Walter Jones

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 25th, I was meeting with constituents in North Carolina and unavoidably missed rollcall votes Nos. 321, 322, 323, 324, and 325. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 321; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 322; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 323; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 324, and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 325.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am back on the floor tonight, because when I think about the sacrifice of our many men and women in uniform from the beginning of America through and including today, I think about the fact that many have fought and died and been injured for freedom. Yet in America today, our churches do not have the freedom to speak about the moral and political issues of the day. I share that because for the last 4 years, I, along with many others, have been working to try to return that first amendment right that was taken away in 1954. Prior to 1954, any minister, priest, or rabbi or cleric in this great Nation could speak on the policies and the political issues of the day. Many times when they are speaking, it is based on the teachings of their religion; and, therefore, they are very important to maintaining the Judeo-Christian values that have made America the great Nation that it is. I want to share with my colleagues that 2 or 3 weeks ago, the Bishop of Colorado Springs, Bishop Sheridan, issued what is called a pastoral letter to every member of his diocese in that region of Colorado. In his letter, let me just share this with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker. It goes on to assert, the letter says, ``Dear friends in Christ: I exhort you with all my heart to take courage and claim the gospel of life to those who will stand for elected office this fall. It is by your prayers and by your vote 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 conscience, we will see our country led down a short path to ruin.'' Now, let me make this clear. This is the teachings of the Catholic Church. I happen to be a Catholic, and I know for a fact that our church for years and centuries has stood for protecting the unborn and their life. What really upsets me, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that Bishop Sheridan wrote a pastoral letter reminding the parishioners of the teachings of the church and what the church stands for. Because of that pastoral letter, a letter was written to the Internal Revenue Service by Barry Lynn to complain that the bishop violated the Johnson amendment, which I am trying and would love to have more support to change so that our ministers can speak as they did in 1953 without any restriction. He filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service and said that he violated the Johnson amendment. Now, let me make it clear. He did not violate the Johnson amendment. What he did was, in the rulemaking authority of the Internal Revenue Service, there is a section, not because of the Congress, not because of the Johnson amendment, but they took it upon themselves in the early 1990s to expand the Johnson amendment; and any time a minister might say pro-life or pro-choice, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, then the IRS is saying that they have violated the Johnson amendment. I think it is so sad. There is a young man who is here tonight that I cannot mention who has returned from Iraq. He lost a limb for this great Nation. Yet last night I was with the Prime Minister of the Ukraine, and I asked him the question, I said, in the Ukraine, can your ministers stand up and talk about the people running for office in your country? He said, yes, sir. They can say anything that they want to say. And I said, Mr. Prime Minister, they could here in this great Nation until 1954. They could say anything and everything that they thought should be shared with their congregation. I want to share, if I might, as I begin to close, Mr. Speaker, that Rabbi Daniel Lapin, who is one of the finest men in this great Nation, is a strong supporter of this legislation. I cannot find right now the statement that he sent to me, but Rabbi Lapin understands that America's strength is the fact that we continue to support Judeo- Christian principles. I would like to say that I believe that every minister in this country, every priest, every rabbi, every cleric that would like to speak on the issues of the day should be allowed to do so without the Federal Government intervening in their sermon or their dialectic or whatever it might be, that they should be set free to talk about these issues. So, Mr. Speaker, I close this way because of our men and women in uniform. America's greatness is dependent on the fact that we remain a country of morality, that we remain a country that remembers the Judeo- Christian foundation of America. So I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform, to please bless their families, and I ask God to please, please, save America. We are in trouble.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. 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. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. 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. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. 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. JONES of North Carolina

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

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. 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. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. 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. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. 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. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. 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. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. 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. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. 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. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. 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. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. 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.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. 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. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. 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. JONES of North Carolina

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

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. 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.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I am on the floor again. I come to the floor about once a week to talk about a bill, H.R. 693, to repeal the tax on the death gratuity. The history of this is that in 1991 the United States Congress enacted legislation that created going from $3,000 to $6,000 the death gratuity. The death gratuity is a payment to the families who have lost a loved one in uniform, whether they be training or they be in war. A couple of years ago I heard about this tax; and I thought about how unfair, how unacceptable that any family who has given a loved one in uniform for this country should have to pay a tax on a very small amount of money known as the death gratuity of $6,000. A year ago I introduced a bill that would take care of this tax and remove it. It was put in a larger package by the House leadership, which I appreciated, and sent over to the other body; but they did not act on the legislation. So we went another year that families who lost loved ones paid a tax on their gift of that loved one to this Nation and for freedom. Again this year, Madam Speaker, we sent a bigger bill over with this language in it that would repeal the tax, but the other body will not take it up. And I want to give some examples of this, Madam Speaker. From September 2001 through December 2001, 292 families in America had to pay a tax on their gift, that gift being a family member in uniform. In the year 2002, 1,007 families had to pay Uncle Sam for their gift of their loved one in uniform who died fighting for freedom. Already this year it is over 300. I do not know what the total will be when we reach December 31. Madam Speaker, let me show a photograph of a young man who is 6 years old. His name is Tyler Jordan. Tyler is holding the American flag under his arm as he is looking at his daddy's casket. Tyler's father was a gunnery sergeant named Phillip Jordan, who was killed in Iraq fighting for freedom. I look at this little boy, I saw it in the newspaper and it struck me so personally, I decided to try to get a copy of this young boy's face. Tyler's mother is going to get a bill from Uncle Sam, is not giving your daddy enough without receiving a tax from Uncle Sam on a small amount of money, $6,000, the death gratuity. I want to read an e-mail from a father who e-mailed me last week. ``Dear Representative Jones, Thank you for your support of H.R. 693. Our son, Sergeant Jacob Frazier, was killed in action on March 29, 2003, in Afghanistan. Upon being told we would be taxed on a portion of the $6,000 benefit, I was shocked and insulted. My son was not married, but I am sure there are numerous young widows who do not need another complication in their life. ``Our country should not add to their burden with additional taxation. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help you in Illinois to get this bill passed. Speaker Hastert is my Congressman, and I would be happy to get in touch with him.'' Madam Speaker, I am asking the House leadership to please bring to the floor H.R. 693 as a stand-alone bill and let us send it to the other body. The photographs behind me are a few of the faces of young men and one woman who have died fighting for Afghanistan in Iraq. I have written to the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and I am calling on Republicans and Democrats. This is an issue of morality. It is the right thing to do to say to the families who have given their loved ones, you do not owe us a tax. Madam Speaker, I thank God for the gift of our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless them. Those who have lost loved ones I ask God to please hold in his arms and comfort those who have given their loved ones for freedom. Let us pass this legislation before we leave in November. Let us not ask Tyler Jordan and his mother to pay a tax on the gift of his father and her husband. God bless America.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man who was part of our Nation's Greatest Generation, Lou Rotterman, who was called home by his Maker in July of this year. Lou was a fixture on the Hill and in Washington for over 30 years. He was an old-school press secretary and speech writer who worked behind the scenes to put the people he believed in into the spotlight. Like former President Reagan, he believed that much could be done when you did not worry about who got the credit. Indeed, Lou Rotterman worked as an executive assistant and press secretary for Jack Kemp from 1972 until 1981, a period in which the New Yorker went from being a freshman Congressman, best known from his days as a Buffalo Bills football great, to one of the conservative intellectual powerhouses of the modern Republican Party. Kemp, as we all know, championed the Kemp-Roth across-the-board tax cuts signed into law by Ronald Reagan in 1981. Lou Rotterman, along with his counterpart Jim Brady, who worked with then-Senator Bill Roth's office, helped mobilize support for that historic measure. As David King of the American Conservative Union wrote in The Hill newspaper, ``Kemp would not have succeeded without Lou Rotterman, and Reagan would not have been the President he was without the ideas that the two promoted.'' As respected as Rotterman was among Congressional press secretaries, he was far more than a Capitol Hill fixture. Like many in his generation, he volunteered to fight in World War II. At the Battle of Leyete Gulf, Rotterman was a tail gunner on a crew that had to ditch in the ocean. For his bravery in that battle, Lou Rotterman was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for what was called a valiant attack on a large task force of Japanese. In the citation, Rotterman was hailed for his bravery, coolness, and determination displayed. His superior magnificent teamwork was also noted, a hallmark of Lou Rotterman's professional life. Recently a journalist friend of Rotterman's said, ``You can judge the measure of a man by how he treats those who aren't in a position to help him.'' The journalist said, ``Lou was that way towards me.'' Prior to working on Capitol Hill, Rotterman had a distinguished career in journalism with the Dayton Daily News. During that time, he interviewed both Richard Nixon and John Kennedy during the 1960 Presidential campaign. Rotterman never ducked a challenge. In the beginning of his career as a beat reporter, he once posed as a minister and walked out on a rain- soaked edge of an office building with a policeman to lure a suicidal man back to safety. Lou Rotterman was the product of an earlier generation. He went to war, served his country, and raised a family. Lou Rotterman is gone, but his successors are out there today working just as hard as he did. We do not read their names in the paper, because they are not in it for the glory. But they do their part to make the world a better place for all of us. Simply put, Lou Rotterman was part of the Greatest Generation that understood sacrifice, duty, honor, and country. He will be missed by all that knew him. Mr. Speaker, I close by asking God to please bless America, and bless our men and women in uniform.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am back on the floor today to talk about the repeal of the death gratuity tax on the families who have given their loved ones to die for freedom in America. Mr. Speaker, behind me are the faces of just a few of those who have died in either Afghanistan or Iraq. In the year 2001, there were 292 families that received a bill from Uncle Sam in the way of a tax because their loved one died in uniform fighting for freedom. In the year 2002, there were 1,007 families that received a bill from Uncle Sam because their loved one died in uniform for freedom. Already in 2003, it is well over 280 families. Mr. Speaker, the history on this issue is that prior to 1991 or 1992, there was a $3,000 death gratuity that was given by the government to the families whose husband or wife or daughter or son died in uniform. It could be in an accident or war situation. The Congress in the early 1990s increased that from $3,000 to $6,000, but what happened is it did not go through the proper committee to take the tax off. So, Mr. Speaker, I have a bill that is H.R. 693 to repeal this tax; and in fairness to the committee and to both sides, it has been supported by both sides. The committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Ways and Means, included this language in a larger package to bring tax relief to the military, which was fine with me; but the Senate will not move the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely unacceptable, deplorable that we do not take this tax off the families who are giving loved ones. Let me show a photograph of a young boy whose name is Tyler Jordan. This was a shot in a national newspaper that I saw, and I was so touched by it that I wanted to have a copy of it. Tyler's father was a gunnery sergeant named Phillip Jordan. He was killed in Iraq. In the photograph of Tyler, he has an American flag that was taken off his father's coffin under his arms and he is looking at the father's coffin. How tragic that is within itself, but adding to that tragedy is that next year his family is going to get a bill from Uncle Sam, a bill of $6,000, which is not enough; but we need to take this tax off so that the families who have lost loved ones will not be paying a penalty for giving the loved one who died for freedom and died for this country. This week I received an e-mail from the father of Sergeant Jacob Frazier, and I want to read this, Mr. Speaker. It says, ``Thank you for your support of H.R. 693. Our son, Sergeant Jacob Frazier, was killed in action on March 29, 2003, in Afghanistan. Upon being told we would be taxed on a portion of the $6,000 benefit, I was shocked and insulted. My son was not married, but I am sure that there are numerous young widows that do not need another complication in their lives. Our country should not add to their burden with additional taxation. Let me know if I can do anything to help you here in Illinois to get this bill passed.'' Mr. Speaker, I am going to call on the House leadership, both parties, and ask the House leadership to please before we leave in November bring up H.R. 693, stand-alone bill. I have got many supporters from the Democratic side and the Republican side. Bring it to the floor, and let us morally do what is right for those families who have given their loved one. Mr. Speaker, I actually wrote the President of the United States on September 17 and asked him to please use the executive office to contact the leadership in the House and the Senate, both parties, to move this legislation. In the last paragraph I wrote this sentence to the President of the United States: ``Given the very little time left in this legislative session, failure to do so will result in more American military families not only giving a loved one for freedom but also suffering the unacceptable indignity of being taxed on that gift.'' Mr. Speaker, we do a lot of good things around here and a lot of things we debate. We disagree, both parties and within our own parties. But this is one of those issues that it is simple. It is morally the right thing to do. Mr. Speaker, I close by asking God to please bless our men and women in uniform and, God, please bless America.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the Special Order time of the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- lehtinen).

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, tonight I am on the floor again. I am asking the House leadership and also the Democratic leadership to please bring to the floor H.R. 693, the Military Death Gratuity Tax Repeal. Mr. Speaker, let me explain to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that in the early 1990s, the Congress increased from $3,000 to $6,000 a death gratuity that is given to the family of a loved one who has died in uniform for this country. The Committee on Ways and Means, and it was not their fault, but the bill, the increase, was not sent to their committee so they could eliminate the tax. So since the early 1990s, anyone who has died in uniform for this country, their families have received a death gratuity of $6,000 and also the next year receive a tax bill from Uncle Sam. Mr. Speaker, now that we are fighting for freedom for the Iraqi people, our troops in Afghanistan and also in Iraq have been killed, and God bless and rest their souls and bless their families, but, Mr. Speaker, the reason I am on the floor tonight is I am asking the House leadership, both Democrat and Republican, to please, before we leave here in early November, to bring this bill to the floor and let us pass it in a bipartisan way and send it to the other body. In fairness to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), ranking member, and the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas), they have included this language for 2 years in a larger bill to help our families in the military. But the other body, Mr. Speaker, has not passed the legislation. So I hope that the Congress, the House, will join me in asking the leadership, both majority and minority, to bring this bill to the floor and let us send it to the other body and ask them to please pass this as a stand-alone bill. Mr. Speaker, behind me are the photographs of those who have died for freedom. There are a lot more than these photographs, quite frankly. I have these photographs outside of my office in 422 Cannon because I do not want anybody to ever walk by my office and not understand the cost of freedom. We can see that it says, ``Let us never forget,'' faces of fallen heroes. These are young men and one woman from across this Nation who have given their lives for freedom, and yet Uncle Sam next year will send a tax bill to those families. We are talking about, Mr. Speaker, that in the year of September 11, 2001, there were over 292 families that had to pay this tax. In 2002, there were 1,007 families that had to pay this tax. It is important that we pass this legislation this year. It should have passed 2 years ago, but that is not the House's fault. It is the other body's. Mr. Speaker, let me also read part of an e-mail I received recently. It happens to be from a constituent of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), Speaker of the House. It says: ``Dear Representative Jones, thank you for your support of H.R. 693. Our son, Sergeant Jacob Frazier, was killed in action on March 29, 2003, in Afghanistan. Upon being told we would be taxed on a portion of the $6,000 benefit, I was shocked and insulted. My son was not married, but I am sure that there are numerous young widows that do not need another complication in their lives. Our country should not add to their burden with additional taxation.'' Mr. Speaker, that is why I will continue to come to the floor of the House until the House leadership, both Republican and Democrat, bring this bill to the floor. Yes, we are doing a lot of important things on the floor of the House, but yet there is time to bring this bill to the floor. And let us in a bipartisan way, as we have done before, pass this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to share with the Members on the floor of the House, this is a young man whose name is Tyler Jordan. He is 6 years old. He has under his arm the flag that was draped upon his daddy's casket. His father was a gunnery sergeant in the United States Marine Corps named Phillip Jordan, who was killed in Iraq. We are looking at this photograph of this young man who is hurting very badly because his father has died for this country. But should we not in Congress, who are not being fired at with bullets, say to those who are dying for freedom not only for the Iraqi people, but for the American citizens that to this young man Tyler Jordan we are not going to send a bill from Uncle Sam asking him to pay a tax on the measly $6,000? That is not enough, Mr. Speaker, but that is not the issue tonight. The issue tonight is we need to remove this tax. I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless America. Let us pass this legislation.