Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 21, I inadvertently failed to give proper attribution to World Magazine during my Case for Life Special Order. I read the following quote and would like to credit World Magazine as its source:

``A native of India, he just does not meet the stereotype, not just the head wrap, the neat beard, the Rollie Fingers-style mustache, but he views abortion as an unalienable right for women in America.''

Mr. Speaker, a millennia ago the question was asked that rings through history and through governance, and that is, can a corrupt throne be allied with you? Today in just a few moments the Committee on International Relations will gather to examine the United Nations Oil for Food Program. We will begin to call for transparency and accountability in a program that the United Nations oversaw but that the evidence suggests allowed Saddam Hussein to amass and divert through kickbacks and various forms of graft in excess of $4 billion.

As we consider moving forward as a partner in Iraq with the United Nations, now is the time and the Committee on International Relations is the place where we must begin to get to the bottom of the administration of the Oil for Food Program, find the truth, have transparency and accountability and go forward with the United Nations with our eyes open.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his wonderful leadership on this profoundly important legislation.

I would also commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for his work on this bill, and to no lesser extent the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), who has, I think, singularly brought this issue to the attention of our colleagues in the days immediately following September 11.

I want to rise in strong support of the Continuity in Representation Act. Thinking of that ancient text that says, Teach us to number our days aright, that we might gain a heart of wisdom. I think it is about that, as the majority whip said, it is about that in that spirit that we gather here today.

I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, this topic is not theoretical to me or my family or to anyone who was here on September 11. I stood on the Capitol lawn that morning and saw the smoke rising from the Pentagon, and scarcely 1 month later I was informed by security officials that the anthrax bacillus was on my desk, exposed to my staff and my family.

While I pray that our Nation and this Congress will never experience any similar events with greater catastrophic effect on this institution, we must prepare for the eventuality. This legislation does that. By ensuring the continuity of this Congress, we will ensure that the people's House will be available to meet the people's needs in their most troubled hour.

The House of Representatives is truly a unique facet of the American Government. It has been called the people's House. In fact, in the Federalist Papers' James Madison said that elections, as this legislation dictates, elections would be ``unquestionably the only policy'' by which the House can have ``intimate sympathy with the people.''

Madison also wrote that ``the definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government . . . to have it left open for the occasional regulation of the Congress would have been improper.''

Our Founders knew it. This legislation contemplates it. We must preserve the right and the obligation to be elected to serve in the House while we prepare necessarily for that dark day that we hope and pray shall never come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the discharge of an idea that began for me in September of 2003; and now today it has its fourth manifestation, a series of remarks on the floor of this Congress that I simply call ``The Case for Life.''

My inspiration for today's discussion, which is entitled ``The Case for Life: Abortion and the Problem of Pain,'' was inspired not by a contemporary in this Congress, though I just came from a meeting with really the intellectual and moral father of the pro-life movement in this Congress, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, who simply referred to my humble efforts on the floor and those of colleagues who will join me as, in his words, ``a great idea.'' But it was not from the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) that I drew my inspiration for these series, but rather from another distinguished gentleman who served in this body from the years 1827 to his death on the House floor in the year 1848. That was the late Congressman and the former President, John Quincy Adams, who history recorded after he served as President of the United States for a term in the early 1820s, he actually felt compelled to return to Washington, D.C. from his home State of Massachusetts as a member of the House of Representatives, truly an extraordinary exercise in public service.

One can scarcely imagine a former President in the modern era becoming a Member of Congress after he served in the Oval Office. But John Quincy Adams was not an ordinary man. His father before him, John Adams, was our second President. John Quincy Adams was considered one of the great moral and intellectual minds of the 19th century and is considered so to this day. But he came to Capitol Hill, Mr. Speaker, not simply, as some get wrongly accused, to occupy a chair. He came here on a mission, a mission encapsulated in a book I am reading now entitled ``Arguing About Slavery.'' Because when John Quincy Adams came to the Congress of the United States he did so as a Northerner, a former President himself, the son of one of the founders of this country, and a man who believed that the scourge of slavery was a blight on this Nation and threatened its greatness and threatened its destiny.

So as history records, Congressman John Quincy Adams came often not to this floor, but to the floor of the Congress just down the hallway, every few weeks for the nearly 20 years he served in this body to speak about one issue, and that was the issue of the abolition of slavery.

Now, one would argue that having died in 1848, John Quincy Adams could scarcely point to any accomplishment in his life ending slavery; but there, Mr. Speaker, you would be wrong. Because it would be none other than a lanky, gangly freshman member of Congress that arrived on Capitol Hill the year that John Quincy Adams would die who would be sitting on the back row in what is now Statuary Hall in the House of Representatives and would listen to the great man speak, make his powerful moral orations against slavery. And that young Congressman, known to his friends as Abe Lincoln, would be deeply moved.

History would record that young Congressman would go back to Illinois and run for the United States Senate and eventually become our President and eventually sign the Emancipation Proclamation. I am confident that once we reach the other side of heaven, as opposed to this side of heaven, we will know to a certainty that that Abe Lincoln was inspired by the words and the example of that humble former President and Congressman.

After I learned that story, I thought of my own time. I thought of the short period of time that I would have here to serve, and I thought about my passion about the sanctity of human life,

and I thought about the enormity of this issue and the fact that apart from a few important legislative advances, despite the fact that this Chamber could be considered the heart of the most powerful Nation on Earth, that actually the subject of abortion comes up here very infrequently, even though the statistics are startling about the impact that abortion has and has had on our society over the last 30 years.

Think of it, Mr. Speaker. Each year more than 1 million U.S. teenagers become pregnant, and the teen pregnancy rate in the last 30 years has become truly alarming. With regard to those who elect to end that pregnancy out of wedlock in abortion, 80 percent are single, 60 percent are white, 35 percent are black. Eighty-two percent of women having abortions are among that single or separated category, but the most startling statistic to me, and I think the reason why, Mr. Speaker, it begs that we grapple with this issue on this floor from time to time, in the same way that John Quincy Adams, however inconveniently, grappled publicly on the floor of the Congress about slavery, is that according to Planned Parenthood's National Center for Health Statistics, nearly half of American women, 43 percent of American women, will have an abortion sometime during their life.

Let me say again. This procedure, validated in the case of Roe v. Wade in 1973, has now given rise to a procedure that literally impacts the lives not only of the unborn, but of nearly half of childbearing women in the United States of America. So it is in that spirit that back in September I launched this series on the case for life and today come to the floor on the subject of abortion and the problem of pain.

I mentioned earlier that there have been some recent and important legislative achievements. This Republican majority in Congress has advanced not one, but two historic pieces of legislation that advance the principles of the sanctity of human life. To a lesser degree is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I helped to draft that bill as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and while it is not a prolife piece of legislation, it does, on the Federal level, certify what two-thirds of the States of this Nation have certified long ago is that when there is violence against a pregnant mother that results in the loss of the unborn child's life, that there are two victims, and while I would say that it is not a prolife piece of legislation, the principle about the sanctity of unborn human life is nonetheless there, and it is important.

I commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), who almost single-handedly muscled this legislation to the floor of the Congress and saw to its passage and signature earlier this year.

Obviously, the most significant piece of legislation and, in fact, the very first restriction on the abortion procedure since Roe v. Wade also passed in this Congress and is now the subject of not one, but three separate pieces of litigation in the Federal courts, and it is in that context that abortion and the problem of pain, I think, justifiably comes before us today.

Congress, as I am sure my colleagues are aware, Mr. Speaker, actually managed earlier this year in overwhelming numbers to pass the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. For those not aware of this procedure, partial birth abortion essentially involves, as hard as it is to say, the breach delivery of a child post-20 weeks. Virtually in every case of a partial birth abortion, the child could be delivered whole and could survive. It is certainly at the stage of viability.

But in the partial birth abortion, the child is delivered partially, and then a suction tube is, I will say it gently, inserted in the back of the skull. The contents of the skull are removed, and the remains of the child are taken from the mother's womb. It is a horrific procedure.

It was one of the joys of my life on November 5, 2003, to sit on about the third row as the President of the United States over near the White House in the Reagan Building signed that ban of that horrific procedure. As the President said, Our Nation owes its children a different and better welcome. He went on to say, The bill I am about to sign protecting the innocent, new life from this practice reflects the passion and humanity of America. And so it did. It affirmed our basic standard of humanity which can be summarized in the duty that the strong have to protect the weak.

The American people obviously overwhelmingly support this legislation. One survey after another has shown enormous support. A recent Gallup poll showed 68 percent of Americans believe that partial birth abortion should be illegal. The same poll showed that even 50 percent of those who considered themselves to be prochoice on abortion supported the ban of this horrific procedure, and here is a compelling number for my colleagues. Fifty-seven percent of obstetricians and gynecologists want partial birth abortion banned as well, according to a survey in Medical Economics Magazine.

It seems, as we like to say back in Indiana, Mr. Speaker, to be a no- brainer procedure like this has no place in a civilized society, and Congress, in bipartisan fashion, agreed. Members from across the political spectrum after literally 8 years of wrangling on Capitol Hill, 8 years of expert testimony, 8 years of public debate, finally came to broad agreement. Members across the aisle, as I mentioned, many colleagues in the Democrat minority in the House and the Senate, strongly supported this legislation. Senators, from conservative Republican Rick Santorum to Senator Tom Daschle, approved this measure in a 64-to-34 vote, and House Members in this Chamber, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and my friend the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), joined conservatives like me in approving the ban 281 to 142.

Congress made specific findings in this legislation as well, that partial birth abortion was essentially an inhumane procedure that is, and this was a finding of the Congress that is important in this moment, Mr. Speaker, because it is being litigated in Federal courts around the country at this very moment, that the Congress found that one expert after another, and even in agreement with the American Medical Association that supports abortion rights in America, found that this procedure is never medically necessary. Let me say again. That after nearly 8 years of debate, after examination of experts, including the concerted opinion of the American Medical Association, it was concluded that this procedure, known as partial birth abortion by the AMA, as well as, of course, by the overwhelming majorities of this Congress, was found to never be medically necessary, and that is a critical, critical conclusion by this Congress.

Partial birth abortion, it was concluded almost unilaterally or uniformly by medical and legal and ethical experts to be inconsistent with the obligations of the law. So we find ourselves nevertheless in litigation in America, and as a former trial attorney, I can tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I would never stand between any American and the courthouse door. We all have the right to seek redress in the courts, and some are doing just that.

In fact, this law, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, signed into law last November is being challenged not in one, but in three separate cases in Federal courts around the country: in New York City before Judge Richard C. Casey; in Lincoln, Nebraska, before Judge Richard Kopf; and in San Francisco, California, before the honorable Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.

In two out of three of those cases, though, interestingly, Mr. Speaker, the judges on the bench have ruled that an issue that we did consider in this Congress, but an issue that has not gotten a great deal of public discussion, was relevant to the deliberations on the constitutionality of the ban, and that is, as I have said in the title of this discussion today, the problem of pain. It is the problem of pain that is literally being considered in two out of three of the Federal cases, and it may ultimately cause some pain in the hearts of Americans who may be looking in on our deliberations or may be reading accounts of this, but it seems to me, as we try and come to terms with the cost of abortion in America, we do well to listen to the experts about this issue of pain, and I want to speak gently and respectfully about it today.

The truth is, in the New York City case, the National Abortion Federation never wanted Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand to testify in the Partial Birth Abortion

Ban Act trials, but he did, and no wonder. This Oxford- and Harvard- trained neonatal pediatrician had some jarring testimony about the subject of fetal pain, and it is truly made more astonishing when one considers the fact that Dr. Anand is not a stereotypic Bible-thumping prolifer.

In fact, interestingly, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Anand is not prolife at all. He is, in fact, a strong advocate of the right to an abortion. A native of India, he just does not meet the stereotype, not just the head wrap, the neat beard, the Rollie Fingers-style mustache, but he views abortion as an unalienable right for women in America. He gave his testimony in the New York court, even more credibility as one of the leading experts on fetal pain in America, if not the world.

Dr. Anand took the stand in the morning recently and testified for hours, excerpts of which I will read into the Record today. He testified for hours on a simple principle that unborn children can, according to his research, actually feel pain more vividly than recently born children or adults. It is an astonishing and truly chilling assertion that this expert came to.

Let me go back, as my old trial lawyer days taught me to do, and let me establish the credibility of the witness, if I can. Dr. Kanwaljeet S. Anand is a pediatrician specializing in the care of critically ill newborns and children. For more than 20 years, according to trial testimony, he has conducted intensive research on the study and the development of pain and stress in human newborns and fetuses.

I said before once again, and I repeat it for the sake of its significance and its addition to the credibility of his testimony, that Dr. Anand personally believes that a woman has an unalienable right to an abortion, which makes him solidly and unqualifiedly prochoice.

He received his medical degree from Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College in Indore, India. After postdoctoral training in pediatrics, he was awarded a Rhodes scholarship to study at the University of Oxford. He received a Ph.D. from the Faculty of Medicine for research he performed on surgical pain and stress in premature and full-term newborns.

Following additional postdoctoral training at Oxford, Dr. Anand completed a fellowship in pediatric critical care at Massachusetts General Hospital.

He has numerous academic appointments, University of Oxford, Harvard Medical School, Emory University School of Medicine. He has authored or coauthored more than 200 articles and is currently professor of pediatrics at Arkansas University for Medical Science. Not a lightweight, and, virtually as we used to say in the law business, an unimpeachable witness on the subject of fetal stress and fetal pain.

Now, before I go into precisely what Dr. Anand had to say, it is important to point out that the damaging nature of this information coming in not only to the courtroom in New York, and not only has been ruled in order in Nebraska, Mr. Speaker, but also into the public domain was certainly not lost on the abortion rights activists who brought the challenge to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in both of those cases.

Literally, attorneys for the National Abortion Federation used virtually every legal tactic at their disposal to prevent Dr. Anand's testimony from being permitted in the court. NAF attorneys attempted time and time again to block Dr. Anand's testimony. And then once he was allowed on the stand, the plaintiffs' attorneys cross-examined him redundantly, in a style that actually drew the judge's rebuke. The judge actually asked one of the National Abortion Federation lawyers, he was being so pedantic and repetitive, and in some ways abusive of Dr. Anand on the stand, Judge Casey asked: ``Is this a new school of cross-examination, where you make a statement and finish every statement with, is that correct?'' Later, the judge actually drilled a plaintiff's lawyer for attempting to make one of their witnesses testify about events before they were hired.

It just was extraordinary the efforts to which the opponents of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act went to prevent Dr. Anand's testimony from being allowed in. And for all the world, I do not think, Mr. Speaker, it was so much about what was happening in that courtroom as it was what was happening out here in the debate, the debate for winning the hearts and minds of 270, 280 million Americans who wrestle with this issue and are deeply divided. And not only are we divided just as a country, but most of even my very best friends and family members, who profess to be pro-choice, do so with a great deal of ambiguity about it, seeing abortion as a necessary evil in society, but an evil nonetheless.

I really believe, as I denominated this ``case for life'' installment, I believe that pain is a problem for the advocates of abortion in America, not just those who would oppose partial-birth abortion. Abortion and the problem of pain can be summarized in this idea, and forgive me if I have too high an opinion of people and particularly the American people, but I cannot help but feel that if most Americans became persuaded about the truth of what Dr. Anand has said, about the capacity of unborn children to experience pain, that we would, as a Nation, rethink this business of abortion.

And so I thought it all together fitting that we talk about the problem of pain in the little bit of time I have left. And I may be joined, Mr. Speaker, by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who was actually in Nebraska, in the courtroom, where much of this testimony took place and was facilitated just in the last 2 weeks.

Here is what Dr. Anand had to say, and I want to read this into the Record, if I can, Mr. Speaker, although I will submit the entire testimony for the Record.

When he was brought to the stand in New York City in the partial- birth abortion ban challenge case, Dr. Anand was asked a series of questions beginning with this: ``Are there differences between fetuses and infants born at full term?'' The answer: ``There are certainly huge differences between a fetus at different stages of maturity and a full- term infant, yes.''

Next question: ``What effect, if any, does that have on your opinion in this case about a fetus's ability to feel pain?'' This was the response of this Rhodes Scholar, Harvard-trained Ph.D. who supports the right to an abortion. Dr. Anand responded: ``What we have noted from these multiple lines of evidence is that the pain system has a very low threshold, meaning that the fetus has a much greater sensitivity to pain during the early development of the pain system, and later on that threshold rises or the sensitivity decreases to pain. This is seen throughout development. So in a premature fetus, those 23, 24 weeks of gestation, they have a much lower threshold of pain compared to a full- term infant. A full-term infant has a lower threshold of pain as compared to, say, a 1- or 2-year-old child. And during childhood as well there is a progressive increase in the threshold of pain. So,'' Dr. Anand testified, ``my opinion is that between 20 and 30 weeks of gestation there is the greatest sensitivity to pain.''

The attorney went on to ask the question: ``Doctor, can you explain the scientific reasons why that is so?'' Dr. Anand responded: ``There are many reasons to explain this increased sensitivity to pain. Firstly, there is the early development of the receptors and the density of these receptors is much greater in the fetal skin as compared to an older child or adult. These receptors have connections to the spinal cord,'' et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. ``So it is that early period,'' he concluded, ``there is the greatest sensitivity to pain.''

Then it gets a bit more chilling, and this is where I would ask the forbearance of the Chair and any who are looking in; so that if there are little ears nearby, I, as the father of three small children, have no desire to offend, but this is offensive. Because here we will hear where Dr. Anand actually used the word ``excruciating'' to describe the experience of pain of an unborn child in a partial-birth abortion.

Question: ``Do you have any opinion as to whether the partial-birth abortion procedure will cause pain to a fetus?'' Answer: ``Yes, it would, if the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation.''

And I would add parenthetically here, not as part of the testimony, that virtually all partial-birth abortions

take place after 20 weeks, according to medical statistics.

Back to the testimony. Question: ``And could you describe, in your opinion, Doctor, what kind of pain you would anticipate the fetus would feel?'' Dr. Anand responded as follows: ``Given the increased sensitivity to pain at that period of gestation, the parts of the procedure associated with grasping the lower extremity of the fetus, of manipulating or rotating the fetus within the confines of the uterus, of delivering the fetus through an incompletely dilated cervix as well as the surgical incision made at the back of the head, the puncturing of the intracranial cavity through the occipital bone and through the membranes that cover the brain, all of those parts of the procedure would be associated with prolonged and excruciating pain to the fetus.'' So said Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand, a Rhodes Scholar and one of the leading experts on fetal pain in the Western World.

As you heard, Mr. Speaker, going literally step by step through each element, the doctor described of the procedure of a partial-birth abortion, and I cited here his reference to the grasping of lower extremities, the turning of the fetus in the uterus, the delivery of the fetus through an insufficiently dilated cervix, Dr. Anand concludes that these would all result in, and these are his words now, ``prolonged and excruciating pain to the fetus.''

There is more here; and as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, I will submit this testimony at this point in the Record, in its entirety, for any who might examine our work at some point in the future, because it is truly extraordinary to consider.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful now to yield to a colleague and a friend who, while a freshman from the great State of Iowa, has arrived here with a vengeance and with convictions and with passion. And as I presented the issues that are being litigated at this very hour in New York and in Nebraska and in San Francisco, I was delighted to note that over the April recess, my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), was not content to stay in Iowa while these weighty matters were being debated.

As was reported to me, the gentleman from Iowa drove 470 miles one way to sit in the courtroom in Nebraska in the company of the Honorable Judge Richard G. Kopf, and reassert the principle of Congress' ability to make findings of fact and the deliberation that Congress used in concluding, as I asserted earlier, Mr. Speaker, that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary. And, as I am sure the gentleman from Iowa will elaborate, that was a broad conclusion by this body.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would be anxious to hear my colleague's reflections on the issue of fetal pain and how that may or may not play into this debate, both in and out of the courtroom.

My purpose today in this ``case for life'' entitled ``Abortion and the Problem of Pain,'' is simply to do our part on this blue and gold carpet to bring these issues more into the public domain, not just to our colleagues here on the floor, but also to those that might be looking in, Mr. Speaker, to be aware that this business of banning partial-birth abortions, so overwhelmingly supported by the American people, is an unfinished work. The work goes on.

Mr. Speaker, again I yield to my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for his statements, and again want to express my gratitude for the gentleman's tenacity in defending life and the processes of an institution. Our colleague, literally at a time when many Members of Congress with their families were stealing away to someplace warm, our colleague was headed to a courthouse to defend the integrity of an institution and the processes of this institution which the American people, many of whom may be looking into our conversation today, have a right to know that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act signed 5 November, 2003, by this President was thoughtfully considered and carefully prepared and based upon findings of fact that are demonstrable.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for his leadership and for his courage on behalf of the unborn and as truly a remarkable contributor to this institution in a very short period of time.

By way of closing this installment of the case for life, abortion and the problem of pain, I would reflect on those words from the ancient text that say whatsoever you do to the least of these, you do to me, and that for millions of Christians, me included, those were the words of God Himself. They express a principle that has been manifested throughout the 2,000-year history of Western civilization that societies and their justice and their definition of justice is defined on the manner in which the strong deal with the weak. That is the essence of justice.

At its very core, in my judgment, whether it is partial-birth abortion or abortion in any of its permutations, justice demands that we reconsider this practice. As the evidence that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) defended in Lincoln, Nebraska, overwhelmingly attested in the case of partial-birth abortion, this is a procedure that is never medically necessary. In fact, we, from south of Highway 40 in Indiana, like to use common sense on things. It hardly seems like it could ever be in the interest of the health of a woman to deliver a child and to brutalize it in the birth canal, and that would somehow be safer for the mother than a simple caesarean section that is done countless times in America and has been done since Caesar, after whom it was named. It is never medically necessary.

Beyond that, it is my hope and my ambition, and I may even say my prayer, that the problem of pain becomes more widely known in this country. Just judging the intensity that abortion rights activists use to keep Dr. Anand's testimony about fetal pain out of the courtroom in these proceedings suggests to me that our opponents in this debate understand the political vulnerability because at our core I believe, as the President says so often, the American people are a deeply compassionate and caring people.

That is why I said at the beginning of this discussion today that in the case for life, the problem of pain is a problem for advocates of abortion rights. To the extent that these court cases and the attempts to challenge and pull down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act ultimately result, whatever their outcome, in the American people having a broader understanding of the reality of what Dr. Anand called so chillingly that prolonged and excruciating pain to the fetus in a partial-birth abortion, then we may be making progress.

So I conclude this case for life, Mr. Speaker, with gratitude for your forbearance and those of my colleagues, with renewed appreciation to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who, along with his lovely bride, are stalwarts on the case for life. I close this case for life with gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, it is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. And yesterday this photograph was taken by a UPI photographer, remarkably, on the streets of Fallujah in Iraq. It depicts the gratitude of an ordinary Iraqi to a United States Marine who, along with many Marines and constituents of mine from Indiana, are patrolling the streets of that war-torn city at this very hour.

I bring this photograph because in the midst of the heartbreak of the loss of American soldiers over the past several weeks, some say this means that the Iraqi people do not want us there, that they fail to appreciate the sacrifices that we have made in the blood of our countrymen.

But, Mr. Speaker, that is not what I saw when I was in Iraq a month ago, in Basra and in Baghdad. The Iraqis with whom I met spoke with passion and emotion the same message depicted in this picture: a message of gratitude to the American soldier, gratitude to the American people, not only for ending the reign of Saddam Hussein but for staying the course and seeing them through to freedom. And as the President said, in the interest of these good people, these soldiers and this country will not waver.

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

Mr. Chairman, my dad used to tell me life is not fair, but we almost always get out of things what we put into them. Sadly, that is not true for the highway bill, but really it has never been. But in the last highway bill, Congress actually made States like my home State of Indiana get at least 90\1/2\ cents back on every dollar we paid at the pump in gasoline taxes. But

this highway bill that we will consider today actually reduces that amount by about 10 cents on the dollar, for every State in the Union, as my friend from Indiana just said.

The Isakson amendment asks only this: Keep the 90\1/2\ cent minimum guarantee for every State in the union just the way it is. We are asking to keep the status quo. Let us keep things the way they are.

Life is not fair, but the way we use taxpayer dollars in the highway bill should be.

Mr. Speaker, since the days of the Roman Empire, nations have understood the connection between roads and prosperity and national security. And today Congress will deliberate on a new highway bill, which I will support only if it can be fiscally responsible and fair to so-called donor States like Indiana.

But I rise at the outset of this debate to congratulate the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the membership of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for resisting the temptation to raise gasoline taxes. With the news this morning that OPEC will be cutting production and raising the cost of crude, that gasoline is at $3 a gallon on the West Coast, I am personally grateful to the chairman of the transportation committee and all of its membership for saying with regard to this highway bill, no new taxes.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect to the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I rise in strong support of the Flake fair amendment because it is simply that. It is only fair that we would deduct, as the gentleman from Arizona suggests, the amount that has been earmarked specifically by Members of those States from the formula for distributing assets under the transportation bill rather than excluding them and then allowing the formula to only be placed on those which have not been designated as being of particular national significance. It seems to me the money is spent in those States, it is spent on infrastructure projects that the Members of those States can point to with pride and appreciation because of their significance, but it ought not to work a detriment, as it so distinctly does to States like Indiana, that I have the privilege of serving, States like Arizona and so many States in the Union that have to wait until after the special projects to divide up what is left.

I support the Flake fair amendment strongly.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Arizona for his hard work on this fair and sensible amendment.

The Flake amendment would solve inequities in TEA-LU by ensuring that the apportion formula can function as intended. Currently, earmarks secured by each member stand apart from the Minimum Guarantee formula. This drastically changes the actual rate of return, as some states perform far worse in this process, losing hundreds of millions of dollars.

Mr. Chairman, this is unacceptable. If we are truly concerned about, and fighting for, equity, why do we not subtract these earmarks

from the formula totals in the Surface Transportation Program, thus ensuring equity? Why create an environment in which states must fight one another for extra projects, when instead the formula could be allowed to function as designed?

Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow some of our states to experience a reduction in core programs. The great highway infrastructure of each state serves more than just the citizens in that state. In fact, my home state of Indiana is affectionately known as the Crossroads of America for that very reason. Hoosier Highways serve the whole country through interstate commerce, personal and business travel, and military mobility. For this reason, I am in strong support of Mr. Flake's amendment, subtracting the amount of earmarks from state formula totals, and furthering equity between all states.

I urge my colleagues to support the Flake amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Robert N. Brown's story began in Columbus 83 years ago on May 7, 1920, when he became the second baby born at the Bartholomew County Hospital. He was born the son of Raymond S. and Anna Newell Brown. He married Alice Elizabeth ``Betty'' Frantz on Aug. 9, 1947, in Columbus. He married Eloise Albert Sears on May 7, 1994, in Columbus. He was preceded in death by his parents; his first wife on August 19, 1991; and a sister, Elizabeth Marshall.

And Bob Brown was a family man who loved his family. He is survived by his second wife, of Columbus; a son, Jeffrey N. Brown of Columbus; daughters, Peggy A. Brown of Fountain Hills, Arizona, Rebecca E. Brown Thompson of Christchurch, New Zealand, and Susan A. Brown of Downers Grove, Illinois; stepchildren, Susan Sears of Briarcliff Manor, New York, and B.J. Sears of Los Angeles; a brother, Dr. Richard Brown of Phoenix; grandchildren, Zoran and Alex Gvojic, both of Downers Grove, Sarah DeClue of Chandler, Arizona, Erin Boggs of Scottsdale, Arizona, Cameron Thompson of Christchurch, and Christi and Ian Brown, both of Columbus; and two step grandchildren, Kelsey and Sayre Sundberg, both of Briarcliff Manor.

Please know that each of you have our deepest sympathies and prayers in your loss.

His daughter Susan told me this week, ``Dad always had time for us, and until I grew up, I never knew how unusual that was.''

His professional accomplishments are equally extraordinary.

Mr. Brown was the former publisher of The Republic newspaper and chairman of Home News Enterprises.

A Purdue University graduate, he was a U.S. Army veteran serving in World War II and during the Korean War.

He was named to the Indiana Newspaper Hall of Fame and received the Community Service Award from the Chamber of Commerce and the Mayor's Arts Award.

Professionally, he served as president of Hoosier State Press Association and the Inland Daily Press Association and was deeply involved in the American Newspaper Publishers Association and the American Press Institute.

He was an inventor, obtaining patents for a copy-cutting device and a composing room system for classified advertising.

Among his community affiliations were Bartholomew County Hospital Board trustee, Hospital Foundation, North Christian Church, United Way, Rotary Club, Heritage Fund, Columbus School Foundation, Foundation for Youth, Columbus Jaycees and the Boys Club Council. He and his wife, Betty, established the Robert and Betty Brown Awards for Vocal Excellence. An instrumental scholarship also was added.

And we will enjoy the product of that philanthropy throughout this service.

His story ended Friday, March 19, 2004, at Shell Point Pavilion in Fort Myers, Florida.

But that hardly tells the story. There is so much more to tell because Bob Brown was also a hero and an inventor and that story needs to be told as well.

Bob Brown was a soldier. After graduating from Purdue in May of 1941 Bob Brown went to work but would write in the family history, ``Overshadowing everything we did was an ominous cloud of war.''

Duty called. He enlisted in Army in 1942. Enrolled in the army school of advanced electronics at Chicago University and 2nd Lt Bob Brown, US Army Signal Corp reported to Fort Monmouth, New Jersey on 3 Dec 1942. An engineer by training, Lt Brown was schooled to operate a dramatic new top-secret technology known as Radar.

On 22 January 1944, Lt Bob Brown shipped out for the European theatre aboard the Queen Mary. He arrived in England and helped assemble Starting Point, the first early warning radar system in the history of modern warfare.

And he was there on 6 June 1944: D-Day. He wrote of that experience in the family history and I quote generously from his account of that time:

One of the most dramatic days of my life was 6 June 1944. I

awoke to a deafening roar and leaped out of my pup tent to

find the sky filled with planes from horizon to horizon.

There were bombers and fighters from the Allied countries of

every size . . . All were either going or returning across

the channel. `My God! It's here'--the long awaited invasion

had actually come. We knew we were part of it, but when and

where?

On 10 June 1944, four days later, the word came down.

``Board an assigned landing craft with all vehicles at dawn

11 June and be prepared to land at Omaha Beach.'' The tension

and excitement were unbearable. Our time had really come . .

. As the beach neared, we all became quiet with apprehension.

What would it be like to face enemy fire?

When we arrived at the beach we were relieved to see the

fighting had moved in land . . . For 100 miles around us,

including the southern coast of England, the northern coast

of France and the Channel between I could clearly see every

ship in the water and many vehicles moving on the land.

. . . For that brief period the magnitude of the operation

overwhelmed me. We had actually landed in France! This

invasion had to be the greatest feat in history.

Lt. Brown would serve courageously from D-Day to the Battle of the Bulge. After WWII, he returned to the service during the Korean War to train new heroes in the use of radar in combat operations at bases around the country.

Years later, as the illness that would take his life clouded his mind, according to Peggy, it was the memories of his service in World War II that, ``Were the last memories to go.'' Almost until the end, he spoke with affection of the men and the times when his generation won freedom for the people of Europe and every generation that would follow.

His son Jeff told me that even 50 years later, ``He felt his military service in World War II was the greatest contribution of his life.''

And he was right. Lt. Brown was a hero.

Accordingly, and in recognition of his service to the people of France, I have been authorized to posthumously present the Medal of the Jubilee of Liberty, minted on the 50th anniversary of the D-Day invasion to Robert N. Brown on behalf of the Regional Council of Normandy and the grateful people of France

for his heroism in Normandy France during Operation Overlord in June of 1944.

And Bob Brown was an inventor. Having studied electrical engineering at Purdue University and serving as a radar technical officer during World War II, Brown was fascinated by new technologies and gadgets.

And while he held two patents on laborsaving newspaper-production devices, it went deeper than that.

As his son Jeff told me this week. ``He was an inventor. He wanted to invent something So he invented a newspaper.''

Brown had succeeded his father Raymond Brown as publisher of the family-owned newspaper in Columbus, the Evening Republican (now called The Republic). Ambition and entrepreneurial spirit motivated Bob Brown in the early 1960s to start a newspaper from scratch, rather than buying an existing newspaper. It was, as Jeff would tell me this week, ``His defining professional moment.''

Foreseeing Johnson County's booming population growth in the decades ahead, Brown founded his newspaper, the Daily Journal, to cover the entire county.

Brown spearheaded construction of the Daily Journal's first ever glassed-in plant on US 31, the first newspaper in the nation to be built from the ground up with the then innovative offset-press technology.

The ``Journal Hill'' site north of Franklin took shape Sept. 14, 1962. The 11,000-square foot glass-enclosed building allowed passers-by on US 31 to see the new Goss Suburban offset press inside.

Offset printing was a technological leap forward. After a newspaper page was composited, it was photographed and the negative was rendered into a thin plate for the printing press. The innovation was less time- consuming and labor-intensive than the old ``hot-type'' printing method.

Publishers from all over the country came to Journal Hill to marvel at the new technology and this showman's glass wall display of the presses. Today virtually every major newspaper in America reflects both of these Brown innovations.

The first issue of the Daily Journal rolled off the press on July 22, 1963. Afternoon delivery was the norm at the time. From the start, his colleagues attest, Mr. Brown set the tone for the Daily Journal's news coverage: Fairness to all and special treatment for none.

Howard ``Bud'' Herron, former editor and later publisher of the Daily Journal and now publisher of The Republic in Columbus, noted Brown's push for employees to excel.

Herron recalled that Brown gave editors and publishers the freedom to make their own news judgments.

``He was a believer in the total integrity of the news operation,'' Herron said.

And Bob Brown was a gentle man. As Dorothy Hayes, one of the Daily Journal's original employees, recalled last week in a story that demonstrated the rare combination of kindness and high standards that characterized his life. ``He was a perfectionist, and you tried so hard to do everything the way he wanted it done.''

Hayes, now 70, remembered that Brown insisted on certain rules.

``He had this thing about Scotch tape. He didn't like it,'' she recalled.

Hayes, who had just turned 30, had whimsically Scotch-taped a clipping stating ``Don't trust anyone over 30'' to her cash register. The boss was not amused.

Brown wandered over and was talking to Hayes; and during the conversation, he nonchalantly scraped off the Scotch tape with his fingernail.

``He never said a word to me, but I got the message: `Do not use Scotch tape,' '' Hayes laughed. ``He was very meticulous,'' she added compellingly. ``He was the kindest man I've ever met, and the most fair.''

And so he was. When I met Mr. Brown as a floppy haired junior highschooler, I was taken aback by his genuine interest in me and my future. He listened to my ideas and ambitions and always took time to gently challenge my plans and my thinking with a grandfatherly touch. I can still hear his voice during countless sessions in the Brown family living room, following one of my pronouncements about how I saw things, when he would gently say, ``Mike, you might want to look at that a little differently.''

Bob Brown was a gentle man, an inventor, a hero and a family man.

But make no mistake about it, Bob Brown was a leader too.

As Bud Herron said, ``He didn't tiptoe through life. Everywhere he went he left broad, bold footprints.''

And perhaps his peer and personal friend, Mr. J. Irwin Miller put it best when he said, ``Today this community lost one of its great sons.'' The former Cummins Inc. Chairman went on to say, ``The fact that The Republic is a thriving, fourth-generation family business is a testament to Bob's leadership, vision and hard work. He will be greatly missed by his family and by all of us who were honored to know him personally.''

His devotion to his family, his service to America, his personal kindness; and his bold vision for his enterprise and our community are all the elements of a life of great quality.

It is written, ``No greater love has a man than this that he should lay down his life for his friends.''

Bob Brown put his life on the line for his nation, and laid down the balance of his life for his family, his community and the people of the enterprise to which he was born . . . namely . . . his friends.

And we, his friends, bid him this tender farewell with hearts overflowing with gratitude to God for the privilege of having known this man . . . Confident that just a few days ago, this good man--his mind and memory restored--his body young and strong again--as he did so many years ago, stepped onto the sands of another shore into the warm embrace of Raymond, Anna, Betty and Elizabeth and heard those deserved words, ``Well done, thou good and faithful servant.''

Mr. Chairman, I was detained in my district for a funeral earlier today. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Rollcall 84 (Previous Question on H. Con. Res. 33)--``aye''; rollcall 85 (Bureau of Engraving and Printing Security Printing Act)-- ``aye''; rollcall 86 (District of Columbia and United States Territories Circulating Quarter Dollar Program)--``aye''; rollcall 87 (An Act to authorize the President of the United States to agree to certain amendments to the Agreements between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States concerning the establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission and a North American Development Bank)--``aye''; rollcall 88 (Congressional Black Caucus)--``no''; rollcall 89 (Blue Dog)--``no''; rollcall 90 (Republican Study Committee)--``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, today the city of Columbus, Indiana, bid farewell to one of its great sons, Robert N. Brown. Robert N. Brown was born 83 years ago in the city of Columbus. During the course of his lifetime, he was a publisher of newspapers, a founder of newspapers, a World War II veteran who went ashore on Omaha Beach on D-Day Plus 3, the proud father of four and grandfather to many, many more in our community. It was my privilege to offer the eulogy today at First Christian Church in Columbus, Indiana.

I rise today to offer my condolences to the family and to the community at his loss. May he and his family feel the peace of Christ in this time of loss.

Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson wrote those transcendent words in the Declaration of Independence, that our founders believed that we were endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. Abraham Lincoln, in establishing the first National Day of Prayer, quoted scripture as he affirmed that which had been truth throughout the ages, that only those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord.

Nevertheless, at this hour across the street the Supreme Court of the United States of America is hearing a case about whether the American people may acknowledge that we are one Nation under God in our Pledge of Allegiance. This case today I offer, Mr. Speaker, is less about the facts than it is about who we are as a Nation, a Nation with a Congress that opened this day in prayer, and a court, a Supreme Court, that actually opened their work today with the words ``God save the United States and this honorable court,'' about a government that displays the name of God throughout its buildings and in its best traditions, telling the American people that they cannot do likewise.

Let us hope and pray that those nine jurists on the Supreme Court see the freedom of religion and not the freedom from religion in the first amendment of our Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, Federal spending in recent years has been growing, particularly in the wake of our national emergency on September 11, at a record-breaking pace. The Congressional Budget Office projects that current policies could produce a cumulative deficit of nearly $2 trillion for the 10 years that lie immediately ahead of us.

Federal spending breaks down today to a burden of more than $20,000 per household, the highest since World War II, and yesterday's report by the Social Security and Medicare board of trustees was disconcerting, to say the least, about the long-term obligations that this government faces.

Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that I have taken some strong stands in recent days to confront my concern for runaway Federal spending, but it is with equal conviction that I rise today to endorse and support the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005.

The good news today in this budget is that Republicans in Congress are taking an important first step under the leadership of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and under the leadership of our Speaker, our majority leader, and the balance of the majority of this Congress to right the fiscal ship that has been listing in the direction of government spending. We are truly taking an important first step in this budget to put our fiscal house in order; and I, as a conservative Member of this Congress, rise to extol its virtues.

This budget holds the line on spending. It makes permanent the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, and it funds our vital defense during a time of war.

Mr. Chairman, during World War II, President Roosevelt signed a budget that actually reduced nondefense spending. President Truman did the same thing during the Korean War, and this budget resolution follows the same ethic by freezing nondefense, nonhomeland security spending at current levels for the first time in a generation.

Mr. Chairman, this budget is a tough solution to a tough problem. The easy solution, on the other hand, would be to listen to many who propose that simply some day in the not-too-distant future that we will raise taxes, but one of the undeniable truths of the modern era is that when we raise taxes on the American family, the Congress simply raises the amount of money it spends in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Chairman, budgets are all about priorities, and there are those in this body who claim that we are not spending enough in this budget; but in the very same breath, we will hear on this floor tonight and tomorrow a lament about deficits and about debt. Well, they cannot have it both ways.

This budget sends a clear message to the American people that we are truly committed to cutting the deficit and to winning the war on terrorism and to growing this economy through tax cuts.

Again, I commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for his yeoman's work on this budget, as evidence of the fiscal conservative principles for which this Republican majority is endorsed and celebrated by millions. As a conservative, I support these priorities. As a conservative, I support this budget and urge all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, who lament the deficits and the fiscal, spendthrift ways of the past and urge their support in passage of this 2005 budget.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, we are told if you owe debts, pay debts; if honor, then honor; if respect, then respect. And today, appropriately, we will commend and pay the debt of honor that we owe to American forces, our allies, and the brave people of Iraq in the success of Operation Iraqi Freedom begun one year ago.

But, sadly, we do so against the backdrop of tragedy and retreat amidst an ally in Europe, and so as we celebrate the victory in Iraq today, let our enemies nonetheless hear this today, Mr. Speaker, that this President, this Congress, and the good people of the home of the brave will never cower, will never relent, and will never retreat in the war on terror until the threat of terrorism is lifted from our people and the people of the free world, so help us God.