W. Akin

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I think most people in politics know is that the ratings of Congressmen are very, very low. And perhaps part of the reason for that is the public can see that we are playing more political gotcha than we are in really solving problems. Today we have just seen an example of that as Democrat after Democrat condemned the President for this SCHIP bill, which has all these little hidden gizmos, among other things that we are going to provide health care to the children of illegal immigrants. It is a massive expansion of basically Hillary socialized medicine. And yet we are going to use this children's health issue as a way to play political gotcha. We don't need to do that with the veterans bill. The House and the Senate have both approved funding for veterans, which comes down to $18.5 million of extra money for veterans hospitals, for prosthetics, for our wounded soldiers. Those bills are just sitting, waiting. Are we going to use that as another way of doing political gotcha, or shall we just start solving problems and serving the American people? Mr. Speaker, for the past few years we have heard the Democrats in Congress say they support our troops and veterans even if they do not support the war in Iraq. Yet, many of those brave veterans who served in Iraq, as well as other military campaigns, are being denied as much as $18.5 million a day in veteran's care that was promised to them. The Democrat majority has delayed a vote on a bill to fund veterans care. These delays are denying our veterans millions of dollars that would fund prosthetics for our wounded warriors and amputees. Are the Democrats hoping to save a vote on veteran's health for later in the year? Maybe, they plan to attach wasteful earmarks to that bill? Members of Congress, you can't say that you support our troops and veterans if you won't fund their care. It's time we make good on our promises. Give our veterans what they need.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. When I traveled in rural Missouri a number of years ago, I had a favorite truck stop. And on the wall among the things they sold was a picture of a little John Deere green wagon with yellow wheels, had a bail of hay, and it looked like a wheel was sort of stuck on a bump. And there was a little kid with Oshkosh overalls pushing on it, and another kid with the tongue, and he is looking over his shoulder, and in the caption, ``Are you pushing or are you pulling back there?'' And that picture kind of comes to mind when I think of our Democrat leadership. We have got 130,000 troops in the field and they have already declared defeat; and I am kind of wondering, are you pushing or pulling back there? And then we have unanimous consent for General Petraeus, and before he can deliver the report that the Democrats asked to have delivered, they are savaging him in the New York Times as ``General Betray Us.'' And I am thinking, are you pushing or pulling back there? And now we are talking about affording all kinds of special rights to terrorists that are in jail. It makes me think one more time: By golly, guys, are you pushing or pulling back there?

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Isn't MoveOn.org generally associated with the Democrat Party?

Mr. AKIN. Thank you very much, and thank you for taking some time to run through a series of events that actually in the last couple of days seem a little puzzling to me, I might have to say. My recollection is is that General David Petraeus, his credentials were reviewed over in the other body, and they took a vote as to whether or not he was the guy that we're going to put front and center to be in charge of the entire campaign in Iraq, and he got a unanimous vote in the other legislative body. That says an awful lot of people had to vote for him to get a unanimous vote over there. Also, as I recall, it was just not so long ago that the Democrat party, who's in charge of both the House and the Senate, made the request that in September General Petraeus would come before the legislature and would make a report as to what the findings were, would let us know how things were going. Many people were very skeptical about the reorganization, the restructuring of our war in Iraq, around the idea of the surge, but people trusted General David Petraeus. They trusted him because he has an excellent reputation and record as a soldier, but he also is a straight shooter. He doesn't sugarcoat things. He explains it the way it is. And so it was with some sense of alarm and a little bit, I have to say, with a sense of frustration that we saw in the New York Times this calling General Petraeus where they say ``General Betray Us.'' What we're doing is taking somebody that before we thought they had good credibility, we're going to guess what they may say to us, we think we may not like what he has to say, so now we're going to try to destroy his reputation. I think that's a shame. My son has served over in Fallujah. As you have mentioned, I also am on the Oversight Committee. One of the things that has been consistent with every witness, week after week over a period of months, every witness we could scrounge up, conservative, Republican, liberal, Democrat, you name it, the one thing those witnesses said was, first of all, they said if we pull out of Iraq rapidly, there is going to be a huge bloodbath there. The second thing is that the whole region will be destabilized. Everybody agreed to that. Now, some people said, well, there is nothing we can do about it, so we ought to pull out now and cut our losses. Other ones said, no, there are some things we could do about it. But everybody agreed that a rapid drawdown of troops is not what we should be doing in America. After listening hour after hour to all these experts, I came to the conclusion of this simple fact, and that is, it is the least-cost, most logical best alternative for us to just go ahead and win the war in Iraq. We are more than halfway, and trying to turn around and back out, make excuses and try to lose is just going to be much more costly than moving forward and doing a good job. That's what the general has outlined today in very credible testimony. I was very thankful that he is here. I am thankful that you took the time to help us to be able to talk about this very important subject about how we proceed and the sense of good news. There is a little light at the end of the tunnel is what it seems like to me.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, for the last year the Democrats have been saying that the war in Iraq is lost and we should pull our troops out, and they were, of course, opposed to the surge. But after hearing from witnesses of every political stripe week after week on the oversight subcommittee, this profound reality became obvious: The least costly and best alternative for America is not to lose. It is to win. We are more than halfway through the campaign, and it is too costly to quit and to go back. The concept that we can win is novel to Democrats perhaps, who think in top-down solutions in Washington and in Iraq. But our new military strategy is proving successful. Just as our Nation grew from the bottom up, town by town, State by State, so also federalism shows success in Iraq. Local communities are working closely with our military to curb violence. For this reason, we must ensure that they have the freedom and the autonomy to continue to develop. The best alternative for America in Iraq is to move forward to win the peace.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. It's a pleasure to be able to join our discussion tonight on the subject of Iraq. I approach the subject this evening from several perspectives; one, as a father of a marine who is now a captain who has been in Iraq; also as someone who has visited Iraq a number of times myself, but particularly, and more recently, as the ranking Republican on the Oversight Committee of the Armed Services Committee. That is a committee that we have been hearing now, for quite a number of weeks, of witnesses, Republicans, Democrats, all kinds of different positions and people with ideas that are supposedly experts about what we should be doing in Iraq. Now, one of the things that has jumped out, after having to sit through hours and hours and hours of testimony, is a certain pattern. Every single witness, conservative, liberal, Republican, wacko one way, strange the other way, anybody, every single one of them, there were two things that they always said, and that was, the first one was, if we pull out rapidly, it will be, first of all, a huge blood bath of Iraqis killing Iraqis. We're talking about millions of people dying, which will, of course, all be reviewed in all the gory detail on the media. And second of all, the region will become extremely unstable. Both of those, regardless of who they were, political party, anything else, those were the two common themes. And what emerged after weeks and weeks of listening to all these experts was, there is no gracious, easy way for us to try and tuck our tail between our legs and quit. We're like the bear that's going through the woods. We're more than halfway there. The most logical, the most common sense, the most economic, the least loss of life course for us is to proceed forward logically and win this war. And there is even reason to believe that we can. And the strategy is becoming more and more obvious as to how that has to happen. The first basic principle is that our troops are doing a very good job in Iraq. The second basic principle is that we've fallen into this sort of belt line, beltway mentality thinking that America's greatness all came out of Washington, DC and therefore the problems have to be solved in Baghdad, and that's just wrong. The political solution in Baghdad is not working properly. Where we are having success is the very way that America was built 300 years ago, and it's being built in local communities and local cities, local towns and various states as they built this great Nation and the same way. That's what's happening over in Iraq. We are having very good success on the local level working with local sheiks, giving them a sense that it's their country, they can shape it, and what we need to be doing is aggressively giving those local governments authority and limiting the Baghdad authority to certain very specific items. We call that federalism in this country, and that's where we need to be going. We can win this, and it is the most inexpensive, the lowest loss of life and the very most positive results we can expect by just using the same principles that we found that built America. So I think that's where we need to be going. The Democrats are wrong. You can't pass a constitutional amendment that says everybody's going to get along with each other. Even if you put a gun to the head of the Iraqi Baghdad Government, they couldn't do that. They couldn't succeed in that. They're wrong in being against the surge. The surge is proving to be effective. It is helping us to build local governments. And they're wrong in the sense that everything is lost and we ought to quit. That's not true, and none of the witnesses suggested that it's wise for us to pull out precipitously. I thank the gentleman for yielding me some time, and I appreciate the comments of my colleagues that understand the importance of this and understand terrorism.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I have to say in terms of sympathy, I understand the motivation I believe and the interest in our troops that this legislation is designed to deal with. I have two marines that are my sons. I have visited the one when he was in Fallujah. I talked to a number of their troops. I think I understand the stresses that are involved in warfare, also as somebody who served as an officer myself. That said, however, I think there is a danger when we take a look at a specific problem and we try to micromanage a solution from the position of Congress. It didn't work during the War of Independence. And the trade-offs as to whether or not you are going to leave somebody in theater longer, there are a lot of different factors that you have to balance and a lot of special situations. To give you one that seems a little bit obvious, I suspect that General Petraeus and other generals have been in theater a pretty long time. They probably would have to get a special waiver from the President to do their jobs. We understand it would be better if they could take a break and see their families more, but the specific situation in their situation calls for the fact that this sort of blanket rule we are going to top- down impose as Congressmen or Congresswomen doesn't make a whole lot of sense. To try to set up a policy now and to hamstring all the military planners and to apply it just specifically to the situation in Iraq effectively reduces our options, makes it more complicated for us to get our job done, and effectively makes it so that we have less practical combat strength. I think all of us have agreed that we've seen that we need more troops, and that's something that we need to deal with and have the courage to put that into the budgets in the future. But I think this is a micromanagement. While it may be inspired by good intentions, and I do know that there is a lot of stress on Marine families and Army families as well, I think this is the wrong to go, and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, we can all think of instances where some great calamity was about to happen, and yet we have to stand by powerless to help; like the pilot of the Titanic, he sees the glacier emerging through the midst, he spins the wheel too late. And that is the case this morning, not with a steamship but with SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Plan. It doesn't take any towering intellect to see the problems. We're going to vote to tax Americans with private health insurance, and we're going to take the benefits away from older Americans, with their Medicare, and we're going to give that money to give free health insurance to children with families making more than $80,000, children of illegal immigrants. All of history suggests that socialized medicine is not the way to go, and yet the Democrats are about to vote for something which will make the Titanic wreck look small.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, during the War of Independence, Paine said: ``These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from service of their country . . .'' America is again at war, and duty calls us to be more than sunshine patriots. I have been to Iraq. My son is a Marine captain who has been in Fallujah. We have heard on the Armed Services Committee from scores of witnesses, liberals and conservatives and everything in between, and no one has offered a plan that is better than what we are currently executing in Iraq, and everyone agrees that a rapid withdrawal of troops will result in civil war and a regional conflict. If the Democrats have a better plan, let them offer it. Otherwise, let our troops get the job done. It is politically popular to sound retreat and to play the sunshine patriot, but duty, honor, and country demand that America stand for freedom once again. We must accept nothing less.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Madam Chairman, there is one thing regardless of where you happen to be a Congressman. Every single one of us has something in common if you are from Congress, and that is that we have people in our districts, some who call themselves pro-life and others who call themselves pro-choice, and many of them are deeply convicted of their views on this issue. Now, the question before us today is, is it reasonable to force people who really do believe that abortion is killing children, is it reasonable to force them to pay money to subsidize that killing? Is that respectful to do that? Planned Parenthood is the biggest abortion provider in America. Is it reasonable to compel some of our constituents who believe that this is killing to take part in that?

Mr. AKIN. Madam Chairman, I have been enjoying hearing the debate here today. As usual, sometimes Republicans and Democrats appear to be passing each other a little bit in the night. It seems to me from hearing comments now from a number of Democratic speakers that there is an implicit assumption based on all of their arguments, and that is, hey, this is important, education is important, and this is important, and heating oil is important, and all this stuff; therefore, the government has to do it all for everybody. Now, I think the other assumption, and this is the assumption that I make, is that Americans are buying an awful lot more government than we can afford. That is what my constituents are telling me. That is common sense. Going back to my district, things are getting more and more expensive. We keep increasing everything that government does. The idea is, well, you are not compassionate because you don't want to add more money to government subsidies to do this and government subsidies to do that. Hey, the logical conclusion on that is the government would get 100 percent of your paycheck. I don't think that is why we are competitive. I have also heard people say that we are in a global economy, as though being in a global economy somehow excuses that the Federal Government should do everything for everybody. I am not buying that assumption. The reason we are competitive in a global economy is because of free enterprise. There is one thing about a safety net. But we are buying too much government. To add insult to injury, now the Democrats have just passed the biggest tax increase in the history of the United States. They are griping about one-half of 1 percent of a cut in one little bill in discretionary income, and they are adding the average of $3,000 per household across this entire Nation. Now, it would be interesting enough if they just add $3,000. The trouble with doing that this year is, guess what, you will get the $3,000 next year and the next year after that and the next year after that. But the spending is even more. So we are hearing an objection, and it is all couched in this, oh, don't you care about poor people with fuel oil heating bills and about education and stuff. The trouble is, we are spending too much. What part of that don't we get? So somebody offers this timid little amendment for one-half of 1 percent, and it is like the wheels are going to fall off. I have to say in answer to the questions, look, we are just buying too much government. We have to start somewhere. I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment. She is at least starting on one piece of one bill here. While I call it a little bit of a timid amendment, I am certainly prepared to vote for it.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, some years ago the story was told about the mean-spirited old Grinch who tried to steal the joy of Christmas. Well, it is not Christmas, but you might as well almost think it was a Christmas present when you take a look at the American economy that has been strengthened by the tax cuts of a number of years ago. This boom that the Republicans set in place has added 46 months of straight growth in job creation. The unemployment rate is at a very low 4.5 percent. The Dow has just made all kinds of records at crossing the 14,000 mark, and the deficit has been cut in half. In the face of this good news, the Democrats have passed a $392 billion tax increase, the biggest tax increase in the history of our country. And just like the Grinch, the Democrats seem to be wanting to steal our economic joy. We must not allow the Democrats to steal the joy of the American families.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Americans love to compete and to set records. In fact, people all over the world record their records in the Guinness Book of World Records. But there are some kinds of records called Darwin Awards for foolish behavior where people eliminate themselves by doing something unusual. One man took a pistol and decided to rob a gun store and got shot. The Democrats are not using a pistol, but they have been setting some records. They have just set one this year, that is, the largest tax increase in the history of this country. It comes out to about $290-some- billion. But that means to the average household a $3,000 tax increase. What household can absorb a $3,000 tax increase in just 1 year alone? Unfortunately, that is not the only record being set by the Democrats. They have doubled that record in terms of how much money they have spent, over $800 billion, which would come to $6,000 per family. American people would be better if we didn't set records like that.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the reason that Americans send us here to Congress is to have us to solve problems. And I don't think any of us mind, and I certainly don't mind, the accusation by Democrats to say that the war and the situation in Iraq is incompetently planned, or that we should change course, or that we should have bold, new initiatives. In fact, I think that's what we should be discussing. But unfortunately, what we have here today is not a matter of solving problems but rather of playing politics. Because the bill in front of us is not a bold plan. It doesn't have any segment of a plan at all. It just simply says, we're going to pull a bunch of troops out at a particular time. It doesn't say how many; it just says we are going to pull some troops out. You know, the people who fought World War II would have liked very much to have ended the war more rapidly if they could just put something on a wish list and say, we're going to bring some troops home. But you can't do that until you win a war. And what we have before us is not a bold plan, and it's not a constructive suggestion to say, hey, you've incompetently managed the war, so here's a better way. There's no better way. It offers nothing other than just a bunch of wishes. Now, if we want to send this to whoever it is that wants to grant wishes, that might be useful, but it's absolutely useless in terms of solving problems. And that's why we should be here. I have to take the Democrats to task. You forgot, you guys are in the majority. The people elected you to solve problems. This doesn't solve a problem, it just simply says we want to bring some troops home. It doesn't say how or what we're going to do or what the strategy is. It says, oh, we've already done this one thing for a month, and now we just want to turn around and bring the troops home. I think one thing that we can understand and one thing that we need to do is to stand away from this problem a little bit and put it in the broadest terms, and that is the terms as Americans. There is one thing that has joined us together that we just celebrated, and that's the Fourth of July. And the Fourth of July we signed a Declaration of Independence, and the heart of that document, the heart of what America believes in is the fact that it says we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; among these is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And we stand tall on the Fourth of July when we remember that set of principles. So the job of government is to protect those rights. And who is it that our sons and daughters are now fighting? They're people who believe that we blow up innocent people to make a political statement. They're people who believe that we use terror to compel people so that they don't have freedom and that people cannot pursue happiness and women cannot be educated. And so, is it so odd that we find ourselves fighting against people who believe the diametric opposite of everything America has ever stood for? I taught those principles to my little kids when they were children. And they started the ``Marine Club.'' Here is a picture of them at a flag ceremony in their rag-tag uniforms bought from their Army surplus store, a bunch of little kids. Now what has happened is they have implemented those ideas. Well, what has happened is this little kid here is now Special Forces Air Force Academy, just graduated last month. And this other one, my son, has graduated from the little Marine club to the big Marine club. Here is a cache of weapons found in Fallujah. There is my son. And the reason that they are there and the reason that he risked his life numerous times is because he does believe there is a God that gives rights to all people, and that governments should protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And when we, as Americans, forget that, then we start to lose our sense of direction in what we're doing. Until there is a specific proposal, then there is nothing being offered at all. There is not leadership. And this is merely politics.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, in just several days, America will be celebrating her birthday. As we enjoy the 4th of July, we recall the brave patriots who stood up to the biggest military power in the world and defended basic principles that they were willing to lay their lives down for. Their wives and their children suffered as well. As they had a chance to develop a systematic form of government and to lay out the very most important things that they had suffered so hard for. The very first amendment to the Constitution was about free speech. The Founders believed that it was critical to protect property, and of all forms of property. The thing that issues from a man's heart is the most precious. For a person to be able to have a belief and to be able to speak that freely is a precious thing not only to our Founders but to all who have been defenders of the first amendment. I thank our colleagues who have issued this fantastic amendment. I think we should support it with the last drop of our blood and the last farthing of our treasure.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, there once was an incompetent pharmacist who administered too much medicine and thereby made a bad situation worse, and the patient died. The Democrats are like the incompetent pharmacist. They recognize that gas prices are too high and they recognize it's bad for us to be dependent on foreign oil. So the Democrats have voted to administer a dose of their favorite medicine, tax increases. They plan to increase taxes on American oil and gas. But the oil companies will simply raise the price of gasoline. In addition, by making American oil more expensive, it will further make us dependent on Middle Eastern oil. The Democrats should look at drilling for American oil and liquefying coal, two things that they have opposed in the past. The Democrats are writing the wrong prescription and they make a bad situation worse. I just hope the patient doesn't die.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, congressional Democrats are looking to fund $190 billion in spending projects. However, they don't have $190 billion. So the Democrats seem to be disguising the truth from the American people by playing hide and seek. They are hiding $190 billion by claiming it's in a reserve fund. But there isn't any reserve fund. So where will $190 billion come from? Well, the Democrats have voted to terminate the Republican tax cuts of 2001 through 2003. The money will come from the American taxpayers. As much as I strongly disagree with tax increases, the least the Democrats can do is to level with the American people. Rather than playing hide and seek, the Democrats should have the political courage to admit that they are taxing and spending. The American people deserve to know the truth. After all, it's their money.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Congressman Kline. And thank you for providing this opportunity for a number of us to make several points. The first that I would make would be to show a respect for General Pace for his 40 years of service. I have two sons who are graduates of the Naval Academy, one who is returning from his second visit to the Middle East as an officer and as a Marine, and another who is just going off to his basic school this July. And I have a third son at the Naval Academy who hopefully will be graduating in another couple of years, and he might also choose the Marines as well. So I have a respect for the Marines just from what I have learned from my own sons, and particularly as a Congressman, having watched and had a chance to observe General Pace's leadership. We are here partly this evening, in talking on this subject, because General Pace is not being renominated by Secretary Gates and the President. And he is not being renominated primarily because of concerns about his political correctness. In fact, a certain prominent Democrat in the other body has criticized Pace because he is ``not in touch.'' Now, that is a significant concern to me. My own personal background, while I was in the Army some, has been more in the business world. But any organization can atrophy if the organization makes an effort to fill the organization with yes-men, with people who don't have the courage to speak up and to speak their opinions. Now, throughout America's history, we have had generals, some who don't even speak up very delicately, but do express their opinion and have had to pay a political price. And I think that history in many cases has shown that while what these men may have said may not have been popular in their day, yet it was accurate. I think particularly of people like General Patton, who, when he had finished his business of crushing Naziism, said, Let me after the communists and the Russians and the Soviets because they are no different than the Nazis. Well, looking back historically, we realize what he said was absolutely right, but he was not politically correct. He wasn't a yes-man. But it's my opinion that the reason the First Amendment is the first amendment is because Americans appreciate somebody who will speak in a forthright, straightforward manner and can give their opinion respectfully, but still with some level of force. I think that General Pace has done that and is now going to pay the price politically for not being a ``yes'' man or lining up with somebody's preconceived political notions. I think it is a sad day in America's history where we don't have more respect for the first amendment and have way too much respect for political correctness and trying to go along and get along and just be a ``yes'' man and keep everybody happy. I think that one of the great things about our generals is that they do take a look at the details, they analyze the situation, and they say what is right, what is wrong, and what their opinion is. I think it is a shame that this general should be penalized for that particular situation. I would be happy to yield back to my good friend, Congressman Kline. I appreciate your giving me a chance to say that I think that our organizations need to have room for people who don't always necessarily agree. I think we are better Americans, we are stronger Americans, when we can look each other in the eye and say, I love you, brother, but this is my opinion on this subject.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Madam Chair, one of the things that you can be only an amateur student of are various battles, or military history, and it becomes immediately obvious, the importance of information. Just randomly, you can think of Pearl Harbor, knowing whether the Japanese are coming. Or, particularly, the Battle of Midway, where you have the Japanese force, far superior to the American force, but the Americans knew where the Japanese aircraft carriers were and the Japanese only knew where one of the American aircraft carriers was. As a result, America won that significant Battle of Midway, even though we had an inferior force, based on information. Now, I have heard discussion about how proud we are of Future Combat Systems, which is a fancy word for a computerized system to help our warfighters have the information that they need in order to do their job. That program is the first major Army modernization program in 40 years, and under this bill, it is being cut by 25 percent. This was not a feel good kind of vote. This was a strict party-line vote, the Democrats voting to cut it by 25 percent, the Republicans trying to restore funds and being turned down in that request. Now, when you cut a program by 25 percent, particularly as complicated as this is with all the computers that are talking to each other, the software, the communications disciplines and the platforms involved, that is a significant change and a significant slowdown to a very important part of our future, and that is the ability to have real-time, online information for our warfighters. This is not just important to the Army, as important as it is to the Army, because the Marines and the Navy are going to be waiting also for perhaps a lot of this software to be the prototype for their systems that they develop later. So what we are doing is basically pushing back, slowing and delaying and cutting down 25 percent, or $867 million, from this program. We have tried to replace those funds some, with some things that are completely not necessary, such as a high speed boat for the Army, which hasn't even been designed, and have been turned down and not even allowed to offer that amendment here on the floor. Now, who is it who is going to pay for this degradation of the modernization of our Army? It is going to be our sons and daughters, my own sons that are involved, and this is not a good thing. This is not a good trade-off. We must advance the modernization. Information has always throughout history been critical to warfare. It is all the more so now. And so I am strongly opposed to this significant cut and the hurting of our ability to get information to our warfighter.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, the rule that we are considering does not allow a very critical amendment which we voted on in committee. Several of the votes that were most important in committee were not done in a bipartisan way. They were strict party-line votes. This was one of those. One was missile defense; the other is the modernization program for the Army. The modernization program for the Army that I am talking about was cut by 25 percent, a massive slash in that particular program. What that program does is, it provides the first major modernization program in the last 40 years for the Army. What the program does is, it provides real-time online information, networking, a whole group of different sensors, satellites and individuals on the field, tanks, unmanned aerial vehicles, pulling all that information together to give us accurate and timely information in the battlefield. Now, anybody who's studied military warfare will tell you that if you just had this piece of information or that piece of information, the tide of battle would have shifted, and so this whole system is designed to provide that information for our warfighters. It has been slashed 25 percent. It is called Future Combat Systems. Why is that important? First of all, it means you've got to go all the way back to the drawing board with this program, changing all the time schedules. It is tremendously complex. The second thing is that this program really is the forerunner for things that will be used by the Marines and the Navy. The Navy calls it more network centric warfare, but the concept, the software, will be the same. Now, we are denied an opportunity to try to restore some funding to the Army's first major modernization program in 40 years. The result is that our sons and daughters will have to pay the price. My own sons will have to pay the price because we have not gotten the information that is absolutely critical to our warfighter there at the time that we need to do it.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Recently, congressional Democrats cut funding that was planned for modernization of our military. And while we've heard statements that the Democrats are supporting our troops, their actions speak louder than words. In a strict party-line vote, Democrats slashed the Army modernization program with a 25 percent cut, casting a cloud over the first major modernization program in four decades. Future combat systems are designed to create a real-time battlefield information system. It promises increased safety and efficiency for our troops. This is nothing new. In the 1970s, the Democrats slashed military spending, and our servicemen and -women were forced to apply for food stamps just to survive. Again, in the 1990s, the Democrat Congress caused our Nation's forces to lose their technological edge. From future combat systems to missile defense, Democrats demonstrate a shortsightedness that will cost our sons and daughters the tools they need for a safe mission. My children and our children will pay the price.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. The Democrats' supplemental bill was a crafty way to quit in Iraq. Now, certainly each of us individually, and even as leaders and nations, is tempted at various times in the face of overwhelming odds to quit and to give up; and yet greatness in leaders and greatness in nations is frequently measured by a stubborn and cussed determination to carry on. We think, of course, immediately of George Washington at Valley Forge, we think of Winston Churchill challenging the people of England to rise up and to be strong against the Nazis; he loved to mispronounce it to bait Hitler. But we also recall in our own history how we were in Vietnam, how we bombed North Vietnam, and in the observation of Jeremiah Denton, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, how we were just very close to victory. North Vietnam was about to capitulate because of the bombing, and then we cut and run. The test before us today is for the courage and the heart of not just the Iraqi people, but the American people. What are the measurements we should be looking at? It is not the day for the sunshine patriot, but for the cussed and the strong and the brave.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, today the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the protection of life, and this ruling affirms Congress's role in guarding and protecting that special gift of life. As Justice Kennedy stated, Congress determined that the abortion methods it prescribed had a disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant. In the past 30 years or so, our Nation has seen an appalling rise in the disrespect for the dignity of human life. And when a culture of life is not respected, a culture of death rises to fill the void. This culture of death has been eating away at our Nation's character, at America's soul. It seems that day after day we are inundated with new stories of senseless acts of violence and death carried out on innocent victims. It would be easy to try to turn and look away; it would be easy to pretend that that crisis does not exist, but it would not be right. Who is it who will defend the innocent that is led off to slaughter? Who will stand for the right to life in America? I am reminded of William Wilberforce, the recent movie about his life's efforts to end the practice of slavery. The moving movie ``Amazing Grace'' demonstrates the value of this cause and the tireless efforts that Wilberforce went through year after year, constant criticism and rejection, until he collected the votes to finally send slavery in the British empire to the dust bin of history. We as Members of Congress could learn from his great example. Will we show our own Nation the same love and respect for the dignity of human beings? If there is one thing we should take away from this 5-4 decision, it is this, that when human life is threatened by such a gruesome procedure as partial birth abortion, all true sons and daughters of liberty, all true patriots, all true people who respect those rights that have been passed on to us by our Forefathers will take a stand for that precious, precious idea that God gives us life. And it is my sincere hope at this time that we can continue to build on this important victory and to create a new culture of life in our land. There was a time years ago, many years ago, when America was just a dark forest almost on the horizon, when a young man in 1630 was aboard the Lion. He became, as we know Winthrop, Winthrop, the Governor of Boston, known as the George Washington of the Puritans. And as he was coming along the coast of Maine in the Lion and the wind was blowing across the pine forests out to sea and he smelled the smell of the pine and the balsam on the breeze and he put pen to paper and he started writing, ``A Model of Christian Charity.'' And in there, he held a vision for America that America could be as a shining city on a hill, a light to people all over the world. And today, Mr. Speaker, that vision of a shining city seems just a little bit closer and a little bit less dim and a little closer to a reality that one day, one day that shining city on a hill, a vision of hope for all people of the world, a vision of a city where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are truly enshrined in every law and precept of this great Nation; may that vision come to reality even within our own days. Thank you. God bless you all.