W. Akin

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I think those of us that have served in public office at all know that when you come to the abortion question, there are two very highly charged and two different views on this subject. Some people think that abortion should be legal and that it is a matter of a human right and somebody's choice. Other people think that abortion is wrong and it is a form of murder. There are people in our country and in each of our districts that hold both of these views with a great deal of tenacity. But the question before us today is really not the question of abortion. We are not going to address this underlying issue. What we are talking about instead, the question is as to whether we protect various health care organizations or individuals, whether we want to protect their right to have a choice, to even have an opinion on the subject. What is going on here is that the abortion agenda is not really content with choice. The only choice that they are content with is that everybody has to agree with them and that we are going to compel someone else to that choice. It is always understood, I think, by most reasonable people that one person's rights stop where another person's rights start. But that is not the case here. Instead, the right of some health care organization to have an opinion on this subject is going to be hammered by the big fist of government. That is not reasonable. All we are saying is that the person that has to provide the service needs to have a choice as well. One person's right stops where another's right starts.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I also very much appreciate the hard work that has gone on in trying to put all these numbers together and the long hours and the sincere efforts that have been made by everybody. I suppose I am a little concerned that maybe people worked about $775 million too long on it, and that is what I wanted to try to talk about just briefly. My concern is to try to put this thing into perspective. I understand the long hours that are spent, but perhaps the result of that is to take us a little too close to the trees to see the forest. The concern I have is that when I was just a little 2-year-old and we had an average family in this country, mom and dad and just two little kids, and dad would go off and earn a dollar at work, at the end of the time he had earned that dollar, three pennies of the dollar was spent on direct taxation, Federal, State, and local. All added together, three cents on the dollar. Five years ago, that three cents had jumped to 38 cents. Mom and dad, two kids, with dad earning a dollar, 38 cents on the dollar goes to direct taxation. That is more than the average family pays for food, clothing, and shelter combined. My question is: Are we perhaps buying too much government? The nation of Rome collapsed, apparently, with a 25 percent tax rate. We are talking about direct taxation on our families of 38 cents, and that was 5 years ago. So the question we have before us tonight is really how much government can we afford? I think the first thing is to try to put that into perspective and to say, well, what then is the state of our economy? If our economy is robust and thriving, then perhaps we can afford a little more government. But it does not seem to me that that is the case. In fact, there seems to be a great deal of jitters and concern about the condition of our economy. So if we go ahead and ask people who have made a life study of economics, as we did, we had a conference call with all kinds of different people who are experts on the economy and asked them what it is Congress can do. We have these things we call economic stimulus packages. We pull a magic lever and somehow the economy is supposed to take off like a jet. What exactly is it we can do? These economists told us we only have two things we can do. The first thing is we can cut taxes. And if we cut taxes, it is not going to do a hoot of good if we do not follow it with the second thing we have to do, which is to cut spending. I think that is what the concern is here. We are talking about too much spending. And I understand that there are priorities. I understand there are things we have to fund. But the bottom line is we have to take a look at the big picture. We have gone from three cents to 38 cents just in my own lifetime. I am not quite dead yet. And so the question is, can we continue to buy more and more and more government? That is the concern here. It is not only this amendment, which makes an honest effort to try to reduce some of this $775 million, but the overall question is just how much can our constituents afford? How many of the people, those little families, that instead of spending three pennies when dad goes to work, are now carrying more government than food and clothing and shelter combined? I think that this amendment is at least a step in the right direction to try to move us toward cutting that, cutting that $775 million. I do not pretend to be an expert on the details of it, but certainly we have to say something eventually to the point of where are we going to draw the line.

Mr. AKIN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the Democrats' substitute. Mr. Speaker, I would say that anybody who is going to acknowledge the need for some level of fiscal responsibility, that is something that I think we all respect and know that we have some need for that. The question is, does this, the Democrat substitute, really give us any fiscal responsibility, or is it, rather, a fig leaf or an excuse? I am afraid it is more of a fig leaf and an excuse. The substitute stipulates that the marriage penalty is going to be reimposed, this unfair prejudice against married people will be reimposed, unless there is a non-Social Security surplus. Now, there are a couple of problems with that. The first problem is, who is it who is going to make that determination? Who is going to guess whether there are going to be non-Social Security surpluses, particularly for a period of 10 years? That is going to be the Office of Management and Budget. Let us see, that is the executive branch, or at least it is a bureaucrat, as opposed to the Congress. That is flatly unconstitutional. So the first problem on the face of this is that it is an amendment that is going to be putting into place some particular procedure which just flat out is inconsistent with the Constitution. But, unfortunately, the inconsistencies go even further and the problems go further, because we are asking some bureaucrat to be able to say to Congress that, I am going to guarantee you that for 10 years, not just 1 year but 10 years, that there will be no budgets; that you will not go on a tax-and-spend spree. I think that is asking an awful lot. That is like asking somebody to roll a seven on a single dice.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, the National Day of the Republic of China (Taiwan) is today, October 10. I would like to recognize this day of celebration. Americans are thankful for our faithful friends in Taiwan. We appreciate all nations that stand for freedom and oppose terrorism. I wish to extend my best to the citizens of America who came from Taiwan as they recall this National Day of Freedom in their former homeland.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the clean coal power initiative in division E of H.R. 4. It is an effective and important initiative because it is going to give us environmentally friendly electricity at a reasonable cost and for decades to come. Coal comprises 85 percent of our fossil fuel resources. We have enough coal for 250 years of additional use. More than 50 percent of our current electricity comes from coal. Burning coal is our chief source of electricity, but by making it more efficient and by making it cleaner, we can improve the air quality. That is important to me, because we have air quality problems in the St. Louis area. This bill will do that. Already, we have made investments in coal technology over the last 30 years that have reduced pollutants by 21 percent even though coal generation has tripled. Coal provides a clean, affordable and domestic energy source for us. This bill is very positive in cleaning that up and making it more reasonable.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 25, I missed three recorded votes because my flight from St. Louis was canceled. Had my flight not been canceled, I would have voted `as follows on these three Resolutions: ``Yea'' on H. Res 160, calling on Communist China to release Li Shaomin and all other American scholars of Chinese ancestry; ``Yea'' on H. Res. 99, expressing the sense of the House that Lebanon, Syria and Iran should call upon the Hezbollah to allow Red Cross representatives to visit four abducted Israelis presently held by Hezbollah forces in Lebanon; and ``Yea'' on H. Con. Res. 161, honoring the 19 U.S. servicemen who died in the terrorist bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia on June 25, 1996.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).

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

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to deal with this question of accountability. We have talked about it. Of course the reason that testing is in the bill is because we care about accountability. I do think there is a problem and that is that there is no way to have accountability without objective test questions. So our amendment simply requires that the test questions be objective, that they be based on measurable and verifiable data. In other words, if we had five educated people take a look at a particular test question and they read it over, what they would say is that the answer is clearly A and it is not B, C, or D. So that is the purpose of this amendment, is simply to say, if we want accountability, we need objective questions. Now, there are some questions that appear in tests sometimes, one might think that they are all objective, but some are not. Here is an example. Do you think that this is a good story, or how interesting did you think the story was? Those are subjective questions and we are saying that those are not a good basis for trying to do accountability. They are not objective. These questions did actually appear on some various tests from different States. Our amendment goes also to a second point, and that is that the amendment prohibits the assessing of personal opinions, attitudes or beliefs. I do not believe there is anybody who thinks it is reasonable for us to be testing a kid and measuring them up or down based on what their religious persuasion is or their political persuasion or things that are personal attitudes or beliefs, and so we do prohibit that type of question. The amendment also allows for a full range of testing strategies. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

Mr. AKIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, it is not my intent to prohibit essay, short answer or any other types of questions on the test.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).

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

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the ``Teachers of the Year'' selected in the Second Congressional District of Missouri for their outstanding efforts to educate our children. A quality education is critical to a child's future. Without good education, a child has no future. Together with parenting and faith, education literally defines a child's future. Among all school-based factors, teacher quality is the most important; that some teachers are much more effective than others with similar students; and that teacher quality may specially affect the achievement of disadvantaged students. The teachers I rise to commend here today are individuals who have made and are making a difference in the lives of children and in their communities. Quality teachers provide experience, patience, diligence and understanding to the classroom. In conjunction with National Teacher Appreciation Day, I would like to commend the following teachers who have been recognized by their colleagues for their contributions to education. Francis Howell School District Michele Cash, Becky Henkey, Donna McCarrison, Bev Lamunion, Kim Nelson, Molly Hamer, Luanne Heggs, Dave Spies, Vicki Readenour, Michelle Dawson, Dusty Wall, Sandi Lauer, Brenda Kaiser, Sharon O'Donnell, Ray Zahra, Mary Duchek, and Sue Frain. Chaminade Middle School Stephen M. Fink. John F. Kennedy High School Chuck Chiodini. Nerinx Hall Jeffrey Scott Maynard. Ursuline Academy Joann Quinn. Ladue School District Sandra Baldwin. Valley Park High School Bill Hepper. Parkway School District Judy Adams, Donna Lohman, Carol Littlefield, Kay Cosgrove, Ruth Brooks, Patricia Paap, Don Furjes, Jacqueline B. Fleck, Linda Favero, Sharon Gaal, Jan Shayne, Jeannine Lueken, Jo Linda Cohen, Lois Copeland, Mary Bumpus, Kathy Preston, Linda Duke, Beth Tucker, Raynard Brown, Elsis Rafferty, Vicky Stricklin, Teresa Schulz, Elmer Kellman, Laurie Morton, Michael Dulick, Robert Walton, and Mike Pratte. Rockwood School District Alison Leibach, Coleen Hulcer, Karen Huber, Kerri Schiavone, Dottie Fundakowski, Sandy Schmucker, Diane Werges, Rebel Falcone, Jan McVicar, Larie Kembitzky, Sandy Kast, Stefanie Steffan, Mary Biere, Elizabeth Bickel, Diane Alonzo, Sherri Owens, Sally Allen Susan Duke, Helen Youngwith, Kevin McColgan, Cindy Hefling, Nancy McGennis, Katie Nease, Susan Christie, Carolyn Baremore, Terri Myers, Michele Rodgers, Jim Cary, and Christine Heerlein. Hazelwood School District Angela Selinger, Pam Ogborn, Steve Boemer, Diane Manley, Carolyn Jordan, April Ernst, Linda Goedeker, Lisa McPherson, Jill Metzger, Mary Fridley, Christy Zwenger, Cathy Grindler, Amy Dittmar, Amy Cavato, Kristi Alvord, Brenda Rone, Susan Baker, Susan Schneider, Liz Tabaka, Sandi Grogan, Kyra Haigh, Nicole Pena, Leslie Vaughan, Veronica Clare Lorsbach, Sharon Proffitt, Cathy Fuhr, Carrie Ziolkowski, and Kathy Costello. Pattonville School District Janice Majka, Kerry Brown, and Dee Uebel.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, when a woman and a child are assaulted or, even more seriously than that, the child is killed, there are two victims. The problem currently with our law is that we only recognize one of those victims. That is the purpose of H.R. 503 and that is the problem with the substitute. It fails to recognize one of the victims. The gentlewoman before me made reference to the foundational principles of this country. What is it that is unique, that defines America? Why is America a different nation than other nations? Why is it that people have chosen to immigrate here? I would suggest that a great deal of our unique character is found in a sentence that says, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.'' That is the purpose of our law, to create equal protection, because each life is important to us. That is a foundational American principle, and it is not currently in our law. That is the purpose of H.R. 503. This substitute does not protect one of the victims of potential crimes, and that is the problem with the substitute. I would urge my colleagues to vote against the substitute and to support the very foundational principle that America is based on, that all people deserve the protection of law.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. One of the things we could comment on here is the timeliness of this measure that is before us. One of the things we are aware of is that the economy has not been as strong as it might be. There is no coincidence that we are dealing with the repeal of the death tax. I think people sometimes do not understand the connection, though. I think that the connection is rather straightforward when we consider where is it that people are employed in America. What we find is, and it is not intuitively obvious, I do not think, is that about 80 percent of our jobs are in small businesses. Those small businesses, many of them are started either by some individual or the parent of some individual. Those small businesses, with the death tax the way it is now, stand at risk. Because if we take a lot of those businesses and all of a sudden we have to tax that asset at a 55 percent rate, we basically close the business down and send those jobs somewhere else. I do not think that is what we want to be doing with this economy. Mr. Speaker, the whole point of getting rid of the death tax really has a lot to do with keeping jobs in this country and really helping, because if we take a look, all of our big corporations which we consider to be national assets, they all started at one time as a small business somewhere. So protecting those small businesses, allowing them to remain solvent, allowing those jobs to remain in this country and not closing down the family farm, those are the kinds of things that affect our economy. So this I would say, gentlemen, is a particularly timely measure, and it is well past due that we get rid of the tax on widows and orphans known as the death tax.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment. One of the things that I find a little difficult, and perhaps some of my colleagues do as well, is to try to figure out how many zeroes go behind a trillion. We are starting to talk about quantities of money that are sometimes hard to put into perspective. My comments this afternoon try to do that, try to talk about what does it really mean in terms of a $2.2 trillion plan. When we take a look at the chart to my immediate left, what we see is that in spite of the comments of the Democrats, that the Kennedy plan of years ago was larger in terms of tax cuts than what is being proposed either by the President or by the plan that is before us today. We are looking at $2.2 trillion, and the Kennedy plan and the Reagan plans both were bigger. In fact, the Reagan tax cut was about 3 times bigger than what we are considering here today. This, when we consider that the economy is already struggling and we have a tax surplus, when we put those facts together, what we are doing is proposing a very reasonable and a very temperate budget. It is still a balanced budget, we are still paying down the deficit, we are still keeping the Social Security and Medicare money where they belong; but what we are doing is we are providing that stimulus to the economy to protect jobs and to move the economy forward. This plan then, when we take a look at it in context, when we take a look at all of those zeroes behind a trillion, we can understand what it means. It is less than the Kennedy or the Reagan plan.