W. Akin

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, on 28 January 1968, the U.S.S. Pueblo, under the command of Cmdr. Lloyd ``Pete'' Bucher was attacked by four North Korean torpedo boats while in international waters. The attack resulted in the death of one Navy sailor and the capture of Cmdr. Bucher and his crew. Held in concrete cells, the Pueblo crew was starved and tortured for 11 months. Fed mostly turnips, many of the malnourished crewmembers began to lose their sight. They were repeatedly beaten and burned on steam radiators. By all accounts Cmdr. Bucher bore the brunt of the North Korean's wrath. Crewman James Kell explained it this way: ``We were all beaten, we all were tortured. But [Bucher] had it double, triple, quadruple what we got.'' Stu Russell, another crewman, echoes Kell's praise of Cmdr. Bucher: ``The man was a giant. 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.'' In January 2004, Cmdr. Lloyd ``Pete'' Bucher passed away and was subsequently buried with honors at Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery in Point Loma, San Diego, California. He died an American hero. Today, joined by 15 bi-partisan colleagues, I introduce this Resolution to honor Cmdr. Lloyd ``Pete'' Bucher and the crew of the U.S.S. Pueblo who served our country, and suffered while doing so. They sacrificed that each of us may enjoy the liberty for which so many others have given the ultimate sacrifice.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his appropriate comments and a challenge to all of us to recognize something that has been woven throughout America's past and her history over the years, a respect in the most basic sense, a respect for human life. On this question about what does a mother feel when she is attacked and her child is killed, we have a letter from Laci Peterson's mother that I would share with my colleagues now, and it starts: ``I am writing to thank you for your ongoing efforts to pass `Laci and Conner's Law,' the Unborn Victims of Violence Act,'' giving a bill number, ``and to encourage you to redouble those efforts.'' ``On May 5, I and the other members of the family of Laci and Conner wrote to urge that this bill be passed as a tribute to Laci and Conner, and to allow true justice to be done in the future when such horrible crimes occur within the jurisdiction of Federal criminal law or military criminal law. I want you to know that I appreciate your efforts, all the more so because of some of the unfair attacks and criticisms to which you have been subjected in recent weeks by those who oppose the bill for misguided ideological reasons. ``I know that you have been working for years for this legislation, but I have only become aware of your efforts because of our recent tragic circumstances. I have been astonished and somewhat offended to see, in the news media, recent statements by some critics who say that those who have been working for years on this legislation are inappropriately `exploiting' the public interest in the murder of Laci and Conner. I assure you that we do not see it that way. On the contrary, we believe that our case does provide a powerful illustration of why this type of law is absolutely necessary, and we urge you to continue to point to that connection. I intend to do the same, for as long as necessary to achieve the needed reform in the law. ``When a criminal attacks a woman who carries a child, he claims two victims. I lost a daughter, but I also lost a grandson. Fortunately, California law allows a double homicide charge in such a case, but if Laci and Conner had been killed in a Federal jurisdiction, or during commission of a Federal crime of violence, Conner's death would not be recognized or charged. Now that so many people are becoming aware of this defect in Federal law, I hope that the Congress will move swiftly to approve the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I was heartened to read the White House statement of April 25, stating, `The President does believe that when an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of a crime of violence, the law should recognize what most people immediately recognize, and that is that such a crime has two victims.' ``Over the last several weeks I have heard the arguments of opponents of Laci and Conner's law, but they seem to me to miss the point. In the first place, they should stop trying to turn this into the abortion issue. California's unborn victim law has been on the books since 1970, and it does not affect the availability of legal abortion, nor have any of the similar laws in effect in more than half the States. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act explicitly says that it does not apply to abortion, or to any acts of the mother herself. ``Having said that, I have no difficulty understanding that any legislator or group opposed to abortion logically would also support this bill to protect the lives of unborn children like Conner from violent criminal actions, and I welcome their support.'' But she goes on to say, ``What I find difficult to understand is why groups and legislators who champion the prochoice cause are blind to the fact that these two-victim crimes are the ultimate violation of choice. ``I have looked very carefully at the `substitute' legislation proposed by the opponents of Laci and Conner's law, which they call `The Motherhood Protection Act,' proposed in the House of Representatives,'' and, ``This proposal would provide that if the victim of a Federal crime happens to be a pregnant woman, and the crime somehow disrupts her pregnancy, a harsher sentence would be assessed than otherwise. But the Lofgren proposal would enshrine in law the offensive concept that such crimes have only a single victim, the pregnant woman. This would be a step in the wrong direction. ``I hope that every legislator will clearly understand that adoption of such a single-victim amendment would be a painful blow to those, like me, who are left alive after a two-victim crime, because the Congress would be saying that Conner and other innocent unborn victims like him are not really victims--indeed, that they never really existed at all. But our grandson did live. He had a name, he was loved, and his life was violently taken from him before he ever saw the sun. ``The application of a single-victim law,'' such as this particular amendment, ``would be even more offensive in the many cases that involved mothers who themselves survive criminal attacks, but who lose their babies in those crimes. I don't understand how any legislator can vote to force prosecutors to tell such a grieving mother that she didn't really lose a baby, when she knows in the depths of her soul that she did. A legislator who votes for the single-victim amendment, however well motivated, votes to add injury to injury.'' I would, Mr. Speaker, now like to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), my colleague and respected Member of the House.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. It is an honor to work with him and serve with him. I appreciate his leadership on this and many other issues. It is now my honor to yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), who it is just an honor to serve with and someone who, though he has been here just merely a small number of months, considering how long some Congressmen have been here, one who has immediately been respected for his thoughtfulness and his articulate understanding of some of these questions. So I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his pointed and well-taken comments. It is now my honor to be able to yield the floor to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), a doctor, and my esteemed colleague and good friend.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, the topic that I would like to take a look at this evening is the passing of a very important piece of legislation which is scheduled for this week, and that is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. But I would like to approach this standing back just a minute from a piece of legislation and try to put what we are trying to accomplish this week into context, in fact, into the American context. So I would challenge those, particularly those who are Americans, to answer a question, a very basic question, and that is let us say that someone from another country, and there were a television camera running, were to ask how would they define in a condensed sentence the uniqueness or the essence of what America is. What is it that has made America unique? What has created a Nation that people have come from all over the world to immigrate here? What has created a Nation where we have to have border guards to try to keep people out whereas other nations put minefields and machine gun nests to try to keep people in? What is it that made America unique, and how would you say that in one simple sentence? I suppose one of the rules that people who have been involved in politics for some period of time know is that you are not supposed to ask a question unless you have an answer to the same question. So if I were asked to try to summarize what America is about, I would go to our birthday document, to the document that separated America into an independent and unique Nation, and that is the Declaration of Independence, our birthday document. In that document you find a long and somewhat complicated sentence, but a very important sentence in terms of defining who we are and what has made us so unique. It is the sentence that says, ``We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.'' Now, the sentence does not end with ``pursuit of happiness.'' It goes on to say that governments are instituted among men for the particular purpose of securing those rights, that is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Let us say we take this long sentence, and, as a former engineer myself, we put it into a formula. The formula is pretty straightforward. It has three parts. The first thing is there is a God; the second thing is God grants to mankind, to all people, and in particular our Founders were talking about Americans, certain unalienable rights; and chief among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And so it was based on this document, this simple three-point statement in a sense, that our forefathers declared this a free and independent Nation, and it is by this formula that we believe that all men everywhere are granted with certain unalienable rights, which has to a large degree motivated much of our behavior and defined America. It has also created in America, although it was there for the 170 years before, a culture of respect for life. Now, how then does the piece of legislation that we are looking at connect to this culture of life in America? I think it is easy when you are discussing legislation to, first of all, talk about that there is some problem, and then you have a bill which is designed to solve the particular problem. So in order to help define the problem that we have in America legislatively, I have a copy here now of a testimony that was given by Tracy Marciniak before a committee, and I would like to read part of her testimony to help define what is going on and the need, the tremendous and important need, that we pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. ``I carried Zachariah in my womb for almost 9 full months. He was killed in my womb only 5 days from his delivery date. The first time I ever held him in my arms he was already dead.'' The letter goes on. She is pointing to a photograph of her with this child in her arms. ``There is no way that I can really tell you about the pain I feel when I visit my son's gravesite in Milwaukee, and at other times, thinking of all that we missed together. But that pain was greater because the man who killed Zachariah got away with murder. Please don't tell me that my son was not a real victim of a real crime. We were both victims, but only I survived. ``Zachariah's delivery date was to be February 13, 1992, but on the night of February 8, my own husband brutally attacked me at my home in Milwaukee. He held me against a couch by my hair. He knew that I very much wanted my son. He punched me very hard twice in the abdomen. Then he refused to call for help, and prevented me from calling. ``About after 15 minutes of my screaming in pain that I needed help, he finally went to a bar and from there called for help. I and Zachariah were rushed by ambulance to the hospital, where Zachariah was delivered by emergency cesarean section. My son was dead. The physician said that he had bled to death inside me because of blunt force trauma. ``My own injuries were life-threatening. I nearly died. I spent 3 weeks in the hospital. ``During the time I was struggling to survive, the legal authorities came and they spoke to my sister. They told her something that she found incredible. They told her that in the eyes of Wisconsin law, nobody had died on the night of February 8th. Later, this information was passed on to me. I was told that in the eyes of the law, no murder had occurred. I was devastated. ``My life already seemed destroyed by the loss of my son, but there was so much additional pain because the law was blind to what had really happened. The law which I had been raised to believe was based on justice was telling me that Zachariah had not really been murdered. ``It took over 3 years for this case to go to trial. The State prosecuted my attacker for first degree reckless injury and for false imprisonment, and he was convicted of those counts. They also prosecuted him under a 1955 abortion law, but they failed to win a conviction on the abortion count because that law required that they prove a specific intent to destroy the life of my unborn child. I do not fault the State authorities or the jurors. They simply did not have the legal right or tool for this type of case. The law simply failed to recognize that anybody who looks at the photo should be able to see that Zachariah was robbed of his life.'' That, my friends, is the problem with our laws that we are attempting to fix, that we are attempting to remedy here, with the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. What the act does is it recognizes the fact that when there is a crime of this nature, it recognizes both people who were victims to that particular crime. Now, there is talk that this law is unnecessary. There are some people who say, no, we do not really need to recognize the second person that is involved. But I would suggest that if one were to talk to the people who have lost their child, women who have been violently attacked in this way, and particularly those who have been attacked in this way close to the time when they are about to deliver, that they would suggest otherwise, that there are indeed two victims. When you talk to the grandparents, they would suggest that there are two victims. I am 56 years old. I recently, just a matter of a month or so ago, received some very exciting news. I have six children. One of them just this last summer got married. In fact, he got married to a young lady who was working in my congressional office. They have gone off, he is in the Marines, and you can imagine what the news was. We heard that she was expecting her first child, which meant that I was expecting to be, for the first time in my life, a grandfather. I would suggest that if someone were to attack her and to end the life that is inside her, that it would be a very difficult thing to try to convince me that there was not a person involved, that I did not need to be concerned about the fact that, oh, maybe you are a grandfather, or something like that. I think most of us see that in the most common-sense way. So that is what is involved with this piece of legislation, to be able to recognize that when a crime, a violent crime, is committed against an innocent, pregnant woman, that there are two victims involved. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to one of my colleagues for whom I have a great deal of respect, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. We appreciate his perspective and the challenge to each of us that we need to be about the business that is the fundamental business of our government, and that is to protect. To protect that fundamental right to life, which is so much the heartbeat and the central theme of our country from our very beginning, from our birth day. I would make reference now just briefly to some polling data which may be of interest to some of my colleagues. Here is a poll that was taken, and I will read it specifically: ``If a violent physical attack on a pregnant woman leads to the death of her unborn child, do you think prosecutors should be able to charge the attacker with killing the fetus?'' The response to this was 79 percent of the American voters who were asked this question, 79 percent said, yes, that we should. The polling data indicates that there is a strong and simple understanding of the fact that such a violent attack as this is really an attack on two individuals. We have, of course, voted this bill in the House in the past. In the 107th Congress, my first Congress, it was passed by 252 to only 172. It was passed in the previous Congress, the 106th Congress, by 254 to 172. So we have a record of having passed this before. I believe that it is time for us to get on with our business and move ahead with this bill and continue in our tradition of a deep-seated respect for life in America. Now, when I started my comments not so long ago, I asked if we were to define America in one sentence, if we had to get the essence, the core, of what makes us who we are and we had to try to simplify that and put it into something that would be understood to someone from a foreign country that asked, what is the secret, why is America different, I believe the answer to that question is found in our birthday document, the Declaration of Independence, which is that great sentence, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' That document goes on to say that it is the job of government to protect those basic rights. And so if we as Members of the Government of the United States fail to protect that basic right to life, that God-given unalienable right to life, if we fail to take this action, then we fail in our most fundamental purpose as a Nation. We, in fact, are almost turning our back on the organizing principle, our birthday document, and everything that Americans have held dear. Now, this respect for life was not just reflected in one document years ago, but it has been part of our culture for years. Our founders bled and died and fought a great war for our independence to defend this basic principle. We have seen throughout our history challenges in the courts which have threatened the essence of personhood. There was, of course, the Supreme Court decision where the Supreme Court decided to stop looking at the Constitution and just started to get into the legislative business in Dred Scott, resulting in, or is at least partly responsible for, the great scourge of the Civil War, where we said that people really were not going to acknowledge this personhood. We have seen this culture carried even forward to our own day. I think some of the most vivid imagery that perhaps many of us can recall came on September 11. It was not a matter of people saying words; it was the way that they lived their lives before everybody watching that showed this respect that America has for life, when we saw the big, strong police and the firefighters taking people that were in wheelchairs that were hurt or helpless, risking their lives to try to protect the lives of fellow Americans. This was not something that was orchestrated. This was something that we just did. It was an outpouring of the very heart of America. Subsequently, as we started to go after those people who did not have the respect for life that we have in our culture developed through the years, these terrorists who make it their job of killing people, of taking life, how did we proceed? Did we do the very safest and simplest thing for us, which would have been to unleash a whole lot of nuclear devices on countries that were targets? Of course we did not. We took extra pains to make sure that we tried to minimize collateral damage. We tried to be very, very careful that nobody's life was taken except for people who were immediately responsible or culpable for these acts of terrorism. That has been done at a great risk to many of our own airmen and our own soldiers and all who are involved and even now defending us overseas as we discuss these important questions. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would call my colleagues back to the things that America has always stood for; that our young men and women have sometimes come home underneath a flag defending this very basic concept, a concept that is bigger than America, a concept that is being taken by America to the entire world, the concept that there is a God, and that every single person in this world is an heir to these unalienable rights, particularly this right to life. So I close with this appeal that we must recognize this right to life in this situation where a little child is beaten to death. They must be recognized by law, and I urge my colleagues to pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), my respected colleague and the coauthor of this legislation.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, December 8, 2003, the General Assembly of the United Nations, sitting in an emergency special session, adopted Resolution ES 10/14, requesting the International Court of Justice to render an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel's security fence. The placing of this issue before the ICJ as the result of a political campaign within the U.N. General Assembly is a highly unsatisfactory means of dealing with a profoundly complex and contentious issue. If successful, this initiative portends an increasingly political and divisive use of the ICJ. There is an increasing concern by many countries that the use of the ICJ to obtain an advisory opinion will undermine the stature of the court as well as the role of international law. It is also important that the ICJ continue to abide by the principle of not addressing such contentious issues without the consent of all parties involved. To do otherwise could set a precedent that could serve to weaken the stature of the U.N. by encouraging a new level of politically oriented activity. This requested abuse of the ICJ would raise the threshold of politically oriented activity. It is important to note that this controversial initiative has not garnered the support of even a majority of U.N. members. Only 90 states, none of them democracies, voted in favor of the resolution. Israel is a small democratic nation with myriad adversaries bent on its destruction. The undeniable truth remains that Israel, as with any other nation, has the right and responsibility to protect the lives of its innocent civilians from brutal terrorist attacks. Consequently, the question of the preservation of due process with the General Assembly and the preservation of the integrity of the ICJ is essential.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the 29th of October, I was involved in a briefing with the Central Intelligence Agency. As a consequence, I was unavoidably detained and could not cast a vote for H. Res. 417. Had I been present at the time of the vote, I would have voted in the affirmative.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to do something just a little different now and step back just a small amount from our debate. Sometimes it is good to step back and see the forest. And so what I would like to do would be to ask a question of those of you who are paying attention to this rather grave moment in the history of our Nation; and that is a very simple question. What is it that has made America, America? What was it that caused people from every nation and every tribe and all over the globe to come to this great land and live in a land where there is prosperity and freedom? I understand there are the detractors, but all of the paths across our borders that are being beaten by immigrants tell the story that there is something special about America. What is that special thing? If somebody put a camera in front of you and said, what is it that makes America a special place? How would you summarize in one sentence the essence, the formula that is America? If it were me, I would look back to the document of our birthday, to that great second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, a long sentence. It says, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'' The sentence goes on from there and says that the purpose of government is to protect those God-given rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That means that there is a very simple formula that is the heart of America: There is a God, He grants us unalienable rights, and the job of government is to protect those rights. If the government does not protect those basic rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, gentlemen, we have failed in the basic function of why we were here in the first place. We might as well jump on our airplanes and go home and stick our heads in the sand, because that is the purpose of why we are here. There are some people today who would say, I don't like the formula, I don't agree with that, I don't think there is a God that gives unalienable rights. There were people in those days, we called them Tories, who felt that way as well. But they did not win. America was built on that basic set of ideas. As we have gone along in time, that set of ideas has proven the test of time and we have been blessed with freedom and prosperity. But there have been those, those days which I think of as pages in our history that we are not as proud of. There are some gray days in our history. One was in some of our relations with our own brothers, the Indians. There was a Trail of Tears of the Cherokee people that was a gray page in our history. In the mid-1800s, there was an even grayer page as our Nation grappled and dealt with the terrible scourge of slavery in this land. At that time, the first President of my political party, the Republicans, took charge and under his administration saw fit to try to get rid of those dark pages in America's history. And then we moved forward to the time when I was born, and unfortunately during the time that I have been alive, the blackest page yet in American history was opened in the process of abortion, where we denied the most basic tenet of what makes America, the right for people to be alive, because if you are not alive, it does not do any good to have freedom of speech or freedom to own property or any other right if you are dead. And of these practices of abortion, the worst, the most obviously evil, is this practice of partial-birth abortion. As an ironic history, as a matter of fact, some pro-lifers brought it to the attention of the media and the media said, Oh, that couldn't possibly happen. They checked with the pro-abortion people. Oh, that doesn't happen. Then the media found out that they had been lied to. That is the only thing that seems to make the media really mad is when they get lied to. So they started to let people know what this practice of partial-birth abortion is. I did not like biology very well, and the pictures that I see of it I can hardly stand. Consider that there is a child that has lived 9 months, he is instants away from taking his first breath of fresh air, of freedom and we are going to poke a hole in the back of his skull and suck out his brains. It makes me sick. It made a lot of other Americans sick as well. And so it is now that we come to this momentous time, tomorrow, when there is a possibility that we can close again a dark page of America's past. We can close the page on the nightmare of partial-birth abortion. And we can once again reaffirm those truths that we stand by, that there are basic rights given to all mankind everywhere by our God and that the most basic right of any government is to protect the life, that precious life made in the image of our Creator, the life of our little children.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1078.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Madam Chairman, the question is really whether U.S. dollars are going to be funding forced abortions. U.S. dollars may be used for some other things as well, but this amendment is dealing the restrictions to make sure that there will be no forced abortions. So if we vote ``yes'' on the amendment, then what we are going to do is effectively maintain the current ban on U.S. taxpayers' dollars being used to force abortions. I recall when this came up, it was really quite a number of years ago, but it was an unusual situation. A professor from Stanford University had gone to China and was absolutely amazed at what he saw in their delivery rooms, the fact that women were being forced to have abortions. Those were the better-equipped delivery rooms. The other delivery rooms had buckets full of water, and the unwanted children were simply drowned. Now, China has had this policy for some time. The question is whether or not we want to coerce our taxpayer dollars, first of all, to go and, second of all, to kill these children. Well, the end of the story was that the professor talked about this publicly. It upset Stanford because they had so many Chinese students. Stanford told the professor to be quiet. He refused to be quiet, and he lost his job. But the damage was done. The American people found out about coerced abortions. So it is ironic, it seems to me, that in the name of choice, that we are forcing taxpayers to pay their money and forcing women to have abortions. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and have no part of any coercion whatsoever.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) for allowing me to take up the Advocacy improvement bill, H.R. 1772. I would also like to thank my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), for working with me on this important piece of legislation. The Office of Advocacy is essential to the elimination of federally imposed regulations that just do not make sense. It is a government entity that exemplifies public service at its best and it is devoted to ensuring that small businesses are not encumbered by regulatory burdens that cost time and money and energy but achieve little, if anything. The Office of Advocacy sometimes faces opposition from Federal regulatory entities that dislike having their regulations modified or questioned, and yet the office has been tireless and a key voice for small businessmen and women confronting these large agencies to prevent them from imposing unnecessary rules and regulations on small businesses and family owned companies. The legislation before us today will give more power to the SBA's Office of Advocacy to do its vital work. H.R. 1772 will, among other things, give the Office of Advocacy its own source of funding through a line item in the Federal budget, thus giving the office a more permanent and autonomous role that makes it less susceptible to budgetary bullying from some of the folks in the executive branch that might have been offended. Many colleagues of mine from both sides of the aisle frequently hear praises from constituents on the exemplary job of the Office of Advocacy. H.R. 1772 will ensure that that office is empowered and protected and given the tools that it needs to continue doing such a commendable job. As we strengthen the Office of Advocacy, the small business owners and entrepreneurs throughout the country will be better served. The real concerns of small business owners will be heard more clearly and addressed more readily as soon as this bill is signed into law. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this important issue.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, the proposal, of course, before us as we have heard is basically going to turn our overseas military medical facilities into abortion clinics. The point has been made that we allow abortions in 50 States, but it is also clear that we only allow abortions in one out of 10 hospitals. Yet with this particular amendment, we are going to force our military hospitals to perform these abortions. This was tried before in 1993 to 1996 under President Clinton's policies, and it was rather unsuccessful. First of all, it was very hard to find obstetricians and gynecologists stationed overseas who wanted to perform the abortions in the first place. Very, very few abortions were actually conducted. Part of that is because there are laws against abortion in many foreign countries, and so even there we would not be able to do the abortion. Now there is the idea, or the inference, that there is some necessity for these abortions in military hospitals. But the necessity does not exist. This is something that can be done as an elective procedure. It can be done by people coming to our country. I would urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) the majority of my colleagues and I rejected a proposal by one of the Committee's members to permit abortions on military bases overseas. This proposal would have turned our overseas military bases into abortion clinics. This would not only be wrong, but would also be a prime example of wasteful spending for political gain. The proposed amendment to the Armed Services authorization bill would have changed a Department of Defense (DoD) policy that has been in place since 1996, and before that, from 1988 to 1993, which prohibits using DoD funds for abortions, except when necessary to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. The amendment follows the same flawed logic as President Clinton's executive order which overturned this policy in 1993 and allowed abortions to take place at military medical facilities. During the years that the executive order was in place, the DoD was not only unsuccessful in identifying obstetricians and gynecologists stationed overseas who would perform abortions, but the number of abortions actually provided during those years was very small. Some of my colleagues argue for this amendment based on a perceived ``necessity'' for safe abortions at overseas military bases. However, this ``necessity'' does not exist. Even if this amendment were to have been adopted, DoD policy would still prohibit military doctors from performing abortions in those countries where abortion is restricted or not permitted. Also, in most overseas locations where legal abortions are not available, military beneficiaries have the option of using space- available travel to return to the U.S. or travel to another overseas location for the purpose of obtaining an abortion just as do other service personnel and their family members who desire other elective procedures. This amendment would also go against the DoD's official position on this policy. The Department opposes changing the policy for a number of reasons. First, it would involve the military in performing abortions for family planning purposes. Also, a change is not needed and is not considered to be necessary to protect the health of women in or affiliated with the armed forces overseas. Lastly, this change would create an assumption that practitioners adequately familiar with and willing to perform abortion services are available in overseas military facilities, which may not be true. This amendment not only violates the spirit of the Hyde amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortions, but it also would encourage a very dangerous precedent of providing federal funds for elective procedures. The non-elective exemptions for abortions in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at risk are already in place and no further expansion is needed. Consequently, the use of tax-payer dollars for an elective procedure will only lead to a slippery slope of fiscal irresponsibility and soaring healthcare costs. The House has defeated this amendment every year since 1996, and we defeated it again last evening in the Armed Services Committee. We have done so for the sound reasons I mentioned above, and I applaud my HASC colleagues for their good judgment and unwillingness to diminish the sanctity of life at the nation's overseas military bases.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003. The promise of nanotechnology is great. As research in nanotechnology continues, we will seek breakthrough advances affecting a broad field of scientific and commercial endeavor. In my own State of Missouri, several academic institutions are engaged in nanotechnology research. At the University of Missouri- Rolla, a large group of faculty members from diverse fields are actively researching several aspects of nanoscience and engineering that primarily focus on micropower, nanostructured materials and nanosensors. Since the early 90s, the chemistry and physics departments at Washington University in St. Louis have collaborated in making various nanowires and nanotubes that might ultimately be incorporated into nanoelectronic devices. Nanotechnology research has the potential to create revolutionary products in the field of electronics, pharmaceuticals and military defense. It is an important investment in the future of America's economy, and I applaud Chairman Boehlert and the professional staff of the Science Committee for bringing this important legislation to the floor today.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I think we all serve here with the same purpose. Each of us in our own hearts would like somehow to make the world a better place and we have before us an amendment, and the technology of this amendment is very straightforward. It is very simple. Abstinence is the only tool we have that works 100 percent. So it is not a matter of whether we like the morality of abstinence or not. The fact is that technology-wise it works. It is the only thing that is 100 percent effective. We are only talking about one third of the money. So we could pass a law here to repeal the law of gravity, but it would not do us much good. The scientific fact is a flat fact that abstinence works, and that is why we have to use the very best tool with at least a portion of this money to deal with this serious crisis.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his remarks and for a moment to talk about something that is so much a pattern of America's history. If we go back to the early days of our system of republics, we go back to the time in 1774 when there was a day of fasting and prayer that was called by the Virginia House of Burgesses. That was where Patrick Henry, of course, made his famous speech. But I think perhaps historically one of the more amazing incidents occurred the next year, 1775, where the Governor of Connecticut called his State to a time of fasting and prayer for the people of Boston and the people of Massachusetts. He coincidentally called that time of fasting and prayer for the month of April on the 18th day. As it turned out, that was the exact day that the Redcoats left Boston in search of John Hancock and the weapons that they thought were being stored in Concord, Massachusetts, and the War of Independence began. That continues along. In fact, we had FDR, even going back to World War II time, talking about the fact that this is a war, really defending the idea that everybody should have equal rights because God gives them those equal rights. That was FDR making that comment in World War II. So we have a long history of a Nation that, when we get into an armed conflict, to turn to God and to ask His support and to humble ourselves before Him. That actually, though, if we think about it logically, is very consistent with the very purpose and cause of what America has always been about. If we really think about what is it that is the glue that defines America, what holds us together as a people, it is that belief that there is a God who grants to all of us certain basic and unalienable rights, the right to life, the light to liberty, the right to pursue the dream that God puts into everybody's heart. So we do not believe that that is just an American right, but that is something that is for all people everywhere, and it is that belief that has propelled our soldiers onto the battlefield and made us to stand strong in the face against many different types of tyrants, just as we are even at this day. So it is with these thoughts and these sentiments that we once again turn back to our traditions and to our history and ask and implore the Almighty God to watch over us, to remind us of our faults and places where we need to change our ways but also to strengthen us and to encourage us and help us to prevail because we do know, in fact, it is true that all people everywhere should have life and liberty and be allowed to pursue the dreams of their own hearts.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the alternative budget resolution proposed by the Republican Study Committee. I think sometimes we get into the details of these budgets and take a look at it just on a year-to-year basis, but I think it might be helpful for us to step back just a little bit, to step back to a time when I was only 2 years old. What was the tax burden on the average family in the year 1950? In 1950, you have a mom and a dad and 2 kids, and dad would go out and earn a dollar bill. Out of that dollar bill, 3 pennies of it would go for direct State, Federal, and local taxes. Now, about 4 years ago, what happened? Mom and dad and 2 kids. Dad goes out to earn a dollar. Now we go from 3 cents to 38 cents tax on that average American family. That average American family is paying more in taxes than they are for what they pay for food and clothing and shelter combined. In one generation we have come a long way in the growth of big government, and at a time when State and local governments and families all across the country are tightening their belts, it is time for the Federal Government to do the same thing. The Republican Study Committee budget freezes total discretionary spending for 1 year. That is not too unreasonable considering it grew 9 percent this last year. One of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, my constituents sent me here was to take a look at the idea of reducing not only the size, but the scope of Federal Government, and that is the debate we should be having. It is important to get rid of wasteful spending, but it is even more important that we take a look at actually reducing the scope of some of the things that we are trying to do. When we are talking more tax on a family than 38 percent, more than they pay for food, clothing, and shelter, we are not talking about a safety net anymore, we are talking about excessive government.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, on February 28th the St. Louis area lost one of its leading physicians and a committed advocate of the sacredness of human life, Dr. Jerry Shen. Dr. Shen was a Harvard-trained pediatrician, a pioneer in the field of adolescent medicine whose commitment to the young people of my great home state of Missouri was legendary. But that commitment had roots not in the Show-Me state but in Dr. Shen's native land of China. When the Communists seized power in China, Dr. Shen and his family were on the last boat out and traveled on expired passports. He and his family had faith that God would take care of them, and in His great mercy, He did. Dr. Shen was someone whose medical knowledge and Catholic faith animated his belief that human personhood should be protected from the moment of conception until natural death. He was instrumental in founding the Missouri Right-to-Life movement, which regularly has one of the largest delegations to the annual March for Life in January here in our nation's capital. As a former board member of Missouri Right-to-Life, I knew the work of Dr. Shen well and admired it greatly. Dr. Shen was a man of action. He admired Mother Theresa's work and told his family he was going to convince her to bring her Sisters of Charity to St. Louis to work with the poor. Many in the community were doubtful but Dr. Shen moved forward and today, the Sisters are in the City of St. Louis. In fact, a full row of the Sisters were at Dr. Shen's funeral mass. Dr. Shen's funeral mass was about ``Choosing Life,'' a text taken from Deuteronomy 30:5-12. Archbishop Justin Rigali of the Diocese of St. Louis quoted the Apostle Paul in referring to Dr. Shen, noting that he had ``fought the good fight, finished the race, kept the faith.'' There can be few higher epitaphs than that. Dr. Shen did, indeed, fight faithfully and well for the right to life that our Declaration of Independence affirms is intrinsic to all of us. For that, he deserves the thanks of a grateful nation. He certainly has mine.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, at present there are more than 400 Chinese missiles targeted on Taiwan. It is estimated that roughly 50 more are being added each year. Moreover, China has devised strategies to destroy Taiwan's political, financial, military, communications and production centers within days. What is even more menacing is that China has reiterated that it will use force against Taiwan if Taiwan refuses to accept China's ``one country, two systems'' unification formula. China's intimidation of Taiwan is unworthy of its status as a major world power. China must not ignore Taiwan President Chen Shui-bians' repeated pleas for resumption of cross-strait dialogue. If war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait, China, Taiwan and the rest of the countries in the Asian-Pacific will all suffer irreparable economic and political damage. Our friends and allies in Europe regard peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait as critical to everyone's interests in Asia. On September 5, 2002, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on China to remove its missiles along Taiwan's coast. Last October, the Czech Parliament also passed a similar resolution calling on China to remove its missiles from the Taiwan Strait. The United States believes that a military clash in the Taiwan Strait must be avoided. A peaceful dialogue between China and Taiwan must resume now. It is my hope that Beijing will begin dismantling the missiles currently targeting Taiwan and pursue a peaceful resolution of current tensions with Taiwan. I support efforts of the U.S. State Department to this important end. In the meantime, while we advocate the peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue, we must continue to sell arms to Taiwan to help Taiwan protect itself, under the framework of the Taiwan Relations Act. Our commitment to defend Taiwan is, and must remain, strong and unequivocal.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I stayed in St. Louis to attend my pastor's visitation on March 11th and was absent for recorded votes. Had I been present for those votes, I would have voted as follows on the following bills under suspension of the rules: H.R. 441--``yes''; H. Con. Res. 77--``yes''; H. Res. 19--``yes.''

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I, in earlier days in my life, used to go out to junkyards sometimes to find parts for my sports car, go out with some wrenches, and we would take off a transmission or an alternator or something like that. And of course, there is nothing wrong with finding spare parts in a junkyard. But what we have before us in this debate is the serious possibility that if we do not direct science properly, that we could end up in some sort of a brave new world which none of us want to find ourselves in, a world in which parts of human beings are like parts in a junkyard. And that may sound a little bit like a science fiction novel or something like that, but the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003 will ensure that human beings are not treated like old junk cars in some parking lot. Therapeutic cloning pledges unique cures for hundreds of illnesses; yet, this is an empty promise. It has never produced a single cure in animal models nor has it produced any cures in human clinical trials. In fact, James Thompson, the scientist who discovered embryonic stem cells, said in reference to therapeutic cloning, ``The poor availability of human oocytes, the low efficiency of the nuclear transfer procedure and the long population-doubling time of human embryonic stem cells make it difficult to envision this becoming a routine clinical procedure.'' Opening the door to therapeutic cloning will only result in a slippery slope of unscrupulous science and unenforceable law. On the other hand, adult stem cells have produced promising medical results. These stem cells do not require the cloning or destruction of human embryos and have been successful in many human applications without the growth of tumors, which is a key defect in the use of cloned embryos. Last year, in fact, researchers at the University of Minnesota announced that they had made a discovery involving an adult human stem cell that has the potential to develop into many different types of cells in the human body. What that means is it now seems entirely possible and reasonable that cells from one of our own, our own body, can then be coaxed into replacement of organs or tissues that exactly match our own body that it was taken from. Using adult stem cells, for example, a man named Dean Grimm of Charlotte, Iowa, regained his sight after having been blind due to a chemical accident in 1983. His physician implanted adult stem cells and also three new corneas. Now after being blind so many years he can see, and his sons say that since his dad has regained his sight, he and his siblings cannot get away with a lot of stuff. A ban on therapeutic cloning will not restrict science, but it will deter the perversion of scientific research. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule for H.R. 534.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 7 I am not recorded. I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, America does not have many home grown terrorists, and that is because we have a first amendment. Unfortunately this bill before us does terrible damage to the first amendment that our forefathers and all of us have stood so bravely for in the past. In summary, a Harvard law professor says that this is the financial death sentence for peaceful protestors. I recall so many years ago on a cold street standing with a sign and I recall this woman that was going in to consider getting an abortion or not, and I felt completely inadequate but I told her that we would help her with services if she decided to keep her child. Today that child is probably now trying to practice to get a driver's license. I can never support a rule or a bill on this floor which would have effectively imposed a financial death sentence on somebody who is merely standing on a sidewalk trying to help save a life. [From The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 15, 2002] Bankruptcy and Abortion--II We've written before about Senator Charles Schumer's not- so-magnificent obsession with abortion and bankruptcy. He's at it again. The New York Democrat continues to play abortion politics with a promising bankruptcy bill. The legislation in question passed both the House and Senate in 1998 with bipartisan, veto-proof majorities. The bill would make it more difficult for borrowers to file for bankruptcy and thus evade debts that they can afford to pay. Banks, which lose millions of dollars each year to these Chapter 7 filers, favor the measure for obvious reasons. But consumers also stand to benefit from a crackdown, since they're the ones burdened with higher fees and interest rates to compensate lenders for revenue lost through defaults. Congress passed the latest version early last year and it would be law today save for Mr. Schumer, whose agenda-laced rider on abortion has mired the bill in conference ever since. His amendment would prevent pro-life activists, and only them, from using bankruptcy to avoid paying fines. The provision, said Mr. Schumer, ``ensures those who use violence to close clinics can't use bankruptcy as a shield.'' But no anti-abortion protestor has every succeeded in doing such a thing. Current law, which already prevents people from using bankruptcy to avoid paying fines related to violence, makes the Schumer rider redundant. The Senator's real targets aren't violent protestors of abortion but peaceful ones. And the unspecific language in his proposal--``physical obstruction,'' ``force or the threat of force'' and other pliable expressions for enterprising litigators--is a bald attempt to blur any legal distinction between the two. As it's written, vigils, sit-ins, picketing and other nonviolent activities could be interpreted as federal offenses. We've seen this strategy from Mr. Schumer before. As a Congressman back in 1994, he successfully navigated into law the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Like his current proposal, FACE uses vague terminology to group together violent and peaceful protests for purposes of meting out federal punishment. Under FACE, a first-time offender convicted of ``interfering with'' or ``intimidating'' a clinic patron is subject to a $10,000 fine and six months in jail. No doubt, when civil rights protestors occupied segregated lunch counters, they intimated many. Still, the law managed to distinguish between civil disobedience and militancy. All their talk about deterring violence notwithstanding, the Senator and his supporters are well aware that someone lunatic enough to bomb a building is unlikely to change his mind due to adjustments in the bankruptcy code. But someone planning to distribute adoption pamphlets outside a clinic, or participate in a prayer vigil on a public sidewalk, might very well have second thoughts if a civil fine could cost him his home. Congress is set to revisit the issue when it returns next month. Mr. Schumer insists that he ``is wholly committed to passing a bankruptcy bill.'' Don't believe it. If he were true to his word, he would removed his amendment, allow the bankruptcy bill to pass, and reintroduce his abortion provision as a separate piece of legislation. But Democrats know that it's Republicans who are more likely to be blamed if bankruptcy reform dies. Watch for Mr. Schumer to keep his poison pill in place right through November and continue presenting his obstructionism as ``a victory for women.'' It certainly won't hurt his fund raising. Republicans, nonetheless, would be wise to wait him out. The issue here is not abortion so much as free speech. Using violent extremists as straw men, liberals are hoping to snatch a formidable tool of protest from the opposition. Their efforts should be resisted on principle.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, in these days of ongoing concern about corporate accountability and the way that we handle money and the way we describe money, one would think that fiscal responsibility would be our general practice. The rhetoric has been particularly shrill, I have noticed from the Democrats, screaming about wanting fiscal responsibility; and yet it does not seem like we are consistent here somehow today. First of all, the fact is that Federal law requires the Senate to pass a budget resolution. The fact is that the Senate has not passed a resolution for the first time in 20 years. The resolution before us is consistent with fiscal responsibility. If we take a look at where we are, every person in our country owes $12,000. That is not good fiscal responsibility. The proposal before us is going to cut that $12,000 down by 2; at least it is going in the right direction. The Democrat plan from the Senate side says $5,000 more we are going to spend. That is not fiscal responsibility. The simple facts are that we have a very simple plan that is being proposed by the Democrats: if you cannot afford it, just charge it. It is simple, but it is not fiscally responsible. Mr. Speaker, we need to pass this CR and move our country ahead.