Walter Jones

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I just returned from Camp Lejeune, went down with the President and the gentlemen from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) and (Mr. Ballance), my colleagues, to say thank you to the families of those who have lost loved ones fighting this war in Iraq. I just want to say I join my colleagues on both sides of the political aisle. I think it is time that this Congress start looking at what is important to this country. Let me give an example. Veterans. I have 61,000 veterans in my district. Many of my colleagues in this House have more than that, but I have 61,000 veterans and retired military combined. Yet every year when we debate concurrent receipts for those men and women who have served this Nation, it is also a major issue of where are we going to find the money? How are we going to help those who have served this Nation? I believe sincerely, and I know that through history, Turkey has been a friend of this Nation and maybe it is now and maybe it will be in the future, but I agree with my colleagues, this $1 billion is unnecessary. The gentleman that spoke before me just said that Turkey has not even asked for the $1 billion. I am saying to this Congress that this is going to be a tough budget year, there are going to be a lot of tight decisions that we have to make, and let us take this money and let us spend this money on the American people. Let us spend the money on the people of this country who have served this great Nation, like the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham); and God bless all who are veterans and retired military. I hope that, as we vote on this amendment today, we will support the gentleman from California and that we will remember that those who have served this Nation, whether they be retired military or retired veterans, that they have a right. This government made a promise, we will help you if you serve this Nation. If Turkey does not want the $1 billion, let us take it back and spend it on to those who serve this great Nation. Mr. Chairman, God bless America, and God bless our men and women in uniform.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and certainly the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for offering this resolution. I represent Camp Lejeune Marine Base, Cherry Point Marine Air Station, New River Air Facility, and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base; and I stand with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I am offended on behalf of our men and women in uniform by the way that the POWs have been treated. It is unacceptable. I want to take my limited time by making a point on a part of this resolution that joins the President in warning all Iraqi authorities that any individual who mistreats any prisoner of war in violation of the convention shall be considered a war criminal and shall be prosecuted as such to the full extent of United States and international law. Mr. Speaker, in 1995 the first bill that I had the opportunity to introduce was called the War Crimes Act of 1996. I worked with a former POW of the Vietnam War, Mike Cronin, a Navy pilot shot down, and he spent 6\1/2\ years at the Hanoi Hilton. I know the agony that our POWs are going through in the hands of the Iraqis, and I want the Iraqis to know that we are not going to allow mistreatments in violation of the Geneva Convention. I want to mention the bill that Mike Cronin helped me and other Members of the House and Senate pass. The War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Expanded War Crimes of 1997 carried out the obligation the United States incurred after it signed the 1949 Geneva Convention for the protection of victims of war. This legislation allows for prosecution of war criminals in the absence of a specific international tribunal or military judicial proceedings with penalties which could include fines, life imprisonment or death in circumstances where the act resulted in the death of the victim. Mr. Speaker, I mention that because I want people to know that this country is not going to allow our men and women in uniform to be mistreated. I close by asking God to please bless our men and women in uniform, please bless the families, and please, God, bless America.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as Members know, I represent the Third District of North Carolina, which is the home of Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. A bill that I introduced, H.R. 693, the Military Death Gratuity Improvement Act, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for including that bill, or the language from that bill, into this major bill that I think is of great benefit to our men and women in uniform. I would like to give very briefly the history of this provision because the death gratuity was reaffirmed as a tax free benefit when the Congress amended the Tax Code in 1986; and about a year ago I happened to be driving back to the Congress, and I was listening to a talk show and they were talking about how the fact that our men and women in uniform who received the death gratuity, should they die while serving this Nation, that the families are taxed; and to the chairman and ranking member, this just really bothered my heart, to be honest about it. So I called my staff and I asked John Weaver if he would look into this, and I thought there must have been some mistake along the way. And actually there was and when the mistake took place was in 1991 when the Congress actually increased the death gratuity from $3,000 to $6,000; and what happened was the Committee on Armed Services did not send the bill to the Committee on Ways and Means, so therefore there was a tax on the second $3,000. And Mr. Speaker and Members of the Congress, as our wonderful men and women in uniform are ready to go to war and to die for this country, I think this is an excellent bill not just because of this provision but because of the other provisions in this major bill that will help our men and women in uniform. So by the passage of this bill today, we are taking the tax off the death gratuity when the government says to the families of those who have lost loved ones that they are receiving this small amount, but yet important amount, of $6,000, that they will not get a bill from the IRS at the end of the year. So with that I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for including the language from H.R. 693, the Military Death Gratuity Improvement Act, in this bill to help our men and women in uniform. This is just a small portion of the bill, but I thank them very much. Let me say in closing, Mr. Speaker, to the chairman and the ranking member that the men and women in my district, and again it is Camp Lejeune, Cherry Point, Seymour Johnson Air Force base, are very appreciative of how we have worked together to bring this bill forward to help our men and women in uniform. So with that I thank the chairman for yielding me this time and God bless America.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce a common sense piece of legislation to help our military personnel preparing to retire. As my colleagues know, service members and their families will move many times in a typical military career. These permanent changes of station or PCS often involve considerable additional expense, including the loss of rental deposits, connecting and disconnecting utilities, and wear and tear on household goods. To help defray these additional costs, Congress in 1955 adopted the payment of a special allowance--a dislocation allowance. This was done to recognize that duty station changes and resultant household relocations are due to the personnel management decisions of the armed forces and not the individual service members. This amount was increased in 1986 and again in recent years. This is an important benefit for our military members. However, as important as this benefit is, there is a category of service members who are not eligible to receive the dislocation allowance--the military retiree. This is despite the fact a vast number are subject to the same expenses as their active duty counterpart. In August 2000, the Marine Corps Sergeant Major Symposium recommended the payment of dislocation allowances to retiring members, who in the opinion of the Sergeants Major, bear the same financial consequences on relocating as those still on active service. When active duty military members retire they must often seek employment not knowing what opportunities exist in the civilian world, where those opportunities are located, what the pay will be, or what possibilities are available for spousal employment. They are sometimes faced with the prospective employers who offer less wages knowing they are in receipt of retirement pay, and falsely believing that retirees don't need the same salary as civilians for the same position. Additionally, the new retiree will have to meet the same financial demands for mortgages, insurance, taxes, and food but on a smaller income. For those reasons, I am reintroducing the Military Retiree Dislocation Assistance Act. This legislation would help ease the transition into retirement by amending 37 USC 407 to authorize the payment of a dislocation allowance to all members of the armed forces retiring or transferring to an inactive duty status such as the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Reserve. The vast majority of these new retirees have given our Nation over 20 years of dedicated service. They have helped protect the very freedoms we all hold dear. Rather than simply pushing them out the door upon retirement, we should reward their service by providing modest assistance for their final change of station move. That is exactly what Military Retiree Dislocation Assistance Act does. In closing Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the Fleet Reserve Association for their outstanding work on this initiative. I am an honorary shipmate of the FRA and proud to be so because of their steadfast commitment to the men and women of the military services, in particular the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard family. FRA spent considerable time and effort towards the introduction and reintroduction of the Military Retiree Dislocation Assistance Act and I look forward to continuing our work together to see this important legislation enacted.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on October 23, 1983, the war on terrorism began when a truck filled with explosives detonated outside of the United States Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 241 of our servicemen. Between 1982 and 1984, 270 soldiers, sailors, and Marines from 36 States lost their lives while serving as peacekeepers in Beirut. Mr. Speaker, I have recently introduced H. Res. 45 that would express the sense of the House that a commemorative postage stamp should be issued in remembrance of the victims of the Beirut peacekeeping mission. I am certainly not the first to pursue this effort to have the Postal Service authorize a stamp in memory of our brave peacekeepers. For 19 long years, friends, families and comrades of the Beirut victims have lobbied tirelessly to see this dream become a reality. To date, however, these efforts have been unsuccessful. Mr. Speaker, some of the astonishing reasons that have been given for not issuing the stamp include: We try to honor positive things. People want noncontroversial, pretty stamps; Beirut lacks significance in American history, and not enough people were killed. Mr. Speaker, I share those comments because this is what I have been told has been said to those many people who for 19 years have been asking that this stamp be created. These explanations are scant justification for failing to recognize those who have given so much to our country. I can assure Members that they amount to little more than a slap in the face to our servicemen and their families. I am not here today to begrudge stamp selections of the past, but fair is fair. If kittens, red squirrels, Daffy Duck, Chinese dragons, circus wagons, and communist artists are worthy of commemoration by the Postal Service, then so are our fallen heroes from Beirut. October 3 of this year will mark the 20th anniversary of the Marine Corps barracks bombing in Beirut. The friends, family, and comrades left behind by the Beirut peacekeepers will gather once again to pay their respects. This would be the appropriate time for the Federal Government to show its appreciation. Honoring these servicemen with a stamp is one way for us to finally say thank you for sacrificing their lives so the rest of us can live in freedom. A stamp in honor of the Beirut peacekeepers would not just serve to further mourn their loss, but to celebrate the peace and the American spirit that was embodied in the mission of these fallen heroes. Mr. Speaker, in these uncertain times we call upon the brave men and women of the military to defend the ideals that this great Nation was founded upon. One of my constituents, Charles Hall of Jacksonville, North Carolina, was called upon 19\1/2\ years ago; and he served our country honorably in Beirut. He will be the first to tell Members that the war on terrorism began well before September 11. Mr. Speaker, in April the Citizens Stamp Advisory Committee will convene in Washington to consider stamp proposals and make recommendations to the Postmaster General. On behalf of military families across the United States, I urge the committee to do what is right for those who made the ultimate sacrifice. I urge them to reconsider that a commemorative stamp be issued in remembrance of the Beirut peacekeepers. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close in a certain way. I first ask God to please bless the men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the families of the men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the House and Senate that we might do what is right for the future of this Nation. And I ask God to please bless the President of the United States that he will lead this Nation and this world to a better and peaceful world. Mr. Speaker, I close by asking three times, God please, God please, God please, continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, last week, the House of Representatives took up and passed the conference report to H.R. 4546, the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act. As one of the conferees to that measure, I was proud to support the overall bill and was pleased to see its passage. The Bob Stump National Defense Act was a fitting tribute to a man whose congressional career was spent working for our Nation's men and women in uniform. This year's Defense Authorization Act has three main principles: protecting and defending America's homeland, supporting U.S. service members and their families, and better equipping troops with training, equipment and weapons to fight and win the war against terrorism. It marks the largest increase in defense spending in over 20 years, providing billions of additional dollars for procurement, research, and development for the next generation of weapons. The measure continues our commitment to improving the pay of military personnel by providing a 4.1 percent pay increase and continued the administration's plans to eliminate out-of-pocket housing costs for military families. H.R. 4546 devotes considerable resources toward protecting our homeland from the threat of terrorist attacks and from the growing proliferation of ballistic missiles. I stand behind this bill because I believe it provides our military with the foundation it needs and deserves. We are living in a time of war and must act accordingly. Despite the important advances this bill makes for our national defense, I retain two reservations about the final product. One significant issue which has not been addressed is legislation I sponsored to redesignate the position of the Secretary of the Navy as the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps. For over 200 years the Navy and Marine Corps have shared a secretary in being, but not in name. Notwithstanding their jointness, the Navy and Marine Corps are distinct with their own history, honors, and tradition. Rather than detracting from those traditions, this legislation seeks to recognize the separate, but equal traditions that the Navy and the Marine Corps team share. It acknowledges that there are two members of the same team and seeks to reinforce to the American people that the Secretary is a proud supporter of both. The legislation was adopted unanimously in the House Armed Services Committee, over half of whose membership had cosponsored the legislation. It was supported by three former Secretaries of the Navy, the current and two former Commandants of the Marine Corps, a former Secretary of the Veterans Administration, and many other former senior leaders of the Navy and Marine Corps. The Fleet Reserve Association and the Marine Corps League, each boasting thousands of members, also strongly urged passage of the legislation. Yet because of the concerns of a few, it was not included in the final conference report. However I do not view this as a setback, but instead an opportunity. I remain committed to introducing the measure again early in the 108th Congress. As Commandant Jim Jones stated, this is an idea whose time has come. I will be working diligently with my Navy and Marine Corps friends to broaden the support and communicate the importance of this measure. By passing this legislation, the teamwork that has been present for over 200 years will finally be recognized in the title of the person who coaches the team. A second shortcoming of the otherwise outstanding measure is the compromise on concurrent receipt. Although the language in the conference report regarding concurrent receipt is a very important step forward, I strongly believe that more should be done. As I stated in a letter to President Bush, if a man or woman served in uniform and retired honorably, they deserve to receive the retirement pay they were promised. If in the course of that service, that military member was injured and sustained a lasting disability, they should be compensated for that as well. One was earned for service and one was earned for sacrifice. It is for that reason that I have been a strong supporter of legislation to eliminate this offset since coming to Congress. It is true that correcting this unfair penalty is expensive, however I also believe that our military retirees are priorities for which we must be willing to support. Congressman Bilirakis, numerous military and veteran organizations such as the Fleet Reserve Association, and countless veterans have waged a tireless effort to see legislation ending the prohibition against concurrent receipt enacted. They should be commended for the great work that has been accomplished to date and encouraged to continue this fight in the future. I look forward to working with them on future efforts to meet the principles behind H.R. 303. Our military retirees did not fail us when they were called. We should not fail them.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. on Monday next.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a very important issue. Driving back to DC., from North Carolina on Tuesday, I was listening to the radio. Paul Harvey made a statement, ``Blackhawk down in Alabama.'' Certainly that got my attention, as it would anyone. What he was talking about is the fact that the workers down at Sikorsky had gone on strike. These are the people that are responsible for preparing and keeping our 105 helicopters, Blackhawks, up in the air and ready to carry our troops to defend our Nation. This got my attention because I have a depot in my district. It is down at Cherry Point. I want my colleagues in the House to know that these public depots are extremely important to the national security of this Nation. A public depot provides maintenance, engineering, logistics, and support to the United States military. Public depots are staffed by Federal employees and provide a strike-free workforce to repair and maintain the equipment that our men and women need to defend this Nation. For an example, in my district, we have a naval aviation depot at Cherry Point. It employs over 3,500 people in the upkeep and maintenance of numerous aviation platforms, most of which are used by the Navy and Marine Corps. However, they also perform work on other platforms for the Special Operations Command, the Army, and the Air Force. We actually have in this Congress a Depot Caucus. It is made up of Democrats and Republicans who truly understand the importance of having these public depots. The men and women that work at these depots, they are so important to the national security of this Nation that a few years ago when the commandant of the Marine Corps at the time, General Krulak, appeared before the Committee on Armed Services and the question was asked, How important are the public depots to the Marine Corps, his statement, Mr. Speaker, was this: he said that the public depot is absolutely critical to the 911 force of this country. The reason I come to the floor today is because those of us, again, on both sides of the political aisle who are part of the Depot Caucus, we had the same situation with the Clinton administration that we had with the Bush administration. Many of the people in these administrations do not appreciate the fine work that the public employees are doing at these depots, and we continually battle to make sure that there is a partnership so that the public depots can remain strong, not only for the present, but also for the future. Let me read just a couple of sentences from this article about Sikorsky Workers Strike, Call Contract Proposal Unfair. It says: ``Unionized workers at an Alabama plant that builds and repairs Blackhawk helicopters for the military went on strike on Monday, calling the company's contract offer unacceptable. ``About 105 helicopter mechanics represented by the Teamsters union chanted and picketed outside Sikorsky Support Services, Inc., after contract negotiations broke down after a month.'' The reason I wanted to come to the floor again, Mr. Speaker, today is because our Nation is at war. It has not been declared as a war, but we have men and women in Afghanistan and other parts of the world, and they are fighting each and every day. Many are being killed. Those at the public depots are the kind of employees that, by Federal law, cannot strike; so what they do whenever they are called upon, they go overseas, like during Desert Storm. Many from my district of North Carolina, the Third District, where Cherry Point is located, these people went over to make sure that the equipment that our fighting forces needed was in top-notch shape. So we must as a Congress remember that the public depots are absolutely critical to the national security of this Nation. Just a couple of other points and then I will close, Mr. Speaker. I think that too many times everybody says, we want to privatize this, we want to privatize that. But when we come to the national security of this Nation, again, the commandant of the Marine Corps at that time, General Krulak, made the statement that if we did not have the public depots, we would jeopardize the 911 force of this country. Mr. Speaker, I hope in this next Congress we will continue to work together to ensure that our public depots remain strong and are given what they need to be certain that they can maintain the equipment that our men and women in uniform need so desperately to defend the national security of this country. I will close by reading the last paragraph, and then I will include this article for the Record. ``The company recently announced it had landed a $1.5 billion contract to build 80 H-60 Blackhawk helicopters for the Army and 82 H- 60 utility helicopters for the Navy.'' Again, as I close, I just want to say that our public workers at the public depots, they do not strike under any circumstances. They are always there to maintain what our military needs so they can continue to defend the national security of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I will say that we must remember our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform, and I ask God to please bless America. The article referred to is as follows: [From the Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 15, 2002] Sikorsky Workers Strike, Call Contract Proposal Unfair Troy, AL.--Unionized workers at an Alabama plant that builds and repairs Blackhawk helicopters for the military went on strike on Monday, calling the company's contract offer unacceptable. About 105 helicopter mechanics represented by the Teamsters union chanted and picketed outside Sikorsky Support Services Inc. after contract negotiations broke down after a month. Union negotiators said the company's contract offer weakened workers' health benefits. But Ed Steadham, a spokesman at the company's headquarters in Stratford, Conn., said he was disappointed the contract was rejected. Sikorsky has offered a 10 percent pay raise over three years and improved pension benefits, Steadham said. ``The company believes it offered a competitive package of pay and benefits,'' he said in a statement. Union spokesman Rocco Calo said the company wants to triple inpatient hospitalization co-payments for workers and increase annual deductible fees. Sikorsky Support Services is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. The company recently announced it had landed a $1.5 billion contract to build 80 H-60 Blackhawk helicopters for the Army and 82 H-60 utility helicopters for the Navy.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), I agree totally with the gentleman's statement. This is a separation of church and State. The reason it is is that the State, being the Internal Revenue Service, should not influence any statement or comment that the church pulpit, the preacher, the priest, the rabbi might want to make. This way, because of the Johnson amendment, they do have influence as to what can be said. To the gentleman from Texas, whom I like very much, I want to say that he is right. I agree with him up to 152 years, but the last 48 years since 1954, Lyndon Johnson's amendment put the Internal Revenue Service into the churches as to restricting what they can and cannot say. Prior to that time, he and I agree 100 percent. Let me also say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) that when churches qualified for the status of 501(c)(3)s, and I have researched this, there is no restriction in the law as to what they could and could not say when they became classified as 501(c)(3)s. Let me also say that one of the biggest concerns that some people have mentioned tonight, I cannot begin to tell you, when D. James Kennedy came to testify, he brought over 60,000 petitions to present to the committee. In addition to that, this past week over 4,500 ministers throughout this country, some being Baptist, wrote and said they were in strong support of this legislation. Let me also say to my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who is my friend, that under the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, which amends the Federal Election Campaign Act, all corporations including tax-exempt churches and nonprofit corporations are barred from making hard-money contributions or any direct or indirect disbursement for electioneering communications. That is on page 101 and 102 (A and B). I just want to get that on the record, also. Let me also say that, again, when you think about the fact that prior to 1954 there were no restrictions of speech on our churches, and I am pleased to say that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), for whom I do have great respect, during the hearing with the Internal Revenue Service, his question to Mr. Miller who worked with IRS is: As a rule do you monitor the activities of churches during the political season? Mr. Miller's answer to Mr. Lewis is: We do monitor churches. So our monitoring is mostly as a recipient of information from third parties who are looking in. That is Barry Lind looking in. What are you saying? ``I'm going to report you to the Internal Revenue Service.'' That is not America. If a priest wants to say that George Bush is prolife, let the priest say George Bush is prolife. If my dear friend and your dear friend Floyd Flake wants to have Al Gore in his church, and when Al Gore finishes speaking he puts his hand on his shoulder and he says, ``I think this is the right man to lead America,'' he should be able to do it. He got a letter of reprimand from the Internal Revenue Service. Somebody snitched on him because the Internal Revenue Service is dependent on a third party to report because, quite frankly, I will be honest with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), they cannot enforce the law to begin with. That is an absolute joke. They cannot enforce the law. So they are dependent on a third party. That somewhat reminds me of my history about Germany, quite frankly, somebody looking in on what the priest says or the preacher says or what the rabbi might say. That in itself should be enough to offend all of us on both sides of the aisle who raise our hand to defend the constitutional rights of the American people, that we make sure that anyone, whether they be a preacher, a priest, a rabbi or a cleric, that they have a right to speak from their heart, and if they believe that that is the right thing to say to educate their people in that congregation, then they should say it. Let me close this way from Floyd Flake, a great, great man of spiritual faith and a spiritual leader. He says, ``It is unjust that churches and clergy men and women are unfairly targeted when they exercise their rights as American citizens. I am pleased to offer my wholehearted support with sincere prayer for passage of this important and liberating legislation. Floyd Flake.'' He is talking about H.R. 2357.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the time, and certainly the gentleman from Georgia, who I have great respect for, as well as the gentleman from Texas. And what makes this great body, what it is, is the freedom that we all enjoy to disagree and many times agree. Let me talk a little bit about the history of this issue. If this was 1953, we would not be debating this issue because it would not be an issue. The churches in this country had the freedom to talk about the issues of the day, whether they be political issues or nonpolitical issues. There was no restriction from the beginning of the churches in this country. There was never a restriction until Lyndon Johnson put an amendment on a revenue bill going through the Senate with no debate, and Mr. Johnson was opposed to the H.L. Hunt family, who were working against his reelection, and they had established two 501(c)(3)s, and so Mr. Johnson put an amendment on without any debate that said if an organization is a 501(c)(3), they may not have political speech. Let me tell my colleagues that most of the experts, and I am certainly not an expert, most of the experts have said in analyzing this issue, and it has been analyzed by many researchers through the years; that probably Lyndon Johnson did not mean to stifle the churches or synagogues in this country, and let me explain that. Lyndon Johnson was the VP on the ticket with John Kennedy in 1960, and the churches in Texas, many of the churches, were opposed to John Kennedy being a Catholic, being the first Catholic in the White House. So those who have researched this issue say that if Johnson had intended for the churches to be stifled in speech, that probably Mr. Johnson, being a powerful man, would have picked up the phone and called the Internal Revenue Service and said they need to look into this church. Johnson never made any call or any complaints. So the experts, which I am not one, have said that they believe that Mr. Johnson did not intend to put the muzzle on the churches and synagogues throughout this country. Let me make a couple of other points real quickly. The letter that the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) made reference to that was sent out by Barry Lynn, this is how this came to my attention, quite frankly. I had a Baptist minister in my district ask me to speak in September of the year 2000 to his adult men's class, and I went, and he showed me a letter, this is a copy of it, from Barry Lynn that went to over 285,000 churches, and it is a warning to the minister that he not violate the 501(c)(3) status known as the Johnson amendment. Let me tell my colleagues what really interests me, because I do not agree with Mr. Lynn on much, and he does not agree with me, and that is what makes America the great Nation it is. But let me read this first sentence to my colleagues because this tells it better than I can tell it. ``The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right of pastors and church leaders to speak out on religious, moral and political issues.'' He acknowledges that is what the Constitution guarantees, but his second sentence is, however, houses of worship, as a nonprofit entity under section 501(c)(3), cannot have political speech. So my point is I do agree with what he said, and he was right, the Constitution does guarantee this, and Lyndon Johnson took it away from them. Maybe he did not intend to, but the churches in many places, in my opinion, the priests, the rabbis and the clerics have not had the freedom to speak about the moral and political issues of the day, and many times the moral issues become political issues, and the political issues moral issues, and we all know that. I tell my colleagues what really concerns me even more is that Mr. Lynn, about a month later, sent out a press release. I checked with the Internal Revenue Service yesterday. We have over 880,000 houses of worship. Mr. Lynn, in 2000, sent out a press release that said, we plan to mail it to approximately 285,000 houses of worship. I am confident that every church targeted by the coalition will receive this letter. My question to Mr. Lynn and to those who believe this is a good law, maybe we ought to hire 880,000 inspectors to represent the Internal Revenue Service at every church and every synagogue and every mosque in this Nation during the months of September and October. If we want to make the law fair so it applies to everybody, then make it fair for everybody. Do not just single out certain groups and target certain groups. The last point I would like to make on this issue is that when we had the hearing, and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), even though he does not agree with the legislation, he did hold a hearing that was very bipartisan, and I am going to wait until the next round to go into details of the testimony, but I am pleased to tell my colleagues that two great men of God came to testify, Dr. D. James Kennedy and Pastor Walter Fauntroy right here in Washington, D.C., a former Member of Congress that we all served with. Again, I have great respect for the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), and I have great respect for Pastor Fauntroy, and I know he marched with my colleague to bring civil rights to this country, to the people of this country so they could enjoy equal rights and civil rights. I applaud them, and I applaud Walter Fauntroy and certainly Martin Luther King. In addition, I am pleased to tell my colleagues that I had a long conversation with Floyd Flake. Mr. Flake was one of the finest Members of Congress. He is a man of God. He is a man I respect. We might not politically always agree, but a man I fully respect. And he is very supportive of this legislation, along with numerous other men and women of faith who are spiritual leaders. With that I will wait until my next round.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I object to that for this reason. I respect the man, and this just continues this debate. Obviously I would have liked to have been here earlier this afternoon. I was hoping we would be here earlier. But at 11:15 at night, I think I know your position, which I respect, and you know my position, so I object.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I will not take more than 5 or 6 minutes, but I am back on the floor again to talk about an issue of freedom, freedom of speech in our churches, synagogues, and mosques throughout this country. Most people do not realize that in 1954, Lyndon Baines Johnson, United States Senator, put an amendment on a revenue bill going through the Senate without any debate, no debate at all; and that amendment basically put the Internal Revenue Service into the churches and synagogues throughout this country. Prior to 1954 and the beginning of this great Nation that we all know and love, the preachers and the priests and the rabbis at that time, all the way up until 1954, had no restriction of speech. If they wanted to talk about a cultural issue that maybe became a political issue of the day, they did so. What happened was that with the Johnson amendment, because he was being attacked, so to speak, by the H.L. Hunt family in Texas, they were opposed to his reelection to the United States Senate, he put an amendment on a revenue bill going through the Senate that basically, again, was never debated. So the Internal Revenue Service has the authority to make judgments over what certain churches, meaning the preachers, the priests, the rabbis, might say that might be in their opinion of a political nature. Mr. Speaker, this, in my opinion, is not what this great Nation stands for. This great Nation stands for the first amendment rights of its people, and I support that first amendment right, and that includes the churches and the houses of worship throughout this Nation. Let me also say that this bill is known as H.R. 2357, and in just a very few minutes I am going to show my colleagues some myths that the opposition is saying about this legislation. We had people like Dr. D. James Kennedy, who is a wonderful man of our Lord from Florida, to come up to testify on May 14; also, a Baptist minister here in Washington, D.C. who used to be a Member of the House, and his name is Pastor Walter Fauntroy. Pastor Fauntroy came to testify on behalf of this legislation; and the young man that helped me draft this legislation, an attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice, Kobe May, also testified. Mr. Speaker, at that testimony, the IRS basically said they cannot even enforce this legislation. I want to read just a couple of comments very quickly that came out during the hearing. This one really probably is one that bothers me greatly, which is that in answer to a question from the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the Internal Revenue Service acknowledged that they were not able to enforce this law; that they were dependent on a third party to enforce the law. In other words, Mr. Speaker, that kind of reminds me of the late 1930s in Germany when somebody reported somebody for saying something or doing something. Again, let me remind my colleagues in the House that this was only an amendment offered by Johnson in 1954 that was never debated and accepted, that put the Internal Revenue Service into the churches. Let me also say, if I might read it at this time, a quote by Martin Luther, and Martin Luther said: ``The church must be reminded that it is neither the master nor the servant of the State, but rather the conscience of the State.'' I believe that quote is so true. Mr. Speaker, let me also make a couple of other points. We have over 700,000 houses of worship in this Nation. How in the world can the Internal Revenue Service, during the months of September and October and November, how in the world can they send a person to be at the churches and synagogues and mosques to see what they are saying? Let me give an example very quickly. In the third district of North Carolina, which I represent, down in eastern North Carolina, a priest, Father Rudy at St. Paul's in New Bern, North Carolina, was asked by one of his parishioners, Jerry Schill, Jerry Schill asked, would you, Father Rudy, just say at the closing of the sermon, at the homily, just say that George Bush is pro-life. That is all he asked him to do, to say that George Bush is pro-life. He said no, I cannot do that. If I make that statement, it will violate the 501(c)(3) status of this church, and again, that is because of the Johnson amendment. If that had been in 1953 or 1945, the priest could have said whatever he wanted to say. He had the right to do so. The first amendment guarantees it. Let me give another example on the other side of the fence. We have strong support, Mr. Speaker, from another former Member of Congress, Pastor Floyd Flake, Dr. Floyd Flake of one of the largest Baptist churches in New York; and what Dr. Flake did in the 2000 election, he had Presidential candidate Al Gore in his church, and when Mr. Gore finished his comments, Pastor Flake went up, put his arm on his shoulder and said to his congregation, I think this is the right man to lead this Nation. Well, Dr. Flake, just like the priest down in my district, they would be saying this because they believe spiritually it is the right thing to do in their mind, and they should have the right to do it. It should not have been taken away from them by Lyndon Johnson. Mr. Speaker, let me now very quickly run through a chart. The other side on this issue is saying that this bill is not needed. They say that houses of worship can already comment on political issues. I have just given two examples, and I can give more examples than that. In fact, let me give another example. One of the groups that is opposed to this opposition is the Americans for Separation of Church and State, and this one I always have a great deal of interest in for this reason. I am not going to read a page and a half, but just make a couple of points. He sends this out to 285,000 churches. That is what he said in a press release. He did not send it to 700,000, but 285,000. I wonder how he selected those 285,000, by the way. But this is what he says; it is really kind of contradictory. The first sentence says: ``The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of pastors and church leaders to speak out on religious, moral, and political issues.'' Mr. Speaker, I actually agree with him on that sentence. But he comes back with, ``However, it is because of the Johnson amendment that churches and synagogues and mosques are barred from endorsing or opposing candidates for any political office and may not intervene directly or indirectly in partisan campaigns.'' Mr. Speaker, this is not an effort by those of us who believe in the first amendment to say that churches and preachers and priests and rabbis should get involved in political activity. We do not believe that. Only if they believe there are certain topics that they want to talk about. If that priest in New Bern wanted to say that George Bush is pro-life, that is educational, Mr. Speaker. If Floyd Flake in New York wants to say Al Gore is the right man, if he believes that and he says it, that is also educational. The spiritual leaders in this country have got to have the freedom. So that first myth that the other side is saying is absolutely wrong. The churches and the preachers and the priests, I have talked to many of them throughout this Nation, do not understand this law that Johnson passed; and they are concerned about violating the law so, therefore, they just would rather not say anything. I want to make it perfectly clear again that should this bill become law, the preacher, the priest, the rabbi would have a choice. He would not have to talk about moral, political, or cultural issues if they did not want to. He can choose to do so. But the way it is now, he is restricted by the Federal Government. That in itself brings up the second myth. Anyone who believes in separation of church and State cannot support this legislation. Well, my suggestion to those people is this, if you believe there should be a separation, then why should the Federal Government be able to have any influence or any chilling effect on what a preacher, priest, or rabbi should say in this Nation? So, therefore, that one is bogus also. Then they say, they come right back, the houses of worship bill would compromise the integrity of houses of worship. Let me tell my colleagues that in itself is laughable, because I am going to give a quote now from a former Member of Congress whose name is George Hansen from Idaho; he served for 12 years. Mr. Speaker, to myth number three I would say, let me read the quote from George Hansen. Mr. Hansen said on the floor of this House: ``It is impossible to have religious freedom in any Nation where churches are licensed to the government. That is the point.'' That is the point. When the churches and synagogues in this country were given a 501(c)3 status, there was no restriction at all. I have researched this issue, no restriction at all on speech; nothing. It was Lyndon Baines Johnson that put the Federal Government into our churches and synagogues. Myth number four is H.R. 2357 is not constitutional. Let me say to those again that raise that bogus argument, this is constitutional. Everything that I have ever read from being a student in high school to a college student to being an older man, that the first amendment applies to each and everyone and that means our preachers, our priests, and rabbis. In fact, in 1830, when Alex De Toqueville came to America and he was so impressed with this great, beautiful country that God had blessed with natural beauty, and he was excited about the New Republic and this freedom we would have in this country, what he said, Mr. Speaker, when he traveled America was, what impressed him the most was the flame in the pulpit. Mr. Speaker, we know for sure that until the Johnson amendment that the churches, synagogues, and mosques had no restrictions of speech. So, Mr. Speaker, I close this way with a couple of comments. Mr. Hansen was right. It is impossible to have religious freedom in any Nation where churches are licensed to the government. The IRS testified on May 14 they cannot even enforce this law; and yet we have certain groups in this country that intentionally send out letters to intimidate a lot of our pastors, priests, and rabbis. I believe, Mr. Speaker, with our men and women in uniform fighting today and at this very moment for this country, trying to protect our national security and protect our constitutional rights, and one of those is the freedom of speech and the freedom of participation, then our spiritual leaders should not be handcuffed. If this Nation is going to remain morally strong, Mr. Speaker, our spiritual leaders must talk about the issues of the day that they think are important, whether they be cultural issues or moral issues or political issues; and sometimes they intertwine, quite frankly. So, Mr. Speaker, I am very hopeful that this bill will be debated sometime this week, and I certainly hope that the House will join me in passing this legislation. That will be the first step of restoring the First Amendment right to our spiritual leaders. I close this way because I close this way every time I speak, whether it be in my district, here on the floor, or anywhere throughout, because I feel that this time that we are in as a Nation that, first of all, I have three military bases in my district. I have Camp LeJeune, I have Cherry Point Marine Air Station, New River Marine Base, and also Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. So I close, Mr. Speaker, by asking God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the American citizen. I ask God to please bless the men and women who serve in the House and the Senate, that we might do what is right in God's eyes. I ask God to please bless the President of the United States as he has many tough days and many tough decisions to make. I close finally this way, Mr. Speaker, by saying three times, please, God, please, God, please God, continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 416, 417, and 418, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on Nos. 416 and 417, and ``nay'' on No. 418.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to report to the staff that I will not take the full hour. That I am sure is good news because they work awfully hard, and many times the staff is here at 11:00 at night. I will keep my word to be not much longer than 20 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I am on the floor again, I have been every week for the last month, talking about an issue that, to me, if we are talking about September 11, we are talking about the war on terrorism, we are talking about our troops in Afghanistan. Part of the reason they are there is to protect our freedom. There is no question about it, and our national security. The reason I come to the floor is because a year or so ago it was brought to my attention by a minister in my District that he was prohibited from talking about a political issue or candidate during the 2000 election in the months of September and October. So I took it upon myself to, along with my staff, to research this issue, and I found out that in 1954 Lyndon Baines Johnson had the H.L. Hunt family opposed to his reelection, and the H.L. Hunt family had established two 501(c)(3) think tanks. So Johnson, being the majority leader and a very powerful man, and I think very arrogant man quite frankly, but anyway that is my opinion. He put an amendment on the revenue bill that was going through the Senate that was never debated, no debate, and basically what this debate said that if a company is a 501(c)(3) then they may not have political speech. Mr. Speaker, the reason that bothers me so greatly is that prior to the Johnson amendment, any pastor, priest or rabbi or cleric in this country had the right to talk about any issue that they and the congregation chose for that minister to talk about. The Johnson amendment put the IRS, because his amendment went on a revenue bill, into our churches, and they are what we call the speech patrol. That is not what this great Nation is about. This great Nation is about freedom, and the first amendment is cherished by all of us, and I would always do any and everything I can as a Member of Congress and as a citizen to protect the first amendment rights of the people of this country, and that includes our preachers, priests and rabbis. So we put a bill in as H.R. 2357, the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act, and I am pleased to tell my colleagues, as of tonight, we have about 134 cosponsors. We are picking up some from the other side of the aisle, some Democrats. I am delighted that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement) came on this week. He has joined us in this fight to return the freedom of speech to our churches and synagogues, and I want to read a couple of quotes at this time. This is a quote from the former Congressman George Hansen from Idaho who served 12 terms, and this is his quote, ``It is impossible to have religious freedom in any Nation where churches are licensed to the government.'' In my opinion, if the government is going to influence what a person can and cannot say within a church, then that is the government, in my opinion, that might as well as be licensed to churches, if they are going to stop them from talking about the moral and political issues of the day, because many of the biblical issues are today the political issues of the day. So the churches should be free to have those sermons and those discussions if the minister chooses to do so. In addition, Martin Luther said, ``The church must be reminded that it is neither the master nor the servant of the State but, rather, the conscience of the State.'' Mr. Speaker, what happened in the year 2000 and actually throughout the election cycle in the year 2000, Barry Lynn of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, he sends a letter to the religious leaders, both front page and back, and I am just going to read one paragraph because I want to make a point with this one paragraph. He says, ``Dear Religious Leader, another election year is upon us, and questions about the appropriate role of houses of worship in the political process have arisen.'' The second paragraph is the one that I really find intriguing quite frankly because he says in the first sentence of the second paragraph, he acknowledges what I am saying tonight is that our churches are guaranteed freedom of speech by the Constitution, and this is what Mr. Lynn says to begin this second paragraph. ``The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right of pastors and church leaders to speak about on religious, moral and political issues.'' That is exactly what I am saying. Exactly what I am saying. The first amendment guarantees the freedom of speech in our churches and synagogues and mosques throughout this country. However, and that is the word he uses, the second part of that paragraph or the second sentence in that paragraph is exactly what I am talking about tonight, the Johnson amendment. He says, ``However, houses of worship, as nonprofit entities under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Tax Code, are barred from endorsing or opposing candidates for any public office and may not intervene directly or indirectly in partisan campaigns.'' That is because of the Johnson amendment. If I go back to Mr. Lynn's first sentence, very seldom do I agree with him, but I do agree with him and he is exactly right, ``The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right of pastors and church leaders to speak out on religious, moral and political issues.'' He is right. The problem is the second sentence, the Johnson amendment, ``however.'' That is right, Mr. Lynn and I agree, the Constitution does guarantee that right to our preachers, priests, and rabbis throughout this country. There was a hearing held, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) has certainly been interested in this issue. He has a separate bill from mine. They are not competing. Mine just takes a different approach than his, but I want to praise the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for taking on this issue for a number of years, and I look forward to working with him in the months and years ahead. One day I hope that President Bush will sign a bill that says to the churches and synagogues of this country that they have total free speech in that church. That is what the cosponsors who have joined us on this bill, H.R. 2357, want. Tonight I am not going to take the time to list all of the spiritual leaders that have written letters of support and made telephone calls. Dr. D. James Kennedy from Florida testified before the oversight subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, and brought petitions signed by 60,000 people from around this country in support of this legislation. That same day we had a former Member of Congress from Washington, D.C., and a vice mayor of Washington, D.C., Pastor Walter Fauntroy testified on behalf of this legislation at the same time Dr. D. James Kennedy testified, and the attorney who helped me draft this legislation, Mr. Kobe May of the American Center for Law and Justice. Mr. May has been in the courts many times trying to protect the first amendment rights of people throughout this country. What I want to share is a response. There were two representatives from the Internal Revenue Service. One is Mr. Hopkins, and one is Mr. Miller. I found the whole testimony intriguing, quite frankly, but just a couple of points I would like to bring forward. In response to a question the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) asked Mr. Miller, ``As a rule, do you monitor the activities of churches during the political season?'' Mr. Miller with the Internal Revenue Service, ``We do monitor churches. We are limited in how we do that by reason of section 7611 and because of lack of information in the area because there is no annual filing.'' Mr. Speaker, this is the point that I want to make clearly. The last part of his answer, Mr. Miller to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), and this is what I wanted to stress, ``So our monitoring is mostly receipt of information from third parties who are looking.'' Mr. Speaker, third parties that are looking to see what the church and the pastor in that church is talking about and if he is violating the 501(c)(3) status, the Johnson amendment, then he is in violation and can lose the 501(c)(3) status. For those who talk about the separation of church and state, if they really are concerned, why do they want the government dictating what a minister might or might not be able to say within the church? Let me go just a little bit further. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) also is on that committee, and I want to read a couple of his questions and the answers. This gives a better example I think to my colleagues here in the House. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) asked a question of Mr. Miller of the Internal Revenue Service. Can the from the pulpit and not be in violation of the tax status that candidate is pro life or candidate why is pro choice? The answer was that becomes more problematic can speak to issues of the take but to the extent they start tying it to particular candidates and to a particular election, it begins to look more and more like either opposition to a particular candidate or favoring a particular candidate. Basically he is saying they are in violation of the Johnson amendment. The preacher cannot do that. That is exactly what he is saying that. Let me go to another question that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) asked. He asked, ``and would the Crane and Jones legislation clarify the law to allow for that type of statement? Mr. Miller answers, ``I believe so.'' That is what this is all about. I think if this country is to remain morally strong, our spiritual leaders throughout the country should have the right to talk about these issues. They had it prior to 1954. I am going to give evidence of that in just a moment. Another question from the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) to another agent who was in attendance, Mr. Hopkins. He says, ``So just to follow up on that, say you have a candidate who is a guest speaker, was in a church speaking from the pulpit, concludes his or her remarks, and the minister walks up, puts his or her arm around that particular candidate and says, this is the right candidate. I urge you to support this candidate. Is that allowable under current law?'' Mr. Hopkins with the Internal Revenue Service, ``No, that would not be allowable under current law. That would clearly be political campaign activity. It would be protected, however, under the two bills that are the specific subject of the hearing.'' So it would be protected under my bill and the Crane bill. Some people might say why should the churches get involved in political campaigns. Let me give another example. Down in my district during the year 2000, Jerry Shield, a friend of mine who is Catholic, went to his priest, Father Rudy at St. Paul's in New Bern, North Carolina, the Sunday before the Tuesday and he said to Father Rudy, Would you please say to the congregation George Bush is pro-life. The priest said, I cannot do that. It will violate the tax status of this church. Let me give an example on the other side. There is a wonderful former Member of Congress, Floyd Flake, whom all of us love. He is Dr. Floyd Flake, a minister, and has a very large church in New York City. Mr. Flake had Al Gore in his church, and when Mr. Gore completed his speech, Reverend Flake went up and did exactly the same thing that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) asked the IRS about. He stood up there and said I believe this is the right man to lead this Nation. He is trying to say that he believes as a spiritual man that he believed Al Gore is the right man. He got a letter of reprimand from the Internal Revenue Service; a third party turned him in. Mr. Speaker, this is America. Freedom rings in this great country. Our men and women are serving this Nation across the sea to guarantee that freedom, and we have a responsibility to not let Lyndon Johnson get by with an amendment that was not even debated. That is what happened. So after 48 years, 48 years of the Federal Government influencing and threatening what can be said in our churches and synagogues, we now have an opportunity to pass legislation to get this debate started. I want to thank even some who do not agree with me on this issue, thank you for allowing, after 48 years, for this bill to get to the floor for a debate. We will see what might happen when this bill might come forward. Let me take 5 or 6 more minutes and then I will close. There is a professor at Purdue University named Dr. James Davidson. I had read a report. He is well known. He is a psychologist at Purdue University. I talked to Dr. Davidson yesterday. He has spent a lot of time writing books and articles about churches and religion in America. I want to read this to Members. This is the beginning of his research on the issue of the freedom of churches to talk about political issues. ``The ban on electioneering has nothing to do with the first amendment or Jefferson's principle of separation of church and state. The first amendment speaks of religious freedom. It says nothing that would preclude churches from aligning themselves with or against a candidate for political office,'' and he cites certain court rulings. I will not recite those because of time. ``The courts also have never used Thomas Jefferson's celebrated 1802 metaphor about a wall of separation between church and state to stifle church's support or opposition to a political candidate.'' Another paragraph, ``From a Constitutional perspective then, American churches have had every right to endorse or oppose political candidates. They have not participated in all elections, but they have been actively involved in some. For example, many Protestant churches and church leaders delivered sermons and published religious literature opposing Al Smith's bid to become the Nation's first Catholic President in 1928.'' He cites some references there. Constitutional principles have not changed since 1928. Churches still have a constitutional right to endorse or oppose political candidates. However, then he gets into the issue of the Johnson amendment. What he is saying, that up until the Johnson amendment, there were no restrictions of speech, right or wrong. The preacher, the priest, the rabbi, the cleric had every right to talk about issues they thought were important to their church, to their State and to this Nation. I just wanted to read that because this man, Dr. Davidson, is an expert on this issue. I wanted to cite that for the record tonight. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a couple of more minutes now to say that the left has tried to say that if my bill or the bill of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) passed, then you are allowing the churches to get into the fund-raising business for political candidates. That is total hogwash. The bill that the Congress and the Senate passed, the 2002 campaign finance reform laws, says that if you are a nonprofit entity, which is a 501(c)(3), you cannot raise hard or soft money. So that is just a bogus argument from the extreme left that does not want to have the preachers to have the right to talk about these issues in their churches, synagogues and mosques. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the staff and you for giving me this time. I want to say that the strength of America depends, quite frankly, on our spiritual leaders being able to talk about the issues of the day, whether they be moral issues or political issues. I believe that the strength of this country is dependent on the fact that our spiritual leaders have total freedom of speech no matter what the issue might be. That is the best hope for this country. The spiritual leaders that I have met in the last year and a half I really believe are my brothers in Christ and I have great respect for them. I want to say that this legislation is supported by such people as D. James Kennedy, Dr. Tim LaHaye and his wife Beverly, by also Ray Flynn, the former Ambassador to the Vatican and also Rabbi Daniel Lapin, a wonderful man of God from the west coast. I talked to him two or three times on this issue. Again, these spiritual leaders and I would say that probably the majority of the spiritual leaders maybe would not even want to discuss these issues in front of their congregation. Maybe they would choose to say, well, I don't want to talk about a political candidate here or there. But my point is, they should have the right to make that decision. They now do not have that right. There is one other problem with this law. The IRS admitted during the hearing that they cannot enforce this law. As I said earlier, they are dependent on a third party, a spy, if you will, to turn somebody in. I do not believe that that is what this great Nation stands for. Let me also say that they acknowledge that they cannot enforce this law adequately across the board. They have and they did admit they have been somewhat selective as to certain churches. I gave you an example of Floyd Flake who again is a wonderful man of our Lord in New York. All he did was to say to his congregation that he believes that Al Gore is the right man to lead this Nation. Then again I want to go back to the priest down in my district, there was a request made by a parishioner, Just say that George Bush is pro-life. These are just simple words. They have a right to say it. They should have that right. That is acknowledged by Davidson and even in Barry Lynn's letter, the first sentence. He is exactly right. They do have that right. Johnson took it away from them. I also want to say that this country, I think, is a Nation, and some people will not agree with this, but it was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. That is the foundation of America and if America is going to remain strong, then we have got to be sure that our spiritual leaders have the freedom to talk about the biblical, the moral, and the political issues of the day. They must have that right. Mr. Speaker, I always close when I come to the floor in a certain way. I spoke this morning and I close this way everywhere I go, because I think we are so fortunate to have our men and women in uniform who are protecting our national security and also protecting the first amendment, the second amendment and all the guarantees that we have in the Constitution. I close this way by saying, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform, I ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform, I ask God to please bless the men and women who serve in the United States House and the United States Senate, I ask God to please bless the President of the United States so that he might make the right decisions for this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I close this way by saying three times, I ask God: Please God, please God, please God, continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, there is a saying that only in America can an individual be given a certificate at birth, a license at marriage, and a bill at death. Americans should not have to visit the undertaker and the IRS on the same day. Unfortunately, small businesses and family farms, like those in Eastern North Carolina, are particularly vulnerable to the death tax. At the time of their death, Americans are taxed on the value of their property, often at rates as high as 55 percent. Mr. Speaker, this places a tremendous burden on families who are already grieving the loss of a loved one. While small businesses and family farms are typically rich in assets, they often do not have the liquid resources to settle this size of bill with the federal government. Too often, they are forced to sell some or all of their land or business, which often serves as their family's livelihood. Over the years, the death tax has devastated family-owned businesses throughout our nation's towns and cities. Today, less than half of family businesses are able to survive the death of a founder. What could be more un-American? Under current law, 70 percent of family businesses do not survive the second generation and 87 percent do not make it to the third generation. The death tax discourages savings and investment, and punishes those Americans who work hard throughout their lives to pass on something to their children. Mr. Speaker, the estate tax does not serve as a significant source of revenue for the federal government. The Treasury Department reported that in 1998, the estate and gift tax raised only $24.6 billion, which amounts to only 1.3 percent of total federal revenues. In addition, economic studies conducted by former Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers show that for every dollar in transfer taxes taken at death, $33 in capital formation is lost from the economy. Despite its little value to the government, the death tax undermines the idea that hard work and fiscal responsibility will be rewarded. Thankfully, this Congress provided a phase-out of the estate tax beginning in 2002 by eliminating the 5% surtax and the rates in excess of 50 percent and increases the exemption to $1 million. Today, we need to take steps to ensure this phase-out is permanent and does not sunset in 2011. If H.R. 2143 is not signed into law, the death tax will re- appear, almost overnight on New Year's Eve, 2011. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has done an admirable job of guaranteeing tax relief for every working American. Let's pass this bill now and finish the job we started when we took back the people's House in 1995.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I will not take the full hour, but as we are talking about our men and women in uniform, and I want to join with the gentlewoman from Texas, that we are very fortunate to have the men and women who serve this Nation, and God bless them, and also the families of those who serve this Nation, the men that serve this Nation and the women, that we do appreciate them. That is really one of the reasons I am on the floor today, because I do appreciate and I cherish the First Amendment right of the Constitution of the United States of America, and I know that many men and women have died for that right and other rights that we enjoy based on our Constitution. But the reason I am here, Mr. Speaker, is because our churches and synagogues are denied the First Amendment rights to talk about issues such as political issues. Well, some people might not know the history, and the history is this, that from day one of the beginning of this Nation, the preachers and priests have had the freedom to talk about political issues and actually had that freedom until 1954. If this was 1953, Mr. Speaker, I would not even be on the floor, because there would be no problem. The churches had freedom of speech until 1954. In 1954, Lyndon Baines Johnson, United States Senator and majority leader, a very strong position that he held in the United States Senate, had the H.L. Hunt family back in Texas opposed to his reelection because they were saying that Johnson was soft on communism. So the H.L. Hunt family had established 2501(c)(3) think tanks, obviously not churches, but think tanks. So Johnson, being the man that he was, put an amendment on a revenue bill going through the Senate in 1954 that was never even debated; they never debated the amendment. Basically what he said was if you are a 501(c)(3), you may not have political speech. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am one who believes sincerely that the strength of this Nation depends on our spiritual leaders having the right of free speech, whether it be a political issue that they think is important or whether it should be a moral issue that is somewhat political. What Mr. Johnson did was to give the authority to the Internal Revenue Service to be able to say what can be said and not said as it relates to political issues of the day. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe sincerely that the moral future of this country depends on our religious leaders having the freedom to talk about issues, should they choose. Let me give an example. A priest in my district, the third district of North Carolina, was asked by a parishioner who is a friend of mine, his name is Jerry Shield, Jerry Shield asked the priest in October of 2000 during the presidential election, he asked his priest, Father Rudy at St. Paul's in New Bern, North Carolina, he said, Father, please just make the statement at the end of the mass that George Bush is pro-life. Mr. Speaker, that is not an endorsement. It is a statement, it is an educational statement for those parishioners that attended that church. The priest said to Jerry Shield, I cannot do that, Jerry, because it will violate the 501(c)(3) status of this church. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced a bill, H.R. 2357, the Houses of Worship Free Speech Protection Act. I am pleased to tell the Members that the support that we have from leaders around this Nation is really quite humbling, to be honest; people like Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention; James Dobson, president of Focus on the Family; David Barton, director of the Wallbuilders; James Martin, the 60 Plus Association; Tim and Beverly LaHaye, and we all know their fine work; and Concerned Women for America; also, the Family Research Council; the Religious Freedom Coalition, they support this legislation; also, David Keene, who is chairman of the American Conservative Union. Dr. D. James Kennedy, one of the finest men I have ever met, from the Coral Ridge Ministries, is a strong supporter of this legislation. Another man that I have great respect for, along with all the others that I have named, is Ray Flynn. Ray Flynn is the former ambassador to the Vatican and former Mayor of Boston, Massachusetts. Mr. Flynn supports this legislation; also, a man that I have really gotten to know by telephone who I have a tremendous respect for, Rabbi Daniel Lapin. He is a wonderful man of God, and he supports this legislation; and James Bopp, the constitutional lawyer for the James Madison Center for Free Speech. He is a strong supporter of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the reason I have this enlargement of a letter that I received, it is from a fine man who was a Member of Congress my first year, 1995. Floyd Flake was a Member of the Congress. He is an ordained minister, as well. I talked to him about 4 or 5 months ago. I told Dr. Flake what I was trying to do: I was just trying to get the support to return the freedom of speech to our churches and synagogues. We chatted for a while, and he said, Congressman, I would be glad to write a letter of support. I just want to read two paragraphs from this letter: ``I praise God for the stand that you have taken to defend the first amendment right of houses of worship. It is unjust that churches and clergymen and women are unfairly targeted when they exercise their right as an American citizen. I am pleased to offer my wholehearted support with sincere prayer for passage of this important and liberating legislation.'' I am very honored and pleased to have Dr. Flake support this and certainly to have his letter of support for what we are trying to do. Mr. Speaker, it so happened that on May 15, the oversight committee, chaired by the gentleman from New York (Chairman Houghton), held a hearing on this issue, freedom of speech in our churches and synagogues. That day, D. James Kennedy came up from Florida, flew up from Florida to testify on behalf of this legislation. In addition to Dr. Kennedy, also Pastor Walter Fauntroy came, who is a pastor here in Washington, D.C. at the New Bethel Baptist Church. I am pleased to tell the Members that actually he was a Member of Congress and also the vice mayor of Washington, D.C., at one time. Let me share a couple of comments that they made when they testified before the oversight committee on May 14. I want to read these two paragraphs, Mr. Speaker. This is from Pastor Walter Fauntroy. I am just going to read his 5-minute presentation that he made before the oversight committee, just two paragraphs for the Record: ``What I have learned as a pastor, civil rights activist, and Member of Congress over these years has led me to appear before you today in support of H.R. 2357, the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act. In the 5 minutes allowed me, I want to share with you two definitions of `politics' upon which I have acted over these years as a pastor, as a civil rights activist and a politician that inform my decision to support this legislation,'' H.R. 2357. In addition, he closed this way, Mr. Speaker. I cannot read the entire testimony. I will at a later time, not today, ask that I might be able to submit this for the Record. He closed his testimony, and again, this is Pastor Walter Fauntroy, pastor of the New Bethel Baptist Church here in Washington, D.C. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the political aisle know him well, as they do Reverend Floyd Flake from New York. This is how Pastor Fauntroy closed: ``So, Mr. Chairman, I know that it is not in my interest or that of the people whom I serve that certain people who are self-centered hypocrites when it comes to the basic tenets of their religions exercise their right to be wrong. But like Voltaire, I may disagree with them vehemently, but I will defend to the death their right to be wrong and their right to participate in an orderly effort to `translate what they believe into public policy and practice.' I must not be selfish and therefore sinful; I must not demand for myself what I would deny others.'' Mr. Speaker, he also closed with a Bible verse. Again, this is Pastor Walter Fauntroy, who is testifying on behalf of H.R. 2357 to return freedom of speech to our churches and synagogues, should those pastors decide that they want to talk about the issues of the day. Many times there are political issues of the day. He closed this way by saying: ``. . . save his life, shall lose it, and he that loses his life for my sake shall find it.'' That is Matthew 10:39. I wish I could read the entire testimony of Pastor Fauntroy. Obviously, Members would better understand the last paragraph if I had had the time to do that. In addition, I want to read just a couple of statements from the testimony of Dr. D. James Kennedy. He and Pastor Fauntroy, along with Kobe May, and Kobe May is an attorney for the American Center for Law and Justice, they testified that day on behalf of freedom of speech in our churches and synagogues. This is one of the paragraphs that Dr. Kennedy said during his testimony that I want to read: ``This legislation is a vitally important step in reversing a long- standing injustice whereby free speech seems to be protected everywhere except in the pulpit of our churches and other houses of worship. It will restore to churches a freedom and role that dates to the American infancy. Nineteenth century historian John Wingate Thornton said, ``In a very great degree, to the pulpit, the Puritan pulpit, we owe the moral forces which won our independence.'' Mr. Speaker, that is so true. If we think about the history of this Nation, there was never any restriction of speech in our churches and synagogues, none whatsoever. Only Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1954, with an amendment that was never debated, put the IRS in the churches and the synagogues and the mosques of America. Mr. Speaker, let me continue for just a few more minutes. I would like to say that also at that hearing was the Internal Revenue Service, and I want to read just a couple of comments made by the agents that testified. This is what one agent said when he was asked the question by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), and this was the question from the Congressman: ``As a rule, do you monitor the activities of churches during the political season?'' Mr. Miller, who represented the Internal Revenue Services, his answer to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) was this: ``We do monitor churches. We are limited in how we do that by reason of section 7611 and because of the lack of information in the area because there is no annual filing.'' Mr. Speaker, this is the point I really want to make because this is Mr. Miller's answer: ``So our monitoring is mostly reciprocal of information from third parties who are looking in.'' Mr. Speaker, that kind of reminds me of what I think Nazi Germany might have been in the late '30's where there are snitches that are willing to turn in somebody for what they said in a free nation. Mr. Speaker, America is better than that. America is greater than that. Our church leaders do not need to be muzzled by the Federal Government, and in this case the Federal Government is the Internal Revenue Service. Let me give you another practical example that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) asked of Mr. Miller. The question is: ``Can the minister say the following from the pulpit and not be in violation of the tax status,'' and this is what the preacher would be saying, ``that candidate X is pro-life or candidate Y is pro-choice?'' The answer from the IRS is: ``That becomes more problematic, Congressman. The pastor, the minister, the rabbi can speak to the issues of the day, but to the extent that they start tying it into a particular candidate and to a particular election, it begins to look more and more like either opposition to a particular candidate or favoring a particular candidate.'' So because I have a bill in, H.R. 2357, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) has a bill in that speaks to the same issue, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) then asks Mr. Miller: ``And would the Crane and the Jones legislation clarify the law to allow for that type of statement?'' The answer from Mr. Miller is ``I believe so.'' Then let me go further. Really this in itself is another point I want to make. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) further asks: ``Just to follow up on that, say you have a candidate who was a guest speaker, was in a church speaking from the pulpit, concluding his or her remarks, and the minister walks up, puts his or her arm around that particular candidate and says, `This is the right candidate, I urge you to support this candidate.' Is that allowable under law?'' Mr. Hawkins, another IRS person that attended and spoke at the hearing on May 14, responds, ``No, that would not be allowed under the law. That would clearly be political campaign activity. It would be protected, however, under the two bills that have been introduced by Mr. Crane and Mr. Jones.'' Mr. Speaker, that is the reason that I have for the last year and a half taken this on, because I sincerely believe that for America to remain morally strong, our preachers and our priests and our rabbis must not be politically handicapped by the speech patrol, in this case, the IRS, because, again, Mr. Speaker, this country is too great and too many people have given of their lives to protect the freedoms that we should be able to enjoy. Mr. Speaker, let me also say that something that came to my attention as I started researching this issue is that the IRS has what they call code words, code words that they think could be used to endorse a candidate, and let me tell you what these code words are. Liberal, prolife, prochoice, antichoice, Republican, or Democrat. Let me give you a practical example, and this is the information that they give to the people of America about what they can and cannot do and what candidates can and cannot do, and this issue that I am talking about is on Page 315 of the information that is provided by the Internal Revenue Service. It is called the ``Election Year Issues.'' Let me read and give you the example of what they give in this documentation. This is not even a church, by the way. ``If a nonprofit in Vermont runs an ad regarding a local `liberal' candidate, the Vermont voters would know which specific candidate the nonprofit was discussing,'' in this case, a liberal candidate. This is a code ``and in violation of Internal Revenue Service Code 501(c)(3) because oftentimes candidates are unofficially given labels that become commonly known.'' Mr. Speaker, the more I got into this issue, I can honestly say that it is absolutely ridiculous, and in my opinion it is unconstitutional that Mr. Johnson was able to get his amendment passed without any debate, and if there had been debate, quite frankly, I still think it is unconstitutional that this Federal Government through the Internal Revenue Service would try to stifle free speech in our churches and synagogues. So that is the reason I wanted to be on the floor today. I will make a few more comments and then I will close. We have numerous letters from religious leaders throughout this country that believe that this legislation is right, that this legislation is needed. I will give the example again, Dr. Flake had Al Gore in his church in the year 2000, and Mr. Flake is a Democrat, he is a good man, and he blessed his party and I respect that and appreciate that. So when Mr. Gore finished speaking in his church, Dr. Flake walked up in front of approximately 10,000 people, a big church in New York and he is a great minister and draws big crowds, and he said, ``I believe that Al Gore is the right man for this Nation.'' That is all he said. He got a letter of reprimand from the Internal Revenue Service. If our preachers and ministers and priests and rabbis feel that they have a spiritual calling to help educate people in that congregation then please, please, let us not have the Federal Government determine what they can and cannot say because their role for this Nation's future is too important. So again I have got the letter from Dr. Flake here that I read earlier, the two paragraphs, in support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, we have 130 co-sponsors on this legislation, and I am a Republican and I am reaching out across the aisle, and I am pleased to say that we have about six or seven Democrats that have joined us. I have got three appointments next week with three members of the Democratic Party to go to their offices and sit down and talk to them about joining us in this effort to return to freedom of speech. What I have found, I do not know how many radio shows across this Nation that I have had the opportunity to be on. I was on a show today in Iowa, and I was on a show two days ago in Kentucky and I am finding people of faith that really just did not know what the law was. And when they hear the history of it, again, that Lyndon Johnson, just a man of arrogance, in my opinion, that just wanted to show an opponent that he could stifle his speech, and when I tell them the history of this thing and they know the history of America and the fact that we have such freedom that our ministers and priests have never been bridled in speech until this became the law in 1954. They are joining me in this effort. I believe the leadership will give us a chance to debate this issue on the floor of the House sometime before we leave for the elections. Mr. Speaker, I will always remember that this country has been blessed by God; and the freedoms that we enjoy, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, are blessed by God also; and I want to return that freedom. I want to make it clear that should they have this freedom in the churches, not every minister is going to make a decision that he wants to talk about this issue or that issue that might be of a political nature. But should he not have the freedom to do so, should he or she choose to do so? I think so. And I am pleased that 130 of my colleagues think so. We receive faxes and e-mails just about every day from a minister from across this Nation. We got one yesterday from a minister in Missouri who said in the e-mail, ``Thank you for what you are trying to do. I am going to encourage the members from our State to join you in this effort.'' I was on the Jerry Falwell Show last Friday in Lynchburg, Virginia, and he is in 50 States, and we talked about this issue. Mr. Speaker, part of the problem is that the IRS says they cannot enforce this law, anyway. They acknowledged in the testimony on May 14 that they know there are some churches that do not abide by the law. And yet Barry Lynn, who is a man that is on the extreme left, and the reason I will say that is because he applauded the Ninth Circuit Court's decision when they said to remove ``under God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance, so to me he is an extreme liberal; and he is opposed to this legislation. In fact, in the year 2000 he sent to 285,000 churches a letter that coerced and intimidated the preachers to have any discussion of the politics of September and October of the year 2000. So I am very hopeful that we can continue to garner support for this legislation so that the men and women who serve our Lord as preachers and priests and rabbis and clerics can have the freedom, should they choose to talk about these issues. Mr. Speaker, I want to close if I can with a letter, and this will be towards the end, from Richard Lynn. Richard Lynn again is the Southern Baptist Convention Ethics and Religion Commission. He is head of that commission for the Southern Baptists. And he says in his letter, ``Dear Congressman Jones: H.R. 2357 is consistent with the constitutional principle that the church should be separated from the State. The government should not have the power to define what the church believes or practices in principle or in effect. With the unbridled discretion given to the Internal Revenue Service to selectively target those it wishes to silence or threaten, this principle is not currently being protected.'' So, again, what Dr. Lynn is asking is that there not be any restriction of speech in the churches and synagogues throughout this great Nation that we all love and respect. So, Mr. Speaker, I am now going to close the way I close every time I speak publicly. I was on the floor this week and will be a couple of times next week. This country appreciates the men and women in uniform. And as some of my colleagues from the other side were talking about the possibility of war in Iraq, which none of us know for sure what will happen, but I have three military bases in my district. I have Camp Lejeune Marine Base. I have Cherry Point Marine Air Station. I have Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. And I have gotten to know a lot of those men and women in uniform, from the privates up to the base commanders. And I tell you the truth, I love and respect all of them. So I close my comments today, Mr. Speaker, by saying, most sincerely, God, please bless our men and women in uniform. God, please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. I have asked God to please bless the President of the United States, that the President might make the best decisions and the right decisions for the future of America. I ask God to bless my colleagues here in the House and the Senators across the aisle so that they might do what is right in the eyes of our Lord and Savior. Mr. Speaker, I close this way because I say it three times because I mean it from the bottom of my heart. Please, God, please, God, please, God, continue to bless America.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, since we have been talking about attorneys general around the United States, I must tell you one of my very best friends whom I served with for 10 years in the North Carolina House of Representatives is the Attorney General of North Carolina. His name is Roy Cooper. We have talked about a couple of other issues, but never did this come up. Maybe the other 49 are very concerned, but he has not shared that concern with me. Let me tell just briefly the history of this issue as it relates to legislation dealing with the rent-to-own business. This goes back to a bill that was introduced 10 years ago by Congressman LoRocco from the West. That was 10 years ago, and, finally, after 10 years, right or wrong, we have brought this legislation to the floor. I certainly respect my friends on the other side of this issue, and I mean that most sincerely. This consumer rent-to-own purchase agreement act, I do want to restate, represents the largest category of consumer transactions currently unregulated by the Federal Government. I mention that because we held hearings in the subcommittee of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus). I do not know if we had three or four, but I know there were several discussions. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) was very proactive. I disagree, but I respect her ability and her positions on this issue. I think that the rent-to-own business, quite frankly, has wanted to work with the Congress on this legislation. Does it go far enough? Maybe not, but is it a step in the right direction? I think it is. Several comments have been made about the rent-to-own industry and just how bad some people think it is, and I would like to read just a couple of survey comments from the Federal Trade Commission, survey of rent- to-own customers, and this is April of 2000. I believe that the Clinton administration was the administration in the year 2000. Let me read, in a couple of minutes, some of their surveys of those people who do rent the rent-to-own equipment. Sixty-seven percent of consumers intended to purchase the merchandise when they began the rent-to-own transaction, and 87 percent of the customers intending to purchase actually did purchase. So that sounds like to me a satisfied customer. I cannot imagine anyone not satisfied that would buy the product. Seventy-five percent of rent-to-own customers were satisfied with their experience with rent-to-own transactions. Seventy-five percent. They also state that nearly half of all rent-to-own customers have been late making a payment. Sixty-four percent of late customers reported that the treatment they received from the store when they were late was either very good or good, and another percent, 20 percent, reported that the treatment was fair. So, Mr. Chairman, in that case 84 percent of the people that were late in their payments said that they had an experience with the business that was very positive. I want to close with this minute by reading a letter from four of my colleagues from the Democratic side that I think would rate with anyone as being a friend of the consumer in this country. It is the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn). They sent a letter out on September 17. That is this week, obviously. I want to read, in closing, one paragraph: ``H.R. 1701 will help consumers in several ways. Most importantly, like the Truth in Lending Act and the Consumer Leasing Act, the bill improves disclosures so that consumers can understand the full costs of this transaction and make better decisions about spending their money. For example, about 30 states do not require any price tag disclosures of total costs, and H.R. 1701 will fix that. It prohibits mandatory purchase of insurance from merchants and other unfair charges. It forbids abusive collection practices. It provides moderate or substantial expansion of reinstatement rights in about 40 states. It authorizes enforcement by the FTC and State attorneys general.'' And they close by saying this, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) close this way, by saying to their colleagues, ``We urge you to consider the merits of H.R. 1701 carefully, and we seek your support for its passage.''

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you and the staff that I will not take that much time. That might be the best news I can give. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a few minutes of this hour to talk about an issue that I think, as my friend from New Jersey feels that the issue he is talking about, prescription drugs, is important, and I would agree it is important, but I want to talk about freedom of speech. I think that there is nothing except the Bible that is more sacred to the American people than the Constitution. It is second only, again, to the Bible. Tonight I want to talk a little bit about H.R. 2357. This is a bill that I introduced about 2 years ago. I actually have 130 sponsors, and I believe you, Mr. Speaker tonight in the Chair, are a cosponsor of this also. In this country we have our men and women in uniform that right now are overseas in Afghanistan, and they could be called on to be in other parts of the world to defend the national security of this country, and the national security of this country includes our constitutional rights and our freedoms, the things that we cherish. We really appreciate those who have given their life for this country in the past and what they have done to ensure that we would have the freedoms that we enjoy in this great, great Nation, blessed by God Almighty. I would like to give a little bit of the history of this bill that I put in. If this was 1953, Mr. Speaker, I would not even be on the floor, because there would be no issue. In 1953, the churches, synagogues and other houses of worship had no restriction on what they might say in their church. But in 1954, Lyndon Baines Johnson, the United States Senator from Texas and the majority leader, was very offended that there was a 501(c)3 group that was opposed to his reelection by the name of the H.L. Hunt family. These were not churches. These were think tanks, as we know them today, and they were opposed to his reelection. So what Lyndon Johnson did, he put an amendment on a revenue bill going through the Senate in 1954 that was never debated. There was no debate at all. The Republican minority accepted what they call a UC, a unanimous consent, so therefore it became the law. It gave the authority to the Internal Revenue Service that the Internal Revenue service would be able to, if you will, evaluate what could and could not be said in a church, synagogue or mosque. Mr. Speaker, I am of the firm belief that those men who came to this country along with their wives years and years and years ago came to this country for religious freedom. They came here to build a new nation, a nation that would be and still is blessed by God Almighty. Mr. Speaker, my problem is, and the reason I introduced H.R. 2357, that I believe that spiritual leaders of this country must have the freedom to talk about the issues of the day, whether they be about political issues of the day or whether they be about the moral issues of the day, and sometimes those sermons in those churches have to touch on the political issues of the day. I will give an example of that, because it happened in my district. A very dear friend of mine who happens to be a Catholic down in New Bern, North Carolina, whose name is Jerry Shield, Jerry asked his priest, Father Rudy at St. Paul's Catholic Church in New Bern, in the year 2000 to just make one little comment the Sunday before the Tuesday election. He said, ``Father, how about just saying that George Bush, who is a candidate for President of the United States, is pro-life?'' Believe this or not, Mr. Speaker, the priest said, ``Jerry, I cannot say that. If I do, I will violate the 501(c)3 status of this church and we might lose that status.'' Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you that I am offended that any clergy in this country, our spiritual leaders that talk about morality, that talk about the political issues of the day as they see fit to talk about those issues, that they should have any restriction at all on them. What I wanted to do tonight, I was on the floor last week and I talked about a few of the national leaders who are supportive. Again I want to say we have 130 cosponsors of this bill. I am pleased to tell you that in the last couple of weeks we have picked up three additional Democrats. I want to pick up more. I am reaching out to my friends on both sides of the aisle to ask them to please look at this as nothing more. It is not a political issue, it is not a party issue, it is just an issue of freedom of speech, because, again, I cannot say it too much, that if this was 1953, I would not be on the floor. There was no restriction. I have researched this issue and when the churches qualified by the law to become 501(c) status, there is no, no restriction of what they could or could not say. I want tonight to again just mention a few of the spiritual leaders of this country who support this legislation. Richard Land, the Southern Baptist Convention; James Dobson, we all know is the president of Focus on the Family; David Barton, director of the Wallbuilders. He has been such a strong supporter of this legislation. James Martin, president of the 60 Plus Association; Tim and Beverly LaHaye, the Concerned Women for America; Kent Synder, executive director for the Liberty Principle; Connie Mackey; William Murray, the chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition; David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; D. James Kennedy, President of Coral Ridge Ministries; and Ray Flynn, Mr. Speaker, the former ambassador to the Vatican is a strong supporter of this legislation, H.R. 2357, to return the freedom of speech to our churches and synagogues. In addition, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, and I have had the pleasure of talking to him twice now. What a wonderful man of God he is and he is a real inspiration to all of us who love God, there is no question about it. And James Bopp, the constitutional lawyer for the James Madison Center for Free Speech. Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, I am very pleased to tell my colleagues tonight that a former Member of the United States House of Representatives, a man that was here my first session in the United States Congress, I had great respect for. I did not really get to know him, I wish I had. But he was a real leader on the Democratic side. His name is Floyd Flake. Dr. Flake is a minister, a former Member of Congress, and he is the pastor of the Greater Allen Cathedral in New York; and he wrote a very strong letter of support for this legislation. Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, they held a hearing on this issue on May 14, and I am very pleased to tell my colleagues that Dr. D. James Kennedy came up from Florida to testify on behalf of this legislation. In addition, I am pleased to tell my colleagues that another former Member of the House, a Democrat, Walter Fauntroy, Pastor Walter Fauntroy came to testify on behalf of this legislation. Let me read the last paragraph of Dr. Flake's letter. It says: ``I am pleased to offer my wholehearted support with sincere prayer for passage of this important and liberating legislation.'' That is the key: liberating legislation. Our men and women of faith who are spiritual leaders should have every right they choose to talk about the issues of the day. I know that when Al Gore was running for the Presidency in the year 2000, he was in Dr. Flake's church and after Mr. Gore spoke, the minister said, Dr. Flake said, ``I think this is the right man to lead this Nation.'' Well, then he got a letter of reprimand from the IRS. Well, Mr. Speaker, if that is what Dr. Flake felt and wanted to say that to his congregation, there should not have been any Federal Government overseeing what he said in that church. Then I gave the example earlier of my friend, Jerry Shield, down in New Bern to ask the priest just to say that George Bush is pro-life, let us support George Bush. These are the things that if this was 1953, they would be able to do it without any reservation at all. But Lyndon Johnson, who was an arrogant Member of the Senate at the time, and later became a President that I do not have much respect for his Presidency, quite frankly; but anyway, he put in an amendment without any debate, as I said earlier, that pretty much stifled the churches and synagogues of this country. They did hold a hearing on this legislation, and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the chairman of the committee, for holding that hearing, because what it did, it gave us a chance to talk about this issue. I want to read just a couple of comments, Mr. Speaker, because they had two representatives of the IRS to come talk about their authority given again by Lyndon Johnson to stifle the speech of the churches and synagogues in this country. I am not going to read all of the testimony, but I am going to read just a couple of minutes for the Record, if I could. Let me use for an example that one of the comments was of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who asked Mr. Miller, who represents the Internal Revenue Service at the hearing, and Mr. Lewis said, ``As a rule,'' again, to the IRS, ``do you monitor the activities of churches during the political season?'' The IRS representative, Mr. Miller says, ``We do monitor churches. We are limited in how we do that by reason of section 7611 and because of the lack of information in the area, because there is no annual filing.'' But, Mr. Speaker, this is the point I want to make. He additionally said, ``So our monitoring is mostly receipt of information from third parties who are looking.'' Well, I think that is a sad commentary on this great Nation that we have to have our churches and synagogues having a third party to look in to see what they are saying, because then that third party, if they believe they have violated the Johnson amendment, can report them to the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Speaker, that is not what this great Nation is about. That is not what these great men and women in uniform are willing to give their life for. They are willing to give their life for the national security of this country and the freedom of this Nation. But that is what Mr. Miller said: we are dependent on a third party to report the church for violating the Johnson amendment for speaking freely on the political and moral issues of the day. Then there is another question that Mr. Lewis asked and I want to read this for the Record: ``Do you have the ability or the capacity as an agency to monitor the activities of churches and other religious institutions?'' Mr. Miller with the Internal Revenue Service says, ``The only thing we can rely upon again is who would be in that audience to report it.'' Mr. Speaker, I think that is so tragic. We have a law in the land of this country that restricts freedom of speech in our churches and synagogues, and we have to depend on a third party to be there to report that to the Internal Revenue Service. That again is not what should be in this country. The spiritual leaders of this great Nation should have the right to choose whatever they feel that they must say from their heart and their God to their members who are in that congregation. But again, Mr. Miller has been very honest on the committee on May 14, and he acknowledged we are dependent on a third party to report churches and synagogues who might violate the law of the land. Well, my point there is that how in the world, with all of the churches and synagogues and mosques in this country, can we enforce this law? The law is unjustified, it is unneeded, and should never have been adopted. It was done in 1954 at night without any debate. We should pass H.R. 2357 and return the freedom of speech to our churches and synagogues. Just one more point on this, Mr. Speaker, and then I am going to work toward a close. Let me read this letter, and this is what really bothers me more than anything. This might better explain to the Congress what we are trying to say. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) was also on that committee that I mentioned that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) served on, the oversight committee chaired by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton). The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) asked this question: ``So just to follow up on that, say you have a candidate who is a guest speaker, was in a church speaking from the pulpit, concludes his or her remarks, and the minister walks up, puts his hands or arms around the particular candidate and says, this is the right candidate; I urge you to support this candidate. Is that allowable under current law?'' That is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) to Mr. Hopkins, who represents the Internal Revenue Service, and he says, ``No, that would not be allowable under law. That would clearly be political campaign activity. It would be protected, however, under the two bills that are specifically the subject of this hearing,'' a bill introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and myself, Congressman Jones, H.R. 2357. Mr. Speaker, I came to this floor last week, and I am going to come a couple times this week and a couple of times next week, because I hope that the leadership of the House will bring this to the floor of the Congress to vote on. I believe sincerely that if this country is going to have a great future, and we are a Nation who cannot forget that this Nation has been blessed by God; if we are going to have a strong Nation, then our preachers, our priests, and our rabbis must have a right to talk about the issues of the day. And sometimes those moral issues of the day become political issues. I think that our ministers must have the right to talk about those issues of the day if this country is going to remain morally strong. Let me start closing by reading a letter; it will not take but just a couple of minutes. This is a minister who is an African American minister down in Raleigh, North Carolina, and I know him, I have talked to him by phone; and I have a great deal of respect for him. He is a strong man of God. I had read an article in a Raleigh paper; all the liberal press, Mr. Speaker, they just cannot understand this legislation. The liberals just cannot understand it. I guess they forget that they are protected by the Constitution and so should the ministers and priests and rabbis, as far as I am concerned. Let me read this. It is from Marian B. Robinson, minister of the St. Matthew AME Church in Raleigh, North Carolina, and it will not take but a moment. ``Dear Congressman Jones: I read with interest an article printed in Raleigh News and Observer as it pertained to H.R. 2157, the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act. Thank you for introducing a bill that will give free speech to houses of worship on issues of moral and political significance without the fear of losing their tax exempt status. If the churches cannot do it, then who can?'' Second paragraph: ``Secondly, the black church has always been a platform and forum to get the message out to our people since we have no other institution or places to go or turn to. The church continues to be the mouthpiece for informing and directing our people on most things. Part of our job consists of trying to keep families strong and together by instilling morals and values and the teachings of Christ. We need freedom of speech from the pulpits without fear of reprisals. This will help us carry out our tasks in a manner pleasing to God and meaningful to the people.'' Mr. Speaker, the reason I wanted to read that letter is because this support is across the board. It is from people of faith, whether they be African American, whether they be Muslim, whether they be Catholic, Jew, or Protestant. They support this legislation because they fully understand, as I understand, that the strength of this country is the fact that our spiritual leaders have the freedom to talk about these issues. I must say that as Pastor Robinson asked me in this letter of support, Mr. Speaker, if they are not going to have the right to talk about these issues, then who is going to talk about them? What I say to the liberal press is, I do not have much respect for the liberal press. When it suits their needs, they support it; when it does not suit their needs, then they do not support it. But I will tell my colleagues that I never saw in 1953, and I have had my staff to do a lot of research, I never saw any editorial or any news article that took the churches to task for what they might have said of a political nature in 1953. None. So, Mr. Speaker, tonight as I close, I do want to mention this. The IRS also has what they call code words. They do not just have to say to the minister that just because you say that you want to support myself, Congressman Jones, or as the minister mentioned earlier, another candidate, that that would be a violation. That would be a violation was the answer to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). But this is what I want to start closing with tonight, Mr. Speaker, is that they print a publication that is called ``Election Year Issues,'' and they give an example of code words, C-O-D-E, code words. And these code words can, if used, can bring the IRS into looking into that church's activity. Let me just give an example of code words: liberal, pro-life, pro- choice, anti-choice, Republican, Democrat, and there are others. These are code words that the IRS can use if they think that there is a violation. They do not mention the candidate; but they might mention a code word, and the IRS can come in and threaten a church. Mr. Speaker, tonight as I close, and again, I am like many Members of Congress on both sides of this aisle, I have great faith in God. This is the greatest Nation in the world because we are a Nation that understands that we are blessed by God almighty. I just think and I hope that in the next couple of weeks that the leadership will give the Congress a chance to debate this issue, to vote on this legislation; and I hope the majority of the Members of this House will vote to pass this legislation. Again, I close by reminding the House that in 1953, and up to 1953, there were no restrictions on the churches and synagogues in this country. So let us return the freedom of speech to the spiritual leaders of this country so that they can do their job for our God. Mr. Speaker, I close this way because I have three military bases in my district: Cherry Point Marine Air Station, Camp Lejeune Marine Base, and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. Every time I speak, and I spoke Monday night at the Christian Coalition banquet down in my district, and I was pleased to say that the Republican candidate for the United States Senate, Elizabeth Dole, was there and did a fantastic job of giving her testimony, I close this way, and I have ever since September 11. I first ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform, I ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform, and I ask God to please bless the President of the United States as he leads this Nation. I ask God to please bless the men and women who serve in the House and Senate. I ask God, and I say it 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 move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity. Mr. Speaker, it is kind of ironic that I would be following the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) as he was paying tribute to those who have lost their lives and their families, and then he talked about our military who today are in Afghanistan defending the freedoms that we all enjoy, and our way of life. My purpose today in asking for this time is that I have put in legislation, House bill 2357. It is called the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act. I believe that the strength of this country depends on our spiritual leaders having the freedom to talk about issues of the day, whether they be the moral issues of the day or the biblical issues of the day or the political issues of the day, quite frankly. When I started looking into this legislation and doing the research and the history on why there was a law in the Tax Code that would somehow prevent certain political speech, and the more I looked into it, the more concerned I became because I believe sincerely that the first amendment right of all the American people and all the groups in this country, I mean, must be protected and has been for years and years by men and women who have served this Nation and many who gave their lives for America. As I looked into why there was some type of political speech restriction on our churches and synagogues and mosques, I found out that in 1954, Lyndon Baines Johnson, United States Senator from Texas, and actually the majority leader of the Senate, had the H.L. Hunt family opposed to his reelection. At the time, the H.L. Hunt family had two think thanks that were conservative in nature and they were not churches, but they were 501(c)(3)-type status. What Mr. Johnson did on the Senate side, he introduced an amendment to a revenue bill that was never debated. The amendment was never debated, and the Republican minority at that time accepted the Johnson amendment on what they call ``unanimous consent,'' or UC. Basically, what the Johnson amendment did was to put a gag order on any type of political speech by a preacher or priest or rabbi; and I would like to explain that just a little bit for practical reasons. It happened in the 3rd District of North Carolina, which I have the privilege to represent, that a priest in a Catholic church was asked by a parishioner, a friend of mine named Jerry Schill, if the priest would just say at the end of the homily, or the sermon, on Sunday that George Bush is pro-life, not really anything more than that, but just that one statement. The priest said to Jerry Schill, ``Jerry, I cannot do that. If I do, I might be violating the 501(c)(3) status of this church and we would lose that status.'' Mr. Speaker, I decided that, working with other Members, including the Chair, that I would introduce the legislation to return the first amendment right to our churches and synagogues and mosques in this country. That was taken away primarily by one man who, in his arrogance being Senator Johnson, wanted to stifle the speech of opposition. I must tell my colleagues, with a great deal of humility, that we have 130 cosponsors of this legislation. We have recently picked up three or four from the Democratic side, which I am very grateful for. In addition, we recently have received a letter of support from a former Member of the House who is a Democrat, and the former Member's name is Reverend Floyd Flake. I served my first term with Dr. Flake, and he was a man that we all respected for his integrity and his honesty, and Dr. Flake decided to leave the House and go back to his church. It is the Greater Allen Cathedral of New York; and quite frankly, I found out after we put this legislation in that Reverend Flake had received a letter of reprimand from the IRS, Internal Revenue Service. They have the authority because the Johnson amendment went on the revenue bill, and Reverend Flake had at that time candidate Al Gore in his church and after Presidential candidate Gore was speaking, Reverend Flake got up behind him and said to his congregation that, ``I think this is the right man to lead this Nation.'' That was a violation. So, therefore, instead of losing the status, he was given a warning. I contacted Reverend Flake, and he wrote me a letter that I want to submit for the Record, but I want to read just one paragraph. It says: ``I praise God for the stand you have taken to defend the first amendment right of houses of worship. It is unjust that churches and clergymen and women are unfairly targeted when they exercise their rights as American citizens.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to read a couple more letters that we have received in support of this legislation. One is from Rabbi Daniel Lapin. He heads a group called Toward Tradition. He is a wonderful man of God. I have heard him on the radio several times, and I am going to submit his letter for the Record with the Chair's permission. I will read just two paragraphs: ``I hope that Congress and the President would join your campaign to revive one of the most basic principles of the American founding, the freedom of unhindered political speech.'' That is Rabbi Lapin. In addition, a letter from D. James Kennedy. Dr. Kennedy says, and this is the Coral Ridge Ministries, ``In a culture like ours, which sometimes seems on moral life support, the voice of the church in her message of reconciliation, virgin hope is more important now than ever before. Yet the current law enacted by Lyndon Johnson has effectively silenced the church. We are a poorer Nation for it.'' D. James Kennedy in support of H.R. 2357. Then James Dobson sent us his letter. I will submit the letters again with the Chair's permission: ``I was encouraged by your work on H.R. 2357, for I have been troubled by the increasing pressure on churches and other religious organizations to desist from speaking out on the moral issues of our day.'' A letter of support from the former ambassador to the Vatican, Ray Flynn, also former mayor of Boston, Massachusetts. The last letter I want to read is from the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Richard Land; and Mr. Speaker, I would also with the Chair's permission like to submit the entirety of this letter for the record, also. The paragraph I would like to read, Mr. Speaker, is this: ``We endorse your bill because we believe it provides an appropriate barrier to hinder the government from seeking to define the mission of the church. If it should become law, we will encourage Baptist churches to speak freely on the issues of the day as we believe they should already but to refrain from formally endorsing candidates.'' The reason I wanted to close with that letter is because this legislation that we have 130 cosponsors on is not anything more or less but to return the freedom of speech to the churches should the churches and synagogues decide that that they would like to talk about such issues of the day. I include those letters for the Record at this point. The Greater Allen Cathedral of New York, Jamaica, NY, June 24, 2002. Hon. Walter Jones, House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Jones: I am grateful that we were finally able to connect by telephone regarding H.R. 2357, the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act. I praise God for the stand that you have taken to defend the First Amendment Right of Houses of Worship. It is unjust that churches and clergymen/women are unfairly targeted when they exercise their rights as American citizens. I am pleased to offer my wholehearted support with sincere prayer for passage of this important and liberating legislation. Sincerely, Hon. Rev. Floyd H. Flake, D.Min., Pastor, U.S. Congressman, Retired.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend a fellow North Carolinian, W. Cloyce Anders of Raleigh, who will be installed as President of the nation's largest insurance association-- ;the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (IIABA)--;later this month in New Orleans. He is president of VFIS of North Carolina and Anders, Ireland & Marshall, Inc., both of Raleigh as well as a managing partner of Independent Agency Services, LLC, of Durham. His career as an independent insurance agent has been marked with outstanding service and dedication to his clients, community, IIABA, the Independent Insurance Agents of North Carolina (IIANC), and his colleagues across the country. Cloyce was elected to IIABA's Executive Committee in September 1997 and was honored by his peers when they named him President-Elect last fall in Honolulu. His service to his peers began with his involvement at the state level with IIANC. He served as IIANC president for a year beginning in 1989 and represented the state on IIABA's National Board of State Directors from 1992-1997. In recognition of his outstanding service, he was honored by IIANC as the Agent of the Year, Young Agent of the Year, Educator of the Year and Committee Chairman of the Year. Cloyce also is a concerned and highly active member of his community. He has served as president of several community organizations, including the Craven County Chamber of Commerce, New Bern Jaycees, Craven County Committee of 100; and as chairman of the Salvation Army Craven County Board, Craven County March of Dimes, Craven County Heart Fund, Craven County Cancer Drive, Craven County Committee of 100, and Salvation Army Building Fund Drive. He is a member of the North Carolina Fire & Rescue Commission and is the facilitator for the Wake County Fire Commission. He also is chairman of the North Carolina Safety Workers Compensation Fund. I am proud of Cloyce's professional and community-service accomplishments and know he will serve his fellow agents with distinction and strong leadership to further the worthy and noble cause of independent insurance agents and brokers. I bid him a successful year as president of the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America. Mr. Speaker, Cloyce Anders was a good friend of my father, the late Congressman Walter B. Jones, Sr., who served twenty-six years in this body. Cloyce has extended that same friendship, for which I am grateful. I wish him and his lovely wife, Carole, all the best as IIABA President and First Lady. Congratulations Cloyce and Carole.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of Representatives about the introduction of legislation to allow for the transfer of dredged material onto our Nation's beaches. In my home state of North Carolina, our beaches are economic engines, providing thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in revenues. However, beach erosion threatens the existence of these economic engines and frankly the federal regulatory and statutory regimes do not move quickly enough to replace this lost infrastructure. The current standard used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requires the disposal of dredged material obtained from a Federal navigation project in the least costly manner. This method almost always results in the offshore placement of sand. However, when these facilities are dredged, the disposal of the dredged material offshore may not be the least cost disposal method. The offshore disposal option increase the costs of erosion so the regional and national economies are damaged by a reduction in recreation spending. Therefore, I have introduced legislation today making it easier to place sand dredged from authorized navigation projects onto beaches in order to provide shore protection for years to come. My legislation would amend the least cost disposal method to allow municipalities to take these dredged spoils and place them on nearby beaches while adhering to the current 65/35 cost-share ratio. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to join me today in cosponsoring this legislation. Four times more Americans visit the Nation's beaches than our National Parks every year. Beach nourishment is good economic policy and this proposal will allow the Army Corps of Engineers to supplement its effective shore protection programs.