pass additional protections. Fortunately for citizens of Connecticut,

Governor M. Jodi Rell is urging careful review, and possibly legislative solution in Hartford.

Florida is one of eight states that forbids the use of eminent domain when the purpose is not to eliminate blight. This does not reassure. A dismayed constituent cried that this decision has turned us into serfs who no longer own the land, we just inhabit it at the whim of the government. The Supreme Court's justices are appointed by our elected President and confirmed by our U.S. Senators, and affirm to uphold the U.S. Constitution, under which we think we are living. The Gainesville Sun polled ``How do you feel about the Supreme Court ruling giving local governments power to seize private property to generate tax revenue?'' Huge mistake, said 363 to 31. Similarly, the Marion Pulse of the Ocala Star Banner polled that 98.2 percent of its readers disavowed the ruling.

Justice O'Connor (joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas) impassioned: ``The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz- Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. . . . . Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. . . . As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.''

What did the Founders say? Thomas Jefferson wrote that ``Charged with the care of the general interest of the Nation, and among these with the preservation of their lands from intrusion, I exercised, on their behalf, a right given by nature to all men, individual or associated, that of rescuing their own property wrongfully taken'' (to W. C. C. Claiborne, 1810).

Yes, the less-connected and the feebler have more to fear. Justice Thomas reminded that urban renewal has historically resulted in displacement of minorities, the elderly and the poor. This is why civil rights-promoting groups such as the NAACP and AARP filed friendly briefs. Non-profits and religious organizations also worry--they don't generate taxes. So, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty were Amicus supporting petitioners.

When I took this job I vowed to uphold the Constitution. I will work with my colleagues, the Institute for Justice, the NAACP, the American Farm Bureau, AARP, Cato Institute, the National Association of Homebuilders, Reason Foundation and other property rights advocates, to take back the Fifth amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the gentleman from California's amendment.

The public, whether shoppers, investors, or Medicare beneficiaries, should be confident that their personal information is secure, and it is obvious from recently revealed breaches that more must be done to protect consumer data. As Chairman of the Commerce, Trade & Consumer Protection Subcommittee, I have held many hearings on data breaches and consumer data security and showed broad support for a comprehensive federal notification requirement to consumers for these security breaches. According to the Federal Trade Commission, 27.3 million Americans have been victims of identity theft in the last five years, and the Social Security Number is one of the primary tools.

Private health insurers do not rely on the SS No., and neither should our Nation's health provider for seniors and the disabled. A non- identifying, random, set of characters can be generated that would be less meaningful to an individual's entire financial . . . The GAO is well-published on the risk of using SS Nos., and the facility with which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) could assign an alternate number.

I support the gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues to do so.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just briefly thank him for making part of his en bloc amendment and also the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for

his consideration providing $2 million to the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program, the HVRP, and $500,000 to the National Veterans Employment and Training Services Institute. These particular moneys that he has made part of his en bloc amendment are very much appreciated. This was part of my amendment that I had which, unfortunately, I did not get to the House floor; but through both the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Ohio, they have made this part of the en bloc amendment and I want to thank them very much for it. se 000

Mr. Chairman, my amendment I intended to offer yesterday would reduce $10 million of proposed funding from Corporation For National And Community Service's (CNCS) AmeriCorps grants, and increase two worthwhile, veterans programs in the Department of Labor.

First, my amendment would transfer $9,000,000 to the Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program (HVRP). This well-regarded program assists finding homeless veterans a meaningful place in the workforce. HVRP funds are awarded competitively to grant-seekers ranging from State and local agencies, commercial entities, and non-profits including community-and faith-based organizations.

Uniquely, since its inception, HVRP has featured an outreach effort using veterans who themselves have experienced homelessness. Formerly homeless veterans engage in counseling, peer coaching, and follow-up services. The program coordinates with various veterans' services programs and organizations, such as the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program and Local Veterans' Employment Representatives stationed in the local employment service offices of the State Workforce Agencies. Many veterans groups also are eligible, such as the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, and Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Next my amendment would transfer $1,000,000 to the National Veterans' Employment and Training Services Institute (NVTI). NVTI provides training to the employees who ultimately work with veterans seeking employment and training. Like the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program, most of these Training Institute dollars (about 70 percent) flow directly to States. Impressively, while the Appropriators have funded the program at the President's request and FY05 amount ($1.9 million), the NVTI does such an efficient job that they forecast with the nearly 50 percent increase my amendment would deliver, they could increase their throughput nearly \2/3\, processing many more veterans through (again, mostly via employees in your State). Since 1986, NVTI has developed and enhanced the professional skills of veterans' employment and training service providers nationwide. It is administered by the University of Colorado at Denver with training conducted in Denver, Colorado and at selected regional sites in the U.S. To date 50,000+ veterans' employment and training professionals have attended NVTI training. In addition to the basic employment and training professional-skills course, training is offered in veterans' benefits, transition assistance, case management, marketing and accessing the media, and management of veterans' services. NVTI also offers courses in veterans' reemployment rights case investigation and grants management, to address the training needs of the U.S. Department of Labor Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) staff.

As an unexpected benefit, CBO has scored my amendment to be Budget Authority-neutral, but to save $1,000,000 in FY06 outlays.

Now, 1 million dollars sounds like chump change up here to us, but to Americans voting back home, and to the veterans who are on the streets and in despair, it would pay for quite a lot. And AmeriCorps, I point out, is receiving over a quarter of a billion dollars, so I think the program could spare a mere $10 million.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment about priorities. AmeriCorps pays people handsomely for pseudo-volunteerism: $4,725 for a year of full- time service; ``a modest living allowance'', ``limited health benefits, may qualify for child care assistance, and may get your relocation expenses covered''. This is not community service, this is a job.

Further, AmeriCorps has a history of accountability problems. Just two years ago, they had severe overcommitments of their funding, which Congress admonished. And this year, the Committee's report has language ``directing the Inspector General to levy sanctions in accordance with standard Inspector General audit resolution procedures, which include, but are not limited to, debarment of any grantee found to be in violation of AmeriCorps' program requirements, including using grant or program funds to lobby the Congress''. I can assure you they most certainly do lobby the Congress, because my amendment has been on the (negative) receiving end of this.

One other point that the Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee has shared: AmeriCorps competes with Armed Services recruiting. It shouldn't, the program on which it was modeled didn't: according to AmeriCorps' website, it is based upon ``Franklin D. Roosevelt's vision of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) in 1933--a program created by President Roosevelt to provide relief for the unemployed during the Great Depression and to implement conservation projects. Over 3 million young men served until the program disbanded eight years later, when the United States entered World War II.''

Sir, America has relied on the contributions of selfless volunteers for centuries, and the generosity of Americans will endure without a Federal program.

In contrast, veterans are our Federal responsibility, and these two worthwhile programs provide needed help.

administrative provisions

The Committee recommendation includes a number of

administrative provisions carried previous years: (1)

Language regarding qualified student loans eligible for

education awards; (2) language regarding the availability of

funds for the placement of volunteers with disabilities; (3)

language directing the Inspector General to levy sanctions in

accordance with standard Inspector General audit resolution

procedures, which include, but are not limited to, debarment

of any grantee found to be in violation of AmeriCorps'

program requirements, including using grant or program funds

to lobby the Congress; (4) language which requires the

Corporation to ensure that significant changes to program

requirements or policy are made only through public notice

and comment rulemaking; and

Mr. Speaker, I wish to praise the admirable actions of First Coast Energy Shell Corporation, a Jacksonville-based company from my congressional district.

During the third annual Tribute to Heroes campaign, First Coast Energy Shell has pledged to raise $75,000 for the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund. This fund provides military families whose loved ones have been killed or wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan with financial and emotional support.

Beginning on Memorial Day and continuing through the Fourth of July, First Coast Energy Shell will donate a portion of all gasoline sales to this fund. I share in First Coast Energy's belief that ``the military is an important part of our community'' and that we should all actively support and honor those heroes who have sacrificed so much for our country.

I am proud to represent such patriotic and generous constituents and strongly urge my fellow Members to visit www.fallenheroesfund.org to learn more about this very good campaign.

Mr. Speaker, listening to it in my office earlier, it was claimed that veterans oppose this amendment. And I was a little startled by that statement.

And the veterans groups supposedly are called the Veterans for Common Sense, and Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights. These veterans groups were cited as being against this amendment.

Now, frankly, I have never heard of these groups. I am sure most of you have not heard of those groups. I am not saying they are not legitimate groups or they do not have well-meaning members. But I would contend that the vast majority of American veterans do indeed support the proposed amendment. And I cite the support of groups such as the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, whose membership combined is well over 5 million veterans.

All this proposed amendment does is protect traditional American values and jurisprudence. Before and after the ratification of the first amendment, the States prohibited the physical desecration of the American flag. Then, over the next 200 years, everyone understood that any prohibition of physically desecrating the American flag was allowable under Federal, State and common law, and understood to be consistent with free speech.

Civil libertarian jurists, such as Chief Justice Earl Warren, Justice Hugo Black, and Justice Abe Fortas wrote that the States and Federal Government have the power to protect the American flag. So it was the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson in 1989, and U.S. v. Eichman in 1990, that overturned two centuries of traditional and commonly accepted legal practice.

Thanks to these, what I believe are dubious decisions, we are forced to act

with this constitutional amendment. This amendment does not really restrict freedom of expression, because no idea or viewpoints would be suppressed. Anyone can still freely say that they hate America and everything for which it stands, they just cannot burn a flag to prove their point.

There are so many exceptions to free speech: Child pornography, cross burning, libel, fighting words. We are merely looking at a very extremely narrow exception to prevent the desecration of the symbol that represents so many wonderful things to so many people at home and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I would finally point out to my colleagues that it is against Federal law to burn U.S. currency or willfully destroy U.S. mailboxes; yet we cannot protect the American flag? Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have a constitutional justification for this amendment. We also have the support of all 50 States and 80 percent of the American people. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Stearns

Amendment No. 12: Page 22, line 2, insert ``(increased by

$10,000,000)'' after ``$194,834,000''.

Page 22, line 8, insert ``(increased by $1,000,000)'' after

``$1,984,000''.

Page 22, line 12, insert ``(increased by $9,000,000)''

after ``$29,500,000''.

Page 82, line 10, insert ``(reduced by $10,000,000)'' after

``$523,087,000''.

Page 82, line 12, insert ``(reduced by $10,000,000)'' after

``$270,000,000''.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from New York in his last presentation, for over 2 centuries the first amendment was already understood to permit flag protection. In fact, before the 1989 case, what he is talking about was not even germane because 48 States had already had in place that the flag was protected. Only Wyoming and Alaska did not have it; and now all 50 States, contrary to what the gentleman is talking about, want this amendment, H.J. Res. 10, to pass so that we have protections for our flag.

So he is acting like there has not been historically, little protection for this flag, but historically, for 2 centuries, the first amendment was in place and the flag was protected. H.J. Res. 10 will not amend the first amendment.

Let us not forget that we are not talking about amending the first amendment or limiting the rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. So let us make that perfectly clear.

As I pointed out, for 200 years in this country, the first amendment was understood to permit simple flag protection. That conduct has always and continues to be regulated by the United States Government. That is our job. Both State and Federal criminal codes prohibit conduct that could conceivably be protected by the first amendment; yet their constitutionality is not questioned.

Let me give my colleagues an example. Defacing currency, urinating in the public, pushing over a tombstone, public nudity are all actions which can be utilized to express a particular political or social message, but are unquestionably, unquestionably illegal. Flag desecration was once included in that list as a form of conduct our society chose not to condone. However, the Supreme Court's opinion in 1989 in Johnson and Eichman usurped the people's will in this respect.

So after 1989, then we had this problem. H.J. Res. 10 will simply return to where we were 200 years ago, overturn this erroneous decision. That is all we are doing here, restoring the original meaning to the first amendment that had persisted for over 200 years.

As we stand here today, we have a flag behind us here in the House. That flag was like the flag that we saw on 9/11. Who can forget the iconic photo taken on the terrible day of September 11, 2001, of three New York City

firefighters raising our flag from the rubble of the World Trade Center?

What did that do? That symbolizes America's mourning, but also it symbolized a determination by the American people to pursue justice. How sad it would be to come to the point where we would allow this flag that projects the symbolism of American mourning and the symbolism of a determination to pursue justice, that we would allow it to be burned.

So we are here to move forward on this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I think I would ask my colleague why he is against 200 years in this country, when we protected our flag, why is he standing on the floor today not respecting the tradition of this country for 200 years and realizing that all 50 States want us to enact this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York would agree that we are not amending the first amendment or otherwise limiting in any way the guarantees under the Bill of Rights. Is that not true what we are doing?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I understand the gentleman is kind to give me this time. It is the gentleman's time, but the point is this is a constitutional amendment. It is not changing the first amendment.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, I have one question for the gentleman. If I went to the New York City firefighters who raised our flag on the rubble of the World Trade Center and I said to them, do you want to protect this flag from desecration and burning, what does my colleague think their answer would be?

Well, we have been through this debate, and in all respect to the gentleman from New York, he has come down here and he pulls a box out and he has the American flag on handkerchiefs and he has got it on his tie. I respect him for doing that because he is really saying that the American flag comes in many forms and people use it to adorn, maybe even upholstery, but that is a little different. That is a little different than taking the flag and burning it.

The fact that when this country was founded and we have all the States up until 1989 supporting the idea of protection of the flag, I mean, that tradition alone, by saying to the American people we are going to forget all that tradition, so have we been wrong?

Mr. Speaker, I think I have got the time now.

Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman is saying when we think about it, my good colleague from Florida and New York, were the people in this country wrong for 200 years to protect the flag from desecration?

Mr. Speaker, now the gentleman, as a Congressman in this 21st century, is saying they were all wrong, the judge in the Johnson and Eichman case was absolutely right? He was not respecting the 200 years we had and now suddenly out of thin air he has decided to change the courts?

Mr. Speaker, I think we need a clarification who has the time. I understood that my side had given me 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, he has been very generous with my time. I do not want to take his time away because he is on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I do.

I do.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to wrap up here. I did not intend to get into this kind of debate.

Mr. Speaker, only to make my point, as a conservative, when we look at the issue and say there are 200 years of tradition here of protecting the flag, I think we should not throw that tradition out and remember it is only this judge in Johnson v. Eichman in 1989 that made that change, and now again we have 50 States that are asking for us as Members of Congress to vote to support H.J. Res. 10.