Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am again on the floor tonight because in this country, the greatest Nation in the world, our ministers, priests, rabbis, and clerics cannot have the freedom of speech to talk about the policies and political issues of the day.

The history on that is simple. Prior to 1954, any minister, priest, rabbi, or cleric who wanted to speak freely about the politics or the moral or the policy issues of the day, they could do so without any threat from the Federal Government. Well, in 1954 Lyndon Baynes Johnson put an amendment on a revenue bill going through the Senate that basically said that if you are a 501(c)(3), you may not have any type of speech that could be interpreted as being somewhat of a political nature or a moral political nature.

I have problems with this, Madam Speaker, simply because the Constitution of the United States of America, the first amendment says that any individual, church, or any individual has the right to speak freely of whatever should come to their mind that they feel like they should mention to their fellow citizen or to a congregation. Again, if this was 1953, Madam Speaker, I would not be on the floor of the House, because there would be no problem. This whole problem came about in 1954. I do not want to go much into that history as I do want to go into the present.

Let me read the first paragraph of a pastoral letter from Bishop Sheridan, Colorado Springs, a Catholic bishop in Colorado. Three weeks ago he wrote a three-page letter. I just want to read one paragraph:

``Dear brothers and sisters in Christ. This coming November, Americans will participate in one of the most important national elections in recent history. The President, Senators, and Congressmen who are placed in office by our votes will serve at a time in which issues that are critical to the very survival of our civilization will be at the top of the political agenda. As we prepare for these elections, I consider it my duty as your bishop to write to you about these matters so that you might go to the polls this fall with a well- informed conscience.''

Madam Speaker, I say that, and I am not going into any more of the letter, it is a three-page letter; but I will tell my colleagues that all this bishop did was to remind the parishioners in his diocese, the teachers of the church, and not only the church, but of Jesus Christ.

And that is all he did. But because he did this, he did not say Democrat or Republican, he did not say liberal or conservative, but he talked about pro-life issues.

Mr. Speaker, because he did that, Barry Lynn of the Americans for the Separation of Church and State, filed a complaint against this Bishop. Where is America going? Where is America going when a minister, a priest, or Rabbi or a cleric can not speak freely, which is a first amendment guarantee by our Constitution.

I am not going to go into the letter by Mr. Lind, but I will tell you that basically what he did is to chastise this Bishop because he spoke about the pro-life issues which are very important to our church. And I happen to be a Roman Catholic. I would say this if this was a minister, I would say this if it was a rabbi, they should have the freedom of speech that was guaranteed until 1954.

In addition to that, I want to also recite from Alex de Tocqueville, who came to America in 1830 and he loved America, this new republic, this freedom that we enjoy, and he talked

about the beauty that God had blessed us with, this natural beauty. But what he was really was encouraged with, and I want to read this, ``But not until I went to the churches of America and I heard her pulpits flamed with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.''

Mr. Speaker, there is also another quote that I think goes back to Jeff Jacoby with the Boston Globe that I read back in 1995, my first year in the United States Congress, when he said that religion can survive in the absence of freedom, but freedom without religion becomes dangerous and unstable.

And what I am seeing happening in this country today bothers me greatly. When I think about the young men and women that are dying in Afghanistan and Iraq, they are dying so the Iraqi people can have freedom, and yet in this great Nation known as America, our priests, our preachers, rabbis and clerics cannot have the first amendment rights.

Let me share a quote with you from Floyd Flake. Floyd Flake, Mr. Speaker, was one of the finest Members of this United States House of Representatives. He is a minister in New York City. And I want to read this for you very quickly. It is a letter about the bill I put in to return freedom of speech to our churches and synagogues. He says, ``I praise God for the stand that you have taken to defend the first amendment rights of houses of worship. It is unjust that churches and clergymen and women are unfairly targeted when they exercise their rights as American citizens. I am pleased to offer my whole-hearted support with sincere prayer for passage of this important and liberating legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I will close, but I want to say that I hope that the colleagues of mine in this House will join me in returning the first amendment rights to our churches, our synagogues and our mosques.

I close by asking God to please bless our men and women in uniform and their families and my God continue to bless and help save America.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the House Leadership for scheduling H.R. 205 for floor consideration. This bill would adjust the number of free roaming horsed permitted on Shackleford Banks in the Cape Lookout National Seashore. Shackleford Banks is a barrier island off the coast of North Carolina that has been home to a herd of wild horses for over three centuries. In fact, experts believe the herd descended from Spanish stallions that were shipwrecked on the island during colonial times.

Over the years, the Shackleford horses have become an integral part of the natural and cultural fabric of Eastern North Carolina. They are treasured by the local community and adored by the many visitors who come from across the country to see them.

To protect these beautiful creatures, in 1997 I introduced the Shackleford Banks Wild Horses Protection Act which the President later signed into law. The Act directed the Department of the Interior to enter an agreement with a non-profit group--the Foundation for Shackleford Horses--to manage the herd. It also required the Department to allow a herd of 100 free-roaming horses in the Seashore, and it set out terms under which horses could be removed, including a prohibition on removal ``unless the number of horses . . . exceeds 110.''

As the National Park Service and the Foundation began to implement the Act, disagreement erupted over the law's requirements on the size of the herd. The Park Service interpreted the Act to mean that the herd's population should be kept between 100 and 110. However, as the author of the legislation, I can tell you this interpretation was inconsistent with Congressional intent--which was to allow the herd to hover above 110.

The Park Service's interpretation also conflicted with the established scientific consensus on the size of the herd. Studies by world-renowned genetic scientists Dr. Daniel Rubenstein of Princeton University, and Dr. Gus Cothran of the University of Kentucky, confirm that in order to maintain the herd's long-term viability, its optimum size is around 120 animals. The experts also agree that the population should not dip below 110 and that it should be allowed to expand periodically to numbers at or above 130 in order to sustain the proper genetic diversity in the herd. It's important to note that these numbers are well within the island's carrying capacity.

After years of disagreement on the herd size issue, the Park Service met in the fall of 2002 with the Foundation for Shackleford Horses, Dr. Rubenstein, Dr. Cothran and other stakeholders. After two days of meetings, the parties emerged with an agreement that largely mirrors the scientific understanding of how the horses should be managed.

H.R. 2055 seeks to codify this scientific consensus into law. It would allow a herd of ``not less than 110 free roaming horses, with a target population of between 120 and 130 free roaming horses.'' It would also clear up confusion on when horses can be removed from the island by mandating that removal can only occur if ``carried out as part of a plan to maintain the viability of the herd.''

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is supported by the Park Service, the scientific experts, and the local community. It is a legislative fix based on sound science, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to share an essay with you today, it was written by a young man from the 3rd District of North Carolina which I proudly represent. James Waters, a 10th grade student at West Carteret High School in Morehead City, NC, submitted his essay in a contest held by the Fleet Reserve Association and was chosen as an overall winner. I feel his words embody the spirit of what it means to be an American.

Precious Patriotism

(By James Waters)

On the morning of April 19, 1775, American colonists fought

their first battle with the British redcoats, a prelude to

the bloody American Revolution. What incited these average

colonists with the heart to stand up to the entire British

army? What possessed them to break away from the tyrannical

country of Great Britain? The name of this ever-living

phenomenon is patriotism.

As people develop a profound pride for their country,

patriotism develops simultaneously as a side effect.

Patriotism is the heart-willing urge to defend the pillars of

justice, opportunity, and equality that our nation

symbolizes. Although America is young, she has faced

influential conflicts throughout the past centuries. America

is continually facing global obstacles at this very moment.

Patriotism can be defined as forever standing with America

through turmoil and supporting all that is to be asked of

America's citizens for the growth of our country. Citizens

can illustrate patriotism by striving for individual success.

Patriotism is a synonym for staying informed and

participating in government as an active citizen. As a

zealous patriot of our nation, I will voice my opinion of

issues. I will go to the polls to vote, and I will preserve

to be a productive citizen.

My patriotism comprises the values of respect. Our country

has progressed as it has due to generations of others.

Patriotism is vividly evident in our nation's veterans. I

will support our veterans who have exemplified their own

patriotism and those who have paid the ultimate price of

freedom--life. Patriotism is leaving home to fight for just

ideas, not knowing if you will return. It is enduring bullets

in a battle. It is sleeping on the front lines with the

uncertainty of waking up. All veterans deserve the maximum

quantity of respect as we continue to live under their

previous endeavors.

Patriotism is embedded within the citizens of America.

Patriotism shapes the citizens and all-around morale of

America. America is a block of ice. Patriotism is the chisel

that shapes America into a beautiful sculpture that stands

for liberty and justice for all.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, I am on the floor tonight because recently we remembered the 60th anniversary of D-Day, World War II. We remembered, we had Memorial weekend, Memorial Day, and then we had the funeral of President Reagan. I think we all remember the price of freedom from those who served in World War II and in all of our wars; and certainly Mr. Reagan led this great Nation as we tried to create freedom for other countries, and he certainly distinguished himself in that way.

I am here tonight to talk about what I consider a real threat to the morality of America, and that is that the spiritual leaders of this great Nation are prohibited from expressing their first amendment rights to speak out on the moral and political issues of the day.

Many people know the history of this. Some do, some do not. The history is that from the beginning of this great Nation, until 1954, a spiritual leader could speak in his church, synagogue, or mosque on any issue of the day and not feel that there would be any retribution from the Internal Revenue Service. Well, one might say, what do you mean the Internal Revenue Service? Well, in 1954, Lyndon Baines Johnson, a United States Senator, offered an amendment on a revenue bill going through the Senate that was never debated. In fact, the Republican majority accepted Senator Johnson's amendment on unanimous consent, so there were no hearings, no debate, or anything. And basically what Mr. Johnson was trying to do at that time was the H.L. Hunt family in Texas was adamantly opposed to his reelection, and they had a couple of 301 think tanks, and so he wanted to quiet those think tanks. So, therefore, he put an amendment on a revenue bill going through the Senate that was never debated.

The unintended consequences of Mr. Johnson's amendment was and is the fact that churches that are 501(c)(3)s are prohibited from having any type of sermons that might be interpreted as being political at all. I do not know how one can uphold the teachings in the Bible if one does not talk about certain moral issues of the day.

This Nation was built on Judeo-Christian principles; and if this Nation is going to remain strong, then it must remember the Judeo- Christian principles that are the foundation of this great Nation.

The reason I wanted to come to the floor tonight, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the bishop of Colorado Springs issued a pastoral letter to all of the Catholics in his diocese, and I will submit this entire letter for the Record.

The reason I bring this tonight to the floor is that the Bishop Sheridan of Colorado Springs has a responsibility to the teachings of Jesus Christ as well as the teachings of the Pope. Being a Catholic leader, he does feel very strongly about the pro-life issue; he does feel very strongly about stem cell research; he does feel strongly about euthanasia, the protection of our elderly. So he issued this pastoral letter reminding the Catholics in his diocese that in this year's election they should look carefully at those running for political office.

Now, he did not mention Democrat or Republican, he did not mention anything of that nature or the name of the candidates. But what he did was to issue this pastoral letter. And then Barry Lynn, who is the leader of the Americans for Separation of Church and State, noted in his letter of complaint to the Internal Revenue Service that Bishop Sheridan used ``code words.'' Code words like pro-choice, pro-life, liberal, conservative, Democrat or Republican.

Mr. Speaker, this bothers me in this great Nation that we would have an agency that because of the Johnson amendment is to enforce the law, but this was not part of the Johnson amendment. There is nothing in the Johnson amendment that talks about code words. That was an administrative decision by the Internal Revenue Service that if you as a religious leader, whether you be Protestant, Catholic, Jew, or Muslim, if you have these types of sermons and you might mention these words like pro-life or pro-choice, then you could have your 501(c)(3) status jeopardized.

Mr. Speaker, I am of the firm belief that this Nation, I do not believe that

my colleagues on either side of the aisle, whether they are religious or nonreligious, believe that we should have code words that someone who is speaking from the heart, speaking from the Bible might get themselves in trouble because they are advocating what the church stands for, what their religion stands for.

So, Mr. Speaker, I tonight want to work toward my close by saying that I hope that we as a legislative body will look seriously at this issue. I do not know if the House will bring this bill up that I introduced, H.R. 235; but I believe sincerely that prior to 1954, every preacher in this country, every rabbi in this country, every priest in this country, every cleric in this country had the right to speak on these issues and to speak based on the Constitution and based on the teachings of their religion.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I would like to say that I hope that the men and women who have worn the uniform for this Nation, those who have given their lives for this Nation, I believe sincerely that they believe that our spiritual leaders in this great Nation do have freedom of speech; but when it comes to the moral and political issues of the day, they do not have freedom of speech. So I hope that again the leadership of both parties will work with me to restore that freedom of speech. It only means that a minister or a priest or a rabbi or a cleric, if they choose to talk about these issues, may do so.

I close by asking God to please bless our men and women in uniform and their families and please, God, bless America.

A Pastoral Letter to the Catholic Faithful of the Diocese of Colorado

Springs on the Duties of Catholic Politicians and Voters

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ: This coming November

we Americans will participate in one of the most important

national elections in recent history. The president, senators

and congressmen who are placed in office by our votes will

serve at a time in which issues that are critical to the very

survival of our civilization will be at the top of the

political agenda. As we prepare for these elections I

consider it my duty as your bishop to write to you about

these matters so that you might go to the polls this fall

with a well-informed conscience.

The Church teaches that ``man has the right to act in

conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral

decisions.'' Often we hear people claim that they are making

decisions in accord with conscience even when those decisions

defy the natural law and the revealed teachings of Jesus

Christ. This is because of a widespread misunderstanding of

the very meaning of conscience. For many, conscience is no

more than personal preference or even a vague sense or

feeling that something is right or wrong, often based on

information drawn from sources that have nothing to do with

the law of God.

The right judgment of conscience is not a matter of

personal preference nor has it anything to do with feelings.

It has only to do with objective truth. ``Conscience must be

informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed

conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its

judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true

good willed by the wisdom of the Creater. The education of

conscience is indispensable for human beings who are

subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer

their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.''

All people have a grave obligation to form their

consciences by adhering to the truth, precisely as that truth

is found in the natural law and in the revelation of God. As

Catholics we have the further obligation to give assent to

the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Church because ``to

the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to

announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the

social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to

the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights

of the human person or the salvation of souls.'' In other

words, as people who profess the Catholic faith, we must

``have the mind of Christ'' in every judgment and act.

Among the many distortions and misrepresentations that

prevail in the current debates about the relationship between

religion and the social order (politics) is the assertion

that faith and policies are to the kept separated. This,

apparently, is based upon the American doctrine of the

separation of church and state. In fact, the wall that

separates church and state is the safeguard against both the

establishment of a state religion and the imposition or

sectarian religious beliefs and practices, such as particular

denominational forms of worship or theological tenets. In no

way does the American doctrine of separation of church and

state even suggest that the well-formed consciences of

religious people should not be brought to bear on their

political choices.

The Second Vatican Council was abundantly clear on this

matter. ``Nor, on the contrary, are they any less wide of the

mark who think that religion consists in acts of worship

alone and in the discharge of certain moral obligations, and

who imagine they can plunge themselves into earthly affairs

in such a way as to imply that these are altogether divorced

from the religious life. This split between the faith which

many profess and their daily lives deserves to be counted

among the more serious errors of our age. Long since, the

Prophets of the Old Testament fought vehemently against this

scandal and even more so did Jesus Christ Himself in the New

Testament threaten it with grave punishments. Therefore, let

there be no false opposition between professional and social

activities on the one part, and religious life on the

other.''

When Catholics are elected to public office or when

Catholics go to the polls to vote, they take their

consciences with them. Pope John Paul II has consistently

taught this as, for example, when he said that those who are

directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a ``grave and

clear obligation to oppose'' any law that attacks human life.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has declared

that, ``in this context, it must be noted also that a well-

formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a

political program or an individual law which contradicts the

fundamental contents of faith and morals.'' Anyone who

professes the Catholic faith with his lips while at the same

time publicly supporting legislation or candidates that defy

God's law makes a mockery of that faith and belies his

identity as a Catholic.

In November we will once again have the privilege of

exercising our most precious right as citizens--the right to

vote. Our choices will be made from among an array of

candidates who take a variety of positions with regard to

many important issues. In the midst of what could be a

difficult and confusing exercise it is very important to

remember that not all issues are of equal gravity. As men and

women of good will we strive to achieve true justice for all

people and to preserve their rights as human beings. There

is, however, one right that is ``inalienable'', and that is

the RIGHT TO LIFE. This is the FIRST right. This is the right

that grounds all other human rights. This is the issue that

trumps all other issues.

The November elections will be critical in the battle to

restore the right to life to all citizens, especially the

unborn and the elderly and infirm. As a result of the pro-

life efforts of countless Americans the number of abortions

performed in our country is now declining for the first time

since the appalling Supreme Court decision of 1973 that made

it ``legal'' to kill our children. We cannot allow the

progress that has been made to be reversed by a pro-abortion

President, Senate or House of Representatives. Neither can we

permit illicit stem cell research that makes use of aborted

babies. Any movement to promote and legalize euthanasia must

be halted. Our votes have the power to stop these

abominations.

There must be no confusion in these matters. Any Catholic

politicians who advocate for abortion, for illicit stem cell

research or for any form of euthanasia ipso facto place

themselves outside full communion with the Church and so

jeopardize their salvation. Any Catholics who vote for

candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research

or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences. It is for

this reason that these Catholics, whether candidates for

office or those who would vote for them, may not receive Holy

Communion until they have recanted their positions and been

reconciled with God and the Church in the Sacrament of

Penance.

In recent months another issue has reached the level of our

legislatures. It is so-called ``same-sex marriage.'' Those

who now promote this deviancy often present it as a human

right denied homosexual persons and thus illegally

discriminating against them. But, in fact, no one has a right

to that which flies in the face of God's own design. Marriage

is not an invention of individuals or even of societies.

Rather it is an element of God's creation. It is God who

created us male and female. It is God who joined man and

women so that they could be fruitful and multiply and fill

the earth. Every civilization known to mankind has understood

marriage as the union of a man and a woman for

the procreation and rearing of children. And yet now, in

21st century America, there are those who would want us to

believe that all people of all times have been mistaken

about the true nature and purpose of marriage. No one can

simply redefine marriage to suit a political or social

agenda.

Once again, we must be clear about this matter. The future

of our world depends upon the strength of the family, the

basic unit of society. The future of the family depends on

the state of marriage. The family--father, mother and

children--reflects the nature of God Himself, who is a

communion of selfless and self-giving love. For this reason

marriage and family life cannot be whatever we want them to

be. They are only and always as God has created them. As in

the matter of abortion, any Catholic politician who would

promote so-called ``same-sex marriage'' and any Catholic who

would vote for that political candidate place themselves

outside the full communion of the Church and may not receive

Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and

been reconciled by the Sacrament of Penance.

The Church never directs citizens to vote for any specific

candidate. The Church does,

however, have the right and the obligation to teach clearly

and fully the objective truth about the dignity and rights of

the human person. These teachings, in turn, must inform the

consciences of voters. ``By its intervention in this area,

the Church's Magisterium does not wish to exercise political

power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics

regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends--as is

its proper function--to instruct and illuminate the

consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in

political life, so that their actions may always serve the

integral promotion of the human person and the common good.''

Dear friends in Christ, I exhort you with all my heart to

take courage and proclaim the Gospel of Life to those who

will stand for elected office this fall. It is by your

prayers and by your votes that politicians who are

unconditionally pro-life and pro-family will serve our

country. Conversely, if our voices remain silent or if, God

forbid, we vote contrary to our informed consciences, we will

see our country led down a short path to ruin. We want

freedom for all, but there can be no freedom without truth.

In the words of our Holy Father: ``When freedom is detached

from objective truth it becomes impossible to establish

personal rights on a firm rational basis; and the ground is

laid for society to be at the mercy of the unrestrained will

of individuals or the oppressive totalitarianism of public

authority.''

Let us all pray for those politicians who claim to be

Catholic yet continue to oppose the law of God and the rights

of persons that, by the grace of God, they will be converted

once again to the full and authentic articulation and

practice of the faith.

Finally, I wish to affirm my brother bishops who have

proclaimed the truth of these critical matters and who have

admonished those Catholic politicians who place themselves at

odds with the truth of God. May that truth which is the

foundation of genuine freedom prevail in our country.

Given at the Chancery on this first day of May 2004, the

Feast of St. Joseph the Worker.

Most Reverend Michael J. Sheridan,

Bishop of Colorado Springs.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman, and I want to say that this debate is always very interesting; and I want to rise in strong opposition to the Kennedy- Snyder amendment. I want to say as a member of the Committee on Armed Services that this was debated and discussed in the committee, and I do not remember anyone raising any opposition in the committee about this language that is in the bill today.

I want to say also that I believe and disagree with the gentleman that just spoke that actually what this one year will do, this 1-year extension will make the process less political and make it more of a streamlined business process where the Congress can really analyze the needs, working with the military, the needs of our defenses. Because this world we live in is very unsafe, and I can say that we will not know until we analyze the needs overseas, the needs here in this country as to what we should do that will be the right decision for the American people and the future defense of America.

Mr. Chairman, again I am in opposition to this amendment, and I hope that we can defeat it at the proper time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia and the gentlewoman from Guam, and I want to thank my friend from Arizona for bringing this resolution to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, it is important, whether we agree or disagree on whether our troops should be in Iraq or not, the fact is they are there. They have families that live in my district, the home of Camp Lejeune, Cherry Point, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base; and I think that probably this year as much as ever if not even more than ever that on Memorial Day we the American people wear the red poppy to show our appreciation and our allegiance to the men and women in uniform and those who have given their sons and their daughters to die for freedom.

I brought with me today on the floor for my couple of minutes the faces of the real. To my left, Mr. Speaker, is a young man whose name is Tyler Jordan. Tyler's father was a gunny sergeant, Phillip Jordan, who was killed last year in Iraq. I bring this to the floor, Mr. Speaker, because this photograph speaks much better than I could ever speak. It shows a young man who is looking at the casket of his father. It is showing a young man who has a folded flag under his arm. These are the faces of the families who have given loved ones from the beginning of this great Nation through and including today.

The other poster, Mr. Speaker, I have outside of my office, 12 of these posters that say ``May We Never Forget.'' The reason for that is why we are here today speaking on behalf of this resolution. The red poppy is a reminder of past wars, of past gifts, of a husband, a wife, a son, or a daughter. This Nation does owe those who have worn the uniform and their families. We should never forget those who wore the uniform for this Nation. We should never forget those who gave their lives.

It so happens that this past Saturday night in my home district, a Reservist, Rodney Murray who died in Iraq 2 weeks ago, I went to visit and I had the chance to speak to the wife, a 24-year-old lady, whose husband, 28, died in Iraq 2 weeks ago. I said, Amanda, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I extend to you my deepest sympathy and my gratitude on behalf of my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, tears came to my eyes. I could not even complete the statement.

I close today by saying to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, please support this resolution, as we will do, and let us not forget as we begin to debate the needs of our retired military and those who have served and their families. God bless America and God bless our men and women in uniform.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. And to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), and he is a friend of mine, I just happen to disagree on this issue because as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) explained, this amendment would not require the use of the troops on the border. It would just give an option to the Department of Defense and Homeland Security.

So this is not mandating that troops be on the border. It is just saying that this is an option.

And in fairness to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), I must say that this is of great concern to the people of this country. In fact, 85 percent of Americans think illegal immigration is a serious problem.

That is why the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) has offered this amendment. We only have, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) spoke to this, about 11,000 Border Patrol that patrol the Mexican border and the Canadian border, the 1,100 agents on the Canadian border and 9,900 agents on the Mexican border. There are a total of 7,000 miles, about 2,000 Mexican miles and 5,000 Canadian miles.

This, again, is not an amendment that people should see as an amendment that is trying to do anything but

help the national security of this Nation. This has nothing to do with people that want to come to this country legally. They will be welcome, as always. This has to do with people that want to come, either through the Canadian or Mexican border, to this country illegally.

I must say that this is a time when we are at war with terrorists over in Afghanistan, Iraq and other parts of the world. We know that there is a presence of terrorists down in Central and South America. We know this for a fact.

So I think, if anything, this amendment should be seen as it is: it is an option for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, should they come together and decide it is necessary to help secure the boarders, so we can protect the American people from possible threats from terrorists or narco-terrorists or anyone that might want to come to this country illegally.

Again, as I close, I want to say that this is an amendment that gives an option, it does not mandate, it gives an option to those who are required to help protect the national security of the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will look at this amendment for what it is.

Mr. Speaker, there are rumors that were coming out of the Pentagon, rumors that I believe are extremely troubling. Outsourcing our military chaplains is a very bad idea.

This is not a new organization, Mr. Speaker. The Navy Chaplain Corps traces its inception to the Second Article of Navy Regulations adopted on November 28 of 1775 by the Continental Congress. This event occurred prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, or the Constitution of September 17, 1787.

From the outset of the Continental Navy, due consideration was given to divine services and the placement of chaplains aboard ships. This Act provided a place for religion and chaplains in the Navy.

Additionally, the United States Army Chaplaincy was officially created by an act of the Continental Congress in July of 1775 upon the urgent request of General George Washington.

Mr. Speaker, the reason I wanted to come to the floor is because these rumors at the Pentagon I hope are nothing more than rumors because I cannot think of anything more important to a man or woman in uniform, whether they be young or old, than to have a chaplain that they feel very close to. And our chaplains wear the uniform. Our chaplains wear the helmet when they are in combat situations.

I would share with you, Mr. Speaker, just two paragraphs of a letter I wrote to Secretary Rumsfeld on April 28, 2004.

``Dear Mr. Secretary, I write to you today to urge you in the strongest of terms to reconsideration your decision to consider outsourcing our military chaplains.

``The service that they provide, not just to soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines, but also their families here at home and overseas, are irreplaceable.''

I also would like to share with you the last paragraph that I wrote to the Secretary: ``One of their most valuable qualities is that they are trained by the individual service that they represent. These men and women are more than just priests, reverends, or rabbis. They are also soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. How can you possibly justify selecting a civilian with absolutely no military experience to advise our troops in the field? Replacing the uniformed chaplain would be a crucial mistake. I hope you will consider these facts before you reach your final decision.''

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell my colleagues that those of us on the Committee on Armed Services, both Republican and Democrat, we are very concerned about this. We have talked to the leadership of the Committee on Armed Services, our subcommittee chairmen, as well as our ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton); and also the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and I believe that we will come together as Republicans and Democrats in the Committee on Armed Services, as well as here on the House floor, to discourage and to deny the decisions, should one be forthcoming from the Department of Defense, to outsource our chaplains. It is just absolutely unacceptable.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will insert the entirety of this letter to Secretary Rumsfeld for the Record at this point.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, April 28, 2004.

Hon. Donald Rumsfeld,

Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Secretary: I write to you today to urge you in the

strongest terms to reconsider your decision to consider

outsourcing our military chaplains. The service they provide

not just the Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines but also

their families here at home and overseas is irreplaceable.

The work of the military chaplain is multi-faceted in that

they serve the troops in the field but equally as important,

their wives and families supporting them on the home front.

The military chaplain, regardless of service shares a common

bond with their fellow soldier in the field, regardless of

their religion, they are brothers-in-arms.

This work is not new either. For example, The Navy Chaplain

Corps traces its inception to the Second Article of Navy

Regulations adopted on November 28, 1775 by the Continental

Congress. This event occurred prior to the signing of the

Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, or the

Constitution on September 17, 1787. From the outset of the

Continental Navy, due consideration was given to divine

services and the placement of chaplains aboard ships. This

act provided a place for religion and chaplains in the Navy.

Additionally, the United States Army Chaplaincy was

officially created by an act of the Continental Congress in

July of 1775 upon the urgent request of General George

Washington.

I would like to share with you part of a personal account

that I recently received from a chaplain serving in Iraq:

``Twice a day I go to the `Cave' . . . the combat operations

center, which is housed in a former palace, poorly lit and

the hub of fighting the battle. I stand in the corner and

pray for each person/position and those they represent. I

don't know many of them, but God does. I pray for wisdom,

strength, mercy, endurance and God's presence for each

warrior, all those they serve or represent. I cover the Cave

and the battlefield as I look at live imagery projected on

the wall. I don't know how the Marines do it . . . but the

COC is loaded with strake-looking Marines. The senior NCO's

all look like NFL lineman. The junior officers look like

marathon runners and the mid-grade officers look like NFL

halfbacks . . . the senior officers are lean, tanned and

serious . . . deadly serious. The place exudes the warrior

spirit. If you are a civilian I can't explain it and won't

apologize for it. If you are a veteran you don't need to have

it explained . . . the warrior spirit.''

Mr. Secretary, you must understand, these chaplains provide

so much more than spiritual guidance. They are counselors and

confidantes to those who have witnessed first-hand the

horrors of war. This service does not stop at the warfront;

their fellow chaplains are providing the exact same service

to those who mourn the recent loss of a loved one in this

conflict. You need to understand the severity of this

decision, their presence in the field, on ships and on base

are necessities.

One of their most valuable qualities is that they are

trained by the individual service that they represent. These

men and women are more than just Priests, Reverends or

Rabbis, they are also Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines,

how can you possibly justify selecting a civilian with

absolutely no military experience to advise our troops in the

field? Replacing the uniformed chaplain would be a crucial

mistake, I hope you will consider these facts before you

reach your final decision.

Thank you for your consideration, I look forward to hearing

your decision on this matter.

Sincerely,

Walter B. Jones,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I close this way because all of us in the House know that we have men and women overseas serving this great Nation in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other parts of the world who have given their lives for this country.

I close by asking God to please bless our men and women in uniform and their families. I ask God in His loving arms to hold the families who have given precious children dying for freedom. I ask God to please bless the House and Senate. I ask the good Lord three times, please God, please God, please God, continue to bless and save America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), my colleague, for yielding me this time, and I want to thank him for introducing this resolution 598. Again, I appreciate the fact that we will come together and vote on this resolution today as both Republicans and Democrats, because these schools, these DOD schools are exceptional in many ways.

I want to just touch on my personal experience down at Camp Lejeune. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) said, to have Camp Lejeune, Cherry Point, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in my district. In Camp Lejeune, for the 10 years I have been in office, I have had many occasions to go visit the schools at Camp Lejeune, both elementary schools and senior high schools.

As fate would have it, shortly after the decision to go into Iraq, I had the opportunity to speak to the seniors in the auditorium, and I could tell that some of those young people, their faces, you could tell that they had parents who had already been deployed overseas, and I spoke to them and tried to encourage them to tell them how much we in Congress on both sides of the aisle appreciate the commitment their parents have made to this great Nation.

I mention that for this reason: I found when I was there that day that there is a special bonding among the teachers and the administration and the students at these DOD schools, this one in particular at Camp Lejeune, that there is an environment there that is cohesive to the situation that these young people are finding themselves in because their parents have been deployed. One parent, in some cases, it was 2 parents, quite frankly, who had been overseas defending freedom in Iraq and also for the American people.

There is one thing that I always wonder, is why, when something is working so well, why the Federal agency, in this case, the Department of Defense, wants, to study and see what the future of the schools needs to be? That is why I was so pleased that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) introduced this resolution, and again, both sides are supporting the resolution.

These schools are exceptional. These young people, time after time, when

they take national tests, the students at the DOD schools are really doing as well, if not better, in most cases, than even the public schools. I am not here to compare one school to another school, but the record speaks for itself. These young kids at the DOD schools excel when it comes to these national tests.

Also, I was touched that I had the privilege to visit the children at Camp Lejeune with special needs. I never will forget a little girl that met me in the hall when I was speaking to the teachers, and she held my hand as we walked to her class. I had a chance to observe and to talk to the teacher and to the assistant teacher as to the fine work they are doing with children with special needs at our DOD schools, again, this is Camp Lejeune.

So my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) and the others, both Democrat and Republican who are on the floor today, to say thank you to our teachers, to our principals, and to our administrators at these DOD schools, we very much appreciate the great job they are doing.

I do say, Mr. Speaker, God bless our men and women in uniform and their families and God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, last Monday was a sad day for Eastern North Carolinians and America as a whole. On November 10, 2003, North Carolina lost her oldest living Veteran, Robert Hodges. When Mr. Hodges passed away, he was 115.

I had the privilege of meeting Mr. Hodges at an event in his hometown just a few years ago. Even in the brief interaction I shared with this living legend, I was struck by his sharp mind and vitality. I can still remember Mr. Hodges singing ``Over There'' so beautifully . . . he was so lucid, his voice so clear, you would never have believed he was celebrating his 114th birthday.

Born June 18, 1888, Mr. Hodges was not only North Carolina's oldest living veteran, he was one of America's longest living war heroes as well.

Mr. Hodges had a phenomenal story. He was born in North Carolina's first official town, Bath. The grandson of slaves, Mr. Hodges shared a three-room house with his parents and 9 siblings.

He worked the fields in rural Eastern North Carolina until 1918. At the age of 20, Mr. Hodges enlisted in the Army and went on to serve in France during World War I.

After World War I, Hodges returned to North Carolina and married Malinda. The couple enjoyed 70 years together until her death at the age of 92.

Mr. Hodges and his wife raised 7 children on their farm in Pamlico County, where Mr. Hodges worked until his poor eyesight forced him into retirement. The Hodges family still calls the Pamlico area home, with his surviving children living in Stonewall and New Bern.

He was honored in 2002 with North Carolina's Order of the Longleaf Pine, the state's highest civilian order.

While Mr. Hodges most certainly leaves behind an amazing personal and military history, I must say that in my opinion, the most significant legacy this hero left behind is a pure and stalwart love of Jesus Christ. Last year Mr. Hodges was quoted as saying, ``What I figure on is anything you can do for the Lord is all right.''

Despite all his honors and all the attention he had showered on him through the years, Mr. Hodges always kept his heart in check. He knew that in the end, he would take nothing with him when he left this world.

More important than all the military medals and awards was the love of Jesus.

I believe wholeheartedly that the secret of Mr. Hodges long life was love of family and love of the Lord.

That is why I'm confident that when Mr. Hodges closed his eyes to this world, he opened them in Heaven. And that, Mr. Speaker, is a reward well earned by Mr. Hodges' life lived by faith. From battlefield to his front porch, Mr. Hodges did it all for the glory of the Lord.

I stand today in remembrance of this military hero and godly man. May God bless his soul, and the family he left behind.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Coast Guard is our Nation's fifth military service. Since their founding in 1790 as the Revenue Cutter Service, the USCG has served our Nation in peace and war. The Coast Guard fought pirates off the coast of Virginia in 1793, engaged British Warships in the War of 1812, piloted ships ashore during the D-day invasion, and deployed 8,000 personnel to Southeast Asia during Vietnam. Most recently during Operation Iraqi Freedom, more than 1,250 Coasties deployed to the Persian Gulf to protect sea-lanes, guard ports, and clear mines for Coalition ships.

The Commandant of the Coast Guard, like his Department of Defense counterparts, is the fourstar senior military officer responsible for providing advice to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the President on matters under his jurisdiction. Also like the other service chiefs, the Commandant of the Coast Guard is called to testify before Congress on the operation of that service. However, despite the

similarities in service and sacrifice, that is one area where the Commandant of the Coast Guard is distinct from his peers.

Current law allows that the chiefs of the other services; Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, may provide personal considerations to members of Congress if requested to do so (10 U.S.C. 151(f)); however, the Coast Guard Commandant does not have this privilege. The advice received from the other service chiefs has been invaluable in ensuring that Congress provides the proper resources and legislative support. At a time when the Coast Guard is engaged a wide range of military operations abroad and homeland defense missions at home, that advice is even more important.

It is for that reason, that I am introducing this simple legislation. The bill, first brought to my attention by the Fleet Reserve Association, would give the Commandant of the Coast Guard the authority to make such recommendations to Congress relating to the Coast Guard as the Commandant considers appropriate. It does not mandate unsolicited recommendations, nor dictate the nature of those recommendations. Instead it simply provides the Commandant of the Coast Guard the same authority provided to the heads of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. I would encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to ensure that the Coast Guard remains true to its motto--Semper Paratus--or Always Ready.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) from the Democratic side and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) from the Republican side are doing. I want to explain as to some of the speeches I have heard tonight. This is an effort; I go back myself. I hate to talk about myself, but for 2 years I have been trying to get this death gratuity tax removed. In fairness to the leadership, both Democrat and Republican, we have passed to the Senate, five times over 2 years, a bill, a larger bill than this bill, that would have removed the death gratuity and also some of the other issues that would have been fair to our military as it relates to tax fairness that the gentleman from Texas, my friend, mentioned. I do not know about the recent bill, but the bills that we passed in the

last five times in the last 2 years would have accomplished some of these considerations for our men and women in uniform.

I just want to mention very quickly that this year, and I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my bill dealt with removing the death gratuity 2 years ago; but it was $6,000. That was the cap on the death gratuity amount. I am glad that the McGovern bill and the Renzi bill both move it up to $12,000. It is what it should be. But for me, when I started this effort 2 years ago, I say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), it dealt with eliminating the death gratuity tax.

So again I want to say that I am pleased tonight that we are all, both Republican and Democrat, believing that the military tax fairness bill that has been sent over a few months ago has not been taken up by the Senate side, and I do not know the status on this side of a second bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for correcting me. I was mistaken about the Senate's action and I stand corrected. I will say, and then I will yield back the balance of my time, because I think even though we all have our reasons for feeling that some action has not been taken and possibly, I will say this, that I believe that we all, in a bipartisan way, support our men and women in uniform, we support their families, and we want to make sure that those who have given their lives for this country that the families are adequately compensated; not that there is enough, quite frankly, to pay those who have given their lives for this country.

Mr. Speaker, I am back on the floor again. This is my fourth or fifth week of coming down at least one time a week to remind the leadership of the House, both Republican and Democrat, that each and every time a man or woman dies for this country, whether it be in training or in Iraq or Afghanistan, when the family not only buries that loved one, the next year they will receive a tax from Uncle Sam on a small amount of money called a death gratuity. It is $6,000.

I have a bill in, and it is my second year of introducing legislation to eliminate that tax. It was put on by mistake in the early 1990s; but since that time, everyone in uniform that has died for this country, whether peacetime or wartime, the families have paid the gift of that child who died for freedom, particularly now in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Behind me are the faces of those, just a few, who have given their lives for America. Outside of my office, 422 Cannon, we update each and every week the faces of those who have given their lives.

It touches one's heart to see people walking down the hall stop to take a moment to look into the faces of those who have died for freedom. That is the purpose of honoring those who have given their lives and families, by having people never forget there is an expensive cost for freedom, and that is the lives of those who have given their lives for this great Nation. I am hopeful that the leadership will be bringing legislation to the floor that will reduce and eliminate that tax on the death gratuity.

Mr. Speaker, I show this photograph of a young man whose name is Tyler Jordan. Tyler is from Connecticut. His father was Marine Gunnery Sergeant Philip Jordan. This was one of the shots I saw in the newspaper that touched my heart so much that I contacted the photographer and asked him to buy this photograph. This young man is 6 years old. He has the American flag under his arm which draped his father's coffin, and he is looking at the coffin holding his father.

The reason I keep bringing this to the floor along with these other photographs is because this Congress cannot leave this year without passing legislation to eliminate the tax on the death gratuity. For this young man and his family to receive a bill from Uncle Sam in 2004 to pay the tax on the gift of his father, and the husband and son, it just does not make any sense.

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) and I have been working on this issue, and I have been told that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) will be bringing legislation to the floor that will increase the death gratuity and also eliminate the tax. I am pleased to say that I know that every Member of Congress on both sides of the aisle will join us in passing the legislation and send it to the other body, and plead with the other body to please pass the same legislation and send it to the President before we end this year. It is wrong and unacceptable that any family that gives a loved one to this Nation for freedom would be sent a bill from Uncle Sam. I am pleased that I have been told that there will be legislation coming to the floor that will eliminate the tax and also will raise the death gratuity.

Mr. Speaker, we must remember that these men and women who have given their lives for this country, that the families have given enough and they need not give any more to Uncle Sam.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I close by asking God to please bless our men and women in uniform, please bless their families, for God to please hold in his loving arms those who have given a loved one for freedom. I ask God to please bless the young men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the House and Senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of the Lord. I ask God to please give the President of the United States wisdom, courage, and strength to do what is right.

Mr. Speaker, I close by asking three times, please God, please God, please God, please God continue to bless America.