W. Akin

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Essentially what our bill does, if you want to put it in a simple word picture, we are creating a fence. The fence goes around the Federal judiciary. We do that because we don't trust them. We don't trust them because of previous decisions and because of the simple fact that there are not five votes on the Supreme Court to protect our beloved Pledge of Allegiance. And 80 percent to 90 percent of Americans would like to leave the Pledge of Allegiance the way it is. So what does this amendment do? This amendment simply opens a big hole in the fence. So the gentleman from Iowa was absolutely right: this is a gutting amendment. There is absolutely no reason to pass the bill if this amendment were to pass. We simply allow the Supreme Court to come in whenever they choose, turn the first amendment upside down and simply say to kids, you are not allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance, and we are going to use the first amendment from now on as a weapon instead of for free speech to censorship on the courts. So 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. It is time for us to do our job as Congressmen. It is time to assert ourselves, that we will not give unchecked legislative authority to the courts. We have been too long rolling over to them. It is time to stand up and say on the Pledge of Allegiance, enough is enough.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Arizona, Trent Franks.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr AKIN

Mr AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask, is the other side going to be speaking on the amendment?

Mr. AKIN. That is a good assumption. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment and the reason it was added, to some degree in a last-minute nature, was because of the Hamden decision. The Hamden decision, a majority of the Supreme Court on an Article III, section 2 question said that because a particular issue, in this case it was Gitmo, was being considered in the courts, that the article III, section 2 language didn't apply. Now, this is completely inconsistent with all previous rulings of the Supreme Court. But we thought, just to be safe, that what we would do here would be to add language that makes it clear that not only does this bill consider any future cases that are brought before the court, the Federal courts, but also existing cases, in this case, again, the challenge to the Pledge that is already in the Federal court system and is before the Ninth Circuit out in California and some of the States in the West. So that was the reason for this technical and perfecting amendment, certainly to clarify, just simply to clarify that this bill would apply not only to future legislation but cases that are currently before the Court. Along those lines, I think it is very important for us to once again affirm the importance of our discussion and our debate here today. It is ultimately the job of the legislative branch and the executive branch to provide some check and balance on the Supreme Court. There would be no argument from me if the Supreme Court based all of their decisions on the rules, that is the U.S. Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has gone beyond that increasingly, and it is our concern that they will go well beyond the U.S. Constitution in considering this case. We have every reason to believe that we do not have five Justices that will support the Pledge. We have every reason to believe that the Pledge could easily be struck, and it is for that reason that this bill has been introduced. Now, some would say that, in fact I believe the minority leader called what is going on on this floor a charade. I think that is a rather harsh way of describing people that have a genuine interest in the Pledge of Allegiance, have a genuine interest in the heart of what this good Nation was based on, the idea that there is, in fact, a God that grants basic inalienable rights to all people, and that the job of government is to protect those basic rights. Part of that U.S. Constitution includes the first amendment, and the first amendment has to do with free speech. I can understand the use of the first amendment to say to someone, you are not required to give an oath that you don't believe in. But I cannot understand how you can look at free speech as a tool to censor school children across America from saying that they cannot, they are going to censor the Pledge of Allegiance, they cannot say the Pledge of Allegiance. This is the time for this Congress to stand up, to be strong, and to take notice of the fact that the Court will no longer be making these forays of absolutely unchecked legislative decision-making. And it is time for us to stand up and say no to a Court that is effectively trying to create their own set of rules instead of reading the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Chairman, I think that there is good evidence from the way that the Court has handled the fifth amendment in allowing the redistribution of private property willy nilly, without a government purpose, I think there is good reason to be concerned as the Court has taken to itself a power to tax, which is unconstitutional. There is good reason for us to be concerned about the Court's overrunning their constitutional bounds. It is time for us to show the backbone to stand up to the Court. It is time for us to say no to this unregulated, general legislative authority. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, the debate before us today, as has been highlighted by people from both sides of the aisle, is about a definition of marriage. I think that the point that in the subtlest way has to be made clear, it is something that most Americans understand logically, and that is marriage is not about love; it is about a love that can bear children. There is a difference. I love my parents. I love my family. I have friends that I love. But I love my wife and we are married. Marriage is a love that bears children and replenishes society along those lines. I have been married personally for 31 years. We have six children and even a grandson. The children are doing well. One is a first lieutenant that just came back from Fallujah. The other two sons are over at the Naval Academy. I have two daughters that have not gone off to school yet. All of those children, growing up with a mother and a father, have understood the first primitive concepts of government. They have understood what it is like to live under authority. They understand what it is like to work hard. They have learned to walk and to talk and to get along with each other and all of those things. We also know that historically the people that are filling our prisons, the people who socially get in trouble a lot are statistically people who have not had the blessings of a loving mother and father and a stable home. It doesn't mean that people can't get in trouble when they come from that background, but statistically it is a lot easier for a child to grow up with the benefit of a loving home with a mother and a father. So from a practical point of view, to preserve our civilization and society, it is important for us to preserve marriage. It is not just love; it is a love that produces children. We ask ourselves, well, is this such a big debate? Really it shouldn't be. We have 45 States that have passed legislation saying a marriage is between a man and a woman. Also anybody who knows something about the history of the human race knows that there is no civilization which has condoned homosexual marriage widely and openly that has long survived. It is for the practical reason that marriage is about bringing the next generation along, and it works best with one dad and one mom. That is what a great majority of Americans believe. So it is sad that we have to basically tell our courts, because of their activist nature, the beliefs of such a great block of Americans. I will conclude my comments by doing something that I don't know that I have done on the floor before, and that is to call attention to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Colorado, Marilyn Musgrave, who has had the courage to do what seems so obvious, so obvious to at least 45 States' worth of Americans, to bring this amendment to the floor. For her efforts to defend plain old traditional marriage, she has had millions of dollars thrown against her, and even a television ad that I have seen of some fat pink-dressed lady that is stealing jewelry off a corpse. She has had to put up with that. I say to you, Congresswoman Musgrave, we are proud of you, and we thank you for standing up for something that is so foundational to our society.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring the Sisters of Mercy in my hometown, St. Louis, Missouri on the 150th anniversary of their arrival to the United States. Throughout their long years of service the Sisters have tirelessly devoted themselves to sacrificial living--assisting the poor, the sick, and the uneducated throughout Missouri communities. This tradition of service began on June 27, 1856, when the Sisters of Mercy arrived in St. Louis to open St. Francis Xavier Parish School at the request of then Archbishop Peter J. Kenrick. The Sisters later expanded their ministry beyond the school walls, establishing an orphanage, instituting an industrial school for single-parent children, beginning a Sunday school course for African American women, and continuously visiting the poor, sick, and imprisoned. The Sisters in these ministries frequently incurred personal sacrifices, but this did not deter them from their good works. In spite of their worthy efforts, the Sisters of Mercy frequently encountered obstacles throughout their service including shortages of food and clothing, as well as insufficient funding. With undying faith and dedication, however, the Sisters were able to overcome these challenges. In their many years of service, the Sisters of Mercy have worked at five high schools and more than 20 parish elementary schools. Additionally, the Sisters have been active in healthcare since 1871, when they converted their original school into a hospital that continues to provide medical care today. After 150 years of service to students, families, the sick, and the underprivileged, the Sisters of Mercy have demonstrated their great commitment to the St. Louis community. Today we recognize their efforts with the best of our admiration and gratitude.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I think that this debate is helpful. I think that whenever you get into a complicated project, even if you are solving a physics problem, many times it is helpful to just stop, stop right where you are and say to yourself, just using common sense, are we on the right track? I think we should stand back from the war for just a moment tonight and ask that simple question: Are we on the right track? And we can think about this country that we love so dearly, the flag that we have just celebrated, and all that makes America special. But what happens if you were to try to condense the goodness that we love in America into a formula, which is, which really states what Americans have been for all time? If you were like an onion to peel off the outer things of hot dogs and baseball, what would be the core that makes America what we love? I would suggest that the answer to that question is found in your birthday document, the Declaration, that says, we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. And it goes on to say the job of government is to protect those rights. And that is what we have fought wars all through history, to support that basic idea. And so should it surprise us this evening to find ourselves on the battlefield against terrorists? Let's see. Terrorists blow up innocent people. We say, innocent people have a life that is given them by God. They say they want to terrorize so that people cannot be free, to compel you to do what you do not want to do. We say, liberty is a gift of God. And so it should be no surprise, just as we have found ourselves in the War of Independence and the wars against Hitler and the other wars of our history, that we are arrayed against people who have no respect for the formula that has made America so great. And just as in the past, there is a cost. You know, my own son just came back from Fallujah. They say that the cost of freedom is not free. And the parents all across our country, just as my wife and I did, would look at the local paper in the morning. We would say, oh, three marines killed in Fallujah. I wonder if my son is one of them. No, freedom is not free. But we were proud that our son, just as other families are proud of their children, can carry on that same tradition that the patriots did. That is what makes us feel so good when we see the flag flying, the heart and soul of America, that there is indeed a God that gives basic rights to people and government should protect those rights. And the terrorists will not stand, because that formula does not apply just to Americans; it applies to people all over the world.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman taking the time to take a look at this subject that obviously is so important to us, the whole area of border security and immigration. There are so many different facets to this. I just wanted to ask a question or two. Aside from the technology of how do you enforce the border, how do you build at least from a physical point of view or a deterrent point of view, some of the different aspects of this question because the more that people look at it, it seems like there are more and more questions. One is you have a couple of parents that are illegal immigrants. They have children. My understanding is that some of our judges have decided those children become automatically American citizens. But I also understand that could be very easily challenged, whether the Constitution should be understood in that way. I think that is one of the issues that we are dealing with. Another one is the question of English as a language. Do we enforce the things that have made us unique as a Nation? Do we make English the official language of the United States? We assume it is, but we have never passed a law to do that very thing. There are other questions. There are questions about the employees, whether employers should check Social Security numbers, names and birthdays before they hire somebody. Are we going to enforce that law or are we going to ignore it and go in the other direction? All of these are significant questions. If it is all right, I would just inquire if you would like to talk about those questions in a little more detail with the time we have.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, some of the studies that I have seen, the people that get hurt the most by having illegal immigrants working are the people at the lower end of the wage scale, because those are the people taking the jobs that would have been taken by people who are legal citizens of this country, people who waited in line, people who took the classes on citizenship. Now all of a sudden they want to be able to take a job and there is somebody who is taking the job for a couple of dollars less. Those are the ones that are hurt the most by this process of what is going on. I guess the bottom line is that one of the things that people say is if you want less of something, you tax it. If you want more of it, you subsidize it. My concern is that some of the discussion I am hearing from the other body and not so much from the House here is the idea that we are going to make it easy for the illegals just to basically give them citizenship or amnesty. My concern is whatever you reward, get more of. In 1986, we granted amnesty to a number of people, and then we had a huge wave of other illegals coming here saying pretty soon they will do that again. We need to avoid making that mistake, make the tough decision and say no amnesty and say we are going to enforce our laws. We have to say we are going to let the people waiting in line trying to follow our laws, we are going to reward those people and not reward law breakers. My concern is that any proposal we deal with would not be rewarding law breakers because if we do, we will encourage more of them. I think those reasons, economic reasons and many others, we need to take a very good look at our policy on border security and immigration. I know that you have done some innovative work in terms of what can be done on the border. In some ways to have certain crossings where everybody knows that is where you go through and we stop just these hordes of thousands of people coming across every day. I really appreciate your imagination and your good work and also your scheduling this time to talk about what I believe is one of the questions that is really foremost on the minds and hearts of many Americans. We all have a great deal of respect for the American Dream and for the fact that we are really all Americans. I do not even like to use the word ``class.'' I do not think it applies in America. But I know that you have that love and respect for this country, and I appreciate your taking a tough issue this afternoon and dealing with it, and I appreciate the fact that your views on this subject are ones which are going to strengthen our country overall. So thank you very much for taking a little time on that subject.

Mr. AKIN. The American dream, live and well.

Mr. AKIN. My understanding is the same thing. The understanding of that section in the Constitution dated back about to the time of the Civil War and it was dealing with a different situation and it does not necessarily apply to two people who are here illegally, or just the automatic granting of citizenship just because of where are you born. From my understanding, we could pass a law, and it might be challenged and the courts would have to take a look at that, but there is a good case that could be made to support what you are saying, which is if we are going to talk about birthright, there needs to be at least one parent that is a citizen of the United States. Also, it troubles me that America, and one of the things I love about this country is the fact that America has always been a place where there is just one class of people. We call them Americans. From our Declaration of Independence it says ``all men are created equal.'' That means equal before the law. Nobody is better than anybody else. We have one class of Americans. Yet by us ignoring our own laws on immigration, de facto we are starting to move into or create sort of a second class of citizen that does not really have any rights. They are not subject to the minimum wage or any of those things. They do not have a chance to be part of organized labor or anything like that. They simply come here and if they say anything, they are threatened that they can be sent back over the border. We are almost creating a second class of citizenship, and that concerns me a lot. I think it is absolutely time that we start to enforce the laws that apply to immigration in this country. There are some people who want to argue that we do not have a right to make any laws that control immigration. That is an interesting question, but we really have two choices. We either say we are going to open the borders wide open and no law is legitimate whatsoever, or we are going to enforce the laws we have. If we cannot enforce them, we can take them off the books. The thing that concerns me is this whole idea of shifting what America really is, which is one people, Americans, instead of us being so weak in terms of enforcing law that we are starting to create a different America and one where people are not all equal. I do not know if you have thought about that concept of two classes of Americans. It is very distasteful to me.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend the Associated General Contractors (AGC) of St. Louis. In 2005 alone the AGC has been involved in more that $52 billion worth of construction projects that employed approximately 80,000 workers. The members of the AGC provide the skill, teamwork and spirit of innovation that makes a lasting contribution to our community; building facilities that support and enhance the quality of life in the St. Louis region. Whether it is a church or school, road or utilities, these skilled craftspeople conduct themselves and their work in a safe manner so as to avoid accidents and injuries. Their commitment to exceptional standards has been recognized by both the U.S. Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) along with receiving the coveted first place award for safety excellence from the National AGC Safety Awards (NASA) Program for 2004 and prior years. The AGC has also created a special safety training unit, Operation Safesite, which includes two full-time construction professionals who provide on the jobsite training along with construction training school classes. I applaud the AGC's vision and commitment toward improving construction safety in the St. Louis metropolitan community. I would like to recognize February 21-February 28 as Construction Safety Week in St. Louis County.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring the important role that Catholic schools play in educating the children of America, including in my hometown of St. Louis. Catholic schools not only teach our kids how to think, but also teach them how to live. Catholic schools have always been known for their high academic standards and excellent teachers, but I would like to draw your attention to their ability to provide more than just an excellent academic education. The Catholic schools in my district are a perfect example of this--providing children from a young age with a moral foundation which leads them to serve their community through out their lives. It was strong religious and moral beliefs that drove our Nation's Founders to develop a country where individual freedom is coupled with individual responsibility. Catholic schools across our great Nation continue to produce students who understand their responsibility and act accordingly. The values imparted and the strong faith that Catholic schools develop in their students produces citizens who understand the importance of service and diligently work for the good of our country. I am honored to represent a district where numerous Catholic schools provide a rigorous academic education and a moral compass to guide students through their lives. Catholic schools in Missouri's Second Congressional District and throughout the St. Louis region produce well-rounded and morally grounded members of our community. The teachers, administrators, parents, and students of Catholic schools deserve this recognition for the tremendously positive impact they have on our Nation. These schools will continue to play a significant role in developing responsible American citizens for our future generations.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support the passage of the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005. This bill will encourage and support the most promising avenue of stem cell research available to us today, and will do so without ending a human life, as is required in embryonic stem cell research. Cord blood is one the most exciting areas of medical research today and successful treatments have been developed for a wide range of diseases, from sickle cell anemia to leukemia. The promise of medical research using the stem cells found in umbilical cords is truly amazing. Stem cells from cord blood have already resulted in treatments for at least 67 different human afflictions and future research looks immensely promising. Just one example of this is the successful treatment of numerous children afflicted by Krabbe's Disease. Dozen's of children across the country have been saved from an early death by cord blood transplants. This legislation will make cord blood more readily available to save lives and treat numerous conditions. This summer I had the opportunity to visit a leading center of cord blood-based stem cell research. The St. Louis Cord Blood Bank at Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital is one of the leaders in this field and is the second largest cord blood bank in the world. It was exciting to see the research being done and hear stories about the lives that have been radically altered by successful cord blood treatments. I believe that the work being done by the St. Louis Cord Blood Bank is just a taste of what can be accomplished in the future. While embryonic stem cell research may draw more media attention and certainly produces many improbably optimistic promises for the future, cord blood stem cells are already producing treatments. Embryonic stem cell research requires the death of an innocent embryo, but cord blood stem cells are a gift from God that we would be irresponsible to waste. Cord blood stem cell research has already resulted in numerous successful medical treatments, and I believe that this research has a bright future. The support and coordination of cord blood banking and research efforts across the country will benefit our citizens in numerous ways in the years ahead. I urge my colleagues to support the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, in his first State of the Union address, President Abraham Lincoln said, ``It is as much the duty of government to render prompt justice against itself in favor of citizens as it is to administer the same between private individuals.'' President Lincoln said this in reference to the United States Court of Claims which he proposed Congress to establish for the purpose of justly resolving the claims of citizens against the United States. One of the most fundamental rights we enjoy in this nation is the right to know that our property is free from confiscation absent the protections of the Fifth Amendment. When the government does confiscate a citizen's property, the United States Constitution requires the government to provide the citizens from whom the property is confiscated full and fair compensation for the property that has been taken. A matter has come to my attention in which the United States government falls tragically short of meeting this obligation. I refer to those individual property owners in St. Louis County whose property has been confiscated by the Federal Government for use as a public recreational trail under the Federal Trails Act. These citizens' property was taken more than 12 years ago when it was converted to a recreational trail under the Federal Trails Act, and they have still not received compensation. This is so despite the fact that the Justice Department has admitted in a settlement agreement and in numerous court pleadings that the Federal Government has confiscated their property and that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that the Federal Government pay these property owners the fair value of the property taken. The Justice Department and the property owners each hired appraisers who determined the fair value of the property and after 6 years of litigation in the Federal Court of Claims a settlement agreement was reached. Yet, two days before this agreement was to be approved by the judge, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in a Georgia case called Caldwell v. United States. The Justice Department and the U.S. Court of Claims have interpreted that case as announcing a new rule for the time when a property owner must file a claim to recover the value of his property taken by operation of the Trails Act. This ``new rule'' is inconsistent with the understanding of Congress when we enacted the Trails Act and, as announced by the dissenting opinion in the Caldwell case, is ``contrary to all authority''. The Federal Circuit decision ruled that the statute of limitations for Trails Act compensation claims begins to run, not when the property owners land is actually taken from the landowner, but when the Surface Transportation Board issues a notice that there is a possibility that the land might be taken in the future. Mr. Speaker, this ``new rule'' announced by the Caldwell court, as it has been interpreted and applied by the Justice Department and the lower courts, will work a great injustice to a limited number of property owners whose property has been confiscated but will now be denied compensation, while at the same time requiring the Federal Government to pay compensation for property that might never be converted to a public recreational trail. The new Caldwell rule will cost the Federal Government plenty--requiring taxpayers to pay significantly greater interest for compensation claims during the time before the property was ever taken from the land owners. Mr. Speaker, this injustice is best illustrated by the letter I received from Gale and Sara Illig. Mr. and Mrs. Illig live in my home county of St. Louis, Missouri and their property was taken for a recreational trail. I incorporate Mr. and Mrs. Illig's letter in these remarks. Dear Congressman Akin: We have a small business. Gale is in commercial holiday decorating and Sarah helps in the business. After a number of years of saving, in 1984 we bought our home in Grantwood Village. By most standards it is a modest home but it is a home that we love and have worked hard to care for and improve over the years. This home is where we have raised our family and now spend our retirement years. We are not a family of great wealth and our home represents our most significant asset. When we bought our home in 1984, one of the features that appealed to us was the quiet and secluded community and location. A screened-in sun porch on the south side of our home is one of our favorite rooms. Outside the sun porch and further to the south is the now abandoned Missouri Pacific Railroad right-of-way. We own the property over which the MoPac held an easement for this branch-line of their railroad. The tracks themselves were just a single line and they were infrequently used. Between the tracks and our home was a large, attractive hedge which gave us privacy. In 1992 a not-for-profit nature trail group negotiated with MoPac to acquire this now abandoned railroad right-of-way. We have been told that the federal government gave the trail group the authority to acquire this abandoned railroad right- of-way and to prevent us from using our property. We understand that the federal Trails Act gave them this ability to take our property even though under Missouri law we had the right to use and occupy this property once it was abandoned by MoPac. We wrote to Senator Bond in 1992 expressing concern about the effect this trail would have upon our home and property value. While the railroad had a full 100 foot width easement, they only used a very narrow 12 feet that was occupied by the train tracks and, as noted, that was used infrequently. Because of the Trails Act, the trail organization now claims the right to use the full 100 foot width of the original railroad easement, including the right to cut and remove all of the foliage on this part of our property. Additionally, with the trail use we now have, quite literally, hundreds of people biking and walking through our property where previously we enjoyed a quiet and secluded home. Now, we want to make clear that we do not oppose recreational hiking and biking trails and we think parks and recreational trails are a fine thing. It is just that when, as in our situation, the federal government runs the trail through our property without our consent we believe that we should be fairly compensated for this taking of our property. This public trail runs just several feet from our sunroom and across almost the entire southern third of our property. We have always understood that the U.S. Constitution provided us the guarantee that if our property were to be taken we would be compensated. I mentioned that we are a family of modest means and this is true. This causes us to feel even more painfully the effect that this taking of our property has had upon our own home value. The government took our property almost 13 years ago. We spent more than 6 years in a lawsuit with the government seeking to be compensated for the government's taking of this property. In that lawsuit, the Justice Department agreed that this taking of our property represented a value of $72,065 taken from us by the federal government. The Justice Department also agreed that they would pay us this money and that they were responsible to make this payment under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Justice Department also agreed to pay us interest on this because it has now been 13 years since our property was taken. The Justice Department's agreement that they would pay us was long overdue but was very welcome. As we get older we face the realistic understanding that we will not be able to live in our home forever. During the twelve years since the trail was created, Gale has suffered both cancer and a multiple heart valve replacement. The value that we have built up in our home is an asset that we look to provide for our needs when we reach a point where we can no longer care for this home and need to move into other living arrangements. For this reason the $72,065 plus interest since 1992, while not much money to the federal government, is quite literally huge to us. This is why we were so pleased when the settlement was reached last December. * * * what happened next, * * * is still one of the most outrageous experiences in our life and represents a great injustice to us personally. Two days before the hearing with the Judge to approve the settlement, we understand that the Court of Appeals decided a Georgia Trails Act case. The government claimed this case changed the law and meant that now they now no longer had to pay us what they had agreed they were obligated to pay us for the confiscation of our property. We are not lawyers so maybe that is why we cannot understand the nuances of this, but, to us, a very simple principle is involved. The government has taken our property, the government agreed that they have taken our property (I am told by [our attorney] that the government agreed to this not just once, but on multiple occasions in formal statements filed with the Court), the government agrees how much they owe us for the property, including interest, and the government is required by the U.S. Constitution to pay us this money. Then, at literally the last minute, they claim the law has changed because of a case in Georgia so they no longer have to pay us. This is just flat wrong! And, no amount of legal nuance can make it right. Congressman Akin, a lot of us in St. Louis experienced the same sense of outrage during the October 16th Cardinals game against the Astros when the home plate umpire, Cuzzi, called what was clearly a ball to be a strike on Jim Edmonds and then threw Jim Edmonds out of the game. That bad call did not necessarily change the outcome of the game. But the tragic effect of this bad call by the Court in the Georgia case and the bad call by the Department of Justice to use that case as an excuse for the government to escape its obligation to pay us for our property represents a devastating financial setback for our family. We have always worked hard, saved our money, and paid our taxes and expected that the federal government would treat us in a fair and just manner. We must tell you that we see this effort by the government to now escape their clear constitutional obligation to pay us (and the other one hundred property owners from whom they admit taking property) as a very fundamental injustice. For that reason, we are extremely grateful to have you represent us in the Congress and greatly appreciate your efforts to address this injustice. We are grateful for your help on this matter of such great importance to us. Warmest regards, Sarah and Gale Illig. Mr. Speaker, this letter demonstrates my initial point that the Federal Government has dramatically fallen short of President Lincoln's standard of ``providing prompt justice against itself in favor of citizens''. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4581 remedies this injustice and also returns administration of the Trails Act to a manner consistent with Congress' intention when initially passed. The Purpose of H.R. 4581, the Easement Owners' Fair Compensation Claims Act of 2005 The Easement Owners' Fair Compensation Claims Act of 2005 will remedy the injustice worked by the Federal Circuit Decision in Caldwell v. United States. It will establish clearly Congress's intent regarding when the Trails Act is intended to interfere with a property owner's interest and it will provide that those property owners in the limited number of cases affected by this Caldwell decision are, in fact, provided full, fair compensation for the property that the Federal Government took from them while, at the same time, assuring that the Federal Government does not use taxpayers' funds to pay for claims where it did not take any property and where ultimately, no recreational trail is ever created. In so doing, we will bring justice on behalf of those owners whose property is taken and we will also preserve and steward the taxpayers' resources by not paying for claims where no recreational trail for public use is ever created. This bill will provide the constitutionally mandated compensation to those property owners whose lands have been confiscated (as the Justice Department has already admitted) while on a broader level saving the Government from having to pay money for property that is never taken for a public recreational trail and prevent the Federal Government from having to pay interest for a ``taking'' of property years before the property owner's State law right to use and possess the property is ever interfered with. In short, H.R. 4581 restores the date for starting the statute of limitations to the date when the property owners' rights to the property are actually taken by the Federal Government. This is consistent with Congress's intention when the Trails Act amendments were passed in 1983 and will assure compensation to those property owners whose property the Government already acknowledged taking but not require the Government to pay compensation or interest for property never converted to trail use. H.R. 4581 will not undercut the operation of the Trails Act but will actually make it more cost efficient and will fairly treat those property owners whose property is actually taken for a trail.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Ryun amendment. What this amendment does is it protects that long-standing and high standard that is affirmed by our oath of allegiance, and it has been referred to that this is a solemn moment, a proud moment, and for many people, it is a dream that has come true. Let us try to put this in a little bit of a perspective. This is, in a sense, a form of what is sometimes called in old-fashioned language a covenant, a covenant between a people and a person who wants to join a nation. What are other types of covenants? One of them is a marriage, where a man and a woman pledge allegiance to each other equally. So this is a solemn moment. Try to picture yourself getting married and saying, yes, I want to get married, but I have got a couple of other marriages going, too. That is not going to fly very well. What this does, this is a dream come true. This is a commitment to a country and to a way of life and to a set of principles. It is something that has always been held in high regard. I think it is totally appropriate for this Chamber to control some bureaucrats that just want to change language and water it down.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, it was my great pleasure to serve this year as the Congressional Co-chair for the House of Representatives for National Bible Week, November 20 though November 27, 2005. The Bible was foundational to development of our country. The English Puritans came to the New World to follow the Bible according to the convictions of their own consciences. Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 24 had what today would be considered Bible college or seminary educations. Only a few years later, in 1782, Congress itself authorized the printing of the Bible. The Bible has found its way into everything from casual conversation--expressions like ``by the sweat of your brow'' and ``''the salt of the earth'' and myriad others all come from Scripture-- to the landscape of America. From Corinth, Maine to Bethel, Alaska, the Bible has marked our national map. More than any map, however, the Bible has marked who we are as a people. Earlier generations of Americans almost inhaled the words of Scripture as they inhaled the air. To read the inaugural addresses of our Presidents, from George Washington to George W. Bush, is to read repeated allusions to or quotations of biblical texts. The Bible speaks to the uniqueness of man--that we are all made in the image and likeness of God. It speaks of the greatness of God--that He is the object of true worship, the fount of all blessings and the Redeemer, Lawgiver, Friend, Savior and Judge. Historically, we have been a people of the Book. We lose our allegiance to and our reliance on the Bible to our grave peril. The Bible can be hard to understand. Yet as the theologian R.C. Sproul has written, ``We fail in our duty to study God's Word not so much because it is difficult to understand, not so much because it is dull and boring, but because it is work.'' And it is worthwhile work. There can be nothing nobler than seeking not only to know the Bible's teachings but to know the Bible's God. It was President Lincoln who said, ``I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man. All the good from the Savior of the world is communicated to us through this book.'' Or, as Jesus Himself remarked, ``Search the Scriptures . . . for they testify of Me.'' Today, Mr. Speaker, I echo Abraham Lincoln's comments and urge my colleagues and all Americans to reacquaint themselves with the Bible. As literature, it is unmatched. As philosophy, it is unparalleled. And as truth, it will make you free. I commend the National Bible Association for its outstanding work to bring the Bible to the attention of all Americans of every faith and creed. And I am humbled by the opportunity to serve in such a way as to draw attention to this most precious of books.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of National Philanthropy Day, I rise to draw attention to the generosity of the American people and the organizations that work to give hope and help to so many in our country. National Philanthropy Day is recognized by the Association of Fundraising Professionals on November 15. More specifically, I rise today in recognition of the many Missourians who give selflessly of their time, talent and finances to assist neighbors in need as well as victims of poverty, natural disaster and conflict. I commend the good work of the volunteers and staff of non-profit organizations and the financial donors who underwrite their efforts. According to a study by the U.S. Department of Labor and Purdue University, more than 30 percent of Missourians volunteered their time in 2003. The paid staff of charitable organizations should be commended highly for their good work. However, most would agree that they simply could not do what they do without the hearts, minds and hands of dedicated volunteers. So, today, I recognize not only the organizations but the people who brighten the days of those in need. It was Theodore Roosevelt who charged all of our fellow citizens to ``Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.'' Many of my constituents in the St. Louis area are doing just that. Following is a small sampling of the numerous charitable organizations doing great things in and around Missouri's Second Congressional District. Each of these charities has distinguished itself in a variety of ways and should be commended for its good work in the St. Louis area. Their sacrifice and compassion is building a better society for all, and we all are in their debt. Boone Center, www.boonecenter.com. BCI is a St. Charles County non- profit organization committed to providing employment opportunities for adults with disabilities. Established in 1959 as a one-employee candle making shop, Boone Center now employs over 200 adults with disabilities. Catholic Charities of St. Louis, www.ccstl.org. A federation of 12 agencies and more than 100 programs providing services to people in need including housing services, elder and child day care programs, substance abuse recovery, legal assistance, foster care, emergency shelter and community outreach programs just to name a few. Last year they provided direct services to more than 111,000 individuals. Connections to Success, www.connectionstosuccess.org. An organization which defines itself as devoted to breaking the cycle of poverty one family at a time. Programs include; Dress for Success, Professional Women's Group, Wheels for Success, Wheels of Hope and a faith-based mentoring program. Extra Hands for ALS, www.extrahands.org. Based in St. Louis, Extra Hands for ALS is a national voluntary service charity assisting people with ALS, also called Lou Gehrig's disease. Extra Hands partners high school and college students with families affected with an ALS diagnosed individual to assist them in everyday tasks. Joyce Meyer Ministries World Outreach, http://www.joycemeyer.org/ proiects/wo_sub/index.php. Provides humanitarian aid to the world's poor and in response to natural disaster such as the recent tsunami. Assistance includes personal items such as food, water, clothing, hygiene items, and items necessary for rebuilding communities such as boats, bicycles and sewing machines. KidSmart, http://www.kidsmartstl.org/, KidSmart works to provide children and their classrooms with the basic tools for learning by transferring, at no cost, the community's surplus supplies and merchandise into the hands of teachers for school children in need. Mercy Ministries, http://www.mercyministries.org/, Mercy Ministries is a full-time residential care ministry for young women who are struggling with life-controlling issues such as eating disorders, depression, abuse, and chemical dependency. Each girl stays free-of- charge. She comes voluntarily and spends, on average, six months in the home as she deals with the underlying causes of her difficulties. Mission Gate Prison Ministry, www.missiongateministrv.org, Provides residential guidance and counseling to 75 former alcoholics, drug users and convicts in both S1. Louis after -care and Fort Good Shepherd Ranch. They also provide evangelistic services in prisons and shelters and the Christmas Angel mission reaching thousands of prisoners' children with gifts, the gospel of Christ and church referral. Pregnancy Resource Center, http://www.prcmo.net/index.php, The Pregnancy Resource Center provides support and counseling to pregnant women and girls including free pregnancy testing, ultrasounds, counseling, parenting education, mentoring programs for men and essential items for newborns. Women are also referred for prenatal care, which is often their first contact with a healthcare provider. Service International, www.serviceinternational.org, Service International (SI) works in the U.S. and abroad, working to empower individuals and communities in crisis by providing leadership training, volunteer coordination, medical care, materials and supplies, and hands-on rebuilding. SI brings fresh hope and tangible help through sustained recovery, with the goal of honoring God and helping people. Saint Louis Crisis Nursery, http://www.crisisnurserykids.com/, Works to prevent child abuse and neglect by providing emergency intervention, respite care and support to families in crisis through short-term care for young children, helping families resolve crisis, offering ongoing support and education to families, providing community outreach and awareness, and advocating for children and families. Saint Patrick Center, www.stpatrickcenter.org, Saint Patrick Center has impacted the lives of more than 65,000 homeless persons and is recognized nationally for programs that help individuals and families move from homelessness to independence in measurable, costeffective ways. The Center serves 10,000 individuals and families annually. These organizations could not function effectively without the support of individual donors and philanthropic grantmakers. Mother Teresa said, ``To keep a lamp burning, we have to keep putting oil in it.'' Donors give staff and volunteers the financial tools that they need to do the charitable work to which they are committed. Some of the key foundations fueling charitable organizations in St. Louis include: Anheuser-Busch Foundation, Boeing-McDonnell Foundation, The Crawford Taylor Foundation, Daughters of Charity Foundation, Deer Creek Foundation, Emerson Charitable Trust, Employees Community Fund of Boeing-St. Louis, James S. McDonnell Foundation, Lutheran Foundation of St. Louis, Monsanto Fund, National Children's Cancer Society, Inc., and the St. Louis Cardinals Community Fund. The charities and grantmakers mentioned in this statement are just examples of the thousands of American NGO's endeavoring to improve the lives of others both at home and abroad. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to reflect on the hard work and dedication of so many who take to heart the words of Scripture, ``It is more blessed to give than to receive'' (Acts 20:35). It is with admiration and respect that I commend the charitable community for stepping in to provide aid to the most vulnerable among us.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 525, the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005. In 2003, there were an estimated 45 million Americans without health insurance. Small businesses employ over 60 percent of those currently uninsured. Without question, cost is often the biggest barrier to affordable health insurance for small businesses. Too often, I hear from small businesses owners back in my district in Missouri that the affordability of health insurance is their number one concern. This problem has been deepened in recent years as the overall cost of health care has risen. While large employer-sponsored health plans have seen an average 12-percent increase in health insurance premiums, small businesses have been faced with annual premium increases of up to 50 percent, forcing many firms to drop coverage altogether. By allowing small firms to join an association health plan as H.R. 525 would do, small employers would enjoy greater bargaining power because they would become part of a larger bargaining force, enabling them to offer their employees the same advantages and benefits that are currently available to larger companies. I doubt that many of my colleagues here would deny the fact that small businesses are leaders in innovation. They pay the majority of our Nation's taxes and employ the majority of our Nation's workforce. Yet we have burdened them with excessive regulations to the point that they cannot afford to provide health insurance to their employees. We must not deny quality, affordable health care to these hard-working Americans who want to safeguard their own health and provide their families access to such protections. I urge my colleagues to support the Small Business Health Fairness Act.