Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, even today, as our friends and allies in London and the United Kingdom move forward with heavy hearts and continued anxiety, they are striking back at the barbaric and cowardly terrorists who attacked them without warning last week.

The British people have seen the face of evil and, as we knew they would, they have remained steadfast, resolute, and unbowed.

They have no intention of altering their way of life, or compromising the democratic principles that have fortified them through the centuries.

All of us can learn from their strong, courageous example, as we extend our deepest condolences to the loved ones and friends of those who have been stolen by these heinous murderers.

It is incumbent upon us not only to condemn the perpetrators and supporters of these unconscionable attacks, but also to express the unwavering solidarity of the American people and our government with the people and government of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Speaker, the civilized world is under attack today by the purveyors of hate, violence, intolerance and lawlessness. They have no compunction about attacking and killing innocent men, women and children.

And our responsibility to this and future generations could not be more clear. We must expose the moral emptiness and political hopelessness of those who subscribe to this twisted ideology--this jihadist death cult--and we must extinguish this force of darkness and despair.

Victory in this fight will not be easy, but it is inevitable as long as all those who cherish peace, tolerance and the rule of law stand together as one.

Sixty-five years ago, Winston Churchill, in steeling the British people against the terror of his day--Hitler's Nazi regime--said: ``Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.''

We must summon the same courage and conviction today. Our enemies seek our destruction, but they underestimate our will. But we shall succeed. Victory will be ours. And, when we look back upon these difficult days, we will be reminded of the British people's courage and steadfast determination.

Mr. Speaker, 2 days from today, July 14 of this year, Meyer M. Cardin would have turned 98 years of age. Meyer M. Cardin was a beloved member of the Maryland community. Meyer M. Cardin was the father of our colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Judge Meyer Cardin was not only a wonderful human being, Mr. Speaker, but also a respected jurist, a committed public servant and a patriotic American. He was born in Baltimore on July 7, 1907, and then educated in the public schools of Baltimore City. He also attended the Army and Navy Prep School.

He received his law degree from the University of Maryland Law School and was admitted to practice law in 1929, 10 years before I was born. Six years later in 1935 at the age of 27, Judge Cardin was elected to the Maryland House of Delegates and served in that body for 2 terms, 8 years. At the time of his death, Mr. Speaker, he was the oldest surviving former member of the Maryland General Assembly.

In 1955, Meyer Cardin became Chief Police Magistrate for Baltimore City and served in that post for 2 years. He then served as the Chief Judge of the traffic court in Baltimore City before becoming the Chairman of the Workmans Compensation Commission in 1958. Judge Cardin was then appointed as an Associate Judge of the Baltimore City Circuit Court by former Governor J. Millard Tawes in 1961 and served in that capacity until his retirement on his birthday July 14, 1977.

Mr. Speaker, the true measure of a successful man or woman is not simply the personal accomplishments that I have articulated or something that they have achieved in terms of honors throughout the course of their life or in their professional career.

No, Mr. Speaker, the true measure of a successful person is also whether they have made their community, their State, their church, in this case their synagogue, their Nation a better place and whether they have done their best to ensure that their children and the members of their family are contributing, productive members of our society. By this measure, Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that Meyer M. Cardin was an enormously successful human being.

For some eight decades, the Cardin name has been synonymous with public service and civic-mindedness. That is due in large measure to the work of Meyer; his brother, Maurice, who practiced law at the family law firm and also served in the House of Delegates; his son, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) who is well known to us here for his intellect and commitment to public service; his son, Howard, who is a successful lawyer; and now, Mr. Speaker, his grandson, of whom he was extraordinarily proud, as he was proud of all of his grandchildren, John, who now serves in the House of Delegates.

Mr. Speaker, tonight, I want to offer my condolences and the condolences of all my colleagues to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin); to his brother, Howard; and to all of their family, to all of the friends of Judge Cardin.

Meyer Cardin lived a long prosperous and productive life, but more importantly, he has set a strong example and created a legacy that will long endure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic leader, a daughter of Baltimore, whose father was a very close friend of Meyer Cardin.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.

Mr. Speaker, I know you are being kind on the timing.

In closing, let me say this, Meyer M. Cardin was a good and decent human

being. He was beloved by his family, beloved by his friends and his community and by his State. Meyer Cardin was a great American, a great human being, a great dad, a great grandfather, and he will be missed sorely. But the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is absolutely correct. His life was a joy and a triumph.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the ranking member ought to win the support of every single Member of this House.

Truth should be our expectation. In fact, that proposition is a legally binding directive of the Office of Management and Budget.

I tell my friend from Indiana, the amendment that he seems to feel is peculiar simply says to the administration, tell the truth. Is that peculiar?

Yet on one of the most important pieces of legislation that this Congress has considered in recent memory, the Medicare prescription drug bill, officials in the current administration purposely, deliberately, and cynically suppressed the real costs of that bill because it did not further their political agenda.

When that legislation was under consideration in November of 2003, the Congress was told that it would cost $395 billion between fiscal year 2004 and 2013. Yet just 3 months later, in February 2004, it was disclosed that the office of the Medicare actuary actually estimated that bill would cost $534 billion. In other words, it was not a 1 or 2 percent misrepresentation; it was a 95 percent misrepresentation. Then we now hear it may cost up to $1.2 trillion.

So on the prescription drug bill, I tell my friend from New York in particular, it was not a 1 or 2 percent mistake. It was a 300 percent mistake that was made on the prescription drug bill. That is a misrepresentation.

The truth is, Mr. Chairman, the Members of this Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, purposely had the cost hidden because the Republican leadership, in my opinion, knew that the bill would not pass if the truth were told.

That is what this amendment says: tell the truth.

The chief Medicare actuary, in fact, Richard Foster, told Congress in March 2004, that he had consistently estimated that the legislation would cost more than $400 billion, and he had prepared dozens of analyses that said it would be over $500 billion. But Mr. Foster told Congress that he had been ordered by Tom Scully, the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in this administration, to withhold his cost estimates from Congress.

The failure to tell the truth is a lie. In fact, the Government Accountability Office has found that Mr. Scully violated Federal law when he threatened Mr. Foster's job. Now, luckily for him, he was not working for the Federal Government then so no sanctions can be taken.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) simply says, tell the truth, administration, when you talk to Congress. Mr. Chairman, this sorry episode ought to trouble, indeed infuriate, every Member of this House and, indeed, every American.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for truthfulness. That is all this amendment says. Do not be so defensive on your mistake on the veterans' funding. The Democratic budget told you the truth on the funding necessary and you simply ignored it. Vote for the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), my friend, the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, very much for yielding me this time.

And I rise in recognition that there is a pretty broad consensus on this floor, which I share. As I sat here and listened to the debate of the gentleman from Massachusetts, I lamented that I am neither as smart nor as articulate nor as incisive nor as humorous as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). But then again, I thought that I fell in the category of 434 others of us on this floor as well. And I adopt the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) almost in their entirety, for I have reservations about some of the whereas clauses but recognize the whereas clauses are not the gravamen, as we lawyers would say, of this resolution.

The central portion of this resolution is to address whether or not government can decide that there is a public purpose for a taking of private property and thereby make it so. My own belief is that that ought not to be the case, that there ought to be better protection for individuals and particularly, as the previous gentleman said, usually smaller individuals in terms of their power and influence; individuals who may want to retain that home that their mom or dad bought, left to them and they live in and want their kids to live there as well and see a government who says, oh, no, we think this property can be used for a better purpose. The constitutional framers were careful in addressing that issue, careful in the sense they wanted to make sure that the king could not come in and say, ``I am going to take your property.'' That was not what they thought America ought to be. They thought it ought to be a country where only under law for public use could property be taken.

I seldom find myself in agreement with the legal opinions of the Supreme Court Justices Thomas or Scalia. Neither of them will be surprised of that,

I am sure, nor will some of my colleagues here. Nor, for that matter, do I often find myself in agreement with a number of the sponsors of this resolution. But I do tonight.

I believe, however, and I want to make this comment, as I have adopted the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), that when dealing with the court at any level, we frankly should be more temperate than we have been. I think this resolution, which I am going to support, is, nevertheless, premature. We have not had the opportunity to digest it, to analyze it, to determine how better we might state the resolution. But having said that, the resolution is here.

Tonight I do agree with the proponents of this legislation in disagreeing with the Supreme Court five-to-four decision. Since our Nation's founding, the protection of private property has been a bedrock principle of our society. It ought to remain so. The fifth amendment provides in relevant part, as has been quoted, ``nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'' That amendment, of course, does not prohibit all takings, nor should it. Instead, it permits the government to take private property so long as it has a good public use for the land and so long as it provides just compensation. However, in this decision, the Court's majority greatly weakened, in my opinion, this basic constitutional principle. It held that a public use could be defined more broadly as a ``public purpose.'' I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts's (Mr. Frank) finding irony in the positions with reference to activism on the courts, for after all in this case, the Court deferred to the legislature. But, in fact, the Constitutional Framers said not even the legislature, not even the people's representatives, could take property unless it was for a public use. I agree with that proposition and therefore disagree with this decision.

As Justice O'Connor wrote in dissent: ``Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded.''

We do not want to leave our citizens vulnerable in that position. As a result, I will join my colleagues in voting for this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, too often today we call people ``heroes'' when in fact their actions do not rise to the level of the heroic. Tonight, however, I want to say a few words to honor the memory of a true hero, Prince George's County, Maryland, police officer Steven Francis Gaughan, who was killed in the line of duty on June 21 trying to protect the community that he loved.

Officer Gaughan was a 15-year veteran of the police force, and was a member of a special unit that tracks and arrests drug dealers and violent criminals. According to all who knew him, Steven was devoted to his work, his church, sports teams and family; his wife, Donna, his son, Daniel, and his daughter, Rachel. To Donna, his children and all his family and friends, I extend on behalf of all of us our deepest sympathies.

Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by quoting the Washington Post, which stated: ``Steven's exemplary courage, and his profound sacrifice, stand as painful reminders of how little is truly routine about police work, and of the debt of gratitude that officers are owed by society. His death is a blow to the community, but by his bravery he set an example and left a legacy that will not be soon forgotten.''

Mr. Speaker, Steven Gaughan was a hero, and he will be deeply missed. May God bless his soul and comfort his family.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank chairman Knollenberg and ranking member Olver for doing the best they could with the

limited resources that were made available to the subcommittee.

The allocation that we were given highlights this inescapable fact: the budget resolution passed by the republican majority has real consequences.

It is clear, for example, that the funding for Amtrak is simply not adequate.

It seems to be an effort to shut down national passenger rail in this country.

Make no mistake: if we fail to provide Amtrak the funds it needs to operate, we won't just be shutting down the few routes identified by the committee to be closed.

The resulting layoffs, inability to fund capital upgrades, and lack of funds to operate remaining routes will eventually lead to the shut down of national passenger rail permanently.

However, despite this and other problems with the bill, I believe that it contains many good provisions that deserve our support.

For example, I am pleased that the committee adopted the Hoyer-Wolf- Moran amendment, providing a 3.1 percent pay adjustment for Federal civilian employees--which is consistent with the pay adjustment proposed for our military personnel.

We must recognize the contributions made by both Federal civilian employees and military personnel to the safety and security of this Nation.

I am also pleased that the $126.7 million that the president requested for the FDA consolidation was included in the bill. These funds will help relocate FDA employees from their current substandard facilities into modern, state-of-the-art facilities, and end the practice of extending costly leases for various FDA offices throughout the region.

Furthermore, I am pleased that the chairman recognized that the Federal Government has a responsibility to the general aviation airports in the metropolitan region that were shut down after 9/11-- through no fault of their own.

In this bill, we reimburse those airports for their losses and the chairman has committed to working with me to increase that amount during conference to ensure full restitution.

That is fair. And, that is right.

Finally, I am pleased that this bill recognizes the important Federal role in helping States reform their election systems.

The bill sensibly provides $15.8 million to the new Election Assistance Commission so it can fulfill the high expectations Congress intended when it passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

I also am personally gratified that the bill's accompanying report urges the EAC to set aside $250,000 for the HAVA College Program, an innovative program that encourages college students all over the Nation to enlist as non-partisan poll workers.

To be sure, Congress has not carried out all its election reform obligations to the states. And, I am disappointed the bill does not provide the remaining $800 million we owe the States to upgrade their voting machines, provide voter and pollworker training, and improve voting machine security.

I appreciate the committee's hard work on this bill. This legislation is not perfect. But it contains many important, needed provisions that deserve our support.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to offer an amendment, but I do want to speak on this bill. First of all, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for their hard work on this bill.

The last amendment demonstrates the folly of the Republican fiscal policies and the Republican budget. There are simply insufficient resources to cover the responsibilities, not the wants, but the responsibilities that we have. I want to speak about one of those.

I am pleased that the bill before us recognizes the importance of continuing our investment in helping States reform their election systems. This bill sensibly provides $15.8 million to the new Election Assistance Commission so it can fulfill the high expectations Congress intended when it passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

I am personally gratified that the bill's accompanying report urges the EAC to set aside $250,000 for the HAVA college program, an innovative program that encourages college students all over the Nation to enlist as nonpartisan poll workers.

But, Mr. Chairman, this bill falls short of what HAVA requires. Almost 3 years after HAVA was enacted, Congress has yet to carry out all its election reform obligations and promises to the States. I am especially disappointed the bill does not provide the remaining $800 million we owe the States to upgrade their voting machines, provide voter and pollworker training, and improve voting machinery technology.

I have not offered an amendment because there is not $800 million to take from one of the objects in this bill to an obligation that we have, so I am not offering an amendment. Moreover, starting on January 1, HAVA requires, and I want my friends, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, who have been properly very concerned about unfunded mandates. They have talked a lot about unfunded mandates. I agree with you on unfunded mandates.

This bill, HAVA, required States to spend money and it requires them to

have every voter online with the local precinct in statewide registration offices. That is expensive. It will help elections, but it is expensive. These systems, which will cost States tens of millions of dollars to install and maintain, will go a long way toward improving the accuracy and reliability of registration rolls and reduce fraud, something we all can agree on.

Today, Congress has appropriated $3 billion of the $3.8 billion promised in HAVA, roughly 78 percent of what was promised. That sum represents an important down payment to the States, and I thank the Speaker, the former chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for their strong support in securing this money. I might say that the administration was supportive of this as well. This was a bipartisan effort.

However, we clearly have not carried out our promise. I happen to believe that a promise only partially fulfilled is a promise unfulfilled. For those who would say appropriating 78 percent is enough, I would suggest to them that they ought to talk to their State administrators who are not able to get the money that we are requiring them, hear me, requiring them to spend.

The principal cosponsors spent considerable time estimating how much it would cost the States to fulfill all of the mandates prescribed in the bill. We consulted State and local election officials, the Congressional Research Service and the then-Government Accounting Office, among other authorities, before deciding $3.8 billion would provide the States with the resources necessary for comprehensive reform.

Indeed, there is reason to believe we underestimated what it would cost. Some credible reports estimated the cost will actually be over $6 billion. At a time when we are spending $1 billion a week building a viable democracy in Iraq, money which I have supported, an objective that I think is important, we can and must find it in ourselves to fund our own democratic infrastructure so that no eligible voter is ever refused the right to vote through administrative or mechanical error.

Mr. Chairman, from 1789 to 2002, the Federal Government got a free ride from the States in the administration of elections. We did not pay a nickel to elect any Member of Congress, any United States Senator, any President, or on running elections.

If we care about the quality and credibility of our election system, we must strive in the months ahead to provide the remaining $800 million.

Mr. Chairman, I hope you work with me. I intend to work with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in accomplishing this objective. It is an important objective to meet our promises and not have unfunded mandates, and to make sure that America's elections are run in a fashion that will continue to be an example for the rest of the world and the pride of our own country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Supreme Court's decision on Monday, June 27 in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.

In a rare 9-0 decision, the Court found ``that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.''

Grokster and other companies that proactively enable the theft of creative and

other protected works should immediately cease this activity.

MGM Studios v. Grokster is much more than a legal battle involving movie studios, record labels and the technology community. Grokster is fundamentally about ensuring that the creative and copyrighted works of millions of Americans who enrich our lives--including songwriters, musicians, screen writers and other artists--are appropriately protected in this era of rapid technological advancement.

I acknowledge that artists, as well as movie studios and record labels, have been the beneficiaries of the same creative energy of the technology community that has given consumers new products, such as DVD players and portable music devices. Clearly, technological advancements have fostered the enjoyment of these creative works.

There must be a balance between protecting the copyrighted works of artists and ensuring technological innovation. However, the unbridled theft of copyrighted works must be stopped, as the Supreme Court has so clearly repudiated this activity. The Court struck the right balance in protecting copyrighted material and innovators in the technology community. It is time for those who created a business model dependent upon infringement to adjust to this new legal standard.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. This is an important bill. The United States is the leader of the free world, and, frankly, the United States is far behind many in the industrialized world in investing in the peace and security of the international community.

Mr. Chairman, for several years, however, I have expressed serious concerns about the amount of dollars that we give to Egypt. Egypt is a friend and an ally. Egypt is number two in terms of the dollars that we invest, both in military and economic aid. However, Egypt has one of the largest and most modern militaries in the Middle East, with approximately $2.4 billion in annual defense spending. More than half of that funding, $1.3 billion in this bill, is provided by the United States.

Notwithstanding that, however, I do not believe that Egypt and its leadership is conducting itself in a way consistent with its alliance with this country. Nearly one out of five Egyptians live in poverty; yet we give very little economic aid, relatively speaking. Roughly half of Egypt's adults are illiterate. Unemployment is in double figures, and the country has a per capita income of just $700 per year.

In this context, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the United States provides almost three times the amount of military assistance to Egypt than we provide in economic assistance, $1.3 billion to $495 million in this bill.

That is not my principal concern. My principal concern is the relationship between the extraordinary investment that America makes in Egypt and the lack of cooperation as it relates to some of their policies not only on the military side, but on the human rights and discrimination side.

Regional stability and the efforts to stem the development of terrorist organizations are served not only by providing for Egypt's military strength, but also by ensuring prosperity and economic opportunities for the people of Egypt, and having Egypt cooperate in bringing down the level of hatred, discrimination, and prejudice in its own country and in the Middle East. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would make that message clear to our friends in Egypt.

I offered an amendment in committee. That amendment would have shifted $40 million from military assistance to the economic assistance. That, in my opinion, would have had the effect of educating more Egyptian children, bringing more Egyptians out of poverty, perhaps investing greater amounts in the economic development and job creation seen in Egypt. That would, in my opinion, have been a very positive step forward.

My friend, the chairman of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations urged me not to do that. And as a result of his urging, I withdrew that amendment.

One of the reasons I withdrew that amendment is because Egypt is an important ally. But I would hope that our Egyptian friends would address the issues of anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, anti-Catholic/ Christian, prejudice, and destabilization within their own country and within the Middle East. We need to continue to send that message.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this important Resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the massacre at Srebrenica in July 1995.

This summer is the 30th anniversary of the signing of the Helsinki Final Act, which established principles to be followed by participating states that include respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Helsinki Final Act and the conference it established have since been institutionalized in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE. This multilateral diplomatic effort was taken seriously by both Republican and Democratic Administrations over the years, and it helped tremendously in ending the Cold War division of Europe and in giving millions upon millions of people freedom from communist repression.

Those of us who have had the privilege to serve on the U.S. Helsinki Commission can recall the powerful impact the Helsinki Final Act had, as well as the hard work and sacrifice that helped bring its ideals so much closer to reality. Some of us, indeed, will be commemorating the OSCE's achievements in about 1 week when the Organization's Parliamentary Assembly convenes here in Washington.

One cannot honestly and credibly assess the accomplishments of the Helsinki Final Act, however, without taking note of the greatest single violation of its provisions in those three decades. Srebrenica undoubtedly is that single greatest violation. Eight thousand men and boys, maybe more, were executed and thrown into mass graves. Their bodies continue to be exhumed and identified to this day. The surviving victims continue to feel the pain from the loss of their loved ones.

This tragedy is compounded by the truly horrifying fact that it could have been prevented. Indeed, it should have been prevented. For 2 years, Srebrenica was designated by the United Nations as a ``safe area.'' Attacks upon it were not to be tolerated. It was protected by U.N. peacekeepers. Yet, for months Serb forces prevented humanitarian convoys from entering Srebrenica; even the Dutch peacekeeping contingent was rendered ineffective by its isolation. When the Serb forces attacked, the air strikes necessary to repel them never came. The United Nations and its member states were not at all helpless, but they were indecisive and feckless in the face of clear aggression.

Many of us in the Congress at the time appealed for decisive action. Even after documenting the policy of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia since 1992, we admittedly did not know the scale and horrific nature of the acts to follow, but we certainly knew something evil was about to occur in Srebrenica. And it did occur, due to the simple fact that it was allowed to occur.

We can, if we choose, find some silver linings in that experience. For the first time since World War II, individuals have been held to account for their crimes, including genocide, before an international tribunal. NATO operated ``out of area,'' setting a stage for broadening the scope of the alliance to support the interests of its members in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Within months of Srebrenica, the international community under U.S. leadership at least restored a peace to Bosnia that, despite problems, has lasted to this day.

It is, however, with deep regret that such advances in international relations came at such a heavy price to so many innocent people. It is a price which Srebrenica survivors continue to pay as Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic remain at large and as so many people continue to deny the massacre even took place. The least that the international community can do to ease their pain is to ensure that the realities of Srebrenica are acknowledged as genocide, to vow that they never happen again, and this time to mean it.

I therefore call upon my colleague to support this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the President's top political adviser stated, and I quote, ``Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.''

This statement is offensive, divisive, and patently false.

Three days after those barbaric attacks, this House voted 420 to 1 to use all necessary and appropriate force against those responsible.

The Senate passed the same measure 98 to 0.

I do not know whether Mr. Rove's statement was calculated to exploit collective national pain for partisan political gain, although his slash-and-burn track record speaks for itself.

But Mr. Rove should apologize and retract it. And the President of the United States, who represents not Republicans, not Democrats, but all Americans, should repudiate it today.

The President came to office stating he wanted to change the tone in Washington. Today, today he can demonstrate that he meant it.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I so want to object to what happened last night and he is going to talk about it, but I know that comity demands that I do not object.

I yield to my friend from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

I thank my friend for yielding.

On behalf of our side, we want to congratulate the Republicans on their victory. I was sorely tempted to object to this whole colloquy.

It is always a terrific evening where everybody enjoys themselves. There is good comradeship on the field, across the party lines. It is good fun. The Republicans had a great game, particularly early on. They got way ahead of us. We tried to catch up and could not do it, but it was a fun evening.

Mr. Speaker, the Bowie Bay Sox, a Double A team in the Baltimore Oriole organization, and the Bay Sox Stadium located in Bowie, Maryland, in my district, has been the host of this ball game over the last 6 or 7 years. It is a great little stadium, one of the best minor league stadiums, I think, in the country. It is a fun place to play, but it is approximately 25, 30 minutes from here and, with traffic, a longer period of time.

As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the manager of the Republican team, has pointed out, we had double the crowd, maybe even more than double the crowd, the largest crowd in our history, and the beneficiaries, of course, are the children and the families and the institutions that benefited from the contributions made by the people who attended and by those sponsors who generously provided resources to support this game.

I want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). I know on behalf of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the Democratic manager for many, many years who is not on the floor, I want to congratulate him and all of our players as well. It is a fun evening. It is a good evening. We congratulate the winners.

We are out recruiting very heavily. We used to recruit people who we thought would be good Members of Congress. We have slightly changed our focus. We are trying to get some good ball players. But we will work at it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring who is going to do the schedule today.

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

Mr. Speaker, the men and women of America's greatest generation, the generation that saved freedom and defeated tyranny, pass quietly from this life each day. Too quietly, I believe. For this generation of Americans must never forget that we are the beneficiaries of their selfless acts and their sacrifice. They made America what it is today: free, strong, and vibrant.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize and salute the many contributions of one member of that great generation, Jerald August Glaubitz, who passed away on April 26 at the age of 84.

Jerry Glaubitz was a constituent of mine. He was a friend of mine. In some

respects, he was a mentor of mine. I have known him for almost 40 years. More importantly, he was a trusted public servant, a patriot, and a good personal friend.

A native of Murdock, Nebraska, Jerry was just 18 years old when he joined the United States Navy in 1938. He was stationed on the U.S.S. San Francisco and was present at Pearl Harbor on that day of infamy in December 1941 when 2,300 sailors and civilians lost their lives.

Jerry Glaubitz survived the treacherous Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor and remained determined to honor the memory of those service men and women who were not as fortunate. Jerry served as the president of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association, and he played a key role during the observation of the 50th anniversary of that attack.

After the war in which Jerry served, he returned home, more than determined than ever to live a life defined by the love of his wife and family, a life marked by his commitment to community and to his Nation. For 43 years, from 1961 to 2004, Jerry Glaubitz served as the mayor of Morningside, Maryland, a town of approximately 1,000 citizens, a small town, a vibrant town, a town where every neighbor knew one another and every neighbor was concerned about one another.

At his retirement, he was the longest-serving mayor in our State, and one of the longest serving mayors in the Nation. Morningside Councilman Jim Ealey said recently, ``Jerry took over the town when it was a one- horse town and nourished it and contributed everything he had to that town.''

Jerry also was a mainstay on the Morningside Volunteer Fire Department, joining the department in 1947 and serving as president, chief, and chaplain over the next 5 decades. He was a past president of the Maryland State Fire Association and the Prince George's County Volunteer Firemen's Association.

I had the great privilege as chairman of the caucus and as a member of the State Senate of Maryland of working closely with Jerry, both in his capacity as the mayor of Morningside, the president of the state fire association, and the county fire association. I can think of few people, Mr. Speaker, who cared more about their family, their community, and their country than did Jerry Glaubitz.

I want to extend my heartfelt sympathy to his beloved wife of 62 years, Jean; his daughter, Carol; his son, Larry, and all of his family and friends. And I hope, Mr. Speaker, that they find comfort in the fact that his was a life well-lived, a life that enriched countless others. A God that is merciful has taken Jerry to be home. He took him from a country that is grateful for his service and a community that is better for his life.

Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member and congratulate him on the extraordinary job he does as the ranking member not only on this subcommittee but on all the subcommittees.

Let me begin with a traditional disclaimer, and that disclaimer is I do not hold the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) personally responsible for this product. He has done the best he could with the resources that were given to him, and I congratulate him and thank him for that.

Nor do I hold the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) responsible, but I do hold responsible the policies that have been adopted by the Committee on Ways and Means, by the Committee on the Budget, and by this House.

Madam Chairman, just 3 months ago the Republican majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) stood on this House floor and with great passion stated, ``The one major responsibility of a government is to protect the innocent, vulnerable people.'' On that very same day in March, the President of the United States stated, ``The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak.''

I served under Bill Natcher from Kentucky who chaired this committee for many years. He used to say as long as we take care of the education of our children and the health of our people, we will continue to live in the strongest and greatest Nation on the face of this earth. But now the political party that exploits every opportunity to talk about the culture of life, virtually ignores and dismisses what I call the culture of the living: the innocent, the vulnerable, the weak, who are living, breathing, members of the American family.

Today, this bill demonstrates in concrete terms how the Republican Party's misguided, irresponsible tax and budget policies have harmful consequences for so many living Americans.

Just yesterday President Bush visited my congressional district in Maryland. He stated, ``I know some workers are concerned about jobs going overseas.'' Yet this bill cuts job training for unemployed by $346 million. This bill cuts the President's community college skills training initiative in half. This bill cuts the International Labor Affairs Bureau by 87 percent which helps enforce child and slave labor abroad.

Mr. President, you are not meeting the concerns. He went on to say, ``I know some are concerned about gaining the skills necessary to compete in the global market that we live in.'' Yet this bill cuts No Child Left Behind by $806 million. This is $13.2 billion short of authorization and $40 billion short of what the President said we were going to fund when he signed the bill.

This bill provides only a $50 increase in Pell grants, notwithstanding hundreds of dollars of increases in college costs. This bill cuts education technology by 40 percent. This bill cuts the Community Services Block Grant in half. This bill cuts the administration's proposal for title I by $603 million.

Mr. President, you know the American people are concerned, but you have not responded. He went on to say this: ``I know that families are worried about health care and retirement. And I know moms and dads are worried about their children finding good jobs.''

Yet, Madam Chairman, this bill eliminates 10 out of the 12 title VII health profession training programs. These programs help alleviate the shortage of doctors and dentists in underserved areas to meet that concern that he recognizes the American people have.

This bill eliminates the Health Communities Access Program which helps health centers and public hospitals better serve the uninsured. This bill cuts the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant program by $24 million. This bill freezes after-school centers for the fourth year in a row. This bill provides only a half a percent increase, far less than inflation, which means they will do less for the National Institutes of Health which researches the afflictions which confront Americans, like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.

Madam Chairman, I have the utmost respect for those who speak about the culture of life. But we must ask, what about the culture of the living? What about the people who are served by this bill, who need this bill, whose quality of life is critically affected by this bill? This bill is perhaps the most important piece of domestic legislation that this Congress considers every year. It is a statement of national and moral principle. But today it is nothing more than Exhibit A for the Republican Party's culture of fiscal irresponsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 10, the proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical desecration of our flag. And, in this respect, I take no pleasure in doing so: Like the vast majority of Americans, I too condemn those malcontents who would desecrate our flag--a universal symbol for democracy, freedom and liberty--to grab attention for themselves and inflame the passions of patriotic Americans. Without doubt, those misfits who desecrate our flag deserve our contempt.

Further, I fully appreciate and respect the motivations of those who offer and support this amendment, particularly the patriotic men and women who so faithfully served this Nation in our armed services and in other capacities. Their strong feelings on this issue should neither be questioned nor underestimated. They deserve our respect.

However, I respectfully disagree with them and will oppose this amendment for the reasons so eloquently articulated by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. In opposing a similar amendment a few years ago, Senator McConnell stated that it ``rips the fabric of our Constitution at its very center: the First Amendment.'' He added, ``Our respect and reverence for the flag should not provoke us to damage our Constitution, even in the name of patriotism.''

Those of us who oppose this amendment do so not to countenance the actions of a few, but because we believe the question before us today is how we the United States of America--are to deal with individuals who dishonor our Nation in this manner.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a constitutional amendment is neither the appropriate nor best method for dealing with these malcontents. As the late Justice Brennan wrote for the Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson: ``The way

to preserve the flag's special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are wrong. . . . We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own.''

Furthermore, it troubles me that this amendment, if approved, would ensconce the vile actions of a few provocateurs into the very document that guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government. That document, of course, is our Constitution.

In more than 200 years, our Constitution has been amended only 27 times, and nearly all of those amendments guarantee or expand rights, liberties and freedoms. Only one amendment--prohibition--constricted freedoms and soon was repealed.

I simply do not believe that our traditions, our values, our democratic principles--all embodied in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights--should be overridden to prohibit this particular manner of speech, even though I completely disagree with it.

Free speech is often a double-edged sword. However, if we value the freedoms that define us as Americans, we should refrain from amending the Constitution to limit those same freedoms to avoid being offended.

I remind my colleagues that if we approve this amendment, we put our great Nation in the company of the oppressive regimes in China, Iran, and Cuba--all of whom have similar laws protecting their flags. Needless to say, when it comes to free speech, the United States of America is the world's leader. It does not follow China, Iran or Cuba.

Our flag is far more than a piece of cloth, a few stripes, 50 stars. Our flag is a universal symbol for freedom, liberty, human rights and decency that is recognized throughout the world. The inflammatory actions of a few misfits cannot extinguish those ideals. We can only do that ourselves. And I submit that a constitutional amendment to restrict speech--even speech such as this--is the surest way to stoke the embers of those who will push for even more restrictions.