W. Akin

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler). (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the reason why we should vote against this amendment is fairly basic and pretty simple mathematics, and that is, in the last decision, when the Newdow case was thrown out on standing, that decision made it clear that there are only three chief justices who support the Pledge of Allegiance, and three is not enough to keep ``under God'' in the pledge. Now, what this amendment is going to do is it is going to allow the Supreme Court to hear additional or any future challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance. And when the current court hears that challenge, we are struck with that simple mathematics, that there are only three votes on the Supreme Court that would keep ``under God'' in the Pledge. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of legalese this morning, and perhaps trying to make a subject that is not very complicated a lot more complicated. The simple question is whether or not school kids are going to be able to say the Pledge of Allegiance the way we have done it for the last 50 years. Some may say that is not that important an issue, but I would ask this question: If Members were asked, and perhaps it would be one of these big old TV cameras, and somebody came up and said, you have lived in America all these years, how would you, in the simplest form, describe what is the glue that holds us all together as Americans? What is the heart of America? If, like an onion, we peeled off the layers and got to the very center, what is it that makes America such a unique and special place? What is it that made people from all different nationalities come here and call themselves Americans? What is it that makes illegal immigrants try to come here? What is it that makes America special? I think the answer can be found in our birthday document, our Declaration of Independence. It sets out essentially a three-part formula. It says we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And it goes on to say the job of government is to protect those rights. The three-part formula is that there is a God; God grants all people everywhere certain basic fundamental rights; and it is the job of government to protect those rights. Now, if we allow activist judges to start creating law and say it is wrong to somehow allow school children to say ``under God'' in the Pledge, we have emasculated the very heart of what America has always been about. This is quite simply a matter of judges turning the first amendment upside down. The first amendment was supposed to be about free speech, religious or political free speech, and now these judges are censoring our very Pledge of Allegiance and telling school kids they cannot say the Pledge. If we allow activist judges to go there, what is next? Behind me, set in brass above the Speaker's desk, ``In God we trust.'' Is this a sense of the co-equal power of the branches of government that the court can next step in here and take ``In God we trust'' off that? Are they going to tell us we cannot have chaplains? Are they going to go to the Jefferson Monument that has in stone that God that gave us life, gave us liberties, and can the liberties of the people be secure if we remove the conviction that those liberties are the gift of God? Is that going to be plastered over? Are we going to get rid of the Gettysburg Address? How far will we let them go? Yet my colleagues have been arguing that anything the court says; it is unconstitutional to challenge the Supreme Court. In my State of Missouri, the Dred Scott decision was brought, and the Supreme Court said black people are not actually people. That was a dumb decision, and we need to be able to tell the Supreme Court or any other court that makes ridiculous decisions they are wrong. Yet we are hearing it is off base to try to check their authority. It is the job of the other two branches of government to draw up short the judiciary when they exceed their constitutional authority. And legislating from the bench and using the first amendment as a tool of censorship certainly qualifies that we should weigh in. Mr. Chairman, I would close by saying that I have heard a number of assertions that there is absolutely no precedent to use article III section 2. And yet, if Members were to simply check with the congressional research people, as our office has done, they would tell Members they cannot print them all out there are so many examples. In the 107th Congress, most of us voted for the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act has article III section 2 language in it, and we have it used in all kinds and numbers of ways. A certain prominent Senator from South Dakota made an amendment to a bill that said we are going to clear the undergrowth from the forest of the Black Hills. That, of course, is against environmental law, but the problem is that all that undergrowth was fueling forest fires. This particular gentleman made the comment and put it into law, regardless of what any Federal court says, we are going to clear the undergrowth. Another use of the limitation of the appellate jurisdiction of the courts. There are numerous cases to that regard. Certainly, these charges are completely and factually inaccurate.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I would start by asking a question that I have had a chance to ask a number of times to different school groups and other collections of Americans, and that is, if you were to take a look at America, the unique nation that it is, and you were to try to put into a phrase or a sentence what is the heart of what America is all about; if you had to, in a sense, as an onion, go through all of the different things that are America and get down to the center nub of what is it that we believe, what is it that people who came from Germany or Scotland or England or all of these other different countries believe; they came here together. They do not call themselves by their old name, but they call themselves Americans, and America is a unique and special place to all of us. Now, what is the heart of what makes America? What is the central formula? Why is it that our young men and women would go and risk their lives overseas for this Nation? I would suggest to my colleagues that the answer can be found in our birthday document, that Declaration of Independence, that document which paints a vision which goes beyond just the shores of America but touches the hearts of all freedom-loving people around this entire world. It is the sentence that says that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The sentence goes on to say that it is the job of government to protect those rights. Notice that that sentence is essentially a three-part formula. It says, first, that there is a God; secondly, that that God is the grantor of human rights; and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And then our job in civil government is to protect those basic rights, and that, I would suggest, is something that Americans have largely agreed to down through the ages and has been something that has united us. It is also something that we have exported as we export freedom around the world. Now, if we take the concept of God out of the equation, then our rights cannot come from God, and then the whole essence of what America is has been threatened. Now, this concept that I am suggesting is not something that I just invented; anybody who would like to can go down to the Jefferson Memorial, and they can look at the stone where these words are inscribed and Jefferson says, the God that gave us life gave us liberty, and can the liberties of the people be secure if we remove the conviction that those liberties are the gift of God? What Jefferson was saying is people will not fight for something if they do not believe that those liberties were the gift of God. And ironically, here on this floor, just in the last few minutes, I have heard people make the statement that they are very content to let the Supreme Court decide what our rights should be. Whatever the Supreme Court says, oh, well, that is just fine. The problem is, the Supreme Court has men and women on it, and they make mistakes, and we have three coequal branches of government to act as checks and balances on each other. Before us today is an important matter. It is important because what we are dealing with is a question of free speech. Our Founders fought wars because we really thought that people should be able to have freedom to state a religious or a political conviction and to be free to express that opinion. Yet, we have activist judges among us today who have the intent and who have even stated fairly clearly where they stand on this issue, that school children are not allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance as we have said it for the last 50 years. Now, no school child is required to say the Pledge, but to tell a school child that we have been saying the Pledge this way for 50 years in America and, now, you cannot say it, is akin to censorship. That is completely turning the first amendment upside down. I do not think that it is right for the judges to do that. I also know that I took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, and as a member of the legislative branch, I realize that it is part of my responsibility and part of the responsibility of other Members who call themselves Congressmen to stand up for the Constitution, to stand up for free speech, to tell the judges that they are wrong to tell school kids that they cannot say the Pledge of Allegiance. Now, there is all kinds of legal mumbo jumbo that people might want to talk about, but let us not make the issue too complicated. It is about the Pledge of Allegiance; it is about the fact that we have activist judges saying that kids cannot say the same pledge that you and I have said for the last 50 years.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I appreciate what the gentleman is saying, and I think that what the gentleman is saying gets to the heart of our disagreement on this point. The gentleman said that the Supreme Court has made decisions that he strongly disagrees with, but he refused even to open his mouth hardly to refer to them other than in this context. My sense is the three coequal branches of government means that we have a right to speak when we disagree and that we have even a responsibility to express that disagreement. And so our difference of opinion is that the gentleman really sees them as supreme, as the final decision on everything, and regardless of what they say, we have to suck it in and live with it. What I am saying is, that is alien to the thinking of our Founders. It is completely wrong. Out of my State, I say to the gentleman, came the Dred Scott decision on slavery. I would not sit here and say, oh, I have to sit here and live with it. They are wrong, just as you and I can be wrong. We all make mistakes.

Mr. AKIN. Well, Mr. Speaker, fortunately, because of the fact that the Supreme Court dismissed this case just based on a technicality, there are none. There were some before. At the moment, there are not. And that is why it is so important to move this bill rapidly before something gets in the pipeline again to threaten the Pledge.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, some observers have argued that the United States won the Cold War without firing a shot. While we may have secured our victory without a large-scale military conflict with the former Soviet Union, there are many Americans whose lives were indelibly marked by this not-so-Cold War. One of those Americans was Commander Pete Bucher. I rise today to honor this American patriot and the men who served under his command on the USS Pueblo. On January 23, 1968, the USS Pueblo was commanded by Pete Bucher and was monitoring Communist ship movements and intercepting messages in international waters near the North Korean coast when it was attacked by North Korean naval forces. As a result of the attack, one Navy sailor, Fireman Duane Hodges, was killed and the remaining crew members were captured. Their incarceration marked the beginning of a nearly yearlong ordeal for Commander Bucher and the crew of the USS Pueblo. Held in concrete cells for 11 months, Commander Bucher and the Pueblo crew were starved and tortured by the North Koreans. Mostly fed turnips, many of the malnourished crew members began to lose their sight. They were repeatedly beaten and burned. According to Crewman Bob Chicca, the North Koreans would use ``rifle butts or pieces of wood, whatever they had handy, to beat us.'' By all accounts, Pete Bucher bore the brunt of the North Koreans' wrath. According to crewman Stu Russell, Bucher ``was a giant.'' As commanding officer, Bucher was the focus of the North Korean efforts. Russell recalled that ``he took the brunt of everything. No matter who did what, he was always punished. I simply don't know where he got the strength and courage to go through what he did.'' Eventually Bucher, when he was wounded when the Pueblo was shelled, was beaten and tortured into signing a ``confession,'' an act he also felt would save the lives of his crew. During her husband's captivity, Rose Bucher, a native of my home State of Missouri, worked hard to make sure Americans did not forget the men of the Pueblo. Rose handed out bumper stickers reminding the public to ``Remember the Pueblo.'' Finally, 2 days before Christmas 1968, Commander Bucher and the crew of the Pueblo were released one by one across the ``Bridge of No Return'' from North to South Korea. At the time Bucher stated, ``It was like coming out of the grave.'' On 28 January 2004, this courageous warrior passed from this world into the next. He was subsequently buried with honors at Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery in Point Loma, San Diego, California. Three men who served under Pete Bucher on the Pueblo carried the flag-draped coffin to its final resting place overlooking San Diego Bay. Today, I am pleased to be joined by 26 of my House colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, in offering this resolution to honor Commander Lloyd ``Pete'' Bucher and the crew of the USS Pueblo. Pete Bucher and his crew sacrificed that each of us may enjoy the liberty for which so many others have given the ultimate sacrifice. In passing this resolution, we continue to remember the Pueblo. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the concurrent resolution currently under consideration.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 407) saluting the life and courage of the late Commander Lloyd ``Pete'' Bucher, United States Navy (retired), who commanded the U.S.S. Pueblo (AGER-2) at the time of its capture by North Korea on January 23, 1968.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of people saying today that this is not about the institution of marriage. It most certainly is about the institution of marriage. It is also how marriage is going to be defined. I somehow cannot get my mind around the concept that the Founders' idea was that a bare majority in one State court and a bare majority in the Supreme Court can redefine the word of marriage and shove that down the throats of 49 other States. Somehow that does not seem to make sense. The Democrats here have been suggesting that the Supreme Court should be totally sovereign in every decision, and that one also I find rather puzzling, because the first foray of activist judges on the Supreme Court was that brilliant decision of Dred Scott, which said that African Americans are not actually people. Now, if every decision of the Supreme Court is gold, how about this one? And what was the result of this little act of activism? Well, they are the wonderful folks who gave us the Civil War. I just cannot understand the logic of saying and talking about the idea of separation of powers and checks and balances and at the same time say, anything the Supreme Court says goes. That is what I am hearing argued today. The question is when the Supreme Court gets really goofy, and my friends, we can pick how goofy is goofy, but when they really start legislating from the bench, at what point and what is the mechanism to hold them in check? Well, whose job is it? Well, it has been made reference to here. We take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. It is our job, my friends, as legislators, and it is the job of the President, who also seeks to uphold the Constitution. Now, there is one other thing that has been stated that some staffers probably should be let go, because they have not done their homework. Because if we take a look in the 107th Congress alone, we can take a look and see that the expedite, the construction of the World War II memorial has article III, section 2, the American Service Members Protection Act. Article III, section 2 language, Aviation Security Act. This is all 107th Congress alone. PATRIOT Act, article III, section 2 language. Intelligence Authorization Act, article III, section 2. Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, and also the Department of Justice Authorization Act, that is not to mention a particular elected representative from South Dakota who said no court can have anything to say about his clearing the undergrowth from his forest. The question before us is a question of whether or not a redefinition of marriage is going to be imposed on all of our States by a few activist judges. Believe me, the answer should be no.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, there have been charges over the last number of months, even the last year or two, of various kickbacks and mismanagement of different businesses and different kinds of things that are going on that I have heard from the Democrat Party, but it is interesting that there has been a stony silence when it comes to the biggest scam which is now emerging, the biggest scam in many, many years. It involves not only kickbacks and bribery but it involves even murdering various individuals. I am talking about the new evidence that is emerging on the Oil-for-Food program. As the Members are perhaps aware, the Oil-for-Food program was a very large program administered by the United Nations. Its purpose was to try to provide humanitarian aid for the Iraqi people and so Saddam was allowed to sell some oil and the oil was supposed to be translated into food which was supposed to get back to his people. What is now emerging and has been emerging for some time is that the United Nations staff that have been administering this program is guilty of gross incompetence, mismanagement and probably complicit with the Iraqi regime in perpetuating the biggest scandal in United Nations history. It was the largest U.N.-administered program anywhere in the world, that collected a 2.2 percent commission on every barrel of oil sold, and those dollars were put into the Banque Nationale de Paris. According to a February, 2004, article in the New York Times, it says that that money was ``an open bazaar of payoffs, favoritism and kickbacks.'' Why have we not heard more complaint about this? Why have we not heard complaint that the U.N. is trying to bottle up this information and not allow anybody to check into where this money was going? Particularly why is it that the Democrat Party would want us to turn Iraq over to the United Nations, the very people that are in the middle of perpetuating this scam? I do not understand that. The emerging evidence suggests that corrupt politicians and businesses throughout the world benefited from this Oil-for-Food program and they kept the Iraqi dictator in power. Those who benefited from the corruption have been listed, some of them prominent United Nations officials, including the son of Secretary-General Kofi Annan. The list includes no fewer than 46 Russians and 11 French names. The close connection between French and Russian politicians and the Iraqi dictator suggests at least one reason why these governments worked so hard to undermine American efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions and ultimately remove Saddam from power. In fact, what we find is that documents that were discovered in the wreckage of the Iraqi foreign ministry reveal that the French were sharing the contents of confidential meetings and diplomatic traffic from Washington. Details of talks between French President Chirac and President Bush were also reportedly passed on to the Iraqi foreign ministry by French diplomats in Baghdad. Yet I cannot understand, why would the Democrats criticize us for not obtaining support from the Russians and the French? The Russians and the French were skimming billions of dollars in a huge scam, and there was absolutely no financial reason for them to want to enforce the United Nations sanctions or to join America in messing up their cozy little deal. I believe the United States should push for an exhaustive and independent investigation of the Oil-for-Food Program. I think Congress should consider linking our continued funding of the United Nations to long overdue reform and the prosecution of the U.N. officials who were taking part in this program. In January of 2004 in the State of the Union address, President Bush asserted that America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people. I am glad that he did not need a permission slip, because if we were waiting for the United Nations and for France and for Russia, we would still be waiting. The participation by undermining U.S. efforts in the war on terror is dramatic. Those who, like John Kerry, would seek a permission slip from the U.N. need first to answer the question why the American people should trust their security to an institution whose largest humanitarian program benefited anti-American businesses and political elites, rather than the Iraqi people, a U.N. run by leaders who are part of the biggest scandal in United Nations history. This needs to be discussed, and we need some answers before we continue to put American dollars into funding a United Nations who was working completely against the interests of the Iraqi people and the interests of freedom around the world.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. About a year or so ago we passed the $15 billion AIDS package, and we did so because we believed in the principles of prevention coupled with treatment. Now, the amendment that I am offering here today is to make a crystal-clear understanding that the intention of the United States Congress and the American people is in regard to the distribution of this money. The amendment simply codifies existing law by ensuring that no taxpayer funds designated for this bill, which has to do with tuberculosis, malaria, as well as AIDS, may be used to promote or advocate the legalization of prostitution or sex trafficking, and that no funds may be given to any group or organization that does not have a policy that is explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. We have received word that there are groups who actively promote prostitution on their Web site, that they have received U.S. tax dollars in the past, and that is why this language is important and why it must be enforced. If we subsidize any organization, we unavoidably enrich and empower all of the activities of that particular organization, and clearly it is not in the interest of our foreign policy to enrich or empower organizations that refuse to denounce prostitution and sex trafficking. Now, I probably should make this point very clear that, first of all, my amendment applies only to the $15 billion of AIDS money, and also, that this amendment in no way prevents the distribution of condoms or medications to prostitutes or women sold into the sex trade. It simply mandates that the organization distributing these items must have a statement opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. In fact, in paragraph (e) of the law, it says, ``Nothing in the preceding sentence shall be construed to preclude the provision to individuals of,'' and it goes on to the different types of medical care. Mr. Chairman, when the United States sends tax dollars to treat and prevent AIDS in Africa, we are telling women that we are interested in their well-being, and we must never confuse that message by financially supporting organizations that actually promote prostitution and sex trafficking. Now, this may be a little bit theoretical; sometimes we deal with statistics in this Chamber. But in my own experience, traveling to India, to Mumbai, we had a tour of the red light district, and we saw the people that were victims of the sex traffic trade. In fact, we saw their children, about two dozen of them. And one of the things that we were told is that when those children come, first of all, to this house where they can be finally treated decently, and they are told that they have a bed, when it comes nighttime, they crawl underneath the bed. They crawl under the bed because that is where their mother trained them to stay while she was making her living in the evenings. So we do not want to have any way that any of our policies could be construed with United States money for in any way endorsing or supporting any organization that is not explicitly willing to denounce the trafficking and the misuse of women and children in the sex trade. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

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

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise, as my colleagues before me, to recognize this great President, Ronald Reagan. He was a visionary leader who challenged the entire political order of his day. He had the courage to call evil evil; the Soviet empire the evil empire. For that, and for his conviction that freedom would prevail, he was bitterly criticized by his detractors. Along the same lines, he pioneered a concept of economics that said if we have lower taxes, that it would energize the economy and ultimately that the government would raise more revenue. That was also bitterly criticized. It was called Reaganomics, and yet it worked, and it has worked again to bring us out of the last recession, the same principles. He believed in the concept of defending America. It was the idea of a missile defense. They called it Star Wars, his detractors, and yet we are building those very things. He was a man who challenged the political order of his day and redefined an entire political movement and advanced the cause of freedom around the entire world, and for that we all need to say to God, thank you for this great President.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, once again, we come to the floor of this body to debate the issue of abortion in overseas military hospitals, and once again, we must do honor to the consciences of military caregivers and to the taxpayers who fund these facilities. Young men and women entering the medical divisions of the armed services are dedicated to protecting life. To ask them to take the lives of unborn children is simply wrong. In fact, when the Clinton administration overturned the DOD policy against abortion in military facilities between 1993 and 1996, military physicians refused to perform or assist in elective abortions, thus forcing the administration to spend additional tax dollars on recruiting and hiring civilians who were willing to do the abortions. In a country where 56 percent of Americans oppose abortion and where military physicians have refused to do elective abortions, it is unconscionable for our government to condone abortion by turning military hospitals into abortion clinics. The language before us today has been debated and rejected year after year since 1996. I urge my colleagues again to defeat the Davis amendment.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to join my colleagues today and to add my support for House Concurrent Resolution 378 calling for the immediate and unconditional release of father Thadeus Nguyen Van Ly. Father Ly has peacefully campaigned for more than 30 years for religious freedom in his country, and he has called on the officials of that nation of Vietnam to allow churches to appoint their own leadership and to stop listing people's religious affiliation on their I.D. card, and to return property that was confiscated from the churches to those particular denominations and faiths. Now, recently, Father Ly, as we have heard, has been sentenced to 15 years of solitary confinement, a very serious sentence, for merely advocating people having the right for free religious expression. That sentence has been mitigated by 5 years, still a 10-year sentence. In the brief time that he had to speak to his own family, he made the following statement: ``My duty and my conscience required me to fight for the freedom of our church. If I had realized those terrifying situations for our church and had not done anything, I would have been guilty before God. Now I think I have accomplished my duty, I do not feel sorry for myself.'' Father Ly, though he lives on the other side of the world, is in a sense a brother of each of ours. This is a personal affront that the Government of Vietnam has stood against those people who have the courage to allow people to express their own personal consciences. It is particularly appropriate in this Chamber and at this time for us to recall the words of Madison on the subject of property. When property was discussed by our founders, they did not think so much of a piece of land or even of possession, but they thought of the property first and foremost and closest to the heart of all true lovers of freedom: It was the property of our own convictions, the property of our own soul, the property to be able to express our opinion and our devotion to whichever God it is that we would worship. And it is this fundamental, fundamental, heartfelt core of American belief which binds us to freedom-fighters all over the world and which calls us to strong condemnation of the Government of Vietnam, that they would trample people's right to worship and freedom under their feet with total disregard, and would lock a champion of freedom like this away for 10 years, away from his family, and harassing his family. So I strongly add my support to the gentleman and his resolution, H. Con. Res. 378.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York. I have heard the term ``bipartisan'' and ``bipartisan solution'' now for about half an hour, and it seems to be a synonym for tax increases. That is exactly what we are talking about here. Last week, Democrats claimed that the AMT needed to be fixed so that married couples could fully benefit from the repeal of this marriage penalty. Well, given the substitute, apparently what they really meant was that only certain married people and only for a period of 1 year. Adding insult to injury, the Democrat substitute would also permanently raise taxes on manufacturers and other job-creating parts of our economy. I cannot speak for other States, but I can assure my colleagues that the last thing that manufacturers in the State of Missouri want is to have their already slim profits taxed even further. I really do not understand the logic of wanting to go for a big tax increase on the very sector that is creating jobs in our economy. It seems to me that in the last couple of years, we have finally pulled out of a recession because of the tax cuts, and now, we want to tax companies and they are the ones that make the jobs. It does not make any sense at all. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better than another Democrat tax increase. We are here today because in 1993, when President Clinton and the Democrats passed the largest, one of the largest tax increases in history, they did so without indexing those taxes for inflation. As a result, more and more middle income Americans are now hit with a tax that was originally enacted to try to ensure that only the wealthiest among us should pay taxes. Now, this so-called the wealthiest 1 percent is actually paying 37 percent of the total personal income taxes. One percent is paying 37 percent of the total personal income taxes in this country. I am just not seeing the logic of the fact that we have to have another tax increase. Today, 3 million hard-working American families are hit with the AMT, a tax that the Congress never intended them to pay. If we do not act today, by 2005, 11 million American families will be burdened with the AMT. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to reject another Democrat tax increase, support House Resolution 4227, which ensures that American families will receive the relief that they deserve.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, just as an introduction, it seems to me that, to a certain degree, the other party doeth protest too much. The first thing I have been hearing about is complaints about intelligence information. Yet it was the other party, the Democrat Party, that under the Church Commission dismantled our human intelligence and has consistently done that. Over the 8 years Clinton was in office, they voted to cut the human intelligence budget 30 percent and now want to complain about the fact that our intelligence information is not that good. This is also a party that cut the defense budget close to half and wonders why there is not some equipment sometimes. They cannot have it both ways. But I would like to focus, rather, about what was and what is now. What was, we saw. We saw the late-night knock of the secret police. We saw the torture chambers when I was in Iraq that used to exist. We saw the women that had been raped as a form of political coercion. We saw women that were not educated. Those things have changed. Because what is now is a society that is moving into a new century, a place where women can be educated, where no longer torture and murder and amputation are used as a tool to intimidate, and where we saw on the streets of Iraq people starting to emerge into a free civilization. There are all kinds of new businesses being formed. These are words from a brave Iraqi Parliamentarian, probably risking his life, talking about the new constitution. Some, he says, may say that the Bill of Rights is copied from the West. My answer: these rights and values are not exclusively the property of the West. They are universal and should be respected and implemented everywhere. We have put up a high standard so that the people of the future may always try to reach. I think that is a statement of our success. Americans have always succeeded when we invest in those tremendously important principles of our own founding, the belief that people are valuable. And we continue to attest to that by our presence in Iraq, by our brave soldiers there. They believe people are important, as opposed to the terrorists that say they are mere pawns.