Walter Jones

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 694) to enhance the preservation and interpretation of the Gullah/Geechee cultural heritage, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 694.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 694, introduced by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) and amended by the Committee on Resources, would establish the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor, comprised of lands and waters important to preserving this unique culture in parts of South Carolina and Georgia. By way of background, throughout the early 1800s the Gullah/Geechee settled in the coastal counties of South Carolina, Georgia, and Northern Florida, and due largely to their isolated locations have remarkably maintained a great deal of their West African heritage. This bill would assist State and local governments with preserving and interpreting the story of Gullah/Geechee culture and its wonderful folklore, arts, crafts, and music. H.R. 694, as amended, supports legislation that was supported by the majority and minority as passed the House of Representatives by voice vote during the 108th Congress. The committee amendment simply adds the correct map number and date to the bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 486) to provide for a land exchange involving private land and Bureau of Land Management land in the vicinity of Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, for the purpose of removing private land from the required safety zone surrounding munitions storage bunkers at Holloman Air Force Base.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 486, the bill under consideration.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 486, introduced by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), would provide for a land exchange involving private land and land managed by the Bureau of Land Management in the vicinity of Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico for the purpose of removing that land from a required safety zone surrounding munitions storage bunkers at the Air Force base. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), the author of this bill.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill. I have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced H.R. 34, which would expand the name of the Department of the Navy to be Navy and Marine Corps. Mr. Speaker, we have four services that stand alone that represent the greatness of our men and women in uniform, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps. Mr. Speaker, all these services have great heritage and great history. The Marine Corps and the Navy are a team. Both are separate under the Department of Navy. The Marine Corps is not part of the Navy. The Navy is not part of the Marine Corps. It is under the Department of the Navy. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that the four services should be appreciated and recognized separately. I think it is important that the Marine Corps and the Navy, which are a team and remain a team, that the coach of the team, in this case which is the Secretary of the Navy, carry the name Secretary of Navy and Marine Corps. Mr. Speaker, this is the third year that this bill has been introduced. Each year the House in a bipartisan way sends this bill over to the Senate, but so far the other body has not been willing to accept the House position. Already we have close to 70 Members, both Republican and Democrat, who have joined me again in H.R. 34 to expand the name of the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps. Mr. Speaker, let me share with you some of the comments from those who have served, the first one being Wade Sanders, who in 1993 to 1998 served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Reserve Affairs. I want to read from his letter: ``As a combat veteran and former Naval officer, I understand the importance of the team dynamic, and the importance of recognizing the contributions of team components. The Navy and Marine Corps team is just that, a dynamic partnership, and it is important to symbolically recognize the balance of that partnership.'' Let me also read a letter from the former commandant of the United States Marine Corps, General Charles Krulak: ``I heartily endorse this bill as an initiative that appropriately honors all of the superb men and women of the Naval Service, sailors and Marines.'' Mr. Speaker, very quickly, from the Fleet Reserve Association, which is made up of Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guardsmen: ``And, finally, the Corps as the second most senior armed service should receive the honor it truly deserves, equitable distinction among the military departments in the U.S. defense structure. Recognizing the Corps as an equal partner in a new Department of the Navy and Marine Corps gives the Marines the distinction and esteem they truly deserve.'' Mr. Speaker, let me close by pointing out why I believe this is so important. To my left is a blow-up of the citation of the Silver Star presented to the family of a Marine who was killed at Nasiriyah. His name was Michael Bitz. Mr. Speaker, as you can see at the top, it was in the official heading, the Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D.C. and there is a Navy flag. Mr. Speaker, the Navy and the Marine Corps are a team, and this headline should be as a team. Let me show you, Mr. Speaker, when I take down the order and we had the graphic department to work with us on this. Let me show you just how dynamic this team is, this Marine who gave his life for his country, and his family received the Silver Star, tell me 15 years down the road, Mr. Speaker, when his children look up at their daddy and their daddy gave his life for this country and he was a Marine. If this was hanging on the wall, the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps with the Navy flag and the Marine flag, the team, Mr. Speaker, would that child not be proud of his daddy to know that his father died for this country and he was recognized as a Marine in the heading, Secretary of Navy and Marine Corps? Mr. Speaker, I intend to come down on the floor at least once a week for the next few weeks and try to get more and more of my colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, to co-sponsor this legislation with me. It is time that the Marine Corps be treated equally and fairly. There are four services, which the Congress has said twice over the last 30 years. We have four services: Marine Corps, Army, Navy, and Air Force. It is time that the Department of the Navy carry the name Navy and Marine Corps. With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to close by asking God to please bless our men and women in uniform and to bless their families. I ask God to please bless the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan or Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I close by asking God three times, please, God, please, God, please, God, continue to bless America.

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. Buyer).

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, November 11, 2004 marked the 80th anniversary of the Fleet Reserve Association whose original charter was issued on that date in 1924 at Philadelphia, PA. Known by the acronym, FRA, the association is the oldest and largest professional military organization representing men and women serving in or retired from the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. FRA grew out of a need for an organization to safeguard sailor's rights and benefits. The idea for organizing such an association stemmed from the earlier action of a small group of enlisted men, who pooled their monies in 1919, to send two senior enlisted Navy chiefs from their ranks to Washington, DC to represent their viewpoint on pay legislation then under consideration in the U.S. Congress. The result of their testimony was a substantial enlisted pay increase the following year. These two pioneers were the first enlisted persons ever to testify before a congressional committee. The Fleet Reserve Association derived its name from a program, the Fleet Naval Reserve, established by the Navy to separate sailors who had at least 16 or more years of active enlisted service but less than 30 for retirement purposes. Sailors could return to civilian life, receive retainer pay (in lieu of retirement pay), and be subject to immediate recall to active duty by the Secretary of the Navy until their combined service equaled 30 years. FRA originally was formed in 1922. Its first successful endeavor occurred in 1923 when Congress overruled an unfavorable and inequitable judgment by the Comptroller General of the United States. The CG's decision had rejected the eligibility of certain enlisted personnel who had already transferred to the Fleet Naval Reserve and settled in the civilian community. The CG ruled that those holding commissions in WWI could not count their wartime commissioned or warrant service to qualify for transfer to the Fleet Naval Reserve. The FRA effort saved any number of enlisted sailors from returning to active duty to make up time served in the commissioned ranks. Since its inception, FRA has produced an enviable record of representing enlisted men and women of the Sea Services. In the 1930s, the Association authored two legislative proposals that were signed into law by then-President Herbert Hoover. One law banished a requirement that Fleet Reservists and other enlisted retirees pay 75 cents for rations while hospitalized in government treatment facilities. The other authorized the payment of death gratuities to the estate of Fleet Reservists who perished while recalled to active duty. In 1937, an FRA proposal to authorize commissary privileges to military widows was enacted into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Two years later, FRA's efforts to restore reenlistment allowances (bonuses) succeed when the President signed the legislation into law. For the next five decades FRA racked up success after legislative success on behalf of its members and others, including all uniformed personnel of the armed services. Its ``Hospital Rights'' study led to the creation of the Civilian Health Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) in 1966. Almost immediately thereafter, the Association financed a study of the military's survivor benefit program. The result of the study, entitled ``Widow's Equity,'' led Congress to the 1972 adoption of the Uniformed Services Survivor Benefit Program (USSBP). In the late 1970s and early 1990s FRA concentrated on protecting the rights of its membership. Much of its work was devoted to preserving the status quo for many of the benefits available to military personnel. FRA shared a major role in defeating an overhaul of the uniformed services retirement system and the proposed unionization of the armed forces. It targeted the defeat of a proposed plan to phase out funding for military commissaries, petitioned Congress not to adopt the former spouses' protection act, and joined as a founding member of The Military Coalition leading to the repeal of the reductions in cost of living adjustments (COLA) for military retires and their survivors. FRA published a pay study in 1999 that led to a major victory in obtaining targeted pay hikes for mid-grade enlisted personnel in 2001. It also authored the first legislation introduced that eventually led to the repeal of the 1986 military retirement system (REDUX), and urged the Navy to authorize sea pay for junior enlisted personnel. In addition to its award-winning legislative advocacy work, the Association encourages participation in community activities wherever its 300-plus branches are located throughout the United States and overseas. FRA also conducts an annual scholarship program and awarded nearly $90,000 to deserving students in 2004. Its Americanism Essay Contest is highly successful awarding more than $75,000 to students each year. The Association also generously supports a number of recognition awards for outstanding uniformed personnel of the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. The Association is recognized by the Department of Veterans Affairs as a veterans' service organization, and employs a full time Veterans Service Officer who has the authority to assist any veteran in filing a claim or representing them before the Board of Veterans Appeals. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have been a part of the Association's efforts to serve the men and women of the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. At the Association's request I introduced the first proposal in the House to repeal the military's REDUX retirement program, to provide a targeted pay increase for mid-career enlisted personnel, and an amendment to the Coast Guard authorization bill to authorize the Commandant of the Coast Guard to speak his mind before members of Congress in the same manner as that of the other service chiefs; all of which have been enacted in law. There are others issues related to both military personnel and veterans that FRA and I will continue to work, most of which I plan to sponsor again in the 109th Congress. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Fleet Reserve Association for its eight decades of representing our men and women of the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. May its success in effectively serving active duty, reserve, and retired enlisted personnel, as well as those in the commissioned ranks, sustain the FRA through many more years of loyalty, protection, and service--not only to its members but to the U.S. Navy, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard and the United States of America.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to this motion by the gentlewoman from California. I believe sincerely all violent crimes are hate crimes regardless of race or any other classification. My concern is, today, that as we begin to move down this road, what will happen to freedom of speech in this country? Some people might say, well, you are missing the big picture. Maybe I am, but I can tell my colleagues what has happened in Sweden already. A minister who spoke from the Bible and talked about certain lifestyles not being acceptable in the Bible spent a month in jail for speaking out and preaching. I believe in compassion. I believe in respect. I believe in the civil rights of each and every one of us who lives in this great Nation. But my concern sincerely is that we might have it one day, as they do in other countries that have outlawed the use of Roman Catholic teachings and also Islamic teachings about certain lifestyles that are not acceptable based on their religion, and I would hate to see that happen in this great Nation. Yes, I want to see every crime that is committed against any American, no matter what their lifestyle is, I want to see that person who committed the crime to go to jail. I believe in the death penalty, as my voting record would say. But I am saying here today, if we pass this motion and send this back, the Senate language, we will begin to go down the road of where one day, I am afraid; it has happened in Canada, it has happened in Sweden. I am afraid, one day, what we will see happen in this country is that certain religious leaders will have their free speech threatened, and I do not want to see that happen.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have been on the floor for the last 3 or 4 years from time to time to talk about the need, the importance of having our spiritual leaders in America to have freedom of speech, to speak on a Sunday or Saturday and talk about the moral and political issues of the day. This year has probably been one of the worst I have seen as far as the attack on people of faith in this great Nation. Let me read from the St. Petersburg Times, an article from today. It says, ``As the political influence of churches grows, opponents are wielding the Tax Code as a weapon against them.'' State Representative Arthenia Joyner, a Tampa Democrat who is African American, she says, ``It could have a chilling effect. I see it as a way to try to intimidate people, but I think it's not going to work.'' I would say to Representative Joyner she is exactly right. That is why I hope that she and many other people, both here in the Congress as well as other State representatives, will get behind this effort to return the freedom of speech to our churches and synagogues. A lot of people do not know the history, but prior to 1954 any speech or sermon by a minister, priest or rabbi in this great Nation was protected by the first amendment rights. In 1954 Lyndon Baines Johnson's amendment on a revenue bill going through the Senate basically stifled our churches because our churches are 501(c)(3)s. Well, it seemed like not really much of a law that was enforced until the early 1970s and mid-1980s, when the moral majority got involved in campaigns. When I say got involved in campaigns, I meant speaking out about the moral issues of the day and saying to their congregation who stands for protecting morality. But what has happened even this year in the last 3 months? First of all a Catholic bishop, Bishop Sheridan in Colorado Springs wrote a pastoral letter to 125,000 Catholics. He said nothing about President Bush or Senator Kerry. He did use the word ``pro-life.'' You might say, well, what is wrong with that? That is what the Catholic church stands for. That is what many churches stand for and also synagogues. Well, the problem is that the Internal Revenue Service has said because of the Johnson amendment there are certain code words that cannot be used. Because Bishop Sheridan used the word ``pro-life'' in his pastoral letter, Barry Lynn with the American Center for the Separation of Church and State filed a complaint. In addition to that, he has filed a complaint against a Reverend Ronnie Floyd, a Baptist minister in Arkansas. He is now with a group of 100 volunteers monitoring churches in Kansas each Sunday to see what the minister might be saying about morality and might be saying about how we can protect the Judeo-Christian principles of America. I want to say to Representative Joyner that she is exactly right. The great movements of this country, such as Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement never would have happened if it had not been for the churches. The churches do have a role in this Nation and our synagogues, and that is to ensure and to help protect morality. So I am hoping this year that maybe the House will look seriously at this legislation that has been introduced. We have 164 co-sponsors. It is time to protect the moral future of America, and the way that is going to happen is with our spiritual leaders of America being free with the first amendment rights that are guaranteed by the men and women serving this great Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. With that, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say again that a nation built on Judeo-Christian principles, if it is going to survive, then we have got to be able to have our spiritual leaders speaking freely with the first amendment rights. With that I would like to make one close and then I will finish. I first ask that the good Lord bless our men and women in uniform and their families, and I do ask the good Lord to please bless America. America is in trouble and we need the blessings of our Lord and Savior.

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 back on the floor today, as I was prior to the August break, to talk about freedom of speech in our churches and synagogues and mosques of this country. Many people do not realize that from the beginning of this great Nation, until 1954, there was never any restriction of what a minister or a priest or a rabbi might say regarding policy issues, political issues, and actually making reference to the teachings in the Bible and the Torah. But what has happened over the last few years is that there is an element in this country, usually it is the Americans for Separation of Church and State, which is a metaphor, that seem to want to monitor what is being said in our churches and synagogues. This year it seems to be worse than ever before. I want to start my brief remarks about Bishop Smith, a Catholic bishop in New Jersey. On March 27 at St. James Church, Bishop Smith asked why, in our presumably democratic country, Catholic churches fear that the Internal Revenue Service will punish them if they speak out on a politician's positions on issues. I further quote Bishop Smith: ``The first amendment protects the free exercise of religion. Separation of church and state does not mean that the church and its members should not voice or advocate for their positions.'' I say that, Mr. Speaker, because there is a real problem in this country. About 2 months ago, Bishop Sheridan, the Catholic bishop of Colorado Springs, sent a pastoral letter to the 120,000 Catholics in his diocese, and it was a pastoral letter. He mentioned in the letter that the Catholic Church stands for protecting the unborn, opposed to euthanasia, opposed to stem cell research, and believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman. In this pastoral letter he said nothing about Mr. Kerry or Mr. Bush, but because he did use the word prolife, Mr. Lynn, Barry Lynn, director of the Americans For Separation of Church and State, wrote a letter and complained to the Internal Revenue Service that the bishop and the church should lose its tax-free status. Well, let me explain very quickly. I have done 4 years of research on this issue, and this is my fourth year of putting a bill in to return the freedom of speech to our churches and synagogues. What I found out was that in 1934 when the Congress decided that the churches could qualify for the 501(c)(3) status, they had no restriction of speech, absolutely none, zero. But what happened is in 1954, Lyndon Baines Johnson had the H.L. Hunt family opposed to his reelection to the Senate, and the H.L. Hunt family had 2 501(c)3s; not churches, but think tanks. And Senator Johnson put in an amendment on a revenue bill going through the Senate in 1954 that was never debated, no hearings, that basically had unintended consequence for our churches and synagogues. I share that just to give a little bit of the history. Let me give two more examples before I close. In Kansas, the American Center for Separation of Church and State has a subgroup called the Main Street Coalition based in Johnson County, Kansas. It is sending recruits into area churches to see if IRS guidelines, which come from the Johnson amendment, are being followed. The group, which bills itself as a committee for the separation of church and state, is concerned that local clergymen might be violating their tax-exempt status by endorsing candidates for elected office. What prompted the campaign was a public meeting where an evangelical minister spoke out against homosexual marriage. They were Protestant churches, by the way. Catholic League president William Donohue is wary of the group's tactics and released the following statement. ``To conduct a covert operation in houses of worship for the purpose of monitoring homilies or sermons is not the kind of operation conducted by friends of the first amendment.'' I am not reading the complete statement, but part of the statement. Let me go further with one more example, and then I will conclude my remarks. In the Baptist Church in Arkansas, Pastor Ronnie Floyd did not have a sermon, but actually at the end of church had a little flyer that he handed out, and there was a picture of George Bush and John Kerry, and he just mentioned not who to vote for, but just two issues, one being the marriage between man and woman, the other about partial-birth abortion, and because the photograph was a little bit larger of President Bush, he filed a complaint with the IRS. Mr. Speaker, I see my time is about up, and I want to close this way. This Nation's greatness is due to the fact that we have men and women overseas now fighting and dying for freedom for the American people. If this country is going to remain morally strong, then we must, we must return the first amendment right to our houses of worship, both Catholic, Protestant, Muslim and also Jewish.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, July 21, I was meeting with constituents and unavoidably missed rollcall votes 402 and 403. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 402, and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 403.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am here today with my colleagues in support of H.R. 3315, the Marriage Protection Act. I represent the people of the 3rd Congressional district of North Carolina, a district that has asked me to support and protect the sanctity of marriage between man and woman. Let me read just a small part of a pastoral letter by Bishop Sheridan of Colorado as he explains the history behind our tradition of marriage: ``Every civilization known to mankind has understood marriage as the union of a man and a woman . . . 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 our society. The future of the family depends on the state of marriage.'' Mr. Hostettler's bill will give states their Constitutional right to protect traditional marriage. No state should be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage if that state's citizens do not believe in honoring such a union. I stand with the majority of the people in the 3rd district, the citizens of North Carolina and indeed the majority of all Americans when I say that I strongly believe in protecting marriage as an exclusive union between one man and one woman. I believe the moral future of a our country is dependent upon the Judeo-Christian values that make up the foundation of America, and if America is to survive as a strong nation it must protect those values. This bill is one way Congress can stands up for traditional American values. I close with a quote from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissent of the 5-4 case of Lawrence v. Texas: ``But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else . . . Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

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

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am on the floor again tonight, as I have been for the last 2 or 3 weeks, to talk about the fact that in America today with all of our brave men and women fighting for freedom for the Iraqis and in Afghanistan and certainly to protect the American people, that yet in this country today a minister, a priest or a rabbi or cleric cannot speak freely about the politics and the moral issues of the day in America. I think that is a sad commentary on this great Nation. I want to briefly talk about the history of this issue. Prior to 1954, there was never any restriction of speech on our ministers in this country or our rabbis or our priests until 1954. The Lyndon Baines Johnson amendment in the Senate, never debated, no hearings were held; and yet the Senate unanimously accepted the amendment by Senator Johnson that basically said if you are a 501(c)(3), you may not have political speech, and that means endorsement or opposition to a candidate. Well, I looked at the history of this, and I looked at the history of churches being qualified for a 501(c)(3). Never in any of the history that we looked upon was there any restriction of speech at all on the churches or synagogues or mosques in this country. The reason I bring this to the floor again tonight is because I believe sincerely if morality in this great Nation is to survive based on the Judeo-Christian principles that this Nation was founded upon, then the ministers, the priests and the rabbis and the clerics should be able to speak freely about the moral and political issues of the today without any restriction. The IRS is in charge of overseeing the speech of our churches, synagogues, and mosques. They testified 2 years ago they cannot even enforce the law. Yet, what we have today is a man named Barry Lynn with the Americans United that stands for the separation of church and State; and what he does is file a complaint, like he did in Colorado 4 weeks ago. Bishop Sheridan, a Catholic Bishop, the diocese of Colorado Springs, wrote a pastoral letter, three pages to the Catholics in Colorado Springs, and reminded them that the Catholic Church stands for protecting the unborn, it stands against stem cell research, it stands against euthanasia; and all they did in the pastoral letter was he did not mention Mr. Kerry or Mr. Bush. He did not mention Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, but what he did was mention the word ``pro-life.'' And I want my friends to know in the House that in the early 1990s that the Internal Revenue Service expanded, through an administrative process, the definition of what the Johnson amendment said. So in this documentation I am holding up tonight, Mr. Speaker, is a section called ``code words.'' Well, this begins to sound like what I can imagine in the late 1930s in Germany, code words. Code words are like prochoice, prolife, liberal, conservative, Democrat and Republican. So what the bishop did in his pastoral letter was he mentioned the word ``prolife'' and because of that, Barry Lynn filed a complaint against him to challenge the tax status of the diocese in Colorado Springs. This is just one small example of many things that are happening. In Kansas, I spoke to a minister today and he knows that there is a group in Kansas that is watching what he is saying in his church. Well, let me say to my friends in the House, whether you be Democrat or Republican, this can happen to your church as well. What is happening in this country, there is an element that is trying to monitor the speech and the sermons in the churches and the synagogues and the mosques of this great Nation today. Let me read very briefly and then I will close, Mr. Speaker. The Main Stream Coalition headed by Caroline McKnight in Kansas is sending letters to more than 400 churches in the area reminding them of the IRS rule that we are trying to change to return to freedom of speech that we had in this country prior to 1954, which forbids tax exempt groups, including religious organizations, from participating in political campaigns for or against a candidate. Coalition volunteers will also visit churches and report any major violation to the IRS. This reminds me of what I thought might have happened in the late 1930s in Germany when the Jewish people went to their synagogue, where they had somebody watching who went in. Mr. Speaker, this Congress, we are here to protect the first amendment rights of all the American people. That includes our preachers, our priests and our rabbis and the clerics in this country. I hope if we are going to honor those men and women who have given their lives for this country, who have died for freedom since the beginning of America through today and the days following today, then we must do our job to make sure that there is freedom of speech in our churches and synagogues and mosques in this country. I close tonight, Mr. Speaker, by asking the good Lord to please bless our men and women in our uniform and their families. I close by asking the good Lord to bless America.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4840 and H.R. 4841.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, yesterday I voted for the FY05 Agriculture Appropriations Bill because it provides American farmers with the support they need to continue to be the world's leading suppliers of food and fiber. However, I am strongly opposed to the Flake Amendment that was accepted during floor consideration of that bill. While this amendment would not foreclose a tobacco buyout, it would make it more difficult to implement. This House needs to recognize that the federal government is decimating our rural tobacco communities. A buyout is the only fair way to eliminate the Depression-era federal tobacco program and transition to a free market production system. The last thing we need is an amendment that complicates this transition and destroys American jobs. Therefore, I will do everything in my power to get this wrong-headed amendment stripped from the bill before it is sent to the President's desk.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to read a couple of statements from Bishop Smith of Trenton, New Jersey. The title of his little writing is called Bishop Smith calls for Freedom of Political Speech for the Catholic Church, and I would like to say that not only the Catholic church but the Protestant churches, the synagogues and the mosques in this country. What I would like to read is: ``At the Respect Life Mass for the Diocese on March 27 in St. James Church, Bishop Smith asked why, in our presumably democratic country, Catholic churches fear that the Internal Revenue Service will punish them if they speak out on politicians' positions on issues.'' He further stated or wrote: ``The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. Separation of church and state does not mean that the Church and its members should not voice or advocate for their positions. Separation of church and state is designed to ensure that there is no governmentally established religion.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to say that because whether this would be a bishop of a Catholic faith or a Protestant minister or a Jewish rabbi or a cleric, they have the same problem. Most people do not know that from the beginning of this great Nation until 1954 that there was total freedom. They did know that. What they did not know, which is what I meant to say, is that in 1954 Lyndon Baines Johnson introduced an amendment on a revenue bill going through the Senate that was never debated. There were no committee hearings. There was no discussion of his amendment. In fact, at the time, the Democrats were the minority and the majority leader accepted the Johnson amendment without debate, unanimous consent. I want to further add that Dr. James Davidson, a sociology professor at Purdue University who I have spoken to by telephone a couple of years ago, I want to read from some of his research and writing. He says, ``The First Amendment speaks of religious freedom; it says nothing that would preclude churches from aligning themselves with or against candidates for public office . . . The courts also have never used Thomas Jefferson's celebrated 1802 metaphor about `a wall of separation between church and state' to stifle churches' support of or opposition to political candidates.'' I share that with my colleagues because, just recently, the bishop of Colorado Springs, Bishop Sheridan, wrote a pastoral letter, three pages which I have and read many times. Never in his pastoral letter did he say anything about President Bush or Candidate for the Presidency Kerry or about Democrats or Republicans. He just reminded the Catholics in his diocese, about 125,000, that the church stands for protecting the unborn. They are opposed to stem cell research. It protects the elderly. So, therefore, in his letter basically what he said was that we, as Catholics, we stand for protecting life, and we, as Catholics, should think carefully during this next election. But, again, he never said the name of any candidate. He never said the name of any party, but because he used the word ``pro-life,'' Barry Lynn, the Americans for Separation of Church and State, filed a complaint. Well, one might say, well, Congressman, how can he file a complaint? He did not mention the candidate. He did not mention a party. But what the IRS did in the early 1990s, they took the Johnson amendment and they expanded it through their rulemaking process, and now they have code words. Code words can be ``pro-choice,'' ``pro- life,'' ``liberal,'' ``conservative,'' ``Democrat'' or ``Republican.'' This, in my opinion, is not what this great Nation is about. It is not what we have men and women who have served this Nation during wartime from the beginning of America until today and tomorrow and as this war goes on in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet these fine men and women that wear the uniform are there to protect freedom, not only to help the Iraqi people but freedom for the American people, and yet we have a law on the books that prohibits a member of the clergy from speaking out on the moral and political issues of the day. Now, if this was 1953, Mr. Speaker, I would not even be on the floor, because there would be no problem. There was no law. But because of the Johnson amendment, we have elements in this country today that are on the extreme left that watch what our clergymen are saying about the policy and the politics of the day. I believe sincerely if the moral values of America are going to stand, then I believe that the freedom must ring in the churches and synagogues and the mosques of America, that they must have the freedom to speak freely about the issues of the day. Again, I plan to be on the floor the next two or three nights and will continue to talk about this, because, as my colleagues know, outside of my office, 422, I have 12 posters. On each poster is about 60 faces of men and women who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have it there for a main reason, to remind the American people that freedom, there is a cost, and, therefore, we must, within the House and the Senate, do our part to protect the constitutional rights of the American people, and that includes those who are spiritual leaders of this country. Mr. Speaker, I close by asking God to please bless our men and women in uniform and their families, and I ask God to please bless America.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I was, like everybody else in the Congress, home during July 4 and enjoyed being back in my district and meeting the people and listening to the people. I could not help but think that July 4 has different meanings for all of us: Freedom, independence. We think about what July 4 means and has meant to the history of our Nation. I went back and found an article written in 1995 that was in the Boston Globe by Jeff Jacoby, and he had in the article about the Founders of this great Nation, the writers of the Constitution. I do not know if this is a quote from one of the leaders of that period of time or from Mr. Jacoby, but I want to share it: ``Religion can survive in the absence of freedom, but freedom without religion becomes dangerous and unstable.'' In addition, I would also like to share a quote by Alexis de Tocqueville. Alexis de Tocqueville was a French philosopher and historian who traveled to America in the 1830s, and he was so impressed with this great Nation. He wrote, ``In the end, the state of the Union comes down to the character of the people. I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors, ample rivers, and it was not there. I sought for it in the fertile fields, and boundless prairies, and it was not there. I sought it in her rich mines, and vast world commerce, and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.'' Madam Speaker, I share that because our churches and synagogues in America are under attack. A lot of people would be surprised with me saying that, but recently the bishop of Colorado Springs, Bishop Sheridan, a Catholic bishop, wrote a three-page pastoral letter to every Catholic in his district. He did not say anything about Bush or Kerry, he did not say anything about Republican or Democrat, but being a Catholic, the Catholic Church stands for protecting the unborn. It is opposed to stem cell research and euthanasia. He said nothing about a party, nothing about a candidate. But because he used the word ``prolife,'' Barry Lynn of the Americans for Separation of Church and State filed a complaint because this bishop is following the teachings of his church and his belief in Christ. And yet a complaint was filed that would challenge the 501(c)(3) status of that diocese. It is a sad day in America when we have men and women overseas fighting for freedom for the Iraqis and the American people, and yet the reason why Mr. Lynn filed a complaint was because of code words. I have introduced a bill, H.R. 235, that would eliminate the Johnson amendment that has put the restrictions on our churches, synagogues and mosques. But in addition to the Johnson law, in the early 1990s the IRS decided to expand the definition of the Johnson law, so now they have code words, and I will submit those later for the Record. Regarding code words, this is what it says. The concern by the Internal Revenue Service is that 501(c)(3) organizations may support or oppose a particular candidate in a political campaign without specifically naming the candidate by using code words to substitute for the candidate's name in its message, such as conservative, liberal, prolife, prochoice, antichoice, Republican, Democrat, et cetera. When this occurs, it is quite evident what is happening, and an intervention is taking place. What a sad commentary on the greatness of this Nation. From the beginning of America until 1954, there was never any restriction of speech on our churches, synagogues and mosques in this country, never until the Johnson amendment that went through the Senate on a revenue bill, never debated. Now ministers, priests and rabbis have the Federal Government through the Internal Revenue Service looking in on what they have to say when they are before their congregation. Madam Speaker, I think that is a sad commentary on America. I think it is a sad commentary on those who have worn the uniform for this Nation and fought for freedom for the American people. If this was 1953, I would not be before this House because there would be no problem, there would be no restriction of speech. The first amendment right would be protected for those who speak on behalf of their Lord. Madam Speaker, I close by saying that I hope that those of us in Congress on both sides of the aisle will do our part to make sure that the first amendment right applies to those who are spiritual leaders of America and protect their rights for which men and women have worn the uniform or are wearing the uniform. Madam Speaker, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform and their families. I close by asking God to please bless America.