W. Akin

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, our concern, and this could have been clarified, but the majority party has chosen not to clarify it, our problem is the question about the fact that somebody could be compensated multiple times for the same damage. That just is plain old double dipping. That is something that could have been simplified with an amendment. So I oppose the bill.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, my concern with this supplemental is that it is designed to fail. In section 1904, funding for the Iraqi security forces will be cut if the new government does not pass a constitutional amendment to ``promote reconciliation,'' whatever that is, to ethnic groups, I suppose. In short, to amend the Constitution in a way that is not defined in a period that cannot be completed. Now, earlier on this floor, Representative Conyers stated that it would take 10 years to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect D.C. voting rights, and yet we expect Iraqis to pass a constitutional amendment to fix ethnic tensions in 6 months, not to mention the other tough challenges imposed by this bill. This supplemental is like a promise written in disappearing ink: it is designed to fail. During World War II, the Japanese stole blueprints of some U.S. submarines. They built a submarine, but when it launched, it turned upside down and sunk because it was designed to fail. This substitute is designed to fail. It is designed to fail because it is going to defund the Iraqi security forces which are our best hope of success. Of all of the blood and the sweat and the tears that has been spilled in the desert of Iraq, is this how it is going to end, by a bill that is designed to fail by not funding the Iraqi security forces? The trouble with the submarine, Mr. Speaker, is that my son and the sons and daughters of Americans across this Nation are inside. We cannot allow this substitute to pass because it is designed inherently to fail.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss and to support the Enumerated Powers Act introduced by Congressman Shadegg. The Enumerated Powers Act is most important to protect the tenth amendment. We understand that with the word ``federalism.'' People perhaps, though, are not so aware of where the concept of federalism originally came from. They think some brilliant founders got together in Philadelphia in 1789 and came up with the idea of federalism, but, in fact, that is not quite true. The concept of federalism dates way, way back to 18 years after the arrival of the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Colony. It goes to the time when the State of Connecticut was being founded and a great preacher by the name of Hooker preached a series of sermons outlining how the government in Connecticut should be structured. Those sermons resulted in what was called then the ``Fundamental Orders of Connecticut.'' And what it said was that Hartford had certain enumerated powers and of anything not specifically enumerated for Hartford to handle, the other towns would have those powers. So it was that we started with the idea of federalism, that is, that there is only specific power granted to the central organizing authority, in this case the U.S. Constitution. Now, the Enumerated Powers Act requires that all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted. It would, of course, enforce, then, the reexamination of the proper role of the national government and it will fundamentally alter the ever- expanding reach of the Federal Government. The Enumerated Powers Act requires scrutiny of the Federal Government to slow this reach, particularly in the sense that it will require that there be a properly cited constitutional authority to precede the legislation proposed. Now, the Constitution gives the Federal Government only 18 specific enumerated powers. But ignoring the principles of Federalism in the Constitution, starting with FDR and continuing through LBJ's Great Society right down to the modern day, Congresses have displayed a willingness to ignore the 10th Amendment in order to greatly expand the Federal Government. The size and scope of the national government has exploded over the last seven decades. Congress has created ineffective costly programs, incredible annual deficits and a huge debt exceeding $7 trillion that will be passed only to our children and grandchildren. State and local governments are now dependent upon the Federal Government for funding, and the Feds now tamper with issues that are best understood by States and localities, with education and welfare reform being two cases in point. I believe that Ronald Reagan had it right: ``I have always felt that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.''' We need to uphold the entire Constitution, not just the parts we choose to use for our own ends.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the resolution that is before the House. It is a resolution in two parts. The first part says we support the troops. The second part says we are not going to reinforce the troops. That is kind of curious in a way, I suppose, isn't it? That we would support them with up-armored Humvees, with body armor, with tanks, but oh, no, we are not going to allow other troops to help the troops that we have there. It seems like you can't have it both ways. It is self-contradictory. You picture Davey Crockett at the Alamo, and he is there and Santa Anna's army has got him back to the wall, and he gets his BlackBerry out and he checks with the Congress, and the Congress says, yeah, Davey Crockett, we support you, but we're not going to send anybody to help. I don't think you can have it both ways. When I was a legislator in the State of Missouri, I kept track of some of what I considered to be the silliest legislation I had seen. One of them was this lady who got so enthused about volunteering, that she created a bill called ``Mandatory Volunteerism.'' That was odd. And here we go, we are saying support, but don't support. This is curious, and it undermines people like my son, who has served in Fallujah.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, we rise today to discuss this resolution that is in two parts before us. The first part says that we support our troops. The second part says that we are not going to send them reinforcements. This seems to be kind of a curious proposition, almost a nonsensical proposition. How do you say you support and then say, but we don't want to send them any reinforcing troops? Certainly we say that we want to give them body armor, we want to give them up-armored Humvees, we want to send them tanks; but the most important thing that you need sometimes as troops is some other troops to support you. So we are saying, oh, we want support, but we don't want to support you. Picture Davy Crockett at the Alamo. He has his back to the wall. Santa Ana has got thousands of troops. So he gets his BlackBerry out. He checks with Congress. Congress says, Hey, Davy, we really support you but we're not going to send you any troops. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Now, as I said, this resolution has two parts. It says, We support you but we're not really going to send any troops over. The third part is what concerns me the most. As Congressmen, we have the responsibility to listen, to pay attention. If somebody has a better idea, that is just fine. Send your better idea forward. We are ready to be taught or to learn. If there is a better way to approach Iraq and the situation there, good. But this proposal has no positive suggestion whatsoever. It just says we support and we don't support. All that does is to encourage our enemies. And without any positive recommendation, this can only be viewed as something which strengthens our opponents' hands. They say, Goody, we've got the Americans all confused. They're saying support and don't support at the same time, with no positive recommendations whatsoever. Now, I have heard people say that this is a civil war. It is not really a civil war yet. If we pull all the troops out immediately, it will turn into a civil war, no doubt about that. But what we do have is, we do know this, that the terrorists have been involved in setting one group of people against another. They blow up a holy place of the Shias and the Shias start fighting the Sunnis. And so, yes, they have sparked a whole lot of unrest, particularly in Baghdad. It is not a civil war yet. But do we think that the terrorists aren't going to do the same thing in other countries where you have the one leadership with a majority of people in the other tribe. So I don't think it is much of an escape to say, oh, well, this is a civil war. What it is, it is a war against terrorists. Regardless of how you want to speculate what might happen if we leave all of a sudden, at least I would respect the Democrats more if you would just simply say, we need to cut and run, or we need to stay where we are. But don't just leave a blank piece of paper and say we support and don't support. It doesn't make any sense. All it does is help the enemy. It seems to me that we need to as Americans one more time as we have in the past take a good, serious gut check. I have a chance to speak to American audiences everywhere and lots of little kids and I always ask the same question. I ask the question, If you were to take America that you love and condense it down as to what do you really believe about this country, what is the heart and core of America? The answer that I almost always get is the word ``freedom.'' But freedom needs a little bit more definition. The Tiananmen Square Chinese students wanted freedom and they greased the tank treads with their bodies. But they didn't get freedom. Just because you want freedom doesn't mean you can have it. So what is the heart of what we believe as Americans? Well, I will tell you. The first time we went to war we stated that and we had quite an argument and discussion about it. And it was put in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And the job of government is to protect those basic, fundamental, God-given rights. That is what they believed and they had to decide: Are we going to fight the British or not? Those are the things that I taught to my children. This is a picture of the Marine Club with my 9-year-old son standing here, saluting the flag as it is going up. We taught him that there are some things in this world that are worth dying for and that one of those things is the fact that God gives us basic inalienable rights. That little Marine Club kid has grown up. There he is in Fallujah in 2005. That is the cache of terrorist weapons that they found in Fallujah. He has grown up. He understands the risk to his life. He almost died in Fallujah. He believes, as I do, that there are some things in this world that are worth defending. This is not a war about a civil war. This is head to head with terrorists. And is it surprising that we find ourselves fighting terrorists? Terrorists believe, we blow up innocent people to make a political statement. We believe that the right to life comes from God, that it is an inalienable right. The terrorists terrorize people to compel you to take your liberty away and we believe that liberty is a gift that comes from God. We are going head to head with people that have always been the enemies of America, and I am concerned that if we do not stand up and show that we not only think that it is a nice idea in our Declaration but it is a conviction that we will defend with our lives, that we will be fighting the terrorists here.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, we come here today, we have spent most of the day on this, to discuss a resolution. It has two parts. The first says that we support our troops, and the second says that we are opposed to the mission that the troops are sent on. Now, the problem with the resolution is that it is self-contradictory right up front. If we were going to say we are supporting our troops, we would give them body armor. We would give them up-armored Humvees. We would give them tanks. But would we withhold the most important in our arsenal and that is other American fighting men and women? So to say that we are going to support our troops, but we are not going to send them any reinforcements is on the face of it contradictory. Could you picture Davy Crockett at the Alamo looking at his BlackBerry, getting a message from Congress: Davy Crockett, we support you. The only thing is we are not going to send any troops. I am sure that would really be impressive to Davy Crockett. The second problem with this resolution is that it really misses the job of what Congressmen should be doing. Look, I am an engineer by training. If we are about to make a mistake or we are doing something wrong, I am open minded to my Democrat colleagues saying to me, Todd, we are going down the wrong path. That is a bad idea. You should do it this way instead. I was always trained that if you are ready to criticize somebody, you at least offer an alternative. But the problem with this nifty little resolution is that it says we support the troops, but we are not going to give them any reinforcements, and then it is blank. There is no recommendation. There is no leadership. They are just saying we are going to stand on the sidelines and say, It won't work. But don't we owe our soldiers something positive, something specific, a positive recommendation? The Democrats have been elected to majority. That means leadership. That means if you have got a better idea, put it on the table; but if you don't, shut up and don't undermine the morale of our troops and encourage our enemies. That isn't very helpful. Now, I have heard people talking about the fact that this is a civil war. This isn't a civil war. If we leave, it will be what is a real civil war. Right now there is a lot of ethnic clashing and violence, and what is that caused by? Guess what, terrorists. They said they are doing it intentionally. They blow up a holy place of the Shias, and the Shias react and they go shoot up a bunch of Sunnis, and so, yes. But who started all of this? Well, of course, it is the terrorists. It is their intention. And do we think if they can destabilize Iraq by fomenting strife between racial groups that they won't take the same strategy to the other barely stable nations in the Middle East, nations where you have a Sunni leadership and a Shia majority? Are they not going to do the same? Or are you going to say, oh, but it is a civil war, so we can wash our hands of it, it is nothing to worry about? Now, we had the ambassadors to Egypt and to Jordan, and they pleaded with us today, do not rapidly withdraw your troops. So we started to ask, well, what would happen if we were to do this? Well, nobody knows. But there is one thing we can kind of assume. All the way through history, the history of mankind, whenever there is anarchy, it lasts but a short time; and it is immediately filled with some kind of very strong dictator. Now, do we think that the dictator is going to be a moderate, reasonable sort of guy, or if we pull out of Iraq immediately, is it not likely that we are going to get an Islamoterrorist dictator? I think that that makes at least some sense. So then now what do we have? Now we have Iraq with the oil money supporting it, with this crazy dictator spreading this same kind of radical Islam all over the Middle East. That is a minimum for the scenario of what we are potentially looking at if we rapidly withdraw. Now, it seems to me that all of us, as Americans, need a little bit of a direction check. And I think sometimes when we need direction, it is helpful to look at the people who came and founded this great Nation before us. And so I go back to a question that I ask audiences, not only school kids but adults. I ask them, What is it that makes America so unique and so precious? If you take America like an onion and take all the outer layers off, when you get down to the heart, what makes us who we are as a people? And invariably I hear the word ``freedom.'' But that is not quite sufficient because it isn't quite complete. You see, the people at Tiananmen Square, those little kids in college, wanted freedom, but they greased the treads of Chinese tanks. Just because you want freedom doesn't mean you can have it. There was more to what our Founders understood, and they set it forth before we embarked on our first war as a Nation eloquently in our Declaration of Independence. It says: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident.'' Rather flowery language. Any idiot should know this: ``That all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these is Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'' And our job in government is to protect those God-given rights. It is not just an idea; it was a conviction. People say ideas have consequences. Many idiots have ideas, but an idea that you die for has consequences. And this idea was powerful. It is the engine that has driven America. It has guided us in times of war because we will say, yes, we believe there are certain fundamental God-given rights that all people are given. And that is what I taught my son when he was a little kid. Here he is with the Marine Club, just a little guy, saluting Old Glory with a whole bunch of little kids in some motley uniforms they bought from the used equipment store for military services. Here he is posing just as proud as can be. Founder of the Marine Club, taught, taught that there are some things in this world that are worth dying for, and those convictions are the fact that God gives us life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And I believe America still believes that. There is the little marine. He has grown up now. That is the cache of terrorist arms that was found in Fallujah. That is the gang that he had the proud opportunity to lead as a second lieutenant in Fallujah because he believes that there is nothing particularly strange for us to be fighting terrorists. Why would it be so odd for us to fight terrorists? What do terrorists believe? They believe that you blow up innocent people. What do we believe? That life is a gift from God. What do terrorists do terrorism for? To take your liberty away, to compel you to do something you don't want to do, to make women into slaves, to take away people's freedom, to take away your liberty. That is what terrorism is for, and that is fundamentally against the idea that God made people to be free. That is why he fights. That is why America has always fought. There is nothing weird or unusual about this. Is it worth fighting terrorists? Is it worth risking your life for freedom? I taught my son yes. When I went over to visit him, together we reaffirmed what we were doing in Iraq. What? Is it so unusual that we have a debate about whether we should be going to war or not? That very first war was over the Declaration of Independence. There was a gentleman from Virginia who said, What has there been in the conduct? But perhaps maybe we could adjust his words. What has there been in the conduct of the terrorists that gives us any room for hope? The terrorists say the only good Jew is a dead Jew, the only good Christian is a dead Christian. That doesn't leave you a lot of room for negotiation. If we want to stay free, we must fight. Millions of Americans that are armed in the holy cause of liberty are invincible by any force which the terrorists may send against us. A just God presides over the destinies of nations. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of the terrorists running the world? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, and as for my son, we will choose liberty.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, I thought it would be appropriate to make a comment or two about engineering because I was trained as an engineer. I must not have been much of one because I ended up in politics. It doesn't happen that often that people who have an engineering background end up in the political sector; but it is quite common in engineering for people to get the undergraduate degree and then to move into other kinds of areas, and the engineering background gives them a tremendous problem-solving basis to be able to be quite effective in various other kinds of careers. It is a national concern to us as Americans that we are producing fewer and fewer engineers. What happened was, in the era of Sputnik when I was a kid, everybody realized we were technologically behind, particularly behind the Soviet Union, and realized the urgency in having people develop an interest and background in science and engineering. At that time, we produced a good number of engineers, and they were fine engineers. They now work for many of our household-name large corporations, certainly many in my own district, Boeing Corporation, for example. These engineers have also started all kinds of different businesses and been very successful, and have been very successful in producing a lot of the technology that keeps our young men and women safe on the battlefields. It also is technology that has given us a wonderfully high standard of living and has allowed America to prosper in many ways. Unfortunately, now there is a tremendous dearth of engineers. We have a number of small companies that produce products that are related to the defense industry that I know of in the St. Louis area, just as an example, and they are saying that we would give anything to be able to hire engineers. We just can't get any of them. The only engineers we can get are coming out of India or some other country far away, and our own students, Americans, are not choosing careers in engineering. That is distressing. I suppose that there are reasons for why this is going on. Perhaps one of them is the malaise and the very lukewarm kind of results that we are getting out of secondary education in America. The SAT scores are continuously changed year to year, and they can be adjusted downward. Engineering is very rigorous. It requires an understanding of mathematics, and it is a very hard undergraduate degree. Many people that start in engineering end up in something like political science. It is far easier than engineering. But there are rewards in engineering, and if there are young people that are paying attention to what we are discussing here on the floor of the U.S. Congress today, I would encourage them that engineering is a fantastic undergraduate choice, and it doesn't have to end up behind a drawing board. It ends up in all kinds of positions and opportunities to those who have a disciplined mind and are capable of understanding basic principles of how things work. I have to say, in Congress it is tremendously helpful. I serve on the Committee on Armed Services, and we are constantly getting involved in technical kinds of questions, things like armor on Humvees, body armor, how to defeat IEDs, all of the technology of software and people tapping into databases. On the Science Committee, as well, we deal with all kinds of areas, everything from exploration of space to the simple use of materials. I would encourage all young people to seriously consider engineering.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to discuss the question here about our dependence on foreign oil. The leadership in the House of Representatives because of the last election has changed, but the problems that confront our Nation remain the same. The question is how are we going to deal with our dependence on foreign oil, and that is a serious question for many reasons. Well, there are different ways to approach it, but it is certainly hard for the party of the Democrats that are now in charge to advocate a lot of nuclear because they have a lot of people who do not like that. Very well. And they really do not like burning a lot of fossil fuels because of global warming. Well, what tool are we going to use? Well, we use our favorite tool, a tax increase. The only trouble with a tax increase, though, is what it is going to do is it is going to make the problem worse because when you increase the taxes on American oil and gas by $10 billion you make it less competitive, and if they are less competitive that means OPEC fills in the gap. Now, is this just about the problem of $3 gasoline? The answer is no. It is about a lot more than that. When you go over to the Middle East, particularly a human rights trip that I took about a year or two ago to Pakistan, what you find is that there is a very nice country by the name of the Saudis who are funding private education so the little kids in Pakistan can learn. Well, until you find out what they are learning. They are being trained to be radical Islamic terrorists. And who is funding this? Saudi oil money, OPEC oil money. So this question before us today is not just about SUV owners paying $3 for gasoline. It is a question about where is that money going and the radical Islamists that we are going to fund essentially with this tax increase. So this is a bill that is trying to deal with a problem that is a serious problem, but a tax increase is not the way to go.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Catholic Schools Week. The Nation's nearly 8,000 Catholic schools will celebrate Catholic Schools Week January 28 through February 3. Catholic schools have made many significant contributions to the education of our Nation's children. Catholic schools have a longstanding and proud tradition in the Archdiocese of St. Louis. The percentage of Catholic families who choose Catholic schools for their children here is among the highest in the country. There are about 51,000 students enrolled in our Catholic elementary and high schools. Catholic schools foster an atmosphere of mutual respect. Students learn to value God, themselves, and others. Today I would also like to recognize and commend our Catholic educators who are committed to a living faith community founded on the Catholic tradition of academic excellence and enriching the lives of the children they teach spiritually, academically and socially. I strongly support the goals of Catholic Schools Week 2007 and laud their efforts to produce students dedicated to their faith, families, and values.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, there is a cynic that once said that one of the things that we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history. I don't accept that entirely, but it certainly appears to be that way on the floor of the U.S. Congress today. You don't have to look in the recent past; you go back to 1640 in England. And they had wage and price controls. They thought it was a compassionate thing to set a price on a loaf of bread, a day's labor and a ton of coal. Then the Black Death came along and killed a whole lot of their workforce, and the price for a day's labor remained the same. England and their economy languished until a guy came along that the Brits don't even like by the name of Oliver Cromwell, and he abolished all of the government wage and price controls, and the economy surged. The effect of an increase of 40 percent on minimum wage is going to be several things. The first thing it is going to do is: any job between the current minimum wage and the $7 is going to do one of several things. First, it will be exported overseas. If it is not exported, it will be taken on the black market by, perhaps, some illegal immigrant who is willing to work for less than the minimum wage. Or it will just be passed on to everybody as an increase in cost of living. Those are the alternatives. It would be very nice if we could, by mandate from this floor, say that everybody is going to make a lot more than that. Why not $20 an hour? The reason is because what happens is we become less competitive, and we ship the jobs overseas. We are proposing that if we are going to do this, particularly to all of these jobs in small businesses, that we at least give the small businesses some kind of a break to compensate and to try to provide some health care for some of those people. That is the reason why we are opposing just a straight 40 percent increase, because the effect is going to be, yes, some people are going to get more money, but a lot of jobs, it is just like taking the old chain saw out and chopping off another low rung in the ladder. There are people who will end up in welfare accordingly. Vote ``no'' on House Resolution 2.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I am one of the two Congressmen who serves on the board of this Truman Scholarship fund. As has been explained here today, it is a very good use of money to help students obtain these different scholarships, to prepare them for work in public service. The problem is that the principal cannot be invested in a very flexible kind of way. That is why this is a modernization act, to allow us to use those funds. I think it is completely noncontroversial. I serve with a Member of the other party on that board. Everybody, as far as I know, is in agreement that this modernization needs to take place. It is going to result in more money for scholarships, and people will be better prepared for public service. It seems like everybody wins, and so I am a strong supporter. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6206.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, my Democrat colleague, on the other side of the aisle there is making reference, I believe, to a study that was done. The lead author of that was Susan Lee, who is a lawyer for NARAL. That is not exactly a credible witness. And what we have on the other side of the argument, you have Dr. Myers and Dr. Bulich. They are authors of the textbook ``Anesthesia for Fetal Intervention and Surgery.'' They are professors at Harvard Medical School. And what they are explaining is that as we do these different routine operations to little children, before they are born, what we are doing is we are administering anesthesia because we understand that they feel pain. This is common practice in the medical community. And I am really amazed that anybody would be opposed to the idea of simply giving a mother a choice, a choice as to whether to administer anesthesia to her child. I mean, I hear these people. They say they are pro-choice, and here is something that is choice, you can administer anesthesia; oh, no, we are against that. You might impose on giving them this opportunity to administer anesthesia. I can't understand why anybody could oppose it.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor one of my constituents, Mr. Dennis Hahn, who has received a Certificate of Merit from the Freedoms Foundation. The Freedoms Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to teaching young people the principles upon which our nation was founded. They work to convey the close link between the rights and the responsibilities of citizens in society. Among other things, Dennis was recently nominated for the Freedoms Foundation ``George Washington Honor Medal'' because of his love of history in general and admiration for President Washington specifically. In a letter endorsing Dennis, James Cale, Superintendent for the City of St. Charles School District, summed up this way why he should be considered for the award: ``[T]he highest compliment I am able to pay Mr. Hahn and to his consideration for the George Washington Honor Medal is a simple one. I would like to be more like Dennis. His level of personal commitment, his ability to focus on service to others . . .'' and the way ``he leads his life with a total aura of personal humility'' is a ``model to my children, my friends and me.'' Elected in 1999, Dennis is currently the Board of Education President for the City of St. Charles School District located in my congressional district. His wife, Shirley, is a teacher in St. Charles. I am honored to have the opportunity to recognize Dennis Hahn and congratulate him for receiving this Certificate of Merit from the Freedoms Foundation.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor one of my constituents, Mrs. June Lanz. June has been selected as the 2006-2007 Freedoms Foundation--Missouri (St. Louis) Chapter ``Spirit of '76-- Patriot''. The Freedoms Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to teaching young people the principles upon which our Nation was founded. They work to convey the close link between the rights and the responsibilities of citizens in society. June is a thirty-nine-year member of the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution, DAR. As State Regent of the Missouri State Society DAR, June successfully placed the 1809 Cold Water Cemetery on the U.S. Department of the Interior's Register of Historic Places and restored and rededicated the Madonna of the Trail Statue in Lexington, Missouri. June is a member of the Missouri Historical Society, the Freedoms Foundation of Valley Forge and a Friend of the St. Louis Art Museum. She has published a history of Missouri State Society Daughters of the Revolution, which includes American Revolutionary Patriots reported buried in Missouri. She has provided this to the National Society DAR and other research facilities. Married fifty-five years, June and her husband, George Lanz, have four daughters and seven grandchildren. As one who has a deep and abiding love for American history and the Patriots who have gone before us, I want to thank June Lanz for her commitment to preserving our history and congratulate her for being selected 2006-2007 ``Spirit of '76--Patriot''.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to state for the record how deeply saddened I am by the recent death of Dr. Dennis Spellman. As President of Lindenwood University in St. Charles Missouri since 1989, Dr. Spellman leaves a legacy of success. His unique leadership style resulted in the tremendous growth of Lindenwood from a small struggling college, to the beautiful sprawling campus of almost 3,500 students (living on campus) that it is today as Lindenwood University. In my many conversations with Dr. Spellman over the past five and a half years, I was keenly aware of his convictions. He was a man of deep faith and commitment. He was a patriot and a proud American who made his life a reflection of what our forefathers intended in ``life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness''. His love and concern for the students and faculty under his charge was evident in the vigor and passion with which he approached every issue and hurdle he navigated. As the Congressman for Missouri's second district, I know I speak for many, especially those in St. Charles County who are the most direct beneficiaries of the many successes of Lindenwood University during Dr. Spellman's tenure, when I say, he will be greatly missed.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. The bottom line is we have a system of republics. We have a system of federalism. We have 51 established republics, one federated and 50 States.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to introduce the Pledge Protection Act and just to give a quick and brief history as to why it is important. We have heard some discussion that this is really not necessary, that we can rest assured that the words of the Pledge of Allegiance will just stand firm forever. Unfortunately, that is not what our recent history shows. First of all, three judges on the Ninth Circuit Court in California ruled that the words ``under God'' are unconstitutional. They were supported by the entire Ninth Circuit. The case went to the Supreme Court, and I was there at the hearing at the Supreme Court. The President's attorney there argued that the Supreme Court should kick the case out because the person, Mr. Newdow, bringing the case did not have standing. The response of one of the Judges was, as a Supreme Court we never kick a case out based on standing, because we assume the lower courts have already taken care of that. Why did the Supreme Court do this? They could easily have ruled that the Pledge is just fine, that it is completely constitutional. Is that their ruling? No. They kicked the case out based on standing. So we believe that there are not five Judges on the Court, which is what it would take to uphold the Pledge of Allegiance. Hence we use a constitutional authority granted to us from the Founders that wrote the Constitution to protect the Pledge of Allegiance. That constitutional authority is known as Article III, section 2. What we do is we create a very simple fence around the Federal court system. We say just regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, that no Federal Court has authority to hear a claim that the Pledge is unconstitutional. So we put a fence around the Federal court system. Well, what does that mean, if somebody really wants to make a claim that the Pledge is unconstitutional? It means that they go to their local State courts, with the ultimate decisions being made in 50 separate supreme courts and a court here in the District of Columbia. So that is the reason for why we need to pass the Pledge Protection Act. It seems a bit ironic that some people will complain about the fact that we have no respect for the Constitution and that we are eroding the separation of powers, and yet it is the very Constitution that gives Congress the authority and the responsibility to stand up to the Court when they are misusing the Constitution. If you claim you respect the Constitution, part of that is the first amendment, and the first amendment to the Constitution is about free speech. It is not about censorship. To say that a child cannot say the Pledge of Allegiance is a form of censorship. The Court has already ruled that no child has to say the Pledge. But now the Court wants to go the other step and say no, we are going to use the first amendment about free speech to say that you cannot say the Pledge. We must step in.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman made the scenario, let's assume the bill passes that we are discussing now, is signed by the President.

Mr. AKIN. Now is law. What happens then is you are going to a particular State, you are saying West Virginia. And what happens is that a school board or something like that in the State decides to just basically go against what is already established Supreme Court policy. From 1944, the Supreme Court made the ruling that nobody is required to say the Pledge of Allegiance. We have no interest in changing that. We think that is good policy.

Mr. AKIN. What you are saying is, first of all, you are making, obviously you are taking this to a pretty extreme situation. You are saying a whole series of courts in West Virginia are going to overturn Supreme Court policy on the fact that people have to say the Pledge. So first of all, they are going completely against what the Federal courts have already established. They then expose themselves to the checks and balances within that State. In at least 45, probably more, of the States, there are provisions where those judges can be removed by the people of that State.

Mr. AKIN. Well, the situation is that you are dependent on this bill with the various checks and balances on the Supreme Courts in the States. That is, those justices could be impeached for violating the Supreme Court.

Mr. AKIN. And the voters of that State. It depends on the State laws.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by quoting a person who I believe is the founder, or at least acknowledged as the father, of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson. His words encased in stone on his monument read: ``The God that gave us life gave us liberty.'' It goes on to say: ``Can the liberties of a people be secure if we remove the conviction that those liberties are the gift of God?'' The author of our Declaration well understood that it is impossible to assert that we have inalienable rights and at the same time ignore the person that gave us the inalienable rights, the God that provided those rights itself. This question goes to the heart of what America has always stood for and always fought for. We believe that there is a God that gives basic rights to all people, and it is the job of the government to protect those rights. If the courts come to the decision that we cannot acknowledge God, then we have ripped the heart out of the logic of what makes America, the fact that our rights come from God Himself, and we have thumbed our nose at Thomas Jefferson and our Declaration and our 300-plus years of history. Now we have good reason to fear that the Court will not be content to ignore just the fifth amendment and say that you can take private property from people and redistribute it without a public purpose, but that they may also decide to take the first amendment and turn it upside down and use it as a sword of censorship rather than an oasis of free speech. I am not persuaded by the pious hand-wringing of liberal activists who flinch not at the courts' unfettered march to create some imagined utopia at the expense of the separation of powers in the Constitution itself. It is time for the Congress to reassert our legislative authority. It is time for the Congress to signal an end to the courts' freewheeling forays of unchecked legislative license.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, I came here to discuss, I thought there would not be much discussion on the rule, because that is what we are supposed to be debating and discussing right now, the rule on the Pledge Protection Act. Instead, most of the discussion that seems to come from the other side is complaining about priorities. I did not know that this is where we were going to complain about priorities. I suppose there are some connections. It seems that judging by the comments in the Rules Committee yesterday, that the Democrats have a very hard time understanding the importance of the Pledge or the words ``under God'' or even the first amendment, which is about free speech. They seem to consider that to be a rather minor thing, and that perhaps may fit in with their view of government. But I would recall that if you were to summarize what America stands for, we have always stood for the idea, the simple principle, that there is a God, even though we disagree as to who He might be, who gives basic inalienable rights to all people, and that it is the job of government to protect those rights. That is, in a sense, a formula that Americans have gone to war about through the ages. That is why we went to war with King George, that is why we fought the War of Independence, because we believed in that basic formula. The Democrats are saying now that formula is not very important, we should not give it time to discuss it or think about it. But if they spent a little more time thinking about it, they would realize that is why we are in the war against these radical Islamists, why we fight the war of terror, why our sons and daughters are overseas. The reason we fight is because these terrorists take away people's innocent lives and blow them up for political statements. We fight because these terrorists want to terrorize, to take away people's freedom. And the other side, the Democrats, want to cut and run from that fight. They would not want to cut and run if they understood the importance of those basic principles and that inalienable rights are impossible without a recognition of God, and that is why the Pledge bill is important and not irrelevant or trivial. And so while we hear all of these discussions about, oh, you are not doing this, you are not doing that, you are not doing the other thing, fortunately government can do more than one thing at a time. There are many people at work in government. The energy bill was brought up. I am surprised that the Democrats would mention the energy bill. It would be an embarrassment to me if I were a Democrat, and the Republicans had brought an energy bill on this floor in 2001, and it was killed by Democrats in the Senate. 2002, we brought an energy bill. That was killed by Democrats in the Senate. 2003, we brought an energy bill. It was killed by the Democrats in the Senate. And 2004, the Democrats killed it again. Finally in 2005, we get an energy bill. If I were a Democrat, I would not be talking about energy prices after basically filibustering an energy bill for 5 years.

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, the question has been placed: Is there really a need for this legislation? And I think the statement was made, inaccurately, that there was just only one time that the Pledge had been challenged as being unconstitutional. The words ``under God'' were found by the Ninth Circuit to be unconstitutional. It was not once. It was done first by a three-judge panel there. They came to the conclusion that school kids are not allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance. They were then backed up by the entire Ninth Circuit that supported that same position. The case then went to the U.S. Supreme Court. If we could be so assured that the phrase ``one Nation under God,'' Madam Speaker, that is over your head is safe, if the words ``in God we trust'' on our money is safe, well, then certainly the words ``under God'' in our Pledge should be safe. So the Supreme Court could simply have ruled this is a ridiculous and a silly case that the Ninth Circuit has sent to the Supreme Court; we strike down their decision. They could have ruled that way. I was there when the case was heard. The President's attorney recommended that the Court dismiss the case based on lack of standing of the person who brought the case. And one of the Supreme Court judges said we consider that the lower courts will take care of whether or not somebody has standing; that is not the kind of issue we consider. And yet on deliberation, instead of striking the Ninth Circuit decision, the Court said, oh, we are going to dismiss it for lack of standing. That gives many of us very little cause to not be concerned not only with our Pledge, but with the money that says ``in God we trust,'' ``in God we trust'' over the Speaker's chair, and ``one Nation under God'' on our money. So it is a matter of debate whether or not there is a threat here, but this is the same Court who not so long ago made the decision that we could also ignore the fifth amendment and redistribute private property to other people without it being for government use. If they would ignore the fifth amendment, is it possible they might turn the first amendment upside down and use it as a tool of censorship? Certainly, many authorities think so. This bill has merit, and it needs serious consideration. We take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. That includes the first amendment, and this is about free speech, not censorship.