Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my deepest condolences to our friends in London who suffered a heinous attack of terrorism last week when several bombs tore through their public transit system. Events like the London bombing remind us how absolutely important it is to stand firm against terrorism wherever it rears its hideous head. We must never let down our guard.

Next week, the House is slated to take up legislation to reauthorize 16 provisions in the PATRIOT Act. Those in Congress acted quickly in the wake of September 11 to get this strong legislation passed to help safeguard our Nation from the agony of another terrorist attack.

So far, we have been successful. The PATRIOT Act has helped our intelligence and law enforcement officials

prevent another attack from occurring on American soil. But last week's London bombings remind us that we are still in the middle of a fierce battle. Our safety depends on our intelligence and law enforcement officials having the tools they need to track terrorists and to prevent terrorism, at home and abroad. Indeed, this is not the time to let down our guard.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding me this time, and I am here in support not only of H.R. 742 but of all four of these OSHA reform bills. What we are talking about here, my colleagues, is leveling the playing field, that is all, reforming a 34-year-old act that is long overdue for reform.

During the 2004 elections, what we heard constantly from the other side was the concern about outsourcing of jobs, of losing jobs in this country. Well, there is no way we can compete with other countries with these burdensome rules and regulations like OSHA puts on our small businessmen and -women in this country who create most of the jobs. We just need a level playing field, and I am proud to stand in support of these four bills, and I am proud of my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Norwood). Nobody is more concerned about workers and workers' health. He has been a leader all these years in regard to issues like the Patients' Bill of Rights. He has shown great compassion, and I commend him for bringing these bills, and for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman, and the committee for working through this process.

So as my colleagues have said before me, it is time to make these reforms and level the playing field. Yes, protect our workers, but also protect our small employers so they can continue to create these jobs and compete in the world market. Then, and only then, will we end the outsourcing of jobs.

I certainly thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding. It is indeed a pleasure to again be with him tonight, Madam Speaker. Any opportunity that I have as an original cosponsor of the gentleman from Maryland's legislation, H.R. 3144, is an opportunity that I gladly accept no matter what the hour. The importance of this issue really cannot be overstated.

I know the gentleman from Maryland as he started this Special Order hour discussed the fact that of the so-called throwaway embryos, throwaway babies as we see it in these in vitro fertilization clinics that exist across this country, I think somebody estimated there were 400,000 of them and that in some instances couples who had gone through in vitro fertilization and completed their families truly would have some extra embryos that they at least at a certain point in time had no intention of having reimplanted. So for the time being, maybe they were excess embryos.

But those of us who feel very strongly about the sanctity of life truly believe that there is no such thing as an excess human life at either extreme, the very youngest embryonic stage or the very oldest, many of whom I would be referring to, our octogenarians and older who might be in a nursing home suffering from Alzheimer's disease at the final stages of their lives, but all of these lives are extremely important; and as the gentleman from Maryland pointed out, there are actually 100 or close to 100 little babies, up to 6, 8 months old now who were referred to as the snowflake babies. They actually were donated to couples who were barren, infertile, from these couples who had completed their family and had these excess embryos frozen that they were not going to use.

We have seen them. I think the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) had a lot to do with bringing, along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), these little children to the House, to the Congress, and indeed to the White House during the week that we were debating the bill brought to us by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

As the gentleman from Maryland points out, there are a lot more of those little lives that are still on ice, if you will; and the gentleman from Maryland is so right in pointing out that, hey, maybe one of those would be an Einstein one of these days, the next Einstein. Some of my colleagues say, well, just 100 out of 400,000, that is not very many. Indeed, it is a fourth of this body, Madam Speaker, almost a fourth of 435 Members of the House of Representatives. There may be some real smart ones remaining on ice that possibly could end up being United States Senators. More importantly, of course, it could be the next Pope John II or Pope John III or Martin Luther King, Jr. or Abraham Lincoln. Who is to say what we are talking about as a throwaway life? I am just so grateful for the gentleman from Maryland for bringing us a bill, H.R. 3144, which avoids this issue of destroying human life for the purpose of obtaining embryonic stem cells.

I do not think, Madam Speaker, that we will ever get to the point in this Chamber, as much as I, and I am sure the gentleman from Maryland is of the same mind-set, of wanting to do things in a bipartisan fashion with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this issue, this pro-life/pro-choice issue. The country is probably pretty evenly divided. This body is probably evenly divided.

But the point is we do not have to get into a knockdown, drag-out, hair-pulling, fingernail-scratching bloodbath over this issue. That is what the gentleman from Maryland is bringing to us, an opportunity to support a bill that does not lead us down that road where there seems like there will never be a meeting of the minds. This opportunity, basically, as he is pointing out with his posters in regard to the ability, with some research, to be able to obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying human life, without destroying the embryo, I have heard him refer to this almost like an embryonic biopsy.

As I understand the bill, it is an opportunity to encourage, with the President's blessing, increased funding through the NIH for research on nonhuman primates to make sure that this biopsy, actually it has already been done in genetic counseling studies on couples who have a really strong family history of inheritable diseases, something like hemophilia or Duchenne's muscular dystrophy where maybe if it is an adult child, it has a 50 percent chance of having one of these life- threatening, eventually fatal diseases. We are already doing testing on those embryos to make sure that it would be safe to put them back into the mother's womb to grow and develop and become a full-term fetus and there has been no harm in those instances.

This is not wild-eyed science, something that is Star Wars mentality. Not at all. We are talking about one of the brightest Members of this body, a Ph.D. physiologist, a doctor of physiology who has taught in medical school.

Madam Speaker, when I was in medical school, it was my instructor who taught me physiology, the functioning of the human body in a healthy situation, whether we are talking about the heart, the lungs, or any organ system of the body. That is the study of physiology. That is who we are talking about when we reference this Member, the gentleman from Maryland, who is bringing us this bill. He knows of what he speaks. He has taught not only physiology but also embryology.

I know my colleagues as they listen to his presentation tonight and they look at the material, the visual aides that he has with him, it is clear that his understanding, his depth of knowledge is far beyond maybe what even the physician Members of this body have. So it is with a deep amount of respect for him that I have signed on to this bill. I am fully supportive of it. It gives us an opportunity to address this issue of trying to find a way with stem cells, whether they are adult or embryonic; and I tend to agree with the gentleman from Maryland that embryonic stem cells probably do have a little more potential, although we have had great success in adult stem cells and a lot of these diseases that our colleagues have talked about and we have seen public service advertisements, famous people, actors, former politicians, a former first lady, families of those suffering from diabetes, spinal cord injury, degenerative disease, Parkinsonism, Alzheimer's. These things really tear at your heartstrings.

There is no argument, I do not think, in this body, in a partisan way about wanting to help and wanting to use science to the best of our ability to look for a cure. There is not a guarantee. There is absolutely no guarantee. There are probably lots of complications, false starts, two steps back for one step forward. There will be lots of money, Federal dollars probably being spent on research. But the point is the President in August of 2001 was absolutely right, in my humble opinion, in regard to his decision to put a moratorium on the harvesting of stem cells, embryonic stem cells that would result in the destruction of human life. At that point, there were some 60 cell lines already in existence that our university research scientists at NIH and other places were using. The President said, that is perfectly okay to continue.

Those lives have already been destroyed in obtaining those stem cell lines. Good research was occurring. The President, this President, George W. Bush, is the very first President that, in fact, allowed Federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells. So those who criticize or suggest, Madam Speaker, that this President is insensitive and uncaring, I suggest to my colleagues that this President is the most caring that we have ever had in regard to this issue. He has done more than any other President. He does not deserve to be criticized, but rather applauded for his efforts in this regard.

And I think he is steadfast in his determination not to destroy human life because, as the gentleman from Maryland has pointed out and as I just said, we do not know those so-called extra embryos, those throwaway embryos. We do not know what those lives entail. We do know that they have a very unique, full complement of DNA that have all of their genetic material they are going to ever have. They are the

tiniest of human life, little tiny babies. We call them embryos, but they are little tiny embryos whose lives are frozen and suspended. But they should have that opportunity.

And even the couples who think, Madam Speaker, that they would never use those embryos, we have witnessed tragedies every day in the news, this 24-hour cable news that we are subjected to, but we read about children that are kidnapped, abused, murdered, the situation in Aruba, the situation in Nebraska. We can just name so many where people think that their family is complete and they have got all they want out of their reproductive life, and all of a sudden, as the old country song goes, ``some days are diamonds and some days are stones,'' all of a sudden we have a few days that are stones and there might be a tragic loss of a child or more than one child, and all of a sudden maybe those frozen embryos do not seem so expendable anymore.

So that is why this issue is so important and why I feel so very passionate, not just myself and the author of this bill, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), but a number of others who have signed on to this bill. The White House, I think, is very supportive of this. There is a companion piece of legislation, as I understand; it originating in the other body. We are on to something here.

And again it is a pleasure to join my colleague tonight and share these thoughts, try to maybe enlighten my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Madam Speaker; and I do thank the gentleman for giving me an opportunity to be with him to discuss such an important issue. And I will be glad to stick around for a little while if we want to get into a colloquy later on, but I thank him for giving me this opportunity.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I wanted to mention to the gentleman that as an OB/GYN physician, of course I have had some experience with some of the processes that can occur in reproductive endocrine laboratories and the technique dealing with infertile couples, and I have had a discussion with the gentleman from Maryland about this. But in a situation where the couple is infertile and it is because of male infertility, there is nothing wrong with the egg, but there is a very, very low sperm count in the male, and normally it takes probably 1,000 sperm to successfully fertilize an egg in the natural way.

In fact, the normal sperm count in a male is about 60 million. But even a sperm count as low as 1,000, pregnancy can occur in the normal, natural way. But when it gets much lower than that, it becomes less and less possible. But they have a technique. And there is an acronym, Madam Speaker. There is an acronym for everything, it seems, even though this is not in the military. That acronym is ICSI. It stands for intracytoplasmic sperm injection, ICSI. And these biologists working with reproductive endocrinologists, medical doctors who specialize in infertility, can literally take a single sperm and with a needle inject that sperm into the egg and create a life, and that has been done many times, and not just at the NIH, but in a lot of these infertility clinics across this great country, in my State of Georgia. It is something that is done routinely.

So what the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) is talking about

in this poster presentation in regard to waiting to just the right point for these scientists to be able to develop a technique to obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying that embryo and beyond the point where that single cell itself would be an embryo, he knows of what he speaks. And I wanted to have an opportunity to share that, Madam Speaker, with our colleagues and make sure they understand that here again we are not talking about Star Wars technology here. We are talking about things that are being done today.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 5 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, July 13, 2005, at 10 a.m.

Well, I am very, very honored to have the opportunity to join my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown- Waite), Mr. Speaker, and I commend her for putting this hour together to talk about the rights of women.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the gentlewoman from Florida, with others in this body, have recently put together a women's caucus, a bipartisan effort with Members from both sides of the aisle coming together on women's issues, and I really commend them for

that. I commend her, and I commend the bipartisan spirit, Mr. Speaker, in speaking out on women's issues.

We Members of this body who happen to be physicians, and I think there are now ten of us, Mr. Speaker, including yourself, recently did the same thing coming together in a bipartisan fashion on issues of health care. I think what we are showing tonight as we discuss women's issues is we can do that as a Congress, and our citizens in every district, all 435 of this great body, they want us to do that. They realize we have differences of opinions on certain things, and maybe sometimes it seems like it is virtually impossible to come together, but I know that we can. I know we can on health care issues, and I know we can on women's issues.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for putting this together, and especially tonight, talking about Afghanistan and Iraq; maybe, in some ways comparing and contrasting their situation, the women in these two countries, compared to what we enjoy today. Mr. Speaker, in this country, women have equal rights, and I think it was mentioned earlier, maybe by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), about the fact that in this body, in the combined bodies of the House and Senate, 14 percent of 535 Members are women. Yet in these elections that just took place on January 30 of this year in Iraq, some 31 percent of the 275 seats in the transitional national assembly went to these brave women who, before that, under Saddam Hussein and that brutal dictatorship, they were not even given the opportunity to vote.

Through our efforts and trying to bring some democracy, Mr. Speaker, to that part of the world, we have given them the opportunity, as we turn the country back over to the Iraqi people, for them to hold their own elections. And not only did women vote, they voted in force. Thirty-one percent in their very first election are now members of the transitional national assembly. I think it is a wonderful thing that they have that opportunity.

And as I said, Mr. Speaker, so much of these things, these freedoms that we just take for granted, for instance, there is no longer a glass ceiling in this country. I know in my own medical practice we had six doctors, three men and three women, and in that specialty of obstetrics and gynecology, probably 60 percent nationwide of the specialists are women.

When my wife, Mr. Speaker, graduated from college, and I will not say how many years ago because she will get mad at me if I do that, but with a degree in psychology and a minor in religion, there were not really great opportunities for her in the job market. She did not have a teacher's degree so she could not teach, and so it was either secretarial or flight attendant status, and that was really just a few short years ago.

I am so proud, being the father of three daughters and the grandfather of two granddaughters, two grandsons as well, Mr. Speaker, to see that those little girls have an opportunity to, yes, be a mom and a homemaker if they want to, or be out in the business world at the highest level of corporate America, the highest level of this body politic that we enjoy so much here in Washington. These are things that we just kind of take for granted. But thanks to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) and her leadership on this issue, to come tonight and to spend this time and this special hour talking about these brave women who stood in line, we all are filled with such admiration.

Mr. Speaker, I remembered the picture, I guess this one right here, and I want to show it again, because I will never forget this one, with that peace sign and that purple indelible ink to prove that there was no vote of fraud; that a person would vote once and only once. Maybe this took a week or more, by the way, Mr. Speaker, as you know, to wear off.

These women were putting themselves in grave danger of being killed because they had the courage to go and vote when the minority was determined to see that they did not, that they returned to the same old same old.

My colleagues mentioned that one of the recurring themes that they heard when they were visiting, the Women's Caucus actually went to Iraq and Afghanistan. And what those women were saying, the new leaders who are struggling to get their feet under them, please do not leave us. Please do not leave us. We need your help. They were crying out, we need mentoring. We are new at this, and we want to succeed.

This is the same thing that the president and vice president, this new transitional National Assembly is saying to us today in regard to this question of Mr. President of the United States, when are you going to bring our troops home. As the President said in North Carolina just last week, if the Iraqi people wanted us to bring the troops home tomorrow we would; but clearly they do not. What a terrible message it would be to set a date certain and say in a year or year and a half we are coming home, whether we have succeeded or not. No. These men and women in Iraq are absolutely right when they say do not leave us, and we will not leave them. It is times like this when we bring this home to our colleagues and remind them of what we have accomplished.

I have been to Iraq twice. I went the first time in December of 2003, 5 days after the capture of Saddam Hussein. We went to Fallujah, and that was before things completely deteriorated in that part of Iraq. I went with a small bipartisan group. Each Member brought something from his or her district. I brought school books donated by the great men and women of the Rome Rotary Club, 3,000 pounds of school books and equipment. Yet when we went into schools, they were all closed. There were no little kids in those elementary schools. There were no teachers. But today those schools are open. There are teachers to instruct those little kids in elementary school. And yes, Mr. Speaker, a good portion of those students are female.

Before we gave these wonderful people an opportunity for freedom and equal rights, little girls were not given an opportunity to get an education. It is unbelievable to us. We take so much for granted.

Again, the opportunity to share with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), and the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) to talk about this issue tonight, I thank the gentlewoman for staying up late and for preparing this and for giving me an opportunity to participate, because, truly, we cannot go home and leave them alone. We have to continue and finish the job.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the author of H. Res. 340, a resolution expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London, Connecticut. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I first would like to take this opportunity to thank the leadership of this House and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for so expeditiously scheduling and shepherding this resolution to the floor for a vote. I would also like to thank the over 75 Members who have contacted my office to become cosponsors of the resolution and those who are speaking in support of it tonight.

H. Res. 340 demonstrates the commitment of this House to not stand idly by, but rather to act now in addressing this atrocious and negligent decision. By a margin of only one vote, the Supreme Court has struck down 2 centuries' worth of precedents and constitutional protections for property owners.

It is the responsibility of this House to ensure that the American people,

the owners of this great country, are never run over by a handful of judges who refuse to enforce the written laws of this land and to uphold the guarantees of the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, despite the failings of the majority in the New London decision, at least there were four justices who got it right. I applaud them in their steadfast determination and commitment to uphold the Constitution and express their own dismay at the majority's rulings.

As Justice O'Connor writes in the dissenting opinion: ``Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, and the beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process.''

No home, no business, no property, no person is safe from the destructive consequences of this decision. Imagine a local city council using its power of eminent domain to condemn and demolish the local church or synagogue and put up a Starbucks because God is not making them any money.

As Americans across this country prepare to celebrate the 229th anniversary of our independence, I can think of no greater tribute to our fine and Founding Fathers and no greater gift to the American people than declaring that this land is their land and not the government's.

Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the leadership of this House and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and I would encourage all of my colleagues to pass this resolution and speak united in one voice declaring liberty and justice for all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the author of H. Res. 340, a resolution expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo et al. v. the City of New London Connecticut. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan Resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to thank the leadership of this House and Chairman Sensenbrenner for so expeditiously scheduling and shepherding this Resolution to the floor for a vote.

I would also like to thank the over seventy-five members who have contacted my office to become cosponsors of this Resolution, and those who are speaking in support tonight.

House Resolution 340 demonstrates the commitment of this House to not stand idly by, but rather to act now in addressing this atrocious and negligent decision. By a margin of only one vote, the Supreme Court has struck down two centuries worth of precedent and Constitutional protections for property owners.

It is the responsibility of this House to ensure that the American people, the owners of this great country, are never run over by a handful of judges who refuse to enforce the written laws of this land and uphold the guarantees of the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, despite the failings of the majority in the New London decision, at least there were four justices who got it right. I applaud them in their steadfast determination and commitment to uphold the Constitution and express their own dismay at the majority's ruling. As Justice O'Connor writes in the dissenting opinion: ``any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party . . . and the beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process.''

No home, no business, no property, no person is safe from the destructive consequences of this decision. Imagine, a local city council using its power of eminent domain to condemn and demolish the local Church or Synagogue and put up a Starbucks, because God isn't making them any money.

As Americans across this great country prepare to celebrate the 229th Anniversary of our Independence, I can think of no greater tribute to our Founding Fathers and no greater gift to the American people than declaring that this land is their land and not the government's.

Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the Leadership of this House and Chairman Sensenbrenner, and I would encourage all of my colleagues to pass this Resolution and speak united in one voice declaring liberty and justice for all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in defense of one of the most fundamental guarantees afforded us by our Constitution, our right to own private property. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, by the narrowest of margins, the Supreme Court has, for all practical purposes, placed a for-sale sign on the doorstep of every American home or business and it reads, ``for sale by government.''

Mr. Speaker, by a vote of 5 to 4, these sacred property rights have been thrown out in the name of expediency and greed. Justice O'Connor stated it best in the minority's dissent when she called the majority's opinion ``perverse.''

Mr. Speaker, this perversity cannot stand. Therefore, I introduce House Resolution 340 to demonstrate this House's resolve and dedication to defend our constitutionally guaranteed property rights. I call on all Members of this Chamber on both sides of the aisle to speak in one voice in defense of the Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do ask unanimous consent to proceed out of order.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss an amendment that I have offered to H.R. 3058.

I would first like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) for this opportunity to speak on behalf of my amendment and to explain its intent within the greater context of the recent New London decision by the Supreme Court.

The amendment that I have offered would prevent any funds appropriated to the Community Development Block Grant program from being used to support an economic development project that acquires land through eminent domain.

Like many members of this body and most people in this country, I am incensed by the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Kelo v. the City of New London that has effectively turned the deeds to every American home and business over to the government. Imagine a sign on every piece of real personal property that reads: For Sale By Government.

While most people recognize that eminent domain has been used historically for the building of a school or a road which serves the entire community, the American people will never accept the idea that government can arbitrarily take away one person's home or business and give it to someone else for the sole purpose of increasing that government's tax base. Government should never have the power to force a person out so that a mini mall can move in.

In the city of Augusta, Georgia, where I grew up there is a little shop called the Sunshine Bakery. Owned by the same family for over 100 years, the Sunshine Bakery may not be a Fortune 500 company, Mr. Chairman, but it is this family's livelihood, and it serves as an important part of the community. Yet, the City of Augusta could now shut down the Sunshine Bakery and sell the property and their life to the highest bidder. Frankly, such an act is not only un-American but it is also unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, by the narrowest of majorities, the Supreme Court last Thursday decided to abandon its responsibility to uphold the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. By a margin of only one vote, five justices have thrown out over 2 centuries worth of precedent and protections. They have taken away the constitutional guarantee that no one's home or business could be forcibly taken away by the government except for public use and with just compensation.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage every American to read the majority's opinion. Rather than ruling about what is public use and what is not public use, this narrow majority just threw up their hands and allowed government to take, for all intents and purposes, whenever it so desires.

Congress cannot, and I trust will not, stand idly by while States and local governments abuse their power of eminent domain. From the largest State to the smallest city, no government should use the New London decision as cover to take away personal real property and give it to a developer to increase the tax base.

Make no mistake, I fully support economic development and improvement. Like most Americans, I believe that communities should work in conjunction with their citizens to build stronger, more economically vibrant communities. However, what has distinguished this great country of ours above all others is our bedrock belief in individual liberty and property protections and the security these liberties and protections offer. This security has fostered economic prosperity. It has created a society in which this prosperity can be enjoyed. The Supreme Court, by removing these protections, has struck a serious and dangerous blow to the American way of life.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would use Congress' power of the purse to make sure that this government never subsidizes eminent domain abuse and never subsidizes the theft and destruction of people's homes and businesses. However, Mr. Chairman, in light of the point of order reserved against my amendment, momentarily I will ask to withdraw it.

This amendment marks only the start of this discussion, and it is my hope that this Congress will set the record straight for the sake of the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the call of the Private Calendar be in order tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, June 21, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), our distinguished subcommittee chairman of our great Committee on Armed Services, introduced H.R. 256 in remembrance of the brave servicemen who perished in the disastrous April 24, 1980 rescue attempt of the American hostages in Iran. That was called Operation Eagle Claw.

I appreciate the gentleman for bringing this legislation to the Floor, mainly because it is such an important resolution, but also, Mr. Speaker, because it prompted me to call an old friend.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to the selfless service of that old friend from my childhood and a true American hero, Air Force Staff Sergeant Joseph J.J. Beyers.

I was reminded of my friend JJ because he was part of that rescue attempt, and he was one of the fortunate few who lived to tell about it. I had pretty much lost track of JJ after high school, although I knew, Mr. Speaker, that he was part of that rescue operation and I knew that he had been injured severely, burned severely, in critical condition for months, but that, thank God, he survived, and he recovered. But we had really lost track of each other for these many years until last week, after Mr. Saxton introduced his resolution. I had an opportunity to track JJ down and to give him a call and to spend about 45 minutes talking to him about that operation and his life and what it meant to him and what it has meant to this country.

I want to share, Mr. Speaker, a little bit of JJ's life, our life as kids together growing up in North Augusta, South Carolina. We were both altar boys at Our Lady of Peace Catholic Church. JJ and I went to school together from the first grade.

Back in those days, Mr. Speaker, there was no pre-K or kindergarten. Everybody just showed up when they were 6 years old in the first grade. That is how long I have known that great American hero.

And a little bit later on, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, JJ Beyers and myself actually played in the same pony league baseball organization. He was a great athlete. He was a wonderful baseball player, an all-star in that pony league. We had some great athletes, and I would be remiss if I did not mention one who, like JJ Beyers, is another American hero, our age, our contemporary who gave his life for our country in another conflict, Vietnam.

But JJ Beyers and I went on to high school together to St. Thomas Aquinas High School in Augusta, Georgia where again we were both playing baseball and football. But after that, I went off to college. I went to Georgia Tech to college; and JJ joined the Air Force and was in the process of spending his entire adult life in the Air Force. He was a C-130 radio operator and had been assigned to Eglin Air Force Base in 1980, when Operation Eagle Claw was planned.

JJ volunteered for that duty, Mr. Speaker, to take the place of someone who had to drop out because of a sick parent. And JJ Beyers at that time was a single parent who had custody of his five children. And yet he stepped up to the plate and volunteered to fill in the gap to go on this dangerous mission, telling his commander at Eglin that his neighbors would take care of his children; that he wanted to go and do what was necessary to rescue these hostages in Iran. That is the kind of guy JJ Beyers is, and this opportunity tonight to share that with my colleagues, I think, is of tremendous importance.

Mr. Speaker, JJ, as I say, lived through that infamous collision between a Navy helicopter and that C-130 cargo plane. But he was trapped in that fuselage by raging flames after the crash and pulled to safety by two Delta Force pilots. And JJ has severe burns today and little use of both hands. He has been totally disabled. But here is what he says: ``There is no doubt in my mind everybody involved would have gone again.''

JJ is remarried now. He lives in Niceville, Florida. I just want to say one thing, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion. Something that happened in high school, I was a snapper for punts. I rolled that snap back to JJ Beyers in the biggest game of the year, the punt was blocked. The coach chewed my good friend JJ Beyers out. He never said a word. He took it like a man. I did not own up to the fact that it was my fault. JJ was a true hero then. He was a true hero in 1980, he is a true hero as we speak today, and I want to take this chance to thank him for his friendship and sacrifice.

Offered By: Mr. Gingrey of Georgia

Amendment No. 5: Page 77, line 24, after the dollar amount,

insert the following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000) (increased

by $10,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Gingrey

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 948. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used to provide assistance under the community development

block grant program under title I of the Housing and

Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.)

for any private economic development project (including

assistance for any project under paragraph (17) of section

105(a) of such Act) involving the obtaining of property by

the exercise of the power of eminent domain.

Offered By: Mr. Gingrey

Amendment No. 2: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 948. None of the funds made available in this Act for

the community development block grant program under title I

of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42

U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) may be used to provide assistance under

paragraph (17) of section 105(a) of such Act for any economic

development project involving the obtaining of property by

the exercise of the power of eminent domain.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the vital work that takes place at Guantanamo Bay. To say, as a member of the Senate Democratic leadership recently did, that this base is similar to Nazi Germany or Pol Pot is not only deeply offensive but also wholly incorrect.

Mr. Speaker, I visited Guantanamo twice with the House Committee on Armed Services. Let me tell you what I observed there: new and up-to- date facility that allows for the humane treatment of prisoners; prisoners being treated with dignity and in accordance with the Geneva Convention; detainees freely practicing their religious observances.

Mr. Speaker, the overwhelming majority of American troops are performing with honor. When someone throws around offensive slurs for the purpose of political posturing, they jeopardize the very safety of the men and women who protect us and add resolve to those terrorists who wish us harm. These slurs are a horrific disservice to the American people who are counting on us to stop terrorism from once again rearing its ugly head within our borders.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 330 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 330 is a structured rule, and it provides 2 hours of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution. It makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, if offered, by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) or his designee, which shall be separately debatable for 1 hour, equally divided between the proponent and an opponent.

The rule waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the report, provides that notwithstanding the ordering of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the joint resolution to a time designated by the Speaker, and it allows one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, in 1989, the United States Supreme Court Texas v. Johnson decision nullified the laws of 48 States banning flag desecration. Today, all 50 States have passed resolutions requesting Congress to approve a Constitution amendment for ratification that would ban flag burning.

The House of Representatives has passed the same, if not similar, legislation for five consecutive Congresses. In the 104th Congress, the House of Representatives passed a proposed amendment with the necessary two-thirds majority by a vote of 312 to 120; while the 105th House passed it 310 to 114, the 106th House passed it 305 to 124, the 107th House passed it 298 to 125, and in the last Congress, the 108th, the House passed it by a vote of 300 to 125.

Our flag, with 50 stars and 13 stripes, represents the history, culture, and ideology of democracy for the world. Millions of Americans throughout our Nation's history died defending our flag and the ideals it represents. To burn a flag is to disrespect America and disrespect democracy. For our enemies, those who embrace terrorism, communism, and totalitarianism, burning the American flag is a sign of defiance, because freedom threatens the existence of tyranny. For our soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, our flag is motivation to keep fighting, to move ahead, and reason to liberate a people from fear of oppression, as it has been in every conflict in which our Nation has fought.

For our veterans, the desecration of the flag is a slight for everything they fought for. And it serves to dishonor their friends and fellow soldiers who gave their lives for our country. To the parts of Europe occupied by the allied powers during World War II, the sight of our flag brought tears of joy because it symbolizes an end to atrocity and oppression and the return of freedom.

A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration is not the end of our first amendment liberties. The Constitution was drafted as a living document that is capable of changing when called for by the overwhelming desire of the American people.

The debate to end flag desecration is an important issue that carries the overwhelming public support needed to pass an amendment to our Constitution. The Constitution is the foundation of our government, and modifying it should not be taken lightly. However, the American citizens have consistently spoken in favor of this amendment for more than 10 years, and it is an issue that is more than 3 decades old.

Our laws provide an opportunity for every citizen to express their opinions freely. If someone does not like the policies of our Nation, the party in power, our military, or even a specific law, they have the ability to protest, to voice concerns, write letters to their Congressmen without the consequences of death or imprisonment.

This freedom is not found in all nations. The desecration of the American flag, however, is not a form of free speech. It is a challenge to the institution that defends liberty. Although some may disagree, the United States is not the root of the world's problems; rather, we have provided relief from subjugation and freedom to many nations.

For those liberated by America and those who cherish freedom, our flag represents more than a Nation, government, or people. It is an emblem of liberty and justice. Our flag deserves to be respected and protected because it is more than just star-studded fabric; it is the symbol of democracy.

With that in mind, I request unanimous support of this rule and the underlying bill.

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

Well, if the gentleman will yield, since the Supreme Court decision, in response to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), since 1994 it is my understanding that there have been at least 119 reports of incidents involving flag desecration.

The Supreme Court ruling, that 5 to 4 decision that allowed flag desecration, flag burning as part of free speech, that was 1989. Since 1994, to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my understanding is 119 incidents.

In response to the gentleman, no, I do not know.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in response to a number of the points that my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), just made so eloquently.

He asked me a little while ago about the incidences that had occurred, the 119 since 1994, and how many of those were burnings in contrast to how many might be other forms of desecration. I did not have that information for him at the moment, but I do now, and I want to share that with him; 75 of those actually were burnings.

I want to anecdotally mention one of those 75. In April 18, 2005, this occurred in Topeka, Kansas, this burning. Fire and police investigators looked into a case of arson in which flags were burned at the Topeka and Shawnee County Public Library. Someone came into the library grounds between 12:21 a.m. and 1:15 a.m. They lowered the library's flags and they burned them near the building.

Now, it was not illegal then and now to burn your own flag. It was illegal to burn someone else's. But that is the point that I wanted to make; that in fact 75 of 119 were burnings. Furthermore, I want to also mention that the word ``desecration'' in this constitutional amendment resolution was selected because of its broad nature in encompassing many actions against the flag.

Such broad terms are commonly used in constitutional amendments. For example, free exercise in the first amendment; unreasonable searches and seizures, probable cause, in the fourth amendment; due process and equal protection in the 14th. Thus, it is essential that we continue to use broad terms in constitutional amendments such as the word ``desecration'' in order to give Congress discretion when it moves to enact implementing legislation. Debate and discussion as to what forms of desecration should be outlawed, such as burning, will come at a later date in Congress.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) was talking about in regard to his own amendment. The Supreme Court decision in 2003, Virginia v. Black, held that ``a ban on cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate is proscribable under the first amendment,'' allowable under the first amendment. So it is really unnecessary to pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit cross burnings, since statutes prohibiting cross burnings with the intent to harm are currently enforceable.

In contrast, the Supreme Court has concluded in Texas v. Johnson in 1989 that, 5 to 4 decision, that flag desecration is protected by the first amendment, leaving a constitutional amendment as the only remaining option to protect the flag, since statutes doing so in 50 States, 48 States before 1989, are currently unenforceable.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers at this time. I plan to reserve the balance of my time, but I will be happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) in the interest of continuation of this colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time our side has remaining?

Mr. Speaker, that was my mistake. I intended to yield that time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) rather than the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). I apologize for that mistake.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.

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

In closing, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for introducing this legislation and to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for being steadfast and persistent in trying to bring resolution to the issue of flag desecration.

On June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress approved the stars and stripes design as the official flag of the United States in order to designate and protect our ships from friendly fire at sea.

Since 1994, 119 incidents of flag desecration, and yes, 75 of those were flag burnings, have been reported in the United States and its territories. A constitutional amendment will send a strong message of respect for our country and what it represents. Every Memorial Day, civic groups volunteer their time placing flags on the graves of our fallen soldiers. It was said earlier on Flag Day, June 14, that very few of our citizens took their liberty to display their personal flags. It is regrettable. It is regrettable that on Memorial Day, instead of honoring our fallen, our KIAs in this great country, people, many people, most people, in fact, just use it as a long weekend, another day, a holiday, not really remembering. But, of course, we do not throw out Memorial Day just because our citizens are not paying the proper respect.

Whenever a soldier or a government leader dies, a flag is given to his or her family in honor of their service to our country. Our flag means something to these civic groups, these family members, our veterans, our soldiers, and all Americans.

Every day men and women selflessly give of themselves to protect our country and our liberties, and they do not deserve to be dishonored, just as our firefighters and our policemen in the great City of New York gave of themselves on that fateful day of 9/11.

During our war against terrorism, we need to send a strong message to the

enemies of America and the enemies of freedom by protecting the symbol and values of our Nation. With that said, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this rule, to oppose the Watt substitution, and pass the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.