Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one the greatest men of jurisprudence in Colorado, Stuart ``Stu'' VanMeveren, who is stepping down from 32 years as District Attorney for the State's Eight Judicial District.

I have known Stu for many years. Since we have both been very active in the Republican Party, we have come to know each other quite well. I know we think alike on the issues of our time. We reside in neighboring communities located to the north of Denver. Stu's residence in Fort Collins is within my congressional district.

Stu is one of the most capable, effective, popular, and respected elected district attorneys in our State and the Nation. He was first elected district attorney in the Eight Judicial District of Colorado in 1972. Since then he has been re-elected to seven consecutive 4-year terms of office. His eighth term of office concludes on January 11, 2005, because an amendment to the Colorado Constitution has imposed term limits on elected state and local officials.

Stu's peers have recognized his abilities and effectiveness by electing him to local, State, and national office. His local bar association of more than 350 attorneys has elected Stu as their president. His fellow elected district attorneys have twice elected him President of the Colorado District Attorneys Council.

In 1999 Stu was clearly recognized nationally when he was elected President of the National District Attorneys Association. The National District Attorneys Association is the voice of America's prosecutors and has a membership of more than 8,000 attorneys. Stu has served on the board of directors of that organization, a group of the leading prosecutors from each state in our nation, since 1977. Stu has been elected or appointed to many other local, State, and national committees and organizations.

Stu is a very innovative prosecutor. Shortly after he was first elected district attorney in 1972, he formed one of the first full time victim/witness units contained within a prosecutors office. He was also instrumental in forming a very effective youth mentoring program, Larimer County Partners, 25 years ago.

More recently, in 1999, he took the initiative in creating the first Juvenile Drug Court in Colorado and one of the first in the Nation. A successful adult Drug Court followed this and, with his help, Colorado State University has the only Campus Drug Court in the country. Stu has the innate ability to make effective modifications, realign priorities, and adjust limited resources as the issues involving his office and the criminal justice system change.

Representative Bob Schaffer, my predecessor here in Congress, recently remarked, ``As holder of an elected post, Stu's dedication to the Republican principles of public safety and individual liberty have been effectively communicated and represented in a way that has consistently earned him overwhelming bipartisan support each time his name has appeared on a ballot and he is a tireless public servant whose commitment to justice is exemplary.''

Stu is a man of high character and integrity. He is a modest man with a very high degree of common sense. He is highly respected throughout his community and the state of Colorado.

It is for these reasons and many more Stu deserves the very highest praise and deep appreciation not only from me and the residents of Colorado, but also from this esteemed body.

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I inform you that my brother passed away this Wednesday morning, November 17. I returned home immediately that morning to be with my family during this time of loss. For this reason, I was unable to be present with my colleagues to take the final votes of the 108th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Dr. D. James Kennedy and his supporters for their support of the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Dr. Kennedy is a well-known Christian television and radio broadcaster whose programs reach some three million people, weekly. Dr. Kennedy is President of Coral Ridge Ministries, a Christian broadcasting organization, founder and president of Evangelism Explosion, a Christian lay-evangelism training program used in every nation, and Senior Minister of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Dr. Kennedy is a respected and articulate advocate of the return to Christian moral standards in public life.

Dr. Kennedy's Center for Reclaiming America has collected the names of more than 430,000 petition signers who believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and they are opposed to efforts to redefine it. These 430,000 citizens from across the nation have petitioned Congress to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to submit into the Record additional material regarding the debate about whether marriage is in decline in the Netherlands. Some members suggest that the Stanley Kurtz material is not relevant or is not accurate. I submit into the Record the following article written by Mr. Kurtz that addresses his critics on this point.

Dutch Debate

There's a new development in the story of Europe's marriage

meltdown. Recently, a

group of five scholars in the Netherlands issued a letter

addressed to ``parliaments of the world debating the issue of

same-sex marriage.'' The Netherlands was the first country to

adopt full-fledged same-sex marriage, and this letter is the

first serious indication of Dutch concern about the

consequences of that decision. So it's worth quoting the

letter at some length. After citing a raft of statistics

documenting the decline of Dutch marriage, here is some of

what these scholars had to say: . . .there is as yet no

definitive scientific evidence to suggest the long campaign

for the legalization of same-sex marriage contributed to

these harmful trends. However, there are good reasons to

believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the

successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to

same-sex couples in the Netherlands. After all, supporters

of same-sex marriage argued forcefully in favor of the

(legal and social) separation of marriage from parenting.

In parliament, advocates and opponents alike agreed that

same-sex marriage would pave the way to greater acceptance

of alternative forms of cohabitation.

In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy,

highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to

persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to

parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally

valid `lifestyle choices' has not had serious social

consequences . . .

There are undoubtedly other factors that have contributed

to the decline of the institution of marriage in our country.

Further scientific research is needed to establish the

relative importance of all these factors. At the same time,

we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline

already exists to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of

the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its traditional

form.''

You can read an interview with two of the letter's signers

here, and a front-page news story about the letter in the

Dutch paper, Reformatorisch Dagblad, here.

Mr. Chairman, as we think of our friends in Florida, we saw them boarding up their windows in preparation for the tropical storm that would hit and be devastating. However, in many parts of rural Colorado, the businesses on Main Street are boarding up their windows because our ag producers are having such a horrific time with the prolonged drought.

The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) are in the same

region, and we know the devastation that this prolonged drought has shown. We have not had reporters in rural Colorado, standing there and showing the disaster, because it has been over a long period of time, getting worse every year.

So we desperately need this relief at this time for our farmers and for our individuals that raise cattle, that have even had to sell off their breeding stock because the pastures have not had any grass on them now for years.

So at this difficult time we make difficult choices, and I rise in support of the efforts of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of this legislative session and I near the end of my freshman term, I am amazed by the power this body has when it wants to act quickly. The speed at which recent emergency funding for hurricane victims passed just goes to show what can be accomplished in Congress and how quickly.

Serving my rural district in Colorado, I come to the floor this morning to urge action on funding for victims of another major natural disaster, our 6-year drought, which has devastated farmers and ranchers throughout the West. This is a matter of importance that is not being reported on the 24-hour cable news networks or capturing front-page headlines across the Nation because it is not a sudden, horrific force like hurricanes; but it is very critical nonetheless.

When I am at home on the weekends, I see the devastation firsthand. I see the worry and the anxiety. I see the detriment this natural disaster is imposing on the local small town economies. Recently, the other body included $3 billion for drought relief in the Department of Homeland Security bill.

To my colleagues here in the House, I urge support of this funding for drought relief. Floridians boarded up before their natural disasters. Let us make sure rural Colorado does not after theirs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the proposed marriage protection amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Before addressing the merits of the marriage protection amendment, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for bringing this bill up.

I know there are some in Congress and the media who do not believe traditional marriage rises to the level of importance to be considered on the floor today.

The American people disagree with them. This bill is about protecting the institution of marriage, which, as the Supreme Court said many years ago, is ``the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.''

Since Labor Day, this Congress has spent time renaming post offices and Federal buildings, Mr. Speaker. If we have enough time to rename post offices and Federal buildings, surely we have enough time to spend an afternoon considering whether the very foundation of traditional marriage will endure another 200 years.

On one matter, however, I do agree with the opponents of this bill: We should not lightly undertake to amend the Constitution. In the 213 years since

the Bill of Rights was adopted, the Constitution has been amended only 17 times, an average of once every 12\1/2\ years.

As a conservative I understand, perhaps better than most, the national consensus that the Constitution should be amended only rarely. Indeed, I wish we could leave the Constitution alone and this amendment was unnecessary, and if there was any other way to protect marriage, I would be the first to support it. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The matter has been forced upon us, and, whether we like it or not, the Constitution is about to be amended.

Let me say that again: The choice before us is not whether to amend the Constitution or leave it unamended. One way or another, the Constitution will be amended, and the only choice we have is whether to act now and accomplish the amendment through the procedures specified in the Constitution itself, or fail to act, in which case the amendment would be accomplished de facto by activist courts bent on imposing by judicial fiat a transformation of traditional marriage that is unsought and unwanted by the American people.

How do I know what the American people want? Simple. When the people are given a voice in this matter, they support traditional marriage by overwhelming margins. Last month, for example, the people of Missouri approved a marriage protection amendment to their State constitution by a margin of 70.8 percent, and 2 weeks ago the people of Louisiana approved a similar amendment by a margin of 78 percent. Yet the people's will does not seem to count with the courts.

Last year, Justice Scalia warned us in their Lawrence decision that the Supreme Court was paving the way for activist judges to redefine traditional marriage. Even after Justice Scalia's warning, few of us were prepared for the breathtaking speed with which events would overtake us. Only months later, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decreed that for the first time in the history of this Nation, a State would be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The Massachusetts courts are not alone. Only last month, courts in Washington struck down as unconstitutional that State's Defense of Marriage Act in cases concerning the recognition of same-sex marriages.

Even in the face of this judicial onslaught, some argue that we should wait to act until after the Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. Does anyone else see the irony here? Many of those who spoke the loudest that DOMA was unconstitutional when it was enacted in 1996 are the very same ones who now say we ought to presume DOMA is constitutional until the courts tell us otherwise.

I say if we could place our confidence in the Supreme Court, there would be no need for the marriage protection amendment in the first place. But in Lawrence, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion in which she specifically stated that she believed preserving the traditional institution of marriage would be a sufficient basis for upholding a State marriage law. The five members of the Lawrence majority had an obvious opportunity to join Justice O'Connor's position and thus reassure us on this issue. Instead, they chose to remain silent. Let me suggest their silence speaks volumes.

No, we must not wait. The trajectory of the courts' decisions is unmistakable, and we must act now to preserve traditional marriage. We have already seen that even one State's misadventure in this area has had egregious nationwide consequences, as activists file lawsuit after lawsuit seeking to export same-sex marriages to other States. Ironically, it will take an amendment to the Federal Constitution to force this issue out of the courts and back to State legislatures, where it has always been and where it properly should be.

Mr. Speaker, some people have opposed the marriage protection amendment on the grounds that it discriminates. But it is not the marriage protection amendment that discriminates against homosexuals. Rather, the institution of marriage, as it has been understood for millennia, by its very nature is reserved exclusively for persons of the opposite sex. Moreover, society has always limited the pool of persons available for marriage by age, blood ties, mental capacity, and other considerations.

The limitations of traditional marriage rest not on an intent to discriminate, but on what is most beneficial for society and children, as evidenced by volumes of social science research. Traditional marriage is worth preserving because the nuclear family is far and away the best environment in which to raise children. Every child deserves both a father and a mother.

Yes, traditional marriage has had its problems. The high divorce rate, infidelity, and domestic violence are a national scandal, but far from undermining my point, these trends reinforce it because we are dismayed by these trends for the very reason that they lead to the break-up of traditional families, which leads to more and more children being deprived of the tremendous benefit of having both their mom and dad around to raise them.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say I wish traditional marriage was not under attack, but it is. I wish we did not have to deal with this problem now, but we do. Like it or not, the courts have thrust this burden on us and we must not fail to shoulder it.

We as Members of Congress have a responsibility to restrain activist judges who think they can, without devastating consequences to our society, simply jettison the collective wisdom of thousands of years without the input or consent of the American public or their elected Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the marriage protection amendment.

I submit the following letter for the Record.

Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave,

Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Musgrave: The United States House of

Representatives is considering whether or not to send a

constitutional amendment protecting marriage to the States

for their consideration. Contrary to recent arguments and

assertions, I believe that this amendment is consistent

with--and increasingly necessary to uphold--the principles of

federalism so important to our constitutional government.

The Framers rightly left marriage policy, as so many other

things, with the States. But the definition of marriage is

not mere policy issue. It strikes at the very integrity and

meaning of one of the primary elements of civil society.

In a free society, certain questions must be settled for

the good of that society. States can't impair the obligation

of contracts, or coin their own money, or experiment with

forms of non-republican government. We learned the hard way

that the nation could not endure half slave and half free.

As marriage is a fundamental social institution, it is not

only reasonable but also obligatory that it be preferred and

defended in the law. Activist judges forcing the redefinition

of marriage make it necessary to protect the institution in

the U.S. Constitution.

This doesn't mean that marriage must be completely

nationalized or should become the regulatory responsibility

of the federal government. Policy decisions concerning

questions such as degrees of consanguinity, the age of

consent, and the rules of divorce should remain with the

States.

The wisdom of extending certain benefits that stop well

short of marriage--that don't undermine the distinctive

status of marriage--are policy questions that should be the

responsibility of State legislatures.

A Constitutional amendment that defines marriage and blocks

the actions of overzealous judges would protect the States's

capacity to regulate marriage by protecting the integrity of

the institution as such.

In order to guard the States' liberty to determine marriage

policy in accord with the principles of federalism, society

as a whole must prevent the institution itself from being

judicially redefined out of existence.

The constitutional amendment process is neither an

exclusively federal nor an exclusively State action: It is a

shared responsibility of both Congress and the States

representing the American people. By intention, it is a very

difficult process.

Constitutional amendments ought to be rare and should be

pursued only after careful and serious consideration, when it

is necessary to address an issue of great national magnitude

and when there is broad-based support among the American

people throughout the States, as there is concerning

marriage.

Is marriage sufficiently important to protect in the United

States Constitution?

Despite our reluctance to amend our most sacred law--

despite the significance of the endeavor and awesome task

involved--recent and impending judicial activism justifies

this course of action.

Thank you for considering and sharing these concerns with

other Members of Congress.

Sincerely,

Edwin Meese, III,

Chairman, Center for Legal & Judicial

Studies, The Heritage Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I learned a long time ago serving in the Colorado State legislature that criminals do not care about the laws we pass. They do not know who their Congressman is. They do not know who their Senators are. They do not have respect for law or lawmakers.

Right here in Washington, D.C., there are many things that we are extremely proud of. One of the things, though, that really is a blot is the infamous distinction as the murder capital of the world. I think that we need to give criminals who would commit heinous crimes in this District of Columbia pause. I think we ought to make them wonder whether or not an individual that they would harm, whether or not they are going to harm a family or try to rape a woman or murder someone, give them pause, let these criminals wonder if that individual might be able to defend themselves.

It is important when we think that businesses in this District, business owners can have guns on the premises, but individuals cannot have guns that are ready to use in their homes to protect their family. All of us know that our family members are more important to us than any material possession that we have. We need to give individuals in the District a right to defend themselves and we need to give these criminals that make this the murder capital of the world a doubt in their mind as to whether or not someone will be able to defend themselves.

Madam Speaker, the best gauge of whether the American people want the definition of marriage to be a union of a man and a woman is to look at elections in recent activities in the States on this subject.

Madam Speaker, voters in 7 States have gone to the ballot box to enact either a State Defense of Marriage Act, to pass State marriage amendments, or to permit the State legislature to define marriage, thus preventing a State court from doing so. Each time the initiative passed overwhelmingly.

The people of Hawaii voted with 69 percent approval to pass a State marriage amendment. The people of Alaska voted with a 68 percent approval to pass a State marriage amendment. The people of California voted with 61 percent approval to pass a State defense of marriage statute. The people of Nebraska voted with 70 percent approval to pass a State marriage amendment. The people of Nevada voted with a 70 percent approval to pass a State marriage amendment. The people of Missouri voted with 71 percent approval to pass a State marriage amendment. The people of Louisiana voted with a 78 percent approval to pass a State marriage amendment.

Madam Speaker, 44 States have recently enacted laws that provide that marriage shall consist only of a union of a man and a woman. These 44 States constitute 88 percent of the States, well more than the three- fourths required to approve a constitutional amendment, and they include 86 percent of the United States population. The American people have spoken on this subject. It is time that Congress send to the States the marriage protection amendment so that States can decide for themselves whether to ratify the policy that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Marriage is what really matters to the American people, to the American moms and dads, to the American children. It is just common sense.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to congratulate Kit Carson R-1 Elementary School in Kit Carson, Colorado for being chosen as a No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon School of 2004. The Blue Ribbon Schools program honors public and private K-12 schools that are academically superior in their states or have demonstrated dramatic gains in student achievement.

Schools chosen for the Blue Ribbon are meeting the mission of ensuring every child is learning and achieving. Blue Ribbon recipients are national models of excellence from which other schools can learn. I am proud of Kit Carson R-1 Elementary School for serving as a model in the great state of Colorado, and throughout the entire nation.

The Blue Ribbon Schools program requires schools to meet specific assessment criteria. It recognizes schools that have at least 40 percent of their students from disadvantaged backgrounds that dramatically improve student performance in accordance with state assessment systems. The program also rewards schools that score in the top 10 percent on state assessments.

Kit Carson's 37 students scored in the top 10 percent nationwide in math and reading. Additionally, Kit Carson Elementary is only one of 27 rural schools in the nation that received the Blue Ribbon title.

It is an honor to announce this award and it is a testament to the exceptional students of rural Colorado. It proves that a quality education is obtainable when teachers, parents, and students strive for achievement. Compared to other elementary schools around the nation, Kit Carson may be small in size, but it is prominent in its standing.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer my warmest congratulations to Kit Carson Elementary for this achievement.

Mr. Speaker, when I was in fourth grade, my family moved back to Galeton, Colorado. Soon after starting school, I met a little girl named Cynthia Lynch. We quickly became best friends, and I grew to love her family as my own. I have always had a special place in my heart for her dear mother, Joan. Today, with love and gratitude, I honor Joan on the occasion of her 80th birthday.

Joan Lynch was born on October 12, 1924 in Greeley, Colorado, and is the third of five children. There was some confusion about her name. She was raised on the Colorado prairie by William and Kathryn Nelson who farmed northeast of Ault. In the depression and dust-bowl days of the 1930s, her family temporarily left the prairie to find work but did eventually return to the homestead her father had settled in 1915. She has always considered the prairie her home.

She has always had a passion for books and learning, especially history. She speaks of her education in the one-room school at ``North Victor'' as her favorite school experience. Her sisters and she walked a mile and a half to and from school each day, across an open prairie. She later graduated from Central City Colorado High School in 1942, and attended the Teacher's College in Greeley.

Joan and ``Corky'' Lynch, were married in 1946 and lived on the East Coast while he was stationed there in the Navy. I've seen pictures of them in those early days. What a goodlooking couple!

They returned to Colorado in 1947 and farmed in the Milliken area before moving in 1956 to the ranch where Joan continues to live today, northeast of Ault, and only a few miles from the homestead where she grew up. As teenagers, Cindy and I would always giggle and be slightly embarrassed when Corky would leave for work and give Joan a big kiss on his way out of the house. Really, though, we loved it.

Corky passed away in 1999 from cancer. He and Joan celebrated 53 years together. I am so thankful I was able to go and see him before he passed away. I told him how much I appreciated all he and Joan had done for me growing up. We both cried. The older he got, the more tender- hearted he became. He was 75 years old when he passed away.

I love Joan and I will never forget what she has done for me. As a young girl, she gave me lunch money when I needed it, and she put up with my frequent visits to spend the night. That love and support helped me get through the tough times and I will always hold that love in my heart. The way she has lived life has been a constant inspiration to me and her Christian example has always been present for all of us to see. May God bless her today as her family and friends celebrate her birthday. I love her dearly and cherish her as a second mother to me. I am pleased to honor a precious lady on this occasion of her 80th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the memory of John R. Olivas, Jr., an outstanding young man from Johnstown, Colorado, who tragically lost his life at a young age.

John was born Aug. 23, 1985, in Loveland to his loving parents, John R. Olivas, Sr., and Christine T. ``Tina'' (Quintana) Olivas.

John graduated from Roosevelt High School, where he was on the student council and he was a four-year letterman on the varsity wrestling team, and won the State Championship in 2003. He was currently attending the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley, and he was also a member of the UNC wrestling team. He was also currently working for Affordable Painting in Fort Collins.

John loved being with his family and they loved being with him. John lived a full life and he enjoyed fishing, spending time with his friends, clubs, watching movies, snowboarding, and wrestling. He had one sister, Danielle, 16, who is currently attending Roosevelt High School. She is very active in volleyball.

He was known as a ``good kid'' who did a lot of favors for people and he asked for no recognition. He loved to play with kids, including his cousins and young wrestlers. The younger kids that wrestled looked up to John, and saw him as a hero. It was nothing for him to stop by their house to make them feel special. John was a very selfless person and would do anything for anybody.

Wrestling was one of John's passions, and he had dreams of becoming a wrestling coach some day. Many shared that dream with him and knew he would be able to inspire many wrestlers and help them excel. John began wrestling at the young age of five. His dad used to wrestle and was a volunteer coach. His dad got him involved, taking him to wrestling matches, and he began to really like it. From that time on, wrestling was a big part of his life. John's parents were supportive of this and attended match after match and basked in their son's extraordinary talent and discipline.

Survivors are his parents, John R. and Tina Olivas of Johnstown; a sister, Danielle Olivas of Johnstown; his grandparents, Felix and Viola Quintana of Johnstown and Mary Martinez of Loveland, step-grandfather Joe Martinez of Loveland; and numerous aunts, uncles and cousins. The loss his friends and family feel is tremendous and he will be sorely missed. John will always be present in their hearts.

It is my honor to pay tribute to John Olivas, Jr.'s life on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. May God bless all those who mourn his passing. May God comfort them in the days and years to come.

Mr. Speaker, when I was in fourth grade, my family moved back to Galeton, CO. Soon after starting school, I met a little girl named Cynthia Lynch. We quickly became best friends, and I grew to love her family as my own. I have always had a special place in my heart for her dear mother, Joan. Today, with love and gratitude, I honor Joan on the occasion of her 80th birthday.

Joan Lynch was born on October 12, 1924, in Greeley, CO, and is the third of five children. There was some confusion about her name. She was raised on the Colorado prairie by William and Kathryn Nelson who farmed northeast of Ault. In the depression and dust-bowl days of the 1930s, her family temporarily left the prairie to find work but did eventually return to the homestead her father had settled in 1915. She has always considered the prairie her home.

She has always had a passion for books and learning, especially history. She speaks of her education in the one-room school at ``North Victor'' as her favorite school experience. Her sisters and she walked a mile and a half to and from school each day, across an open prairie. She later graduated from Central City Colorado High School in 1942, and attended the Teacher's College in Greeley.

Joan and ``Corky'' Lynch, were married in 1946 and lived on the east coast while he was stationed there in the Navy. I've seen pictures of them in those early days. What a good looking couple. They returned to Colorado in 1947 and farmed in the Milliken area before moving in 1956 to the ranch where Joan continues to live today, northeast of Ault, and only a few miles from the homestead where she grew up. As teenagers, Cindy and I would always giggle and be slightly embarrassed when Corky would leave for work and give Joan a big kiss on his way out of the house. Really, though, we loved it.

Corky passed away in 1999 from cancer. He and Joan celebrated 53 years together. I am so thankful I was able to go and see him before he passed away. I told him how much I appreciated all he and Joan had done for me growing up. We both cried. The older he got, the more tender- hearted he became. He was 75 years old when he passed away.

I love Joan and I will never forget what she has done for me. As a young girl, she gave me lunch money when I needed it, and she put up with my frequent visits to spend the night. That love and support helped me get through the tough times and I will always hold that love in my heart. The way she has lived life has been a constant inspiration to me and her Christian example has always been present for all of us to see. May God bless her today as her family and friends celebrate her birthday. I love her dearly and cherish her as a second mother to me. I am pleased to honor a precious lady on this occasion of her 80th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a sadness that I rise today to remember and honor the life of Joe Jabaily, a thoughtful and dedicated community servant who will be greatly missed by his community of Loveland, Colorado. As his family and friends grieve for the passing of Joe Jabaily, I want to take a few moments to remember his service and commitment to the town and citizens of Loveland.

He began his work by opening the first neurology center in Loveland in 1983. However, the walls of Joe's neurology center could not contain his enthusiasm, love for people, and desire to make a difference for them and their community. In the 20 years that Joe lived in Loveland, he accomplished much.

Beginning in 1984 Joe served on the McKee Medical Center Continuing Education Committee, the McKee Medical Center Credentials Committee; he joined the Loveland Chamber of Commerce; and coached basketball for the Loveland Midget Athletic Association. Joe served as a Loveland Museum Commissioner as well as two terms on the Thompson School District Board of Education. He taught as a Clinical Assistant Professor of Neurology at the University of Colorado, and volunteered as a facilitator for People Offering People Support at Loveland High School. Joe served as Commissioner for the Loveland Open Space Commission. In 1997 the Jabailys were named the Volunteer Family of the Year. Joe's service continued as he volunteered for the United Way Campaign. Joe ran for the Colorado State House District 51 in 2002, and was running again for the same seat when he was involved in a tragic accident during a charity triathlon.

Joe Jabaily was known to always be there to listen, laugh, and contribute in a positive way. He enjoyed meeting people and hearing their concerns. He was known to occasionally cancel a patient's debt if they could not pay. Joe had courage, and did not hesitate to speak out for the citizens of the community. His premature death has affected the community of Loveland, Colorado, in a major way. He will be missed tremendously. I will always remember him as a man full of life, living it to the fullest.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to pay tribute to the life of this outstanding gentleman. I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in celebrating the life and legacy of Joe Jabaily. May God bless his family and many friends in this time of mourning.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment today with the gentleman from Arizona to restore much-needed funding for the title V block grant program. These funds allow local educators the flexibility to address local needs, whether it is school safety, remedial reading, dropout prevention, professional development or support for charter schools.

This innovative education program is the most flexible program contained within the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It is the only formula program that allows recipients to use the funds to benefit any and all student populations in any and all schools. In 2001-2002, 23 percent of the money provided to Colorado through this block grant was used for literacy programs, and 11 percent was used for library materials. Other States have used the money for computers and teachers. Many States are now using the money to meet the academic requirements of No Child Left Behind.

I am extremely supportive of giving our local educators flexibility with their funding so they can make decisions that truly benefit students. These innovative education funds can be used for anything to improve academic achievement. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and restore these funds.