Floor Statements

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

I rise in strong support of this resolution. One year ago this week, freedom came to the good people of Iraq and the tyrant Saddam Hussein fell. And it is impossible to speak of the one without the other. And the contents of this resolution are therefore fitting and appropriate.

I rise to support this resolution, Mr. Speaker, with my feet still dusty from a trip to Iraq just 2 weeks ago. And while I was deeply moved and overwhelmed by the valor of our troops during that journey, I was equally moved by the gratitude and the affection that I experienced from the people of Iraq. I really fell in love with the Iraqi people, and I learned that the Iraqis that I met love the American people.

We traveled through a ravaged city of Basra, one-story sandstone homes, and met at Coalition Provisional Headquarters. During our meeting with top civil and religious leaders, I thought when it came to my turn I would just ask them, What did they think of our decision to remove Saddam Hussein? And what had been a cool if not distant atmosphere in our discussion suddenly erupted in a flourish of passion and candor. A local Muslim leader, whose dress and appearance gave him an ancient air, said icily to me ``Saddam Hussein was a nightmare, and the day that your people removed him from power was a day when a dark curtain was lifted from the people of Iraq and the daylight was able to shine in.''

Later we met with a large group of ordinary Iraqis eager to speak to American officials. As we sat around the lunch table, there were pointed opinions. These English-speaking Iraqis were so strong in their views and sometimes criticisms of our reconstruction policies, I thought for all the world I was back on the floor of Congress. But then they began to speak of their gratitude toward the American people, of the horror of living under Saddam Hussein, of 400,000 bodies of men and women and boys and girls that had been found, and another 800,000 that were missing. I saw them many times, Mr. Speaker, with tears in their eyes say to me as an American official ``When you go home, tell the people that you serve that we are grateful to the American people and your allies for what you have done for us.'' And they were breathlessly excited about democracy.

I will never forget the moment at a USAID class where I spoke to a group of Iraqi women. They shared with me poems in English that they had written about democracy, and almost with the enthusiasm of grade- school children, their hands almost quivered as they spoke of the future in which they believe.

I rise to honor in this resolution our Armed Forces, our allies, and the good people of Iraq, all of whom deserve the resolution and support of this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to engage in a colloquy for the remainder of this Special Order joined, as I was in travel, by my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), also of the sixth district, him of Arizona, me of Indiana. The gentleman from Arizona and I had the privilege of

traveling in the last 2 weeks to cities in Iraq under the leadership of the distinguished subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), of the Committee on International Relations. On this trip, as we will reflect tonight, we not only, as this photograph suggests, had the opportunity to spend time with soldiers in the instance of this photograph in the belly of a C-130 on our way into Baghdad. But more compellingly, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, today, as we went through a vigorous and, in many ways, historic debate in this Congress, about the merits of Operation Iraqi Freedom, we found ourselves arguing one between another about the existence of certain types of weapons and the credibility of arguments. It seems that there was a group of people that was left out of that discussion today, and it was the people of Iraq and how they have benefited or how they have been moved or how they have been inspired by the heroism of American and allied forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

It is in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and I come together tonight on the House floor to reflect on our experiences, principally during the first congressional delegation trip into the city of Basra, Iraq.

Basra, which is an area of southeastern Iraq under British control, had, prior to 2 weeks ago, never entertained American Congressmen. So when we arrived in Basra that day, we were literally, the four of us, we were the first Members of Congress that these Iraqis, regular, rank- and-file Iraqis, men and women from every station in life had a crack at, had a chance to speak to. We had truly a unique opportunity meeting with religious leaders, political leaders, but, more to the point as we will emphasize in our reflections today, regular Iraqis who shared, as I will reflect and detail and then yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), they shared a story that we are not hearing in America today. And I would offer humbly, Mr. Speaker, we did not hear very much about it on this floor today; and it was an outpouring of gratitude and appreciation for American soldiers and allied soldiers who had freed them from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, and just as intense was their enthusiasm and their passion in almost a grade-school level enthusiasm that I saw for democracy that is beginning to take hold.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona, for such remarks on the trip as he would make.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. In fact, as my friend from Arizona said today in his remarks during the debate over the resolution, the opulence of Saddam Hussein's palaces is rendered even more immoral when one sees the squalor in which he forced the largely Shi'ia population of southern Iraq to live in huge communities like Basra, and where we see sandstone homes, a sewage system that has 20 percent of the capacity that it needed. So as one Iraqi told me, for years a good rain in the streets become the sewers. Yet, as we traveled to Baghdad, we saw, having visited not just a couple of Saddam Hussein's palaces, but the sheer opulence, the decadent self-indulgence was, in my judgment, sinful. But it showed the immorality.

Mr. Speaker, our first meeting, as is captured in this photograph with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and myself and our delegation, on the right was with a series of Iraqi religious and political leaders. We see a Muslim imam here, the Catholic bishop of Basra was in attendance and warmly received by those present. But my memory of this meeting had more to do with the very silent Muslim cleric who sat at the end of the table, the gentleman wearing ancient garb and a long beard who, after we had gone through the series of questions about everything from border jurisdiction to the process of reconstruction, it fell to us to be able to ask questions. And up to this point, we had heard mostly from these religious leaders who were quite chatty through an interpreter, and this gentleman had been icily silent.

At that point I remember asking, What do you think of our decision to remove Saddam Hussein? And before any of these three could answer, the gentleman in the white headdress suddenly leaned forward and began to speak urgently in Arabic and pointing his finger in my direction with his eyes on fire. And as I waited for the translation, the interpreter explained that he had said, Saddam Hussein is a nightmare, and the day you ended his regime, you lifted a dark curtain from our people and the daylight was able to shine in. It was for me an extraordinary moment where this icy and quiet figure who was clearly suspicious of American officials traveling thousands of miles to sit down in a delegation meeting, suddenly had his moment to speak a truth from his heart, and it was a truth about a nightmare that the United States of America had brought to an end.

I yield for the gentleman's reflections.

Mr. Speaker, I have tried to explain that. I admire the way my friend describes the morale of the troops, because I really believe it is also a good description of the enthusiasm of the Iraqis, some 60 or 70 with whom we spent a considerable amount of time that day in Basra, that regardless of the arguments that we have here on this floor and across this country and, frankly, through the course of a Presidential election year, all of which are appropriate, about evidence and information and intelligence, it struck me that that was completely irrelevant to the cause as it was understood by our soldiers that we met in Iraq and the Iraqis that we met; that this was a cause really between good and evil, between a tyrant who oppressed and murdered over a million of his own countrymen, 400,000 bodies of men and women, boys and girls who have been found in mass graves so far, over 800,000 Iraqis remain missing, people dragged from their homes in the dead of night without due process of law, never to be heard from again, versus the forces of the Western World coming together for the rule of law and for ending that tyranny. I am very grateful for my colleague's reference to a cause, because it emanated out of everything that I sensed about the people with whom we spoke.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I must tell him that that time that we spent, and this is another photograph of our time with Iraqis during this trip, but the time that we spent with former political prisoners, one man who had been jailed a dozen times in the course of 25 years, to hear not just that individuals were dragged from their homes in the dead of night if they were thought to be suspected of disloyalty of the regime, not just that those individuals were tortured by the regime of Saddam Hussein, but to hear from these men that it was routine and ordinary practice to torture prisoners' wives in front of them, their mothers, and their children in order to extract information; and that oftentimes the torture would result in the death of a loved one and then the summary execution of the prisoner; and that this happened in numbers that boggle the mind.

And I must tell my colleague that I returned with a burden on my heart to carry this message back on behalf of these good people in Iraq for whom I developed a tremendous amount of affection and respect, that they lived in a hellish environment, subject to the most unspeakable cruelty by the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.

We cannot lightly pass over that and we cannot lightly ignore that and we cannot trivialize that, regardless of whether or not the human rights record of this regime was a central focus in the public debate prior to the war. It is nonetheless a fact that cries out from over 270 mass graves that have been found so far and the remains of some 400,000 Iraqis. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I think it is a wonderful place for us as we approach the end of our conversation tonight to end it that I am overwhelmed by the sense of gratitude expressed by the Iraqis with whom we interacted in Basra. I mean, the touching of the heart, I came to find out virtually every Iraqi that we met ended their conversation with me, and I know with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), by touching their hearts. And I would later find that this is a form of deep respect in the Muslim and Islamic tradition. It is the touching of the heart that means the ultimate expression of gratitude.

When we met with political prisoners and we thanked them for their candor and we thanked them for being willing to meet with us, they touched their hearts and bowed to us. And in this instance here where we visited one of hundreds of democracy workshops that are taking place all over Iraq, and here you see Ana who is a young Islamic Iraqi woman, wearing an abaya, and she is presenting me one of my most treasured possessions since becoming a Congressman. It is a stack of handwritten poems in English about what freedom means to her. And she illustrated the poems with almost child-like caricatures of freedom of religion and freedom of expression and the right to vote with a small ballot box.

The enthusiasm of all the people in this room that spoke broken English was very endearing to me and profoundly inspiring. Not only had we managed in Operation Iraqi Freedom to bring to an end a darkness, as one Iraqi said to me that day in Basra, a darkness that had descended on their people, but also the daylight of democracy, the daylight of freedom and liberty streaming into Iraq. And it is being greeted with enthusiasm.

The devastating bombing that took place today claiming lives in Baghdad, the car bombs that were detonated the

day after we left Baghdad Airport, it was the bloodiest day since the end of major combat hostilities, all draw the mind to the violence.

They draw, it seems to me, the American public's focus to a very small number of Iraqis who seek to use violence to reclaim the dictatorial power they once enjoyed when this is a country of 10 million people, a sample of which we met, who were overflowing with gratitude to the people of the United States and our allies in this cause.

As this picture attests, and I hope it is on screen and, Mr. Speaker, I hope it can be seen, that you can see that enthusiasm on their faces, that enthusiasm for democracy that I encountered in Iraqi after Iraqi. And it is an enthusiasm I believe will be a foundation for a free Iraq for decades to come.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for yielding and for his participation. And I think those words especially eloquent. Because it was the gratitude and the enthusiasm for their freedom that I found most moving among the Iraqis that we met.

I close with a picture, Mr. Speaker, that I think the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) actually took. We were visiting the second of two palaces of Saddam Hussein now being rehabilitated into a hospital for Iraqis in Baghdad. And as we were making our way, we came across regular Iraqis who were moving materials. And as you see here, and I hope it is evidenced in the picture, the enthusiasm with which we as Americans were greeted was overwhelming. People stopping, smiling, reaching out.

I did not even expect that the thumbs up symbol would be international, but it was. And you see the warmth and you see the generous spirit that is present among the Iraqi people. I say without hesitation, as I said to many people upon my return, I fell in love with the Iraqi people. They are bright, visionary, optimistic, educated, and a people that are of such strong opinions that I thought they were from the Midwest in most of our conversations.

But in the midst of all of it, I came away with an image that I had a burden, Mr. Speaker, to come back and as we consider this important resolution today, even to help finish the debate today with my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Flake), to try and focus this debate on the real beneficiaries of Operation Iraqi Freedom, because certainly Operation Iraqi Freedom brought down a tyrant who represented, as the President concluded, a threat to the United States of America and our allies and that clear and present danger justified our decision to go to war. But the true beneficiaries are these Iraqis and the generations of Iraqis who will follow them, who will be born in a free country, that will live under not the rule of one, but the rule of law. And they will live under a constitution that is, as Ambassador Bremer said to us, not so much a revolutionary document, as for this part of the world and its torn history, a radical document, with freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and equality of the genders.

This is an astonishing accomplishment. And I am here to report very simply, Mr. Speaker, that the Iraqi people that we met with, some four or five dozen in the course of our days in Basra and Baghdad two short weeks ago know that. They understand that. They are deeply and profoundly grateful to the people of the United States, to the families of our men and women in uniform for the sacrifices that have been made on their behalf.

And they are deeply hopeful and deeply enthusiastic and deeply ambitious to see democracy and a constitutional republic take hold in this beleaguered land.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, last night the State of Indiana lost a giant. The honorable Robert D. Orr passed away at Indiana University's medical center.

Governor Orr served Indiana for 8 years in the State's top office from 1981 to 1989. He spurred our State's economy out of recession and overhauled its education system. He also oversaw the removal of the State license branch system from political and partisan control and led an aggressive effort to promote the export of Indiana products.

Mr. Speaker, his work did not begin in 1981, nor did it stop in 1989. Robert Orr enlisted in the Army in 1942, was commissioned a major for his service in the Pacific theater in World War II. At the end of the war, he went to Evansville and entered the family business, Orr Iron Company. He served as Vanderburgh County Republican chairman and was elected to the State senate in 1968 before being elected the State's lieutenant governor.

Even after leaving office, Governor Orr was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Singapore and helped build an international relationship with that nation that America still enjoys today.

Mr. Speaker, Hoosiers will remember Governor Orr for all these great achievements and his wise actions, but they will most remember him for his humility and his personal decency and kindness. Governor Orr embodied that very verse in Proverbs: ``With humility comes wisdom.''

Mr. Speaker, I mourn the death of the honorable Robert D. Orr, along with millions of Hoosiers, as we send our heartfelt condolences to his wife, Mary, and his entire family. May Robert D. Orr rest in the peace that he so richly deserves.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004.

Mr. Chairman, I am a Congressman today, but for 7 years I was a radio and television broadcaster in the State of Indiana. Let us be clear on this point, a point that was clear to me as a public broadcaster: the public airwaves are owned and governed by the American people. Everyone who operates in front of a microphone or a camera on the public airwaves knows that they have to do so under the obligations in the family hours of public broadcasting that have been set and upheld by the courts over the decades.

This is not a burden. Eighteen hours a week for over 6 years I hosted a talk radio program, and I lived within the standards that have been established and upheld by the courts. Thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the ranking member, now we have legislation that will put real teeth behind these standards, and I strongly support it. The opponents say this is an issue of free speech. This is not about free speech. This is about decent speech living within the constitutional standards that every broadcaster should hold on the public airwaves. I urge strong support for the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for hosting this special order. And having just returned from Iraq, it is particularly meaningful to me to acknowledge the gentleman's leadership in this Congress in traveling to Iraq since the end of hostilities more, I think, than any other Member of Congress; and having just learned what that has meant to our troops and what that has meant to the people in the transition process at the coalition authority, I want to thank him for that.

There is no question this issue of weapons of mass destruction, which has become such a political football in America today, represents some form of an intelligence failure, if by that we recognize that we have not found the vials of chemical and biological weapons. But it is absolutely imperative, as the gentleman suggests, to know that if it was an intelligence failure, it was a world intelligence failure and it was an intelligence conclusion that was drawn by at least two previous administrations.

I cite in evidence the remarks of President Bill Clinton on February 17, 1998. Again, these are the words of the President of the United States about what official U.S. policy was relative to the possession of weapons of mass destruction by the regime of Saddam Hussein.

President Clinton said. ``And they,'' referring to predators of the 21st century, ``they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.'' President Clinton went on to say, ``We simply cannot allow that to happen. There should be no doubt,'' President Bill Clinton said, ``There should be no doubt Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world.''

President Clinton went on to say, ``There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region,'' and he went on to describe Iraq as, ``a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists who have traveled the world. If we fail to respond today to Saddam Hussein, he will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that he can act with impunity.''

These are the words of the 42nd President of the United States of America, William Jefferson Clinton, about the conclusions of the Intelligence Community and his personal conclusions as our Commander- in-Chief that Iraq did possess biological and chemical weapons in the year 1998.

Mr. Speaker, on February 18, completely consistent with Secretary Albright's remarks, ``In the next century the community of nations will see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now.'' In describing it, President Clinton said, ``A rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists.''

Mr. Speaker, to that end, and I am anxious to get to that conversation, I have to tell my colleague that the search for weapons of mass destruction found for the Iraqis that I spoke to in Basra, it found its locus the day Saddam Hussein was captured by American troops. This is a man who, according to former prisoners of war, he and his regime were responsible for the death by incarceration or other means of 1.2 to 1.3 million of their countrymen. According to Amnesty International, we have identified the remains thus far in 270 mass graves of 400,000 men, women, boys, and girls in the mass graves of Saddam Hussein.

But the weapons-of-mass-destruction issue is an issue, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) is right to address it in the beginning inasmuch as it is in the mind of the American people. But none other than Senator Daschle, who has been the majority leader of the Senate in recent years, but at the time in 1998 and President Clinton's decision to fire cruise missiles and attack Iraq was minority leader, Senator Daschle said, ``We are here today to affirm that we and the American people stand with the President and the international community in an effort to end Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and preserve our vital and international interests.''

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, there is no question whatsoever that the position of the administration and others in America supported the conclusion that the intelligence community, not just of the Bush administration, but of the administration that preceded it came to a singular conclusion: that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

I am always anxious to remind my constituents in eastern Indiana that the reason we know Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction was because he used them. He used them on his own people. He used them to kill thousands in Kurdistan in the early 1990s in the immediate aftermath of the first Persian Gulf War. We are told by eyewitness accounts of men, women and children running in the middle of the night out of their bedrooms, out into the streets, grabbing their throats as they were asphyxiated by mustard gas or some other chemical agent and killed in the streets and towns of Kurdistan. Chemical weapons were used against his own people. It is not a subject of theoretical analysis or

intelligence analysis; but as the gentleman from Michigan knows, it is a matter of historical fact and record that Saddam Hussein in the early 1990s possessed and used chemical weapons against his own population.

What became of them in the days immediately prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, we will continue to investigate. I traveled by the site of the Iraqi survey group in Baghdad just 1 week ago, and I know in meeting with the intelligence community there that that search goes on. And as we continue to bring Iraq forward in the family of nations, and as the people of Iraq, I believe, become more confident in their own future and in the end of the dark days of Iraq and the regime and the thugs that preceded this new Iraqi Governing Council and this new government, more people will speak and more daylight will shine, and we will eventually find out what became of this program and its horrendously dangerous by-products.

Mr. Speaker, a very moving part of my trip to Baghdad was our meetings at the headquarters of the Coalition Provisional Authority at Saddam Hussein's palace.

One of 100. It was the size of three or four resorts in Florida and twice as opulent. But across the street, there is a bunker underground hidden underneath what appears to be a garbage dump or a broken and destroyed building. It was three stories underground. It was one of those sophisticated bunkers we hear about; but what was most provocative to me was to learn that in that bunker was an enormous financial investment in a ventilation system which was designed as a countermeasure to the distribution of chemical or biological weapons. There was a decontamination room to essentially remove chemical or biological agents that were on a person before they could enter the bunker itself.

For a regime that, according to some of the administration's critics, never had weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein's own bunker, literally down the street from his primary palace, had an enormous multi-million dollar investment to protect him from weapons that he apparently did not possess.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think that the statement that the gentleman just made is extremely important. I think that statement should be highlighted and underscored and chiseled in a place where every American can read it.

As he said again here on Capitol Hill, Dr. David Kay, weapons inspector who led the original effort after the war with the Iraqi survey group, he said what he found was more dangerous than what they believed would be there. In terms of the establishment of a diverse program of chemical and biological weapons, as the gentleman has with great particularity described, was prepared in the event of the strictures being lifted, was prepared to produce large amounts of these types of weapons.

Of course we found the nose cones on missiles hollowed out just for the size of an inclusion of a vial of certain types of agents that would have no other reason to be hollowed out as a warhead in that way. We found these munitions in large numbers. But David Kay said that what we found was in many respects more dangerous than what we expected to find.

If the gentleman will yield, I would like to know why President Bill Clinton got it wrong. I would like to know why Vice President Gore had the weapons of mass destruction estimate for Iraq so wrong. And I do not say that in a partisan spirit, I say that because if, in fact, there were never any weapons of mass destruction following the time he used them against his own people in the early 1990s, then there was an intelligence failure. But if it was, it truly was an institutional failure; not, as some would suggest, not associated with the present administration, but associated with an institutional failure that, I will add one other point if the gentleman will permit me, was not just an intelligence failure of the U.S. intelligence failure, but it was, as I said at the beginning, a world intelligence failure.

The intelligence communities of every one of our allies in the western world, in this cause, and even many who chose not to join us, France and Germany and Russia's intelligence community, as their votes in the U.N. Security Council support, all of them came to the conclusion, unequivocally, that Saddam Hussein possessed biological and chemical weapons.

The gentleman has caught me in a little bit of a rhetorical joust, and it seems to me that those who want to say we did not find what would have amounted, if we were absolutely correct, to a two-car garage load of biological and chemical weapons, it would not have filled more than that. But if we were wrong at the time, we went to war that that did not exist, that is the straining of the gnat when we ignore the elephant in the room.

The elephant in the room is the man and his regime were a weapon of mass destruction, terrorized and killed over 1 million of his own people, had these weapons and used them against his own people in the past, and, as the gentleman from Michigan says eloquently, most assuredly our conclusion that he was a menace and threat was accurate.

Apart from the inspiration of meeting particularly Hoosiers in uniform in Baghdad, the most inspiring for me, and this picture gives evidence, was the opportunities we had a week ago to meet with ordinary Iraqis, people working construction, men and women of various traditions, and even various faiths.

One of our meetings, and it may astound some that could be looking in, Mr. Speaker, is we had a meeting with a Shia cleric, a Shiite Muslim politician and the Catholic Bishop of Basra, who walked in in full religious garb, embraced the Shia cleric, as they obviously had great affection for one another, and then spoke of the religious pluralism that was a tradition for over 800 years in the communities of Basra in southeastern Iraq.

That is absolutely right. Basra itself is just south of the convergence of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, which the Bible records to be the location of the Garden of Eden. At Tallil Air Base, you can see essentially a pyramid from 2100 B.C. that marks the birthplace of Abraham, what was known as Ur of the Chaldeans. It is a place of incalculable historical value and significance, and the people reflect that.

But I have to tell the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Speaker, that I fell in love with the Iraqi people that I met. The two qualities of the people that I met, and, again, it was only 60 or 70 regular Iraqis that we spent significant time with in the course of that weekend, but the Iraqi people that I met were highly literate, most of them spoke functional English, which was helpful to me, and the two characteristics, there were three. Number one, they were people who had very strong opinions, which made me feel at home, being from Indiana and the Midwest, as the gentleman from Michigan is.

We sat in a meeting, and, boy we heard it. Some people did not like how we were spending money on construction, other people did not like how we were investing in domestic security. But they had strong opinions, they were articulate, and they were revelling in the ability to express the opinions for the first time in their lifetimes.

I thank the gentleman. That was evident. The reason I start with that is to say this was not a group of people that were handpicked to tell four Congressmen what they wanted to hear. These people had some sharp elbows. But when you would ask any Iraqi, what do you think of our decision, along with 33 other nations, to remove Saddam Hussein, they would stop in many cases, their eyes would well up with tears, they would often grab us by the hand, and, as one Shia cleric looked me in the eye and said through an interpreter, Saddam Hussein was a nightmare, and I quote, he said, because I will never forget it, he said, ``The day you defeated Saddam Hussein

was like a dark curtain being lifted off of the Iraqi people and the daylight shone in.''

The sense of gratitude among the Iraqis, not only leaders, but rank and file folks that we met, was deeply moving to me as an American, and it was real and it was genuine. And I believe that from what they said, that among the 10 million souls who call themselves Iraqis, it is the dominant, overwhelming opinion of the people, one of gratitude to the people of the United States of America for ending a nightmare in their Nation.

These are the stories, Mr. Speaker, that are not being told. These are the stories of compassion that are, however, reaching the Iraqi people. They may not make it on American broadcast television with great frequency, but they are reaching the hearts of the Iraqi people. You can see from this photograph, which is one of literally dozens I returned with, these men were construction workers at a USAID program, and some were attending a class on democracy. And we just stopped, and I think you can see even from this poor reproduction the warmth with which I was greeted by regular Iraqis.

I share one anecdote. We walked into a classroom, they are holding these democracy classes all over Iraq, and they are probably at, what we would say in the United States as a 5th grade level, where they are teaching what it means to live under a constitution, what the Bill of Rights are. We went into one of these classes. They are all adults. And I walked in, and, of course, was listening in for a time as they spoke in Arabic.

Then they rose and started to greet me and a few other Members of Congress. Several women wearing traditional garb walked up. I said, ``Do you speak English?'' They all said yes. They proceeded to share with me, and I have got them in my office, handwritten poems about what democracy means to them. And on my Web site, Mike.Spence.House.Gov you can see this picture, literally these women handing this to me as if it were a newborn infant, this poem, their hands literally shaking at excitement with the idea of being able to be involved in representative democracy as citizens.

I close on this point. I looked them in the eye and I said, ``You all are like the founding generation of the United States of America. You are like the people that lived in 1776.'' I said, ``I envy you, because future generations of Iraqis will look back at you and thank you for your courage and your success and your belief in a free future.''

And they all giggled with delight; they understood what I meant and were obviously thrilled with the comparison to our founding generation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, because the point he just made to me is a colossal one. The very willingness of regular Iraqis to attend democracy classes sponsored by the United States Agency for International Development is an act of personal courage. The day after we left Baghdad, literally a week ago, was the bloodiest day in Iraq since the end of the war. Four mosques were attacked in Karbala and in Baghdad where we just were. Nearly 300 Iraqis were killed; many more hundreds injured, and all of the mosques that were attacked, as the gentleman alluded to, all the mosques that were attacked were clerics and imams who were cooperating or understood to be cooperating with the transition to democracy in Iraq.

One last point. The Iraqis that we spoke to were rather incredulous that we were in any way surprised by the violence. I will never forget the Iraqi who said to me, these people killed over a million of our countrymen to hold on to power. Why does it seem surprising to your people that they would kill to get it back?

And I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for that moving explanation. I can candidly tell the gentleman that I did not have the presence to ask why almost every one of the nearly 80 Iraqis that I met ended every conversation like this; but I am very moved to learn it on this blue carpet, that it meant this is the intensity of the gratitude and the feelings. But I can attest on this floor that virtually every Iraqi with whom I spoke ended with their hand on their heart, speaking to me as a member of the United States. And I really believe, although intelligence estimates are that we are dealing with 1,000 to 2,000 insurgents, left over thugs, imported terrorists, people that are doing the killing that is going on and purposing to do more, but this is 1,000 to 2,000 essentially criminals and terrorists in a country of 10 million. And I believe in my heart, and I know the gentleman is my senior in Congress and often cautions me about over generalizations, but I believe in my heart if the Iraqi people could look the American people in the eye and rise as one man or one woman, they would be standing with their hand over their heart.

The people of Iraq that I spoke to are profoundly and overwhelmingly and emotionally grateful to the people of the United States of America, of Great Britain and Spain and all of the 33 nations that freed them from this nightmare of Saddam Hussein. I think of particularly the moment where a man who had been jailed 12 times over 25 years, who now is heading up an organization to identify the fate of nearly 1.2 million Iraqi men, women, and boys and girls who are still missing, who were dragged from their homes because of the belief in their disloyalty to Saddam Hussein. No due process of law, no trial of a jury of their peers, simply dragged away, never to be heard from again. And that man, as I expressed my appreciation for his courage, put his hand over his heart and expressed his thanks to the people of the United States of America for ending the nightmare, as he described it, of Saddam Hussein.

We did, Mr. Speaker. As this picture attests, this is the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), who led our delegation with great distinction, and me with a number of Hoosiers in the Air Force at the air base south of Baghdad. We were able to dine, as the gentleman from Michigan did, with a number of men and women in uniform; and it was truly inspiring.

As the gentleman suggested, Mr. Speaker, I just have to say that among the Iraqis with whom I spoke when I was in Baghdad and Basra, and among the soldiers, both British and American, when I would bring up the subject of weapons of mass destruction or the lack thereof or the search therefore, people would be completely uninterested. I remember speaking to an American intelligence officer who had been in charge of surveying a handful of the 270 mass graves that we found so far. And I looked him in the eye and I said, What say you of the lack of weapons of mass destruction? And he looked at me and he looked down at his shoes covered with sand, and he looked back at me with emotion in his eyes and he said, sir, from what I have seen, we did what needed to be done, whether we ever find any of those kinds of weapons or not. And this was the attitude that I got among our troops. I will say this without hesitation.

Having walked into the palace of Saddam Hussein myself and walked into another one of his palaces and seen the opulence with which he indulged himself and his cronies, and then having walked through the ruination of Basra, which is a city with 20 percent of the sewage capacity that it requires, with 50 percent of the electricity it requires, 30 years of neglect and repression, and the tyranny and murder of over 1 million people, I am going to agree strongly with that intelligence officer. We did what needed to be done in Iraq and we, as these soldiers reflected again and again, and the gentleman from Michigan got this as well in his words, these soldiers know we were on the side of the right in ending the 30-year reign of a murderous dictator, Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Speaker, I just remember when my colleague first returned from Baghdad, he shared with a number of us, his colleagues, video footage of Baghdad as a bustling city, a very modern city, which it was. And the reason we went to Basra the first day was because Ambassador Bremer and other officials were locked in round-the-clock negotiations over the constitution. So they sent us as the first delegation of American Congressmen to Basra.

I have to tell you that going from Basra, which is like a Third World country, I mean it is ravaged not by war, it is ravaged by 30 years of neglect and tyranny by Saddam Hussein who refused to, even though billions of dollars were flowing from the Oil for Food program into his regime, and he was building more and more palaces, these monuments to his own greatness with marble floors and crystal chandeliers the size of minivans hanging from the hallway ceilings, but then go to Basra, and there is ramshackle dirt buildings falling down, roads in disrepair, sewers in disrepair, it demonstrated to me that contrast more than anything between the bustling city of Saddam Hussein to a city under the control of Basra, the Shiite population, the mendacity of this regime and the self-indulgence and evil of this regime letting so many people live in poverty while they live in sinful opulence.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This photograph illustrates a brief meeting that we had with Ambassador Paul Bremer across the hallway from the negotiations over the constitution. My colleague spoke of the long work we have ahead. There is a new interim Constitution, which is a radical document in the Middle East, people have basic Bill of Rights freedoms in this ancient land for the first time ever in their history. In this picture actually appears the draft of that interim constitution that Ambassador Bremer calls it.

If we will stay the course, not only will we see the changes and the repentance that we have seen of Colonel Qaddafi, but I believe we are going to see the transformation of the society of Iraq as an Islamic country in their own form of democracy and freedom and a society built on rights that will transform that part of the world for our children and grandchildren and for the children and grandchildren of the good people of Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember the life of the devoted wife, courageous mother, publisher and journalist Lillian Rose Barcio.

Lillian Barcio died February 29, 2004, in Indianapolis where she was born in July of 1931. She is survived by her loving husband of 31 years, Bernard; her daughters, Marsha Louzon, Sheryl Donnella, Karen Pence, Cyndi Barcio; and her son, Phillip Barcio. In addition, she is survived by eight grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.

Through many hardships, Lillian Barcio kept her faith in Christ and her humor and optimism about life. The Bible says that charm is deceptive and beauty is fleeting but the woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.

Lillian Barcio, my mother-in-law, was such a woman whose life would merit remembrance in this Congress even if she had not raised the most wonderful woman I have ever known. May God rest the soul of Lillian Barcio and bring rest and comfort to her loving husband Bernie and all those who mourn her passing.

Mr. Speaker, the right of every nation to self-defense is an inalienable right. As my colleague, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), just so eloquently described, today we will introduce, along with nearly 60 Republican and Democrat original cosponsors in this House, a resolution affirming Israel's right to self-defense.

Just last month, my wife, Karen, and I traveled along the fence line in Israel, the security fence itself, constructed in the wake of over 20,000 attacks over the last 3 years that have claimed over 1,000 lives. Israel is engaged in the construction of a fence in an act of self-defense, and our resolution affirms this timeless principle.

Mr. Speaker, I pray for the peace of Jerusalem, for all of the people of the region. But affirming, as this Congress should, the wrongness of the action at the Hague and the rightness of Israel's choice to defend itself and innocent civilians is the proper course of action.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Nevada and all of our original cosponsors and urge expeditious action on our resolution supporting Israel's right to self-defense.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the opportunity to speak in strong support of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, there are many times that we deal with issues that are along the fault lines of the cultural debate; and I am a pro-life Member of Congress, and I do not apologize for that. But I rise today in support of what has come to be known as Laci and Conner's Law to say from my heart that this is not about abortion. This is not about the thorny issues that surround the debate over a woman's right to choose or the right to life; but, rather, this is simply a law about justice.

The reality is that fetal homicide laws, which is a characterization of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, are already the law in 29 States in the United States of America. And what Congress seeks to do today, with the strong leadership of the chairman of the committee and the authorship of the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, is, in effect, to have Federal law catch up with those 29 State laws.

That this is not about abortion is specifically stated in the law itself that provides that it does not apply to any abortion to which a woman has consented to any act of a mother herself, legal or illegal, or to any form of medical treatment. It is not about abortion or a cultural debate. It is about justice.

And with regard to those who would argue for the view that when a woman is attacked and both she and her unborn child are injured that there is only one victim, I close citing the words of the mother of Laci Peterson and the grandmother of Conner Peterson, who speaks more eloquently and more powerfully than any of us can here today:

``I hope that every legislator will clearly understand that adoption of such a single-victim amendment would be a painful blow to those, like me, who are left alive after a two-victim crime, because Congress would be saying that Conner and other innocent unborn victims like him are not really victims, indeed, that they never really existed at all. But our grandson did live. He had a name, he was loved, and his life was violently taken from him before he ever saw the sun.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I strongly support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Mr. Speaker, today there will be much focus across our country on a motion picture known as ``The Passion of the Christ,'' and like millions of Christians, I cherish the sacrifice of Christ and welcome its remembrance. Also, like millions of Christians, I cherish Israel, as a Jewish State and as our staunchest ally in the Middle East.

After traveling to Israel last month and witnessing firsthand daily terrorist-attempted incursions into Israel to kill Israeli civilians, I realized in my heart that America must stand by Israel and by her efforts to protect her people in the construction of a security fence today.

In that spirit, joined by the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) and a growing list of cosponsors, today I will introduce bipartisan legislation that expresses congressional support for Israel to construct a security fence in order to reduce terrorist attacks. Further, the resolution will condemn the United Nations General Assembly for requesting the International Court of Justice to render a legal opinion on the issue of the fence.

Like millions of Christians, I cherish Christ, and I cherish Israel and our relationship with her.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the rule and of the underlying bill, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I rise today as a pro-life Member of this institution to say that this bill is not about the debate over the sanctity of human life. This bill is just about justice.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman and injures or kills her unborn child, he has claimed two human victims. The bill would establish that if an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of an already defined Federal crime of violence, that this is in and of itself a crime. This is about justice, Mr. Speaker.

In current Federal criminal law, an unborn child is not recognized as a victim with respect to violent crimes. In fact, this is such a self- evident fact that at this point in time, 29 States have recognized fetal homicide for all or part of prenatal development, hardly a fringe issue on the edges of the American culture wars. Twenty-nine States in the Union have recognized this as a function of State law, and we attempt today to make it a part of Federal law.

Despite lots of talk, Mr. Speaker, that this is somehow by subterfuge about abortion, the bill explicitly provides that it does not apply to any abortion to which a woman has consented. And it is well established that unborn victims laws do not conflict with the Supreme Court's pro- abortion decrees.

This really is not just about the cold and sterile confines of law school and courtroom debates. This is really about compassion and about families and about tragic loss.

I would close on this remembrance, the words of Carol Lyons, whose 18-year-old daughter Ashley and unborn grandson Landon were murdered in Scott County, Kentucky, on January 7 of this year.

She said: ``Nobody can tell me that there were not two victims. I placed Landon in his mother's arms, wrapped in a baby blanket that I had sewn for him, just before I kissed my daughter good-bye for the last time and closed the casket.''

One story after another. Two victims of violent crime. This for once on this blue carpet is not a debate about life, about the most contentious issue of our time and our culture. This is about justice, this is about compassion, and this is about this Congress standing for what justice demands.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support strongly the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to join my colleague from Missouri as he leads this critical Special Order among my colleagues on legislation that this Congress will take up tomorrow, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. We heard much debate today, Mr. Speaker, on the subject of this legislation, and, for all the world, it seemed as though we were talking about a bill that had something to do with the debate over abortion.

This bill most certainly emanates around a respect for the life of a mother and the nascent life within her, but this is not a debate over abortion or the right to life, but rather this is a debate about justice. It is about the institution of Congress in Federal law recognizing, as 29 other States have recognized, the demands of justice when a woman and her unborn child are both the victims of a crime.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is simply legislation authored by the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) which recognizes that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman and injures or kills her unborn child, that he has claimed two human victims.

The bill would establish that if an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of an already-defined Federal crime of violence, then the assailant may be charged with a second offense on behalf of the second victim, the unborn child. The exact charge, of course, would depend on which Federal law was involved.

It may astonish many of those that look in on our debates and proceedings, Mr. Speaker, to know that under current Federal criminal law, an unborn child is not recognized as a victim with respect to violent crimes. For example, if a criminal beats a woman on a military base and kills her unborn child, he would be charged only with battery against that woman, because the unborn child's loss of life is not at the present moment even recognized as a crime under Federal law.

Therefore, as we engage in this critical debate on the House floor tonight, and as we move this legislation, I believe, with broad bipartisan support tomorrow, it is my hope that our intentions will be laid bare that this is not about the debate over the sanctity of life or some debate over the fault lines of the culture war, but, rather, this is simply a debate about justice and about the demands of justice.

To those, Mr. Speaker, who say that this is somehow an idea on the fringe of the American political debate, I offer as case in point this chart, which points to the fact that there are at the present moment, with the recent addition of Kentucky, 29 States in the Union, even, using my mathematical skills, nearly 60 percent of the United States of America in their various State laws, including my home State of Indiana, that recognize fetal homicide for all or part of prenatal development.

Mr. Speaker, 29 States recognize a criminal act, when performed against a pregnant woman, that criminal charges can be rendered, not only against the woman who is assaulted, but against the unborn child. And here Congress is with regard to Federal law, in a very real sense, Mr. Speaker, trying to catch up with what 29 States have already understood in their State legislatures and assemblies to be the demands of justice.

Now, as to the issue of whether or not this is by subterfuge a debate about abortion, I think it is important to point out, as pro-life as I am, and proud of it, this bill explicitly provides that it does not apply to any abortion to which a woman has consented, to any act of the mother herself, legal or illegal, or to any form of medical treatment, period. That is in the specific language of this legislation. Therefore, those who would argue that by subterfuge, somehow, in the language there is an effort to erode Roe v. Wade with a fetal homicide law on the Federal level, do so with a genuine lack either of understanding or lack of intellectual honesty.

In fact, it is well established that unborn victims laws do not conflict with the Supreme Court's pro-abortion decrees beginning in Roe v. Wade. The 29 State laws mentioned above have had no effect on the practice of legal abortion in those States. Criminal defendants have brought many legal challenges to State unborn victims laws based on Roe, but all such challenges have been rejected by State and Federal courts. The jurisprudence on this issue is overwhelming and decisive.

But as I close and prepare to yield back to the gentleman from Missouri who is leading us tonight in this debate, it would be wrong to spend the few moments that I have on this blue carpet tonight speaking of this issue as though it could simply be resolved in the cold confines of law schools and judicial chambers. When we talk about

the demands of justice, I believe we are talking about the fundamental obligations of this institution to interpret the intangible obligations of the law. And as we come upon the very idea of a woman who is assaulted and as a function not only may have lost her life, but lost the life of her unborn child, and the wake and wash of grief that is left behind that, we cannot think of this in cold and sterile terms. So I close with two examples of the real world impact of crimes against unborn children.

Carol Lyons' 18-year-old daughter, Ashley, is pictured here; a beautiful young woman who, along with her unborn child, was murdered in Scott County, Kentucky, on January 7 of this year. And her mother, Carol Lyons, speaking of the law about which we debate tonight, said, ``Nobody can tell me that there were not two victims. I placed Landon,'' her grandson, ``in his mother's arms. I wrapped him in a baby blanket that I had sewn just before I kissed my daughter good-by for the last time and closed the casket.''

Carol Lyons, whose 18-year-old daughter, Ashley, and unborn grandson, Landon, were killed just weeks ago, said, ``Nobody can tell me that there were not two victims.''

And of the legislation that we will consider tomorrow, another voice. This legislation has even come to be known euphemistically as Laci and Conner's Law, and there is scarcely an American who does not know the story of Laci Peterson and her unborn baby, Conner, a woman who was abducted on Christmas day and vanished and was found brutally murdered, with her 8-month child a victim as well. Her mother said the following: ``Of those who would have us think of this type of an act as only having one victim,'' Sharon Rocha, mother of Laci Peterson, said, ``please understand how adoption of a single victim proposal would be a painful blow to those like me who are left to grieve after a two-victim crime, because Congress would be saying that Conner and other innocent victims like him are not really victims, indeed, that they never really existed at all. But our grandson did live,'' Sharon wrote. ``He had a name, he was loved, and his life was violently taken from him before he ever saw the sun.''

This parent, and no parent within the sound of my voice, can fail to be moved by the tragic loss of both of these families or, in my judgment, fail to understand the opportunity we have as Congressmen and -women, Republicans and Democrats, in the next 24 hours to pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, not to engage ourselves in yet another tiresome debate on the fault lines of a woman's right to choose, but rather to engage ourselves in the expansion of justice, to look at the grief of these families and know what plain, commonsense Americans all know: that there are two victims and Federal law, as 29 other State laws have done, should recognize and address that with clarity.

With that, I yield back to the gentleman from Missouri with gratitude for his leadership on this issue and for hosting this important debate tonight.

Mr. Speaker, after weeks of legal and moral confusion, from Massachusetts to California, today President George W. Bush called on this Congress to adopt a constitutional amendment defining marriage historically and culturally as it has ever been, as the union between a man and a woman. In so doing, President George W. Bush brought moral clarity to the debate by calling for this amendment banning gay marriage, in his words, preventing courts from changing that ``most enduring of human institutions.''

And so marriage is. Ordained by God, confirmed by law, marriage is the glue of the family and the safest harbor for children. Congress should heed President Bush's courageous moral leadership, pass the marriage amendment, and affirm the confidence of the American people in our ability to defend their most cherished of institutions.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to welcome Dr. Michael J. Easley to the floor of the Congress today to open what will be a very important session day in the life of this Congress in prayer.

Dr. Easley is senior pastor of the Immanuel Bible Church in Springfield, Virginia, and has been in that role for over a decade. He came to the region of the Nation's Capital, however, from Grand Prairie, Texas, where he served in ministry. He recently obtained his Doctorate of Ministry from Dallas Theological Seminary, where he also received a Master's of Theology in 1985.

Dr. Michael J. Easley, Michael to his friends and to the members of his church, is a man after God's own heart. He preaches the word of God with conviction and with sincerity and with clarity. In every sense as a family on the occasions we find ourselves in the Nation's Capital and find ourselves in the pews of his church, on those weekends I can testify, Mr. Speaker, that Dr. Michael J. Easley is, as the Scripture says, a workman approved, rightly able to handle the word of truth.

It is my profound honor to welcome him and to thank his wonderful wife, Cindy, and his four children, Hanna, Jessie, Devin, and Sarah for their contribution to the life and Ministry of Christ in this region of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, this week the State of Indiana said farewell to a memorable Hoosier and a dear friend, Chris Duffy, a man whose impact on Indiana broadcasting in the 20th century can scarcely be overstated but whose impact on the lives of thousands of Hoosiers, myself included, was greater still.

Chris Duffy was born in 1936 to George Christopher Duffy, who was himself a legendary band leader back in the days when traveling band leaders were the equivalent of rock stars today. Chris was born to a promoter and he was himself a born promoter. He came by it honestly.

Long before arriving in Indianapolis where he would run or build three out of the five television stations in that city, Chris Duffy cut his teeth on the first successfully syndicated daytime television show in history, the Mike Douglas Show. Young Chris Duffy was a producer for the Mike Douglas Show and his energy and comic timing led not only to the show's success off the air but resulted in Mike Douglas actually routinely pulling a young Chris Duffy on-stage and turning him and his antics into a regular that contributed to that show and still contributes to quality daytime television today.

From the time Chris Duffy moved to Indianapolis in 1975 to his retirement a few years back, he was not so much a business leader as a force of nature. He transformed Channel 13 into an NBC affiliate and turned it into one of the premier local news stations in America. He built Channel 59 Television with several local leaders and then went on to build another independent UPN station. During a time when local broadcasting was thought a thing of the past, Chris Duffy made an investment in high school athletics as the leader of WNDY Television like no other.

His accomplishments, though, in people far outweigh his Indiana Broadcasting Hall of Fame career. Chris Duffy was all about his people. Whether it was recognizing that a young FM radio man named Tom Cochran who could someday reach the highest levels of recognition in local news or even recognizing that a young political has-been could achieve success in talk radio and someday in politics, Chris Duffy loved to bring out people's potential. He did it with toughness, straight talk and a heart that made you want to be better, better even than you ever thought you could be.

Chris Duffy was a devoted American. At the time of his retirement from the Marine Corps Reserve, he put in more than 20 years of distinguished service for his country in uniform and his courage was not just in uniform. While leading the NBC affiliate in Indianapolis in the early eighties, he broadcast a documentary of the Ku Klux Klan that drew death threats before it aired but Chris went ahead undeterred. Chris Duffy believed in America and in the highest ideals of the American people.

And Chris Duffy was about family. His 41-year marriage to Bobbi and his total devotion to Maureen, Karen, Susan and Chris pervaded everything he did. It was impossible to talk to Chris for any length of time and not eventually hear about Bobbi's opinion or some progress in his children's careers.

I last saw Chris Duffy over breakfast this last December. In his usual style he put the bad news up-front. He told me he had cancer and that it did not look good. But he also told me, Mike, I'm not the least bit worried, and he reflected on his life, his family and his profound faith in God. He thought he had more time. When the Lord called him home last week, like so many other lives that he touched, I felt sorrow in my heart at the loss of a friend but not at the loss of a life. Chris Duffy lived a life and then some. Chris Duffy died, as he told me, rich in family, friends and accomplishments that any 10 men would envy. I have no complaints, he said, I'm not mad at God or anything like that, and he meant it.

Chris Duffy will be missed. He was for so many of us, as his father must have been before him, the leader of the band who believed that behind every instrument was a performer who still does not know how good he could really be. Thank you, Chris, and God bless you.

Mr. Speaker, today Congress will adopt a resolution recognizing the 93rd birthday of President Ronald Reagan. It will take place this coming Friday.

As we in Congress today face difficult choices ahead in crafting a Federal budget, I think we would do well to reflect on the wisdom of the 40th President of the United States who, in October of 1964, said, ``There can be no security anywhere in the Free World if there is no fiscal and economic stability in the United States.'' He said, ``Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. And that ``the size of the Federal Government is not an appropriate barometer of social conscience or charitable concern.''

But he also said in January 1981 in his first inaugural address, ``It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work; work with us, not over us; stand by our side, not ride our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it. A healthy economy built on a vision of limited government.''

Happy birthday, President Reagan. May Congress honor your memory by honoring the principles of limited government in our day that you so tirelessly advanced in yours.