Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Members can see beside me and behind me are photographs of men and women who have died in Operation Freedom; and the reason I come to the floor with these photographs, I do not want us as Members of Congress to ever forget, not that we ever would, the high cost of freedom, because someone has given a life to ensure that the American people as well as the people of Iraq can have the freedom that we in America are guaranteed by our Constitution.

The reason I wanted to come to the floor is because many of my colleagues, as well as people throughout this country, do not realize that each and every family that has a loved one killed in the military receives what is called a death gratuity. It is a small amount of money, I do not think it is enough, but it is a check for $6,000. What makes it even worse than the amount is a tax on part of the $6,000.

In the 107th Congress, I introduced legislation to eliminate the tax, and let me say that the House did its job in a bipartisan way and passed the legislation, sent it over to the other body and they failed to act on that legislation. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, families throughout this country, actually 292 military families, had to pay a tax on the death gratuity they received on the death of a loved one serving this Nation and possibly fighting for freedom.

Mr. Speaker, if the other body does not pass this legislation that we have sent over there again this year, meaning 2003, very possibly in 2004 there could be as many as 200 to 300 families in this country that will receive from Uncle Sam a notice that they owe tax on the death gratuity. I think this is unacceptable. I think it is deplorable that any family that would give a loved one to serve this Nation who has given their life to protect freedom would next year receive a tax notice from Uncle Sam.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is unacceptable. I think the other body needs to do its job and pass legislation to ensure that in the year 2004 the families who lose loved ones serving this Nation will not have to pay a tax on a $6,000 death gratuity. I think we as Congress must ensure that the families who have lost those loved ones will not be asked by Uncle Sam to pay a tax on the small amount of $6,000 for that loved one who has given their life. I close by encouraging the other body to do its job and not leave this fall and not have passed this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I close as I always do in my district, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform, I ask God to please bless their families, I ask God to please bless the families who have lost loved ones, I ask God to please bless the House and Senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of God, I ask God to please bless the President of the United States that he will do what is right in the eyes of God, and I ask three times, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a public servant who has given a great deal not only to his home state of North Carolina, but to his country as a whole.

Since 1969, Mr. A. Lance Emory has been a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). In August, Mr. Lance will retire from the FBI.

He leaves behind a legacy of great achievements and his departure will create quite a void in our nation's highly revered investigative bureau.

A. Lance Emory was born on June 6, 1946 in Greensboro, North Carolina. He graduated from the University of Miami in 1968 with a bachelor's degree in education. He completed his graduate studies in business at Iona College in New Rochelle, New York.

Beginning his career as a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in December 1969, his first assignment was the Springfield office in Illinois where he investigated general criminal matters. Just two years later he was transferred to New York City. Mr. Emory spent six busy years investigating organized crime and drug matters in the FBI office in New York.

In 1977, Mr. Emory was transferred back home to the Tarheel state where he joined the Charlotte office. While in Charlotte, he continued investigating organized crime/drug matters and gained extensive experience in the use of undercover techniques.

In 1983, Mr. Emory received the United States Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service for his investigative accomplishments.

In 1985, as a Supervisory Special Agent, Mr. Emory oversaw the Organized Crime, Drug, Interstate Theft and Government Crime programs. He is recognized as a subject matter expert in the organized crime/drug arena and has represented the FBI in numerous forums.

A short tour in the Legal Attache's office in Canberra, Australia followed . . . and that time abroad would lead to an international assignment for Mr. Emory.

In June 1995, Mr. Emory began his assignment as the Assistant Legal Attache in London. His primary responsibilities were for FBI operations in the Nordic countries.

In August 1999, Mr. Emory assumed his present position as Legal Attache London.

When not travelling the world as a world class FBI associate, Mr. Emory tries to find time to work on his golf game as so many North Carolinians do. When not on the links, he spends as much time as he can with his lovely wife, the former Susan Lierk of Alliance, Nebraska.

It is with a sincere heart that I rise today to thank Mr. Emory for his great service for our nation.

Lance Emory, I salute you for your dedication to your country and to the FBI. May God bless you and your wife as you begin your next adventure together. May you wake each morning and enjoy the immense amount of time you now have together . . . and may this new journey be just as exhilarating.

Thank you, Lance Emory. From all of us.

Mr. Speaker, to my left are photographs of just a few of the men and women that were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last year and a half. And the reason I came to the floor is because we passed the House in a very bipartisan way legislation to bring some tax relief to our men and women in uniform, and I came to the floor because the other body has not taken this legislation up.

I happen to have a bill, H.R. 693, it is called the Military Death Gratuity Improvement Act of 2003. A lot of people do not know this throughout this country, but every time a man or woman in uniform, whether it is wartime or non-wartime, is killed, the family gets what is called a death gratuity. Quite frankly it is not enough, but it is $6,000 that is given to the family. In 1991 they raised the death gratuity from $3,000 to $6,000, but they failed to take the tax off $3,000. So therefore at the end of the year the family who has lost a loved one fighting for freedom to protect us and this great Nation will probably get a tax bill from the IRS. And I must say, Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely unacceptable that this Congress would allow the family of a deceased man or woman in uniform who has died fighting for this country to get a bill from Uncle Sam saying they owe a tax on a small amount of money, $6,000.

So I wanted to come to the floor tonight because I have three bases in my district, Camp Lejeune Marine Base and Cherry Point Marine Station and also Seymour Johnson Air Force Base; and I have a great affection for our men and women in uniform, all services, not just those that I named, the Marines and Air Force, but all. And, again, I think that as we debate these large issues here in Washington, and they are very important issues no matter which side of the political aisle one is on, the least we can do is to take this tax off for the family who has lost a loved one fighting for freedom in Iraq, fighting in Operation Enduring Freedom, and I just hope that the other body, Mr. Speaker, very soon will pass this legislation, not just the bill I put in, which is part of a bigger package, but we need to make sure that in the year 2004 when the families who have lost loved ones receive their tax bill that they are not going to see a tax on the death gratuity that was given to family.

So, Mr. Speaker, I must say as I begin to close that my staff, and I want to compliment my staff, we have a photograph outside my office of everyone that has died in this fight for freedom in Operation Freedom in Iraq and also those that were killed in Afghanistan. So I hope, and again I am being repetitious but I do not apologize for it, that the Senate will do their job and make sure that the family that receives not only the notice that their son or daughter has given their life for this great Nation but also to make sure that at the end of the year that family does not receive a notice from Uncle Sam that they owe a tax on $6,000.

So, Mr. Speaker, I close the way I do all over my district. I ask God to please bless the men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the families of those who have men and women in uniform. And I ask God to please in his loving arms hold the families who have lost loved ones dying for freedom, and I ask God to please bless the House and Senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of God. I ask God to bless the President, that he will have the strength and the wisdom to lead this great Nation. And I ask three times, God, please, God, please, God, please continue to bless America.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) for being on the floor tonight and allowing me to be part of this because I think, as both have said, this is not a political partisan issue, because we have on my colleague's bill numerous Republicans and Democrats who have joined to open markets up to the citizens, not just senior citizens, but they are the first in our mind, but citizens that can buy drugs at a much cheaper price and still have the same quality.

I must tell my colleagues, I represent the 3rd Congressional District of North Carolina. It is a great district for me to represent, and every time I do a town meeting, I am not kidding you, for the last 3 years they have said to me, Congressman, what are y'all going to do in Washington to help bring the costs down? I am talking about senior citizens who are 65 and 70 and 80, and many of these people truthfully are living on a very small amount of money, Social Security and what they might receive from Medicare.

It bothers me to know that we who are sent here by the people, and they trust us to do what is right, and many times politics gets such that we have people that participate in the process, which is good that we do, not just voting, but also contributing to candidates and to parties, and I am afraid that this issue really has gotten bottled up into an area that concerns me greatly.

If I might take just a moment, and then I will yield back to the gentleman from Illinois. We have a dear friend that came with us in 1994. That was the year that the Republicans took over the House. His name is Tom Coburn. He is an M.D., and Tom retired 3 or 4 years ago, and quite frankly, we miss him if he should be watching tonight. We miss him in many ways.

But as my colleagues well know, both you gentlemen know that certain prolife groups have gotten involved in this issue who are opposed to your legislation, and I hate to say it, but I am afraid there might be some outside group helping them fight your legislation. I will let you and the gentleman from Illinois maybe pick up on that in a minute, but let me read, and I will submit this entire letter for the Record, but I want to read two paragraphs very quickly.

This is to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht). It says: ``Dear Gil: I was shocked to learn that some opponents of free-market access for prescription drugs have begun arguing that your legislation, H.R. 2427, the `Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003,' somehow promotes abortion and, more specifically, the availability of abortion drugs such as RU-486.''

Second paragraph and last one, ``As you may recall, while in the House I was the author of not only provisions to permit the reimportation of FDA-approved drugs, but also the author of the House- approved proposal to block FDA approval of RU-486.''

Tom Coburn again, ``As a prolife practicing physician who earned a 100 percent prolife voting record while serving in Congress, I find it ludicrous that those who oppose your legislation would resort to ad hominem attacks with no basis in reality.''

I will insert the entire letter at this point.

July 10, 2003.

Hon. Gil Gutknecht,

Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Gil: I was shocked to learn that some opponents of

free-market access for prescription drugs have begun arguing

that your legislation, H.R. 2427, the ``Pharmaceutical Market

Access Act of 2003'' somehow promotes abortion and, more

specifically, the availability of abortion drugs such as RU-

486.

As you may recall, while in the House I was the author of

not only provisions to permit the reimportation of FDA-

approved drugs, but also the author of the House-approved

proposal to block FDA approval of RU-486. As a pro-life

practicing physician who earned a 100 percent pro-life voting

record while serving in Congress, I find it ludicrous that

those who oppose your legislation would resort to ad hominem

attacks with no basis in reality.

I can state unequivocally that your legislation in no way,

shape, or form promotes abortion. (Many pro-life members are

original cosponsors of your legislation and, quite obviously,

do not believe your bill violates their deeply held

convictions about the sanctity of life.) Those who argue that

your legislation makes abortion drugs more accessible by

lowering overall drug prices necessitate the conclusion that

in order to be pro-life one must be in favor of increasing

all drug costs. I suppose the argument would be the higher

the drug costs the more fervent your pro-life beliefs.

In Washington, it was always sad to see organizations drift

from their core principles

and take positions that defied common sense and logic. Any

organization that links your legislation with the abortion

debate will, in the long-term, undermine their credibility

and relevancy in Washington. While the pharmaceutical

industry has produced many wonderful life-saving drugs, it

would be unwise for anyone to believe that the industry that

developed and fought for FDA approval of RU-486 is now

motivated by a passion for the pro-life cause.

The fact that opponents of your legislation have resorted

to these attacks is shameful, yet the obtuseness of their

logic ultimately serves to highlight the soundness of your

argument.

Sincerely yours,

Tom A. Coburn, M.D.,

Former Member of Congress.

I want to share that with you and Mr. Emanuel just to say that this is a very critical, vital issue to the senior citizens and also the people of this country who must have drugs to have a quality of life.

Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues will yield, I would say that the comments of both these gentlemen are correct. Free markets are more powerful than armies, and I think my colleague's quote from former President Ronald Reagan, and everything else that has been said tonight by my friend, is so true. The whole thing is that this is a critical issue to so many people throughout this country and we need to do what is right. The right thing to do is to look at the gentleman's bill, put this bill on the floor, let it be debated, let it pass or fail, but do not bottle this bill up. Too many people throughout this country need this relief.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, and I yield back to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce to you the TREA Senior Citizens League and its new leadership.

The TREA Senior Citizens League (TSCL) is a national group of politically active seniors concerned about the protection of their earned Social Security, Medicare, military, and other retirement benefits. TSCL originated as a group of retired enlisted servicemen and women. TSCL is among the largest seniors groups with over 1.2 million active members. It is a non-partisan, non-profit educational and advocacy organization.

Key issues for TSCL include Social Security COLA fairness; using a separate CPI-E consumer price index for the elderly to calculate COLA for seniors; Notch reform; and a fair medicare and prescription drug coverage. One of the main issues continues to center on Notch reform and providing either a lump sum benefit over four years or an improved benefit calculation for those individuals born in the years 1917-1926. It is also important to ensure that future generations do not receive lower benefits because of the year in which they were born or because of government miscalculations in the Social Security system.

Since 2001 TSCL has been under the leadership of Board of Trustees Chairman George Smith with board members Ms. Dottie Holmes, Mr. Fred Athans, Mr. Richard Brogan, and more recently Mr. Ralph McCutchen. The elected TSCL Board of Trustees is a volunteer board governing the organization. Retirees and near-retirees make up the board and volunteer their services with the goal of improving the lives of fellow seniors. It was a pleasure for me to meet with their fine Board of Trustees Members List October at their offices in Alexandria, Virginia.

Under the forward-looking leadership of George Smith, the organization is determined to gain greater credibility and respectability both in Congress and in the country as a whole. In this regard Chairman Smith is to be commended for enlisting my good friend and former colleague in Congress Former Ambassador David Funderburk as TSCL's Legislative Consultant.

The legislative program for the organization for the 108th Congress includes plans for personal meetings with over half of the Members of Congress to try to gain support for issues of interest to seniors and TSCL members. TSCL efforts in these tasks have been boosted by the recent scholarly study of noted economist Dr. John Haldi that verifies the viability of the Notch. The organization has an active website, newsletter and direct mail communication with its members.

Just in the first half of 2003, TSCL has hosted a press conference in the Capitol, and worked with Members of Congress and the White House on the prescription drug issue. A Dear Colleague letter from six Members of Congress has introduced the organization and its issues to the whole Congress. Several Members of the House and Senate have recently contributed articles on seniors issues to the TSCL newsletter: The Social Security & Medicare Advisor. And I am pleased to say that TSCL strongly supports my bill: The Social Security Guarantee Act.

Since Mr. Smith took over leadership of the TSCL Board of Trustees he has brought a seriousness of purpose and a determination to build credibility and respect for the organization. He insisted that the group's educational efforts through direct mail be well researched and documented. As Chairman Smith says, TSCL does not sell anything. Rather it strives to educate the public about issues important to senior citizens. Since so many of them have served their country in the military and in so many other ways, they are especially deserving of fair treatment.

When Mr. Smith one day completes his voluntary stint as Chairman of the TSCL Board of Trustees he should be able to say that he has left the organization much better off than he found it. He is to be commended for his vision and his desire to help some of the most worthy and needy of all of our citizens: our senior citizens including many who served the military and fought for their country. I am happy to pay tribute to the organization and its leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit this letter to the Editor for the Congressional Record.

The letter was written by a man for whom I have endless respect my friend Ray Flynn, the President of the American Catholic Alliance, former Mayor of Boston and U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican.

Like myself, Ambassador Flynn believes strongly in fighting for increased human rights and religious freedom throughout the world.

I support Ambassador Flynn and the entire American Catholic Alliance in their efforts to right the wrongs in Cuba.

I would like to enter this document from Ambassador Flynn, entitled, ``Human Rights in Cuba'' for the Record.

Human Rights in Cuba

Dear Editor: Pope John Paul II publicly released a letter

that the Vatican sent to Fidel Castro a couple of weeks ago

expressing dismay at Cuba's crackdown on political dissent.

The pope personally appealed to Castro to show leniency

with dissidents recently given harsh prison sentences and

denounced the execution of the men who seized a ferry to

reach the United States.

The letter, which was signed by the Vatican Secretary of

State Angelo Cardinal Sodano, stated in part, ``The Holy

Father felt deeply pained when he learned of the harsh

sentences recently imposed on numerous Cuban citizens. And

even, for some of them, the death penalty.'' Thus far, Castro

has not acknowledged the letter.

Speaking at a political luncheon in Boston and also later

on MSNBC national television on Saturday, I said, ``Castro

has a human rights record of shame. He has oppressed and

persecuted many Cubans including those in the Catholic Church

and priests whose only objective was to teach the world about

God.'' The U.S. Government and the international community

have closed their eyes to this injustice and terror in Cuba

for forty years.

Cuba sits only ninety miles off the United States coast,

but it continues to be one of the world's worst violators of

human rights. When you see what has been happening in Cuba

these many years, you have to be concerned about whether we

have lost our moral compass. Our government policy of looking

the other way when it comes to human rights abuses must be

changed. When members of the U.S. Congress visit Castro in

the future, they should demand that the Cuban leader

recognize and respect the God given rights of all

individuals. Our policy in Cuba has been a failure. Economic

boycotts and expanding business opportunities have not

worked.

Pope John Paul II has been a clear and consistent moral

voice on human rights issues throughout the world, but the

international community must be equally committed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I want to thank the chairman of this committee and the ranking member for working with me on H.R. 1799, the Fallen Heroes Immigrant Spouse Fairness Act.

Mr. Speaker, this came to my attention when I attended the funeral of a Marine who was killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. His name was Michael

Bitz. Sergeant Bitz was married to a lady, Janina Bitz, who was from Australia, and at the time we were concerned with the fact that he had lost his life, that his wife might have to start the process again of becoming a naturalized citizen.

When I attended the funeral down at Camp Lejeune of Sergeant Bitz, I met Pat Millush, the military liaison to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Service at Camp Lejeune. Pat said to me the immigrant spouses of military personnel were treated unfairly under current immigration law.

By knowing that, Mr. Speaker, I decided that I would put this legislation in that would allow the spouse of a member of the military who had lost their life, whether it be in war or by accident or in training, that if they had not reached that 2-year period of time, that they would still be able to continue the naturalization process without being penalized.

I am delighted and want to thank again the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for not only working with me on this issue but other Members who have been named today, because the men and women who serve this great Nation and their families need to be honored; and I think this bill itself is a way to honor those who have given their lives for this great Nation.

Basically what 1799 did, which has been included in this bill, allows the immigrant spouse of military personnel who die as a result of a service-connected injury or disease to continue the immigration process regardless of the number of years of the marriage. Mr. Speaker, I have outside of my office, 422 Cannon, a photograph of everyone who has died in the war for freedom in Iraq, and I am pleased and honored that this committee would accept the language in 1799 and encompass it in this naturalization bill to honor our men and women in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, again, I will close by saying I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the families of the loved ones fighting for freedom; and again, I thank the leadership, the Republican leadership and the Democratic leadership, for this honor that they have given to Michael Bitz who gave his life for America.

Mr. Chairman, may I make a parliamentary inquiry first?

Mr. Chairman, if I need 2 minutes, can I yield back 1 minute? I do not want to take away from the total time. I just need 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment from the gentleman from Virginia, troops on the border. This amendment addresses a national security issue, and it also addresses an economic issue. To my good friends, and they are my good friends, on the other side, the American people want those who want to come to this country by the legal process to come, and they are welcome; but we must remember this country is at war. That war started on September 11 of 2001, and last year we had about 1 million people come to this country illegally, and I agree with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

And maybe the gentleman from Texas's idea is good that we could find a middle ground on this issue, but I will say this, that the people that I have a chance to talk to and to represent are saying to me this Congress and this government, this administration need to do a better job of protecting our borders; and it does not

matter if the borders are America and Canada or America and Mexico. We are talking about this Nation being at war, and we have to do a better job. And I think this amendment that has been proposed is an answer to a real problem; and if this is one way to force an answer, then this amendment is good.

I will say in closing that I have read numerous polls in the last 3 years on this issue, and the American people have said, and said in loud numbers, meaning 80 percent, 85 percent, that we want to see the borders of this great Nation secured. So I compliment the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), and I am going to support this amendment, and I am going to encourage my friends to support this amendment because the American people want our borders to be secure.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. And, again, God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my dear friend from California, Mr. Gallegly, to introduce the Military Family Peace of Mind Act. We believe this is simple, but important legislation for the loved ones of military personnel who have died in the service of our nation.

It goes without saying that the loss of a loved one is difficult no matter what the situation. Despite knowing the potential risks associated with the military service of their family member, the burden can be even more difficult when it occurs suddenly such as when our men and women are killed on the field of battle. Families need time to grieve for their loved ones and that need is particularly acute when the spouse or parent of one of our fallen heroes must tell dependent children of the loss. Unfortunately the process for providing notice to the media about military personnel killed allows for that critical time to grieve.

The current process for notifying next of kin about the loss of their cherished family member falls to the individual services. Once the casualty assistance officer of the respective service notifies the family members, the officer then forwards notice of the visit to the Office of Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, who in turn promptly issues a release to the media identifying the individual. Although this is done with an eye towards providing full and open access to information about military operations as practical, we have heard from family members that this notification has actually resulted in swarms of media harassing family members trying to get a story. One spouse commented that she had had little time to grieve because her entire energies were being spent trying to fend off aggressive press inquiries. The need for open access to information aside, that is no way to respect a family who has just learned that their spouse, son, or daughter was killed while defending our country.

It is true the Department of Defense does not and cannot control the conduct of members of the media, but actions can be taken to help these grieving families. One specific step that can be taken is to implement a minimum 24-hour delay from the time a casualty assistance officer notifies the next of kin about their loss until the time that name is released to the media and the public. A 24-hour delay would not unreasonably impair the public's access to information about military activities, but could provide an immeasurable amount of relief to those who have endured the loss. That is what this bill seeks to do.

Mr. Speaker, these families have already paid the ultimate sacrifice for our country's freedom. A 24-hour waiting period prior to public notification is not too much for the families of our fallen heroes to ask of us.

Mr. Speaker, today is the National Day of Prayer. On the first Thursday of each May, people across our Nation gather together to pray to the God who is the very foundation of this great country. Without any court challenge or liberal protestors to avoid, praying Americans meet on courthouse steps, town squares, and in local parks to praise God for his blessing and ask God to continue to bless America.

This year I can assure my colleagues that millions of prayers will be offered in appreciation for our men and women in uniform who have paid the highest price for our freedom. Yet even as we stand today in prayer for our heroes, there are those who stand against the freedom that we enjoy.

Even though the Founding Fathers spoke of ``Nature's God'' and of the ``Creator'' in the Declaration of Independence, the Federal courts are increasingly trying to drive every vestige of faith from public life. Yesterday, April 30, was the most recent example, coming from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. And I will read from the Boston Globe, which said, ``Judges bar prayer at public colleges. In a precedent- setting ruling against prayer at a State college, a Federal appeals court has barred the Virginia Military Institute from writing and reciting a prayer before cadets eat their evening meals.''

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Citadel, down in South Carolina, is reviewing its policy since that Federal court ruling. And also, Mr. Speaker, I hate to even mention this, but the academy in Annapolis is also reviewing its policy. The American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland is calling on the academy to review its practices of leading the students in prayer.

Mr. Speaker, let me also share with my colleagues that it was just a few months ago that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to have ``under God'' taken from our Pledge of Allegiance.

How much longer will we stand by and allow others to ignore the very God upon whom our Nation was founded? Our Constitution demands the freedom to worship freely; and our future leaders, our men and women in the military academies across the country, are now being denied the very freedom that many have died to ensure for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just sad; it is completely detestable. And on this National Day of Prayer, let us honor our heroes, those who have returned home and those who sacrificed their lives, by standing against those liberals who would seek to challenge their God-given right to pray for a living Lord.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I believe this quote says it best, and it comes from the days of Jefferson and Adams. And the quote is this, Mr. Speaker: ``Religion can survive in the absence of freedom. But freedom without religion is dangerous and unstable.''

Mr. Speaker, I have three military bases in my district, Camp Lejeune, Cherry Point, and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. I want to close by asking God to please bless our men and women in uniform and their families, and the families of those who have lost loved ones defending freedom in this country. I close by asking three times, ``God, please, God, please, God, please continue to bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Fallen Heroes Immigrant Spouse Fairness Act, to address a situation of fundamental unfairness under current immigration law. Many of our active duty military are married to alien spouses who have applications pending for permanent legal residence. As the current law is written, should the U.S. citizen spouse die before a 2-year period of marriage is reached, the pending application of the non- citizen spouse is vacated. Widows and widowers of our men and women in uniform who are in the process of applying for a green card should not have their application process terminated if they are unfortunate enough to have lost their loved one prior to reaching the 2 year threshold.

In the 3rd District of North Carolina, where there are numerous military installations and facilities, one of my constituents, a Marine, was killed in the line of duty during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The spouse of this Marine is a

legal immigrant seeking to become a citizen and had been living in the 3rd District for 2 years and one month prior to her husband's death. Consequently her paperwork for a green card will proceed. However, it is incomprehensible to me that should this foreign spouse have been married for 1 year and 364 days her paper work would have been voided due to the death of her husband. That is wrong. The time limit should be eliminated for foreign spouses whose loved ones have given their life serving our Nation.

The Fallen Heroes Immigrant Spouse Fairness Act would amend Section 201(b)2(A)(i) of Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the 2 year marriage requirement for foreign spouses of U.S. citizens who die while serving. Additionally this legislation seeks to remedy a practice of charging families of non-citizen soldiers who are killed in the line of duty an $80 fee for processing an application for posthumous citizenship. These brave men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice protecting the freedom and interests of the United States. There is no action more patriotic than dying for one's country. As such, the imposition of a fee to restart the application process for posthumous citizenship is an insult to the contribution these service men and women made to our national defense.

Please join me in supporting these common sense changes to our immigration process. We should not punish the families of our soldiers simply because they are unfortunate enough to have incurred the greatest loss of all with the death of their loved one in the service of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I just returned from Camp Lejeune, went down with the President and the gentlemen from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) and (Mr. Ballance), my colleagues, to say thank you to the families of those who have lost loved ones fighting this war in Iraq.

I just want to say I join my colleagues on both sides of the political aisle. I think it is time that this Congress start looking at what is important to this country.

Let me give an example. Veterans. I have 61,000 veterans in my district. Many of my colleagues in this House have more than that, but I have 61,000 veterans and retired military combined. Yet every year when we debate concurrent receipts for those men and women who have served this Nation, it is also a major issue of where are we going to find the money? How are we going to help those who have served this Nation?

I believe sincerely, and I know that through history, Turkey has been a friend of this Nation and maybe it is now and maybe it will be in the future, but I agree with my colleagues, this $1 billion is unnecessary. The gentleman that spoke before me just said that Turkey has not even asked for the $1 billion. I am saying to this Congress that this is going to be a tough budget year, there are going to be a lot of tight decisions that we have to make, and let us take this money and let us spend this money on the American people.

Let us spend the money on the people of this country who have served this great Nation, like the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham); and God bless all who are veterans and retired military.

I hope that, as we vote on this amendment today, we will support the gentleman from California and that we will remember that those who have served this Nation, whether they be retired military or retired veterans, that they have a right. This government made a promise, we will help you if you serve this Nation. If Turkey does not want the $1 billion, let us take it back and spend it on to those who serve this great Nation.

Mr. Chairman, God bless America, and God bless our men and women in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and certainly the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for offering this resolution.

I represent Camp Lejeune Marine Base, Cherry Point Marine Air Station, New River Air Facility, and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base; and I stand with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I am offended on behalf of our men and women in uniform by the way that the POWs have been treated. It is unacceptable. I want to take my limited time by making a point on a part of this resolution that joins the President in warning all Iraqi authorities that any individual who mistreats any prisoner of war in violation of the convention shall be considered a war criminal and shall be prosecuted as such to the full extent of United States and international law.

Mr. Speaker, in 1995 the first bill that I had the opportunity to introduce was called the War Crimes Act of 1996. I worked with a former POW of the Vietnam War, Mike Cronin, a Navy pilot shot down, and he spent 6\1/2\ years at the Hanoi Hilton. I know the agony that our POWs are going through in the hands of the Iraqis, and I want the Iraqis to know that we are not going to allow mistreatments in violation of the Geneva Convention.

I want to mention the bill that Mike Cronin helped me and other Members of the House and Senate pass. The War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Expanded War Crimes of 1997 carried out the obligation the United States incurred after it signed the 1949 Geneva Convention for the protection of victims of war. This legislation allows for prosecution of war criminals in the absence of a specific international tribunal or military judicial proceedings with penalties which could include fines, life imprisonment or death in circumstances where the act resulted in the death of the victim.

Mr. Speaker, I mention that because I want people to know that this country is not going to allow our men and women in uniform to be mistreated.

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

Mr. Speaker, as Members know, I represent the Third District of North Carolina, which is the home of Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. A bill that I introduced, H.R. 693, the Military Death Gratuity Improvement Act, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for including that bill, or the language from that bill, into this major bill that I think is of great benefit to our men and women in uniform.

I would like to give very briefly the history of this provision because the death gratuity was reaffirmed as a tax free benefit when the Congress amended the Tax Code in 1986; and about a year ago I happened to be driving back to the Congress, and I was listening to a talk show and they were talking about how the fact that our men and women in uniform who received the death gratuity, should they die while serving this Nation, that the families are taxed; and to the chairman and ranking member, this just really bothered my heart, to be honest about it.

So I called my staff and I asked John Weaver if he would look into this, and I thought there must have been some mistake along the way. And actually there was and when the mistake took place was in 1991 when the Congress actually increased the death gratuity from $3,000 to $6,000; and what happened was the Committee on Armed Services did not send the bill to the Committee on Ways and Means, so therefore there was a tax on the second $3,000. And Mr. Speaker and Members of the Congress, as our wonderful men and women in uniform are ready to go to war and to die for this country, I think this is an excellent bill not just because of this provision but because of the other provisions in this major bill that will help our men and women in uniform. So by the passage of this bill today, we are taking the tax off the death gratuity when the government says to the families of those who have lost loved ones that they are receiving this small amount, but yet important amount, of $6,000, that they will not get a bill from the IRS at the end of the year.

So with that I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for including the language from H.R. 693, the Military Death Gratuity Improvement Act, in this bill to help our men and women in uniform. This is just a small portion of the bill, but I thank them very much.

Let me say in closing, Mr. Speaker, to the chairman and the ranking member that the men and women in my district, and again it is Camp Lejeune, Cherry Point, Seymour Johnson Air Force base, are very appreciative of how we have worked together to bring this bill forward to help our men and women in uniform. So with that I thank the chairman for yielding me this time and God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce a common sense piece of legislation to help our military personnel preparing to retire. As my colleagues know, service members and their families will move many times in a typical military career. These permanent changes of station or PCS often involve considerable additional expense, including the loss of rental deposits, connecting and disconnecting utilities, and wear and tear on household goods.

To help defray these additional costs, Congress in 1955 adopted the payment of a special allowance--a dislocation allowance. This was done to recognize that duty station changes and resultant household relocations are due to the personnel management decisions of the armed forces and not the individual service members. This amount was increased in 1986 and again in recent years. This is an important benefit for our military members.

However, as important as this benefit is, there is a category of service members who are not eligible to receive the dislocation allowance--the military retiree. This is despite the fact a vast number are subject to the

same expenses as their active duty counterpart. In August 2000, the Marine Corps Sergeant Major Symposium recommended the payment of dislocation allowances to retiring members, who in the opinion of the Sergeants Major, bear the same financial consequences on relocating as those still on active service.

When active duty military members retire they must often seek employment not knowing what opportunities exist in the civilian world, where those opportunities are located, what the pay will be, or what possibilities are available for spousal employment. They are sometimes faced with the prospective employers who offer less wages knowing they are in receipt of retirement pay, and falsely believing that retirees don't need the same salary as civilians for the same position. Additionally, the new retiree will have to meet the same financial demands for mortgages, insurance, taxes, and food but on a smaller income.

For those reasons, I am reintroducing the Military Retiree Dislocation Assistance Act. This legislation would help ease the transition into retirement by amending 37 USC 407 to authorize the payment of a dislocation allowance to all members of the armed forces retiring or transferring to an inactive duty status such as the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Reserve. The vast majority of these new retirees have given our Nation over 20 years of dedicated service. They have helped protect the very freedoms we all hold dear. Rather than simply pushing them out the door upon retirement, we should reward their service by providing modest assistance for their final change of station move. That is exactly what Military Retiree Dislocation Assistance Act does.

In closing Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the Fleet Reserve Association for their outstanding work on this initiative. I am an honorary shipmate of the FRA and proud to be so because of their steadfast commitment to the men and women of the military services, in particular the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard family. FRA spent considerable time and effort towards the introduction and reintroduction of the Military Retiree Dislocation Assistance Act and I look forward to continuing our work together to see this important legislation enacted.