Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the economy is turning around: a 7.2 percent growth last quarter in the gross domestic product, the largest since Ronald Reagan cut taxes in 1984. The jobless claims have fallen. More people are working than ever before. Productivity has increased. Tax cuts work.

Why do they work? Because the more money a worker has in his pocket, the more money he is going to spend. When he goes out and buys more clothes, tires, or hamburgers, small businesses react by expanding their inventory. When they do that, they also hire more employees. When more people have jobs, more people are working, more people pay taxes, and less people are dependent on government welfare checks.

Tax cuts work. The best solutions are always seen in the private sector and not in government. I hope the next time when we have an opportunity to make these tax cuts permanent that we can get the Democrats, particularly those in the other body, to join us in making these tax cuts a permanent part of our Tax Code.

Mr. Speaker, do the tax breaks work? Well, not according to Howard Dean and Al Sharpton and Wesley Clark and all the other liberal left running for President. But a funny thing happened in the economy. Last month, the numbers came out. The gross domestic product increased 7.2 percent. The economic growth rate, one of the highest since 1984 when Ronald Reagan was President, right after he had cut taxes. The jobless claims have decreased. More people are working and there has been a surge in productivity.

Do tax cuts work? Well, the economy and the economic numbers that are just out say, yes, they do. People are working. Revenues are up. Why do they work? Because if a worker has more money in his pocket then he is going to go out and spend more. Small businesses will respond by increasing their inventory. When they do that and demand goes up, they hire more people. When more people are hired, more people are paying taxes and fewer people are on welfare depending on government checks. Tax breaks work.

Mr. Speaker, last year Saddam Hussein spent $13 million on health care in Iraq. This year the United States will spend $200 million. Two years ago when Olympic soccer players made a mistake or lost a game, they were tortured and held hostage until they amended their ways and became better soccer players. Now children's soccer teams are springing up all over Iraq.

There has not been much farming going on in Iraq over the last several years; today, farmers are beginning to go back to the fields and replant crops. There has not been much oil production; now we are getting oil back online. Police forces are beginning to form again in Iraqi towns around the nation, and electricity and water is coming back all over the nation, but there is no peace in Iraq. We are not finished with the job. We still need the coalition forces in Iraq. We still need the strong United States presence to lead the way to a stable, growing democracy. We hope this is possible.

Today, this House will pass the Iraqi emergency supplemental bill. It is one more step in our effort to bring peace in that region. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion about our reconstruction efforts in Iraq, and why are we doing it, why are we not lending them the money at some exorbitant interest rate? Why are we being so generous? Well, there are five real reasons.

Number one, Iraq is saddled with a $200 billion debt already. If we give them a loan, what is going to happen is similar to what happened between France and Germany after World War I with the reparations: It will not help Iraq become independent and free and strong.

Number two, practicality. There is no ruling authority in Iraq at this point to make a loan to, and it will take a lot more time if we go that route.

Number three, we need to lead by example. As the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) just said, because of the U.S. efforts, we already have other donor nations stepping forward.

Number four, perception. There is already an anti-American, anti- Western mood amongst Arab countries in the Middle East, and by doing this, we will become free of that suspicion.

Number five, it is in our national interest to have a stable, secure, democratic country emerging in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, this is why we are doing what we are doing. It is an important vote, and it is the right vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I stand in support of the rule and support of the emergency supplemental bill.

Here is what it does. It does four very important things.

Number one, it supports our troops. We have troops on the ground. We need to support them. Republicans in Congress supported President Clinton when he had, I think, something like over 30 deployments. I hope that the Democrats will support our President by supporting the troops and put aside partisan differences in support of this bill for our troops on the ground.

The second thing it does is it supports freedom in Iraq. There are those on the left who truly believe that this war was such a mistake that the people of Iraq were better off under Saddam Hussein, even after we found jet airplanes that were buried, even after they violated 17 UN resolutions, even after we found something like hundreds of thousands of mass graves. There are people in America, liberals on the left, who believe that Iraq was better off before we got there. This bill supports their freedom.

The third thing it does, it helps them begin reconstruction. It is going to cost about $150 billion to rebuild this country. This bill has a little bit over $18 billion to get that started. It is a grant, it is not a loan. The reason is we want other nations around the globe to step forward and pull out their checkbooks. There will be meetings coming up in the next month to try to urge them to do that. If we start off by saying we are going to lend you this money, Iraq will never be rebuilt.

Think about the great strides that have already taken place. Electricity and water in 80 percent of the country. Health care, $200 million has already been spent, compared to $13 million spent previously under Saddam Hussein. Newspapers, 150 newspapers are up and being published in Iraq every day. Police forces in the municipalities have already been trained, some are up and going and some are on line to come. Those are steps of great progress. That is why this reconstruction effort cannot stop midstream.

Finally, the fourth and final thing this bill does is it brings security to the people of the United States and all over the world. What if we had left Saddam Hussein in charge in Iraq? What if all this saber rattling to the terrorist organizations of the world was for naught? What if we just wanted to continue with the rhetoric, as opposed to action? We would just be sitting, waiting, counting the clock for another 9/11. It still could happen, but it is not going to be the same world as it would have been if we had just sat back and said, well, America likes to run its mouth, but not have action.

This bill today and our war effort helps bring peace and stability to the world, and we cannot afford to stop with the job half done. Please vote for the rule and the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment, but as I have privately said to my friend from Oregon, we do believe that we are on the same philosophical page. We are just arguing about different dollar amounts.

I am opposed to it, though, for two different reasons, really. Number one, we have increased these accounts, and we have increased it in opposition of what the administration originally requested. So the House did take into account the need, and we did bump things up. For example, USAID, we are increasing it $40 million. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is at $60 million.

In terms of the economic support fund, we have increased it $272 million; he is at $864. For diplomatic security, we are at $17 million; he is at $34 million. As far as the demining account, we have increased it to $35 million, and I believe the gentleman is at $70 million.

But we have already taken money out of Iraq and out of the administration's request, and that is in the report outlined on page 22. And we also recognize the need for so many of these projects that the gentleman from Oregon in his amendment is supporting.

For example, we have a major, a major push to finish the road from Kabul to Kandahar. And the gentleman, I think, has been to Afghanistan, as has this committee. And I hope that that road goes all the way to Bagram, eventually. But the road is a top priority of this committee.

Also, we are pushing for private sector development and power generation

is a top priority of the committee. We are also asking for help with infrastructure in Afghanistan and schools and myriad of other things.

The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) had mentioned also about the need for an airplane. We actually in a different portion of this to instruct USAID to get that aircraft that the gentleman mentioned. That is on page 15 of the report, where we require the use of dedicated, contract air service within Afghanistan.

So many of the things that this amendment supports, the committee is supporting. And also, we have taken the money out of Iraq. We have taken the lower-lying fruit and lower-hanging fruit out of the account.

And that leads me to the second reason why I oppose this amendment. And that is that what we are doing, if we accept this amendment, is we are reducing the money by $500 million that would go to Iraq's reconstruction. We do not know where that money is coming from, Mr. Chairman. Will it come out of electricity, will it come out of schools, will it come out of roads? Where it will come from? Because what we have already done when we have taken the money out of what the subcommittee recommended is we identified certain areas in Iraq that we thought the money could be shifted to Afghanistan.

But this amendment, while it is very specific on where it should be spent in Afghanistan, it is not specific on where it should not be spent in Iraq.

And because of that, we believe, the subcommittee and the full committee, the bill is already scrubbed fairly well and that, at this point, it would be unwise to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying we will continue to work with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). As the gentleman knows, the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), has a particular passion about reconstruction in Afghanistan, and this subcommittee will remain committed to it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude, though, by saying the urgency in Iraq right now to try to get the reconstruction efforts jump-started for the world community, we think, is very important; and we do not want to take money out of it that is not being identified as to where the money will come from. For that reason, we will oppose the amendment, but again want to say to my friend that we will work with him.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I want to say I certainly appreciate the concern of our friends across the aisle about spending on this bill and spending on all bills. I think it is a great day when Democrats are worried about fiscal responsibility. Having said that, I have one of my good Blue Dog friends there who is always concerned about it, but I am glad now we have some other people who are.

I wanted to point out one of the arguments that we are hearing is we should be spending that money domestically. And this chart shows what our budget calls for in Medicare spending under the Republican budget, which is traditionally passed without a single Democrat vote.

Medicare takes care of our elderly population. Essentially everybody over the age of 65 is on Medicare; and under a Republican budget, as we can see, from the year 2004 on, it is going up. And yet this is happening without a single Democrat vote of support. Education, which again is one of those bills that is important to another population, the young population in our society, and again under Republican leadership and a Republican budget, it has gone up every year 12 percent. So when people are saying do not vote for this, that we ought to be spending it domestically, we are doing that.

What happens if we do not spend this money? What happens if we do like Howard Dean says and pull out? He said that yesterday. Tomorrow he will say something else. I cannot remember who was for the war today, Wesley Clark or Howard Dean. It switches back and forth on a regular basis. But the reality is what happens if we do pull out and stop right now? Will there be safety and security in the Middle East? We have to ask ourselves a very serious question: Will there be safety and security not just in Iraq but in the Middle East? If we pull out, will there be safety and security in the United States of America? What kind of signal does that send to the terrorist networks across the globe?

This is where the money goes. It supports our troops. I have the honor of representing the Third Infantry Division. We have had nearly 18,000 constituents from the first district of Georgia who have been in Iraq. They need the support. This bill gives them that additional support. Last week I had the opportunity to go to Walter Reed and say thanks to a number of our troops, brave men who were wounded who are now in hospital beds who will be going through physical therapy and suffering from wounds perhaps the rest of their lives. Every single one of them was very gung-ho on the mission, very proud that he had served, and had no regrets. Obviously, everybody regrets getting hurt, but no regrets making the decision to go that they did. This bill gives our troops $60 billion in support. They need it.

In addition, this bill supports the people of Iraq. It gives us an opportunity to have another democracy in the Middle East that we can work with along with Turkey, along with Israel. Another democracy in the Middle East. Can my colleagues think of that being in the grasp of the hands of this Congress and this government at this time and this generation, and how would our future generations look at us if we turned our backs and cut and run at this point? Mr. Chairman, we have got to finish the job. We cannot abandon them.

If we do not do this important construction, what will happen? We have got an example already. Some of this money goes to Afghanistan. Let us think about what happened in Afghanistan. The United States pulled out in 1989. We closed down our embassy, and I went with the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) to Afghanistan about 3 years ago, and one of the things we heard over and over again in Afghanistan is, We are glad you are here, but are you here to stay? Because we have had this invasion from the Russians, we have had this internal civil war, we have had the groups like the Taliban and al Qaeda come in here and corrupt our government. Will America commit to Afghanistan for the long term? And the answer is yes. We also have to commit to Iraq for the long term.

Think about this: we are spending $200 million on health care in Iraq. Saddam Hussein only spent $13 million. That is support. Think about this: there are 150 newspapers that are already up and operating in Iraq, extremely important for an emerging democracy.

Think about this: electricity in 70 to 80 percent of the towns, water in 70 to 80 percent of the towns, and police forces and governing local municipalities springing up all over the place. These are positive developments, and we cannot abandon that right now. This construction money, a little over $18 billion, though, is not enough. We need to do it in a grant form. Why do we need to do that as opposed to a loan? Number one, there is not a lending authority to give the money to;

but, number two, it is going to take not 18 to $20 billion to rebuild Iraq. It is going to take about $150 billion. We do not want to foot that bill. We believe the United States of America, being a leader in the world as a benevolent Nation, needs to step forward and set an example for all our friends who are in the U.N. or who are in NATO or wherever they may be to step forward and pull out their checkbooks.

Mr. Speaker, we are about half way, maybe not half way, but we are at a critical juncture in our mission in Iraq; but the Democrats want to bail out now. They want to pull the rug out from under the President of the United States so badly that they are willing to strand the people in Iraq and even endanger our soldiers. I think it is outrageous.

If we listen to the Presidential debates on the Democrat side, Dean, Kerry, Clark, it does not really matter what they say today, because tomorrow they will be saying the opposite thing. It is like a jam session of the first amendment without any responsibility to what your words are.

But let us look at the situation in Iraq. We have a very successful military operation that is on balance. I do not want another American soldier or any soldier or any citizen to get killed, obviously. But we have done a remarkable job, and we have secured the country.

Look at the situation of the citizenry. They are standing forward, they are in power, they are getting police forces in each town, they are getting a militia going. Look at the infrastructure of freedom that is emerging: 150 newspapers, health care benefits, electricity and water. All of this is happening. It is not the time to retreat and pull the rug out from under the people of Iraq or our military. Let us pass the supplemental.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak on the subject of the supplemental budget. Eighty-seven billion dollars is indeed a lot of money. Yet, building democracy in the Middle East, building an ally in the Middle East, another ally, would be very, very helpful to United States interests and to the big picture of world peace.

I hear from a lot of my Democrat friends that, well, I'm going to support the troops and cleverly just support that portion of the budget which goes directly to the troops, which would be about two-thirds of it, some 60-plus billion dollars. How can you support the troops and then not let them complete their task by trying to rebuild the country and the infrastructure? It does not make sense. If you are going to support the troops, you have to support their mission.

I would love any of my colleagues who have such doubts about the importance of what we are doing to come down to the Third Infantry Division in Hinesville-Fort Stewart, Georgia, and talk to some of the troops who have been there, who have spent 6 to 8 months of their lives there in the last year and look them in the eye and say, you know what, I do not like what you are doing. And you know what, I am going to support your expense, your room and board, but I am not going to help you rebuild this nation that you lost your friends over.

I just want to say, that is an open invitation to any Democrat or Republican if you want to come down and talk to people who have been on the ground.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2657, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2657) making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present the legislative branch appropriations

conference report for fiscal year 2004 to the House for consideration. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), ranking member, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) on the committee for their work in putting together what I think is a fairly good and balanced bipartisan package. I also have to thank all the staff, Democrat and Republican staffers, for the many hours of hard work and overtime and the countless questions that they had to answer during this process.

Again, I think the bill came to a fairly good conclusion and, excluding the Senate items and the Capitol visitor center, the bill provides no increase above fiscal year 2003; and I think that is very important when we consider the deficit situation that we are in, that the legislative branch, and that would be the campus here with the offices of Congress, the Capitol Hill Police, the Government Printing Office, the Library of Congress, all of this is somewhat in line with last year; and I wish that more of our appropriation measures were that way.

Unfortunately, our friends in the other body, the Senate, they do not quite stick to the fiscal restraint that we do in the House, and they did overspend. We negotiated a lot of this back, which I was glad about; but unfortunately they still bumped up the spending a little bit more than we wanted to, and with the Senate items and the Capitol visitor center, they increased what originally left the House a little bit below last year, 1 percent below. They put it at $87 million above, but it is 2.5 percent above fiscal year 2003; and again unfortunately for Washington that is still an achievement. I wish it could be a lot less than that. But we are fighting to make sure that we are spending the taxpayers' money the way we would spend our own money.

In terms of the levels, I want to say that the staff on the legislative branch, which does work very hard, long hours, and many people do not realize it, in Congress and in Washington we tend to broad-brush every employee up here as a bureaucrat, but in fact there are a lot of entrepreneurial hard-working government employees; and I am glad to say that they will be getting their full 3.7 percent COLA and other related cost increase; so we are trying to look after our employees, which I think is very important.

I also want to note that although no increase was provided for sworn personnel at the United States Capitol Police, we have provided for 75 new civilian positions to address administration, financial, and legal personnel needs. Because of the 75 new civilian positions, this will allow 30 officers who are sworn officers to return to regular police functions and relieve them from civilian administrative functions.

It is important for our colleagues to understand that if the Capitol Police strategic plan and associated staffing plan are completed and approved by the House and the Senate, there is ample funding for emergency response to fund and hire additional sworn positions, but we want to be sure that that is merited. One of the things that is important is that the County of Fairfax, Virginia, has about 1,800 officers. Capitol Hill Police, the request actually was above 1,700, and we just have to balance it. We do not want the Capitol campus to become a police state. I already have Members asking me about the police officers standing on the top of the steps of the Capitol with machine guns in their hands, what kind of signal does that send to school kids who come here to see their Capitol building? And it is something that I hope as we move away from the shadow of 9/11 and as we continue to win the war against terrorism that we can readdress some of these things and make this again a more porous and a more open campus because this is the people's House and that should not just be a slogan. It should be something that means that the doors are open.

We on a bipartisan basis, though, are very gungho about the Capitol Hill Police and all the good work that they do to protect us in all the oddball situations that we may get into.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE03.229

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE03.230

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE03.231

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE03.232

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE03.233

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to bring up what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) had mentioned too on the Capitol visitors center. This committee, on a bipartisan basis, has taken a real close look at the Capitol visitors center. It is perhaps one of the largest construction projects we have had on this campus since the actual construction of the Capitol, and I do not know if it approximately will double our size, but it is big.

This project started out at $265 million, and right now it is at $456 million and perhaps on its way up from there. Congress did add some additional office space, and there were some considerations for security that caused the $265 million to go to about $365 million or $370 million range, but the rest is just kind of work-in-progress add- ons. We need to be very careful that this does not become the poster child for congressional disaster spending.

One of the things that we have taken a real close look at, and I am glad that the House and Members of the majority and the members of the committee recommended changing the way the Architect of the Capitol makes decisions. There were too many bosses telling the Architect what to do day to day. So the Architect, being, I guess, a good public servant, responded to these requests; but, as a result, the project somewhat got away from him. And we on this committee have tried to rein this in so that he can run the project. We think that is going to save millions of dollars in outlays.

We also recommended, but were unable to get the Senate to agree with us, to cut out a $10 million tunnel to the Library of Congress. I just want Members to know there was some discussion and misunderstanding on the Senate's part that has to do with security, but when I met with the Sergeant at Arms, he said that tunnel had nothing to do with security in terms of escapes out of the Capitol. Number one, the last thing we would want is 100 Members of Congress confined to a tunnel area, particularly if there is some kind of a chemical attack. But as my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, we have a tunnel that goes to the Rayburn Building; we have a tunnel that goes to the Cannon Building; we have a tunnel, a utility tunnel that goes out of the front of the Capitol visitors center towards the Library of Congress already; we have a tunnel that goes to the Dirkson Building; a tunnel that goes to the Russell Building, and a tunnel that goes to the Hart Building.

In addition, there will be a new truck service tunnel entrance. So to say on top of all of those tunnels we need another tunnel to the Library of Congress so Members will not have to degrade themselves by carrying umbrellas when they go to the Library, which we all know is a daily routine anyhow, but let me just say for the record it is, unfortunately, not a daily routine. But I think that this eliminating this tunnel to the Library would have been a sign that we are willing to give a tangible example that we are ready to cut out some of the spending on the Capitol visitors center.

But more importantly, in the conference we did accept the Obey amendment that limits the spending on the tunnel to $10 million. I hope we can do it for less than that. The Architect recently said that we can do it for perhaps as little as $ 9.4 on the top end and perhaps as little as 7-and-some-change on the bottom end.

The reality, though, is that this tunnel is going to go over an Amtrak tunnel; the train line that goes to Union Station, it is going to go under the

road. So what we are actually talking about is boring a tunnel, not a trench, but boring a tunnel in between the Amtrak line and the road. This tunnel is not straight; it is a dog leg. I think we are going to have some problems with it. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) had said if we spend over $10 million when we are in conference, that the Architect should be fired. I do not know about that. We are already in an overspending situation, and there does not seem to be anybody who is suffering because of it. The contractor is not out of money; nobody who planned or estimated the job is out of work; nobody has really been called on the carpet.

But I am glad to say that this committee had a 2- or 3-, maybe a 4- hour hearing on the spending of the Capitol visitors center trying to get this thing under control. Most Members are, unfortunately, oblivious to what is going on out there, because we are focused on Medicare, education, terrorism, and things like that; and we have not really focused on this enough. This committee found out that the cafeteria there will be the largest cafeteria in the city of Washington, D.C. This committee found out that there will be three theaters inside the Capitol visitors center, even though across the street at the Library of Congress there is already an alternative theater that is designed for Members of Congress to meet in the event that we are unable to meet in this legislative Chamber.

So these are some of the concerns that we had about the tunnel and the Capitol visitors center in general. Yet, despite the fact that my own desire, my own amendment to eliminate the tunnel did not make it, I still think on balance we have done a lot of good work on the Capitol visitors center, trying to get control of the spending. I think on balance we have done a good job addressing some of the issues with the Capitol Hill Police and the other legislative branch agencies, and I am proud to say that we worked very closely with the Democrats and everyone involved on this.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Briefly, I just wanted to readdress some of the points that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) had made briefly on this disaster money that the motion to recommit requests $1.55 billion to be funded, which is what the administration's original request was for FY 2003. However, this bill already has money in it. So if we went ahead with this, this is in addition to the $983 million that we put into disaster relief in July, that would mean we would be a billion dollars above the President's request.

Now, that might be good, but we do not know how much Isabel actually costs. The preliminary damage assessments started on Tuesday. It will be several days, weeks, in fact, months before we really know how much money is, in fact, needed for this disaster. This committee member and all of us, the chairman is from Florida. I am from coastal Georgia. I represent the entire coast. I am very sympathetic to hurricanes.

On a personal basis, I went down one week to prepare my house in Savannah for Isabel, and then came back to Washington and ended up evacuating Washington and going back to Savannah. Hurricanes are something that we in coastal Georgia do take very, very seriously. I know that the money will be there for FEMA when we know what that amount is, but at this point, we just do not know. The fiscal year's closing is less than a week away, and I think the prudent thing to do right now is to hold off on this motion to recommit, vote no on it and then to pass the bill as is.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). It has been a great pleasure to work with him on this bill, and

we have had some agreements, and we have had some disagreements, but we have made a lot of progress together. It has been a great process for all of us, and I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, for his help and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for her issues, although I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, they have been fiscally as prudent as somebody from Georgia might want them to be, but we have had those discussions in the past as well.

Let me just close, Mr. Speaker, and urge folks to vote no on the motion to recommit and vote yes on the bill.

I also wanted to join the distinguished ranking member in thanking all the staff who have been such a part of this bill. I want to say to Tom Forhan, he has done a great job and appreciate his great working relationship. Liz Dawson and Chuck Turner and Kelly Wade and Jack O'Neill on our side have worked long and hard. Ms. Dawson has called me at home and Blackberried me and told me when I am wrong, and every now and then tells me when I am right, which has been very few times this year, but I hope to improve on that record, Mr. Speaker. But with that let me urge support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, what some have referred to as the Democrat prancing ponies, others call the Democratic Presidential candidates, the leading candidate, Governor Dean, last week made a completely irresponsible, if not crazy, lunatic statement when he said that the United States of America should not take sides in the Middle East conflict between the Palestinian Authority and our ally, Israel.

I want Members to think about this. The United States should not take sides in a classic strife of good versus evil. I do not know if he is speaking for the Democratic Party. He is the leading guy, it seems. I do not know what the good general might do to that dynamic amongst the prancing, but I do know this: There is one side which blows up innocent people coming back from the Western Wall praying. There are the wives and the loved ones of those people saying, I am glad that my husband, my son, my daughter died a martyr. We have one side that has repeatedly thrown the peace process off track and broken any peace treaties that were ever negotiated. Clearly, because of this, we have an evil side versus a side that is trying to be part of the world community.

Mr. Speaker, I call on the Democrats of this House to denounce the words of Governor Dean and ask that the United States of America continue to side with our great ally, the nation of Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands for the opportunity to speak about H.R. 1113.

This bill is a small one, but it represents an important land exchange between Fort Frederica National Monument on St. Simons Island and Christ Church. Aside from some of the issues which the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands has already outlined, it is largely noncontroversial and it benefits all the parties.

The Christ Church community, and I have to say this about Christ Church, it is an old Episcopal church and I would love everybody to visit particularly if they have the time this summer when the G-8 is going to be held in the Golden Isles of Georgia. I believe those dates are anywhere from June 12 to June 14, somewhere in that time frame; but of course everybody is really excited about it. The G-8, the economic impact, for those who have ever followed it, they probably know it is about a $200 million economic impact. People from all over the world will be there, 2,500 members of the press alone along coastal Georgia really all the way from Jacksonville to Charleston; and I have the honor of representing the entire coast.

We already have 7,000 hotel rooms reserved. I am glad I can say this because the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands and the gentleman from New Mexico know what beautiful States they represent; and if this deal was not already done, they would probably be trying to solicit the G-8 and give us a very competitive run for our money on it, but we are very excited; and already members of the international community, members of the press community, members of the G-8 itself have already been coming to town and making preparations. So there is a lot of excitement; and I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, when any Member of Congress comes to that area, I hope that they will take the time not just to witness the G-8 but to look at all the other things we have in that area.

Christ Church is one of the oldest churches. John Wesley taught there. John Wesley came to America to Savannah and was actually a minister right after George Whitfield in Christ Church, Savannah, which was founded in 1733; and incidentally that is the home of America's first Sunday school, and then he moved to St. Simons and helped start Christ Church. And it was after that that he returned to England and started Methodism, but it can accurately be said that the birthplace of the Methodist Church, or the concept, was probably the Golden Isles of Georgia in Glynn County.

Christ Church, though, is not just about history; but if the Members do want to read about the history, there is a great book written by a man named Ethridge called ``Strange Fires,'' and I would recommend it to anybody. But it is not just about history. It is about today. It is about children in the nursery. It is about young couples getting married. It is about senior citizens living out their life in communion with Christ. This church, because it is dynamic and because it is part of the fabric of today's society, has doubled in the last 9 years and needs additional land.

The church recently acquired, with private funds, not with any Federal tax dollars, 8.69 acres of land, and this land is adjacent to Fort Frederica National Monument. Fort Frederica is where some of the early colonists lived, and it is nothing but ruins; but the ruins are very well preserved, and it is an interesting romantic spot to look at.

One of the great things they do at Fort Frederica is they have some archeological findings, some items which are not historically significant, old cannonballs and bits and pieces of utensils and pottery; and they dug it up and they have identified it and catalogued it as not being historically significant, and they get the local elementary school and they rebury these archeological gems, and they let the school kids dig it back up, and then they catalogue it and then they study it and then they rebury it for the next year's class. And it is such a great living way to teach children. In today's world of education, and I was so proud that we passed No Child Left Behind with such great bipartisan support, that this is just one other way to teach children. And the thing that I think we all share in common, liberals, conservatives, Democrats, and Republicans, is that we want our kids to get the best education they can possibly have and then they can go on and think for themselves, and I think examples of that are just wonderful exercises of things that are going on in the country today.

This land also was recognized as the site James Oglethorpe occupied after coming to Georgia. Oglethorpe actually landed in Savannah Harbor and founded the city of Savannah in 1733, February 12, 1733, and then went on to Brunswick, Georgia, which is where the Battle of the Bloody Marsh was fought, because as the Members well know, the British basically owned most of the colonies, the 12 colonies north of Georgia. The Spanish owned Florida. The gentleman from Florida who is the distinguished gentleman who sits as Speaker today knows well of the great Spanish heritage of Florida. And if we go to cities like St. Augustine and we see the influences of forts down there like Castillo de San Marco and St. Augustine and so many of the other things, it is great Spanish heritage.

But back then the British and the Spanish were kind of fighting over the land a little bit, and Georgia was a buffer State. It was founded as a penal colony. And the showdown happened actually in Glynn County, Georgia, between the British and the Spanish; and it was called the Battle of Bloody Marsh because there was so much blood spilled that the water itself turned to red because of the blood, and we can still visit that site. And again, if the Members come down for the G-8, let me know. I am going to give the tour personally if they give me the honor. But James Oglethorpe's part, as one of the founders of Georgia, is very significant and yet another reason why we want this bill to go through.

The Christ Church community wants to give this 8.69 acres to the National Park Service so that it can expand the national monument and in return get 6 acres back from Fort Frederica National Monument, which is already adjacent to Christ Church; and then they can use this for their future expansion and whatever needs they have.

I want to say that the 6 acres do not hold any historical significance and are

not occupied by any facilities of the national park right now. So the national park is not going to be inconvenienced by it.

My sister, Mr. Speaker, lived in Italy for a number of years; and one of the things I found somewhat to my amusement when one goes to Rome or Naples or any of those great Italian cities, they cannot issue building permits because every time they put a trowel in the ground, they hit an ancient Roman ruin. We all know the song by Bob Dylan that says ``The streets of Rome are filled with rubble. Ancient footprints are everywhere.'' I do not want to overindulge, but I think the next line was also pretty, ``You can almost think that you're seein' double on a cold, dark night on the Spanish stairs.'' And if one has ever been to Rome, I think that song captures so much of the essence and the romanticism and the history of Rome.

To a minor degree, the coastal area of Georgia is the same way. Every time they dig, they can find something. From native Americans to the early Spanish to the British to missionaries and everybody else in between has been there at one time or the other.

But I strongly believe that this exchange would benefit the United States and protect and conserve significant cultural resources as the Oglethorpe ruins. This property contains historical and archeological resources worthy of protection and preservation by the National Park Service for all generations in the future, and the bill is supported by the National Park Service.

In conclusion, let me say this: this bill will allow Christ Church to expand; so it is a win-win. It captures history and yet lets progress take place.

I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), Committee on Resources chairman; the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), the subcommittee chairman; the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), the ranking members, for their support of this bill. And I also want to recognize the efforts of the former Senator of Georgia, Mr. Mack Mattingly, for his dedication to this cause.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to start out saying that there is a statement, I cannot quite get it right, but it states to the effect that men who have monuments built after them to honor them do not need monuments built after them to honor them because their achievements speak for themselves. Nothing could be truer for Mr. J.C. Lewis, Jr. His achievements have touched and reached thousands of lives in Savannah, Georgia, the State of Georgia, and the United States of America. He is truly a renaissance man, a modern day Cincinnatus, who goes and leads his community time and time again in cause after cause and then returns to his own business life or quietly takes a step offstage to avoid the applause.

In fact, the bill today, Mr. Speaker, would not be here if the family had their wish; but I have known the Lewis family for some time, and I know the sons well enough to speak frankly, and I have told them despite their opposition because they do not really seek the limelight under any circumstances, to a person in the family, I said, we need to do this for your dad. I figured that forgiveness was easier than permission, and waiting around for the permission of any Lewis to give them honor will keep one waiting for a long, long time. So we are moving forward.

When I spoke to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) about this, whose district contains this post office, he absolutely jumped up and down about it because the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) knew of Mr. Lewis long before committing himself to run for the United States Congress. And so we are proud to offer this legislation as partners. It basically names this post office after Mr. J.C. Lewis, Jr., not sufficient enough in terms of an honor to a guy who has done so much for our community; and yet in another way it is a token, just one way of saying thanks not just to Mr. Lewis but to his wife, Nancy, and to the six children, Nan, Curtie, Walter, Wistar, Scott, and Christian. I hope I named six of them. It is a big family. I know they will kill me if I left out one of them.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time. And I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for those kind words about a very important local hero, but I think one who shows what kind of country we have and why this country is so great.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) had enumerated so many of J.C. Lewis's accomplishments, but I wanted to go over a couple of them, just maybe from a personal standpoint.

I first got to know the Lewis family through my father-in-law, Archie Morris, who was a boyhood friend of his. And my mother in-law, Betty Morris, has been friends with Mrs. Lewis, and the Morris kids and the Lewis kids were all friends. In fact, I think my first encounter with one of them was with Wistar Lewis when he was riding a horse down the street, down Milledge Avenue in Athens, Georgia for one of his Kappa Alpha fraternity parades and they were going by the Lambda Chi House, which I was a member of. And I was proud to see that my fraternity brothers spooked his horse and caused his date to fall off the horse in hopes

that she would join us as far better bulldogs than that fraternity. Wistar never let me forget that, and I was really surprised when I started dating my wife, Libby, and the Lewis family was known for having a big Christmas party on Christmas night in Savannah, and they invited me through the Morrises to come to it, and I thought I do not know why they would want me to come. They hardly know me. But I realized I was riding the coattails of my future in-laws. But that is the kind of people they are. Opening up the doors on Christmas Day for people to come, strangers and mere acquaintances, to come in and enjoy their fellowship.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) had spoken about Mr. Lewis being in the Merchant Marines, in the Coast Guard, and the Navy. He also did not know that from there he went on to have a lot of fun fishing and had a boat at one point called the NAUTI-NAN, and I think in time the children sort of took over. Certainly, Scott and Wistar became the big mariners in the family, but I think all of them enjoyed it. In fact, I think that webbed-feet tradition continues and his son Curtie, actually, I was counting his boats this summer, and he has four of them. I do not know how one would utilize all those, but the Lewises absolutely loved the waterfront and living in Savannah, Georgia, on the water.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) had pointed out that he has been active in the First Baptist Church and on the board of deacons and the trustees. He has also been very active in our Wednesday Businessmen's Bible study with a Presbyterian minister, Terry Johnson, who is in charge of it, but Mr. Lewis and son Scott and son Christian are very active and stalwarts in that Bible study. And what happens every Wednesday is they try to drill the Gospel message into the thick skulls of business people such as myself and a lot of our friends. But to see people like that, each and every Wednesday, devoting time to the Lord is very instrumental for the rest of us.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) talked about when J.C. Lewis was mayor of Savannah and pointed out that he was the first Republican mayor of Savannah, a major Georgia city, but one of the things that is interesting, from that point on, he did somewhat become the godfather of the Republican Party in Savannah in as much as anybody who ran under the Republican ticket always went by to see J.C. Lewis. But rather than assume the role of local political Republican kingmaker, he took a much broader approach.

Number one, he would not just see aspiring Republican candidates. Democrats, or Independents, the door was wide open. And he never said this is the strategy for winning, so that I can grow my kingdom and my influence and my clout. It was always, What do you stand for, and what is best for Chatham County, Georgia? What is best for Savannah, Georgia? How are we going to make this a better community? So whether one's name is Jack Kingston, Max Burns, Saxby Chambliss, or anybody else, Sonny Perdue, he always tried to do what was best for the State or the community or the country and never would call them. Once they were elected, he would never say, I want you to vote on House bill whatever. He has never made such a call to me to ask me to vote for anything. And I can tell the Members how rare that is, and we have 435 Members of Congress who would certainly agree to that.

As a businessman, Mr. Lewis lost his father at a young age, and he took over an automobile business, which probably the easiest thing would have been to sell it, but instead he grew it. It became one of the largest Ford dealerships in coastal Georgia. But, in addition, he added broadcasting and equipment leasing and real estate and insurance.

For example, they have had a television station, WJCL, which is an ABC affiliate. They also had WJCL for many years on the radio, which had some of those great classic tunes that we all enjoyed from the swing era. It kind of always put a little class and a little taste in the city of Savannah airwaves.

Charitable donations, an incredible list of them. He gave land to the YMCA on Habersham Street; for the Agudath Achim Congregation Synagogue; for Memorial Baptist Church; land for Virginia Heard Public School; land for the Episcopal Church in Oakdale, Georgia; land and building for the Skidaway Island Baptist Church; land and building for the Savannah Baptist Center; and funded the new Cancer Program at the J.C. Lewis Health Center.

The Gospel tells us that to those whom much has been given, much is expected. Mr. Lewis has followed that line. He also has been a Free and Accepted Mason and the past potentate of the Alee Temple Shrine, and part of the creed of Masons is somewhat to look after each other, and I have heard many Masons who do not know Mr. Lewis personally say Mr. Lewis is a Mason who looks after his brother Masons and looks after the community in general.

A friend of mine, a formal liberal, which I cannot tell if he is still a liberal anymore or not. He still tells me he is a Democrat, but Reverend Michael Elliott, whom the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) and I deal with on homeless issues, he and I were talking over the weekend, and I told him what we were doing with this legislation, that we were sneaking out something on Mr. Lewis and hoped he would forgive us. He said, he is the guy that I have had the opportunity to have this homeless shelter built, because of his generosity, because of his leadership, and the fact he has opened so many doors for me and getting other businessmen to see them.

When we think about all the down and out people in the world that have benefitted from the generosity and the leadership of Mr. Lewis, there again, we do not know who is always benefitting. In the Gospel there is a part where followers of John the Baptist asked him, Are you the Messiah? And he says to them, No, I am not the Messiah. I have come to prepare a place for Him, and I am not even worthy to pick up the breadcrumbs from his table. That, Mr. Speaker, is so important because often when we do things for others, we do not know who is going to benefit, and indeed, when we receive these blessings, we do not know who caused these blessings to happen. That is the case with Mr. Lewis on everything that he has done.

Civic responsibilities, and I know this is just voluminous, but I want to name a few. He has been active on the Board of the Kiwanis Club; on the Bethesda Home for Boys, on the Board of Directors; the Georgia Baptist Children's Home; Woodberry Forest School Board of Trustees; the President of the YMCA; the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors; the United Community Appeal or United Way; Savannah Country Day School, Board of Directors; Association of the United States Army, President, Coastal Empire Chapter; the Elks Club, Lodge 183; American Legion, Post 184; the Navy League; Salvation Army as an Honorary Director. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) mentioned the Mighty Eighth Air Force Museum Foundation; and many more. And I think one of the more important things, recently, was he was the sponsor of the Isle of Hope Mudcats baseball team in the U12 League last year and probably will be doing it again.

His awards, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) had mentioned some of these: A Brotherhood Award from Agudath Achim Synagogue, the President's Award from Savannah State College, Outstanding Alumni Award from the University of Georgia; Union Mission, Golden Heart Award; Community Service Award from the Georgia Municipal Association; Department of Army Award for patriotic civilian service while serving as President of the AUSA, Coastal Empire Chapter; Salvation Army, ``Others'' Award; Savannah Exchange Club, Golden Deeds Award; the Rotary Club, Paul Harris Fellow, which one of the big motives of the Rotary Club is service above self, which I think, again, he epitomizes; the Oglethorpe Leadership Award; a two-time recipient of the Ben Franklin Quality Dealer Award sponsored by Time Magazine; and also an inductee in the Savannah Business Hall of Fame. And I want to say this on behalf of the local Chatham County Republican Party, we name our annual award in his honor, the J.C. Lewis Award.

Mr. Speaker, it is not often when people like this are born, and with Mr. Lewis, it is a family unit. If we know

him, we know his family, and we know they are all in it together. They have made Savannah and Georgia and the United States of America and the world a better place to live. So I am very honored to be a cosponsor with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) on this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2657) making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes; that all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration be waived; and that the conference report be considered as read.