Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And, indeed, it is a pleasure to be here tonight, Mr. Speaker, with my good friend Judge Carter. We are about the same age, and he was giving us a little bit of a history lesson, much better than I can, in regard to some of the things that went on with our Greatest Generation in defending this country in World War II, and I think that some of these statistics are so telling, the things that Judge Carter talked about in regard to, of course, that day that will live in infamy, December 7, 1941. And, of course, I am referencing again, as he did, Pearl Harbor. I think Judge Carter mentioned that something like 2,400 of our sailors and airmen and a lot of civilian workers were killed that Sunday morning, a day of rest, a day of worship. An unprovoked attack. And the very next day, as John Carter

pointed out, this Congress declared war against imperial Japan for this dastardly act, this unprovoked sneak attack on that early Sunday morning.

Here again we think back now, and next Monday, 5 days from now, will be the fifth anniversary of an attack that was just as unprovoked and just as dastardly as Pearl Harbor and resulted actually in the loss of a greater number of lives. Something above 3,000 innocent men and women were killed in the Twin Towers attacks of September 11, 2001.

And as I think about the numbers, and we are all very saddened when we read in the newspaper that another of our brave young soldiers has either been injured or killed in Iraq, maybe by one of these improvised explosive devices, and we are getting beyond the 3-year anniversary. We are more than 3 years engaged in that battle, and the number is something like 2,470 killed.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the American people that in the battle of Iwo Jima, we lost 7,000 of our Greatest Generation in 30 days; 7,000 to secure that strategic island in the mid-Pacific. That was a tremendous price for our Greatest Generation to pay. But we didn't hear Members of Congress telling President Roosevelt, well, that is too high a price, and we need to bring the troops home. We need to come back and batten down the hatches and cut our losses. I could say the same thing to my colleagues about the Battle of the Bulge, as tough as that was. Representative Carter referenced some Civil War battles, Antietam, Gettysburg. When the going gets tough, the tough don't leave. The tough fight back. And that was what happened in the Battle of the Bulge. That was what happened on the island of Iwo Jima where that famous flag was raised on Mount Suribachi. We cannot afford to cut and run. I am not saying that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are necessarily advocating that, but certainly some of the rhetoric sounds a lot like that, Mr. Speaker, and I think the American people are hearing that. But even worse, our soldiers that are doing the fighting and the dying and the suffering on our behalf are hearing it.

One of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle a few minutes ago was talking about what things that President Bush should have known and how he should have responded even before 9/11. And as I listened, Mr. Speaker, I heard him talk about the United States embassies in East Africa; the attack on the USS Cole, where I think 17 of our soldiers were killed there; the first attack on the World Trade Center in the early 1990s; the Khobar Towers bombing. Well, I would remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that that was under the administration of one William Jefferson Clinton, a Democratic President, where basically the response was the bombing of an aspirin factory in Sudan, and I think maybe one janitor was injured a little bit in that bomb attack. That was the kind of response we got from them.

The bottom line is you cannot continue to dare and double-dog dare and triple-dog dare and draw lines in the sand that you ignore, and that was what led us to this situation and that culminated in 9/11.

This President responded. This President had the guts, if you will pardon my Georgia slang, to stand up and get permission from Congress, just as President Roosevelt did on December 8, 1941, and declared war on these people that were responsible for that attack.

And I will just take a couple of minutes more, and then I will turn it back over to my colleagues and the gentleman from Tennessee for his remarks. The President was just speaking to the Reserve Officers Association a couple days ago, and this is what he said and this is, so telling, Mr. Speaker. And I quote:

``The experience of September 11th made clear, in the long run, the only way to secure our Nation is to change the course of the Middle East. So America has committed its influence in the world to advancing freedom and liberty and democracy as the great alternatives to repression and radicalism. We're taking the side of democratic leaders and moderates and reformers across the Middle East. We strongly support the voices of tolerance and moderation in the Muslim world. We're standing with Afghanistan's elected government against al Qaeda and the Taliban remnants that are trying to restore tyranny in that country. We're also standing with Lebanon's young democracy against the foreign forces that are seeking to undermine the country's sovereignty and independence. And we're standing with the leaders of Iraq's unity government as they work to defeat the enemies of freedom and chart a more hopeful course for their people. This is why victory is so important in Iraq. By helping freedom succeed in Iraq, we will help America, and the Middle East, and the world become more secure.''

I cannot improve on that, Mr. Speaker. I think the President said it well.

I thank God that we have a President that has the moral character and the intestinal strength to fight when we need to fight, to lead us, as President Roosevelt did, in that war that our Greatest Generation fought.

So I am really proud to be here and share a little time with my colleagues. I thank Congressman John Carter for leading this hour and giving me an opportunity to discuss such a vital issue as this with my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to proudly reflect upon the accomplishments of this Congress. As we head into the August district work period, let us look back on all we have achieved for the American people.

Under Republican leadership this House has passed legislation to bolster our economy and prevent a tax increase on millions of Americans, including small business owners, seniors, and families.

We have worked to pass a fiscally responsible budget. We have funded the War on Terror, giving our servicemen and women the tools and support they need to take the fight to the enemy. Equally important, we have worked to secure this homeland.

We have passed legislation helping American families. We got tough on child exploitation over the Internet and voted to increase funding and resources to fight methamphetamine in all our communities. We have passed legislation to protect our Pledge of Allegiance, to curb illegal Internet gambling, and to protect our right to display the American flag.

Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on and on. This Congress is working for the American people, and I ask that you join me in praising all that we have accomplished.

Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to rise in support of the amendment of the gentlewoman from Washington. A little disappointed my own great amendments were not made in order but very happy to support hers.

As a physician, having practiced 30 years of clinical medicine, there is no question that the cost of chronic disease management is the most costly, and particularly under Medicaid. I think the gentlewoman has the exact right idea, to be able to monitor this information on a real- time basis so that physicians know exactly what they are spending and what is cost effective.

I was very happy as a member of the Rules Committee to recommend her amendment be made in order. Thank goodness it was, and I proudly stand here today to recommend this amendment to all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I commend her for the good job she has done.

Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the great chairman of the subcommittee who, without her support, we would not be having this amendment before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of turn.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commend a fine constituent of the 11th District of Georgia, Dr. Roch Doliveux. Dr. Doliveux is the chief executive officer of UCB, Incorporated, a leading global biopharmaceutical company with facilities in my district, the 11th of Georgia, in the town of Smyrna.

Earlier this year, Dr. Doliveux received the Epilepsy Foundation's Distinguished Achievement Award in New York City. The Epilepsy Foundation annually recognizes individuals who have made outstanding efforts on the behalf of those living with epilepsy.

As the CEO of UCB, Incorporated, Dr. Doliveux has spearheaded his company's efforts to raise awareness of this disease, and he has leveraged its resources to develop and provide medicines to help patients return to their daily activities.

In our country, epilepsy affects 2.7 million Americans and their families. Mr. Speaker, epilepsy is a seizure disorder that can develop at any time in life, and it can stem from a variety of causes; but it is always a costly and frequently debilitating disease.

That is why, as a physician Member, I am so proud to stand on the floor of this body and extend my congratulations to Dr. Doliveux for his fine work on behalf of the Epilepsy Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, today was an historic day on this House floor when we heard in a joint session of Congress from the Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri Al-Maliki. The Iraqi people have spoken and their prime minister has spoken.

Last night during our special hour, Mr. Speaker, two of my colleagues from Georgia talked about the economic activity of this country and how well we have done under the policies of this President and this Republican leadership, and they termed that hour the truth hour as presented by the truth squad, to make sure the facts are presented to our colleagues and to the American people, the true facts.

What I would like to do in this short time that we have tonight, Mr. Speaker, is to talk about the true facts in regard to Iraq and the Iraqi people and why we need to continue to support them and not consider for a moment to bail out in these difficult times that they are continuing to go through.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just talk about some of the progress that we have made. I have got a couple of slides here that I would like to present.

First, just talking about the security in Iraq, Iraq's brutal former dictator, Saddam Hussein, as we all know, is behind bars and has been for the past couple of years. Just in the last couple of months, Mr. Speaker, the infamous, the notorious Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, was eliminated by United States troops, with the help, I might add, Mr. Speaker, of the Iraqi people, from actionable intelligence that we obtained from them.

The Iraqi Security Forces now number over 260,000, and they are participating in more than 90 percent, 90 percent, of all security operations in their Nation. The Iraqi citizens are coming forth, as I say, with tips about insurgents like al-Zarqawi and terrorist activities, more than 4,500 tips in March of this year alone.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, this infamous photograph of Zarqawi is recognized by every Member in this Chamber. And listen to his quote. ``Americans are the most cowardly of God's creatures. They are an easy quarry. Praise be to God. We ask God to enable us to kill and capture them.'' This was a letter to al Qaeda in February of 2004. Thank our God that this infamous Zarqawi no longer exists and is no longer a threat to the Iraqi people and to our brave military that are fighting in Iraq.

Let me just speak a little bit about democracy, and, of course, the prime minister spoke to that so well today. Prime Minister Maliki serves as a democratically elected prime minister of Iraq. More than 70 percent of Iraq's citizens voted in a series of free and fair elections. The Iraqi citizens ratified a constitution and they elected the Iraqi National Unity Government. For the first time, women are part of the political process, holding 31 percent of the assembly seats. The number of judges has increased seven-fold.

Let's speak just a little bit about the society in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, this shows a picture, that famous picture of an Iraqi woman holding up that victory sign with that blue ink on her finger signifying that she has voted, having stood in line all day long. There were lots of terrorist attacks that day, yet the Iraqi people voted in a higher percentage than we Americans vote in a presidential election year.

Our troops are continuing to help the Iraqi people in building schools, sanitation projects and medical centers.

The Iraqi people can now watch commercial television and read independent newspapers, signs of a growing freedom of speech.

Primary school enrollment has increased by nearly 3 million children. Iraqi medical schools are graduating 2,250 doctors each year. Unemployment is down dramatically. In the past 3 years, Iraq's GDP per capita has more than doubled.

More than 40 countries and international groups have established embassies or missions in Iraqi to assist the developing democracy. Listen, Mr. Speaker, to some of the excerpts of the prime ministers speech to Congress today on the floor of this House, as he thanked the American people.

``Iraq will not forget those who stood with her and who continue to stand with her in times of need. Thank you for your continued resolve in helping us fight the terrorists plaguing Iraq, which is a struggle to defend our nascent democracy, and our people who aspire to liberty, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. All of those are not just western values, they are universal values for humanity. They

are as much for me the pinnacle embodiment of my faith and religion and they are for all free spirits''.

I quote further. ``Today Iraq is a democracy which stands firm because of the sacrifices of its people, and the sacrifices of all those who stood with us in this crisis. And that is why I thank you. I would like to thank them very much for all their sacrifices''.

Again, this is the prime minister speaking today from the floor of this House to the American people. He goes on. ``The journey has been perilous and the future is not guaranteed. Yet many around the world who underestimated that resolve of Iraq's people and were sure that we would never reach this stage. Few believed in us. But you the American people did and we are grateful for this''.

I want to just go on briefly before I call on one of my colleagues, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who has joined me and would also like to talk about the success that we have had in Iraq and why we need to continue to stay the course.

The prime minister further said, ``I know some of you here question whether Iraq is part of the War on Terror. Let me be very clear. This is a battle between true Islam, for which a person's liberty and rights constitute essential cornerstones, and terrorism, which wraps itself in a fake Islamic cloak, in reality wages a war on Islam and Muslims and values and spreads hatred between humanity''.

That quote from prime minister Maliki today. And that is exactly right. He continues by saying, ``wherever human kind suffers a loss at the hands of terrorists is a loss for all humanity. It is your duty and our duty to defeat this terror. Iraq is the front line in this struggle, and history will prove that the sacrifices of Iraqis for freedom will not be in vain. Iraqis are your allies in the War on Terror''.

So, Mr. Speaker, let us put to rest this question of doubt, of the resolve of the Iraqi people and their commitment. Sure, we have made tremendous sacrifices in 2,6000 of our soldiers who have been killed, and probably 12,000 to 14,000 that have been severely injured in trying to fight this Global War on Terror, and bring a form of democracy to these people who are striving so hard for the principles of freedom.

We have paid a sacrifice. But they have paid a tremendous sacrifice. And the estimate could be as many as 40,000 killed, if not more, many of them innocent Iraqi citizens, and many of them women and children.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very important time today on the heels of the prime minister's visit and speech to the Congress today that we talk about this tonight. And, yes, once again the Truth Squad needs to speak loudly on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, with that I would like to call on my colleague from Iowa (Mr. King) for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say the gentleman from Iowa in just a brief colloquy with him, and of course thanking him for being with us tonight, that I am sure that he would agree that our Commander- in-Chief needs to rely on the combatant commanders. Certain today of course is General Casey, before that General Sanchez, before that General Franks, to let him know in regard to how many troops need to be on the ground and where they need to be positioned and how long they need to stay.

I know that we have heard a lot from Members on the other side of the aisle particularly calling for a date certain for a troop withdrawal or reduction or redeployment 6,000 miles away, to Okinawa or whatever.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague from Iowa would agree that this is a call that we need to leave to the combatant commanders to make these decisions. I know that because of the insurgency, the up tick in the insurgency, as these Islamic extremists continue to struggle in their death throes post-Zarqawi, there is going to be some tough times; and this is certainly not the time to give them your playbook. Would you not agree with that?

I thank again the gentleman from Iowa.

My good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), has joined us at this late hour. At this time, I would like to call on him for his remarks concerning the Iraqi situation.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia. I don't think anyone could possibly say it any better.

We must not break faith with those who have died for this cause and those who have been severely injured and their families. We have an obligation to them and to the Iraqi people.

I know all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle were comforted to have the opportunity today to hear from the Iraqi Prime Minister and to have him answer some of these tough questions in regard to their commitment as well as our commitment. Because, as he said, we are a freedom-loving people throughout the world. They feel the same about liberty as we do, and their commitment to it is there, and it is strong, and their deep appreciation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leadership for giving this opportunity to spend about 30 minutes with our colleagues; and now we will turn it over to our friends on the other side of the aisle for their time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Pleasant Valley South Baptist Church in Silver Creek, Georgia, which is celebrating its 150th anniversary this year.

For a century and a half, Pleasant Valley South has been fulfilling the spiritual and communal needs of its congregants, and I know it will continue this service for many years to come.

Pleasant Valley South Baptist Church was founded in 1856. At the time, it was housed in a log cabin that also served as the community school. In 1863, James McBride was named as the church's first pastor, and he preached to a congregation of 22 people.

Well, Pastor McBride would hardly recognize Pleasant Valley South today. In 2002, a 900-seat worship center was built to serve the church's 1,700 members. Pastor Philip May presides over services that regularly attract more than 700 congregants on Sunday morning.

Mr. Speaker, churches are one of the strongest foundations in our communities, and for 150 years, Pleasant Valley South Baptist has brought inspiration to Silver Creek and her residents.

I ask that you join me in congratulating the church on its historic 150th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4472, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.

Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation is a victory in the fight to keep our children safe. There are many critical and important provisions included in this bill. In particular, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House and Senate conferees for including in this legislation a provision that I introduced in the House earlier this year, a provision that is entitled Masha's Law.

Last year I learned of a shocking inequity that exists in our current law. Currently, a person who illegally downloads music faces penalties in civil court that are three times as harsh as a person who downloads child pornography. This horrible inequity was the inspiration behind the introduction of Masha's Law, and this provision dramatically increases civil statutory damages for child exploitation, creating a civil avenue victims of child sexual exploitation can pursue to recover monetary damages from these predators. This includes those who produce, distribute, and consume child pornography.

Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to know that Masha's Law is named after a brave 13-year-old girl from my district, Masha Allen. Masha was born in Russia and placed in a state orphanage because her mother was an alcoholic and a drug addict. When she was 5 years old, a man from the United States was allowed to adopt her through an international adoption agency. This man started sexually abusing her the very first night she arrived in America.

Fortunately, this perpetrator is now behind bars. However, over the years of his abuse of Masha, he photographed her, posted her pictures, and traded her pornographic images over the Internet. The sad reality is that, although these monsters can be put behind bars, the victims of Internet child pornography will continue to be exploited, and this is why I introduced Masha's Law.

Mr. Speaker, a compassionate society looks after the most vulnerable among us, our children. I urge my colleagues to support the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act so we can protect our most precious commodity, innocent children like Masha, and give back hope to those who need it most.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4472, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. This bipartisan legislation is a victory in the fight to keep our children safe. There are many critical and important provisions included in this bill, provisions that allow States to better track convicted sex offenders, ones that tighten up loop holes in current sex offender registration and notification laws, and ones that empower law enforcement through increased coordination.

In particular, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House and Senate conferees for including in this legislation a provision I introduced in the House earlier this year, a provision entitled ``Masha's Law.''

Last year I learned of a shocking inequity that exists in our current law. Currently, a person who illegally downloads music faces penalties in civil court that are three times as harsh as a person who downloads child pornography. This horrible inequity was the inspiration behind the introduction of Masha's Law.

This provision dramatically increases civil statutory damages for child exploitation, creating a civil avenue victims of child sexual exploitation can pursue to recover monetary damages from their predators. This includes those who produce, distribute, and consume child pornography.

Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to know that Masha's Law is named after a brave 13-year old girl from my district, Masha Allen. Masha was born in Russia and placed in a state orphanage because her mother was an alcoholic and drug addict. When she was five years old a man from the United States was allowed to adopt her through an international adoption agency. This man started sexually abusing her the first night she arrived in America.

Fortunately, this perpetrator is now behind bars. However over the years of his abuse of Masha he photographed her, posted her pictures and traded her pornographic images over the internet. The sad reality is that although these monsters can be put behind bars, the victims of internet child pornography will continue to be exploited.

This is why I introduced Masha's law. It allows these individuals a pathway to recover damages they have suffered from these crimes and allows them to pursue this avenue even after they are no longer a minor. Therefore as their pictures are downloaded and traded, year and year, these victims can continue to seek justice from these horrendous crimes.

Mr. Speaker, a compassionate society looks after the most vulnerable among us, our children. I urge my colleagues to support the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, so we can protect our most preciously commodity, innocent, children like Masha, and give back hope to those who need it the most.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative LaTourette and my colleagues from Ohio and Iowa, as obviously this is their native son, and to hear them talk about Bullet Bob. I, like so many of the male Members of this body in particular growing up in the early fifties had one of these invaluable collections of baseball cards and almost a complete collection for each team.

Right at the top of the stack for the Cleveland Indians was, of course, Bob Feller. I, later on, many years later in fact, met my wife. We married 36 years ago. And to tell you the thrill it was when I found out that her dad, Bill Ayers, who died in 1980 of a heart attack, was also a professional baseball player, in fact, a major league baseball player.

During those years I had an opportunity to pepper Bill with baseball questions. He was originally an Atlanta Cracker and had signed with the Atlanta Crackers when he was 19 years old. But listen to some of these similarities between Bullet Bob Feller and my father-in-law Bill Ayers.

Of course, Bob Feller was a Hall of Fame baseball player, and my father-in-law spent, I think, a year and a half in the majors, playing for the New York Giants under Leo Durocher. They were the exact same age, almost. Bob Feller born in November of 1918; my father-in-law, August of 1918. They both served in the military; interrupted a professional career. Bob Feller serving from 1941 to 1945 in the Navy; my father-in-law, Bill Ayers, serving under General Patton's Third Army 1943 to 1946 in the United States Army in Europe.

Of course, Bob Feller signed a contract, as we know, at age 16. My father-in-law signed a contract at age 19. They were both pitchers. I asked my father-in-law, Bill Ayers, one time about who was the greatest hitter he ever pitched against. And his answer was Joe DiMaggio.

I said, well, who was the toughest, the greatest pitcher that you ever batted against? And, Mr. Speaker, you know in those days there was no such thing as a designated hitter. And the Cleveland Indians and the New York Giants actually did their spring training in Tucson, Arizona. And my father-in-law, Bill Ayers, was pitching in an exhibition game against Bob Feller.

He told me, he said, Phil, without question, Bob Feller was the greatest pitcher that I have ever faced. He said, in fact, he batted against him one time, and he struck out on three straight pitches, never getting the bat off his shoulder.

I said, Bill, why didn't you swing at the ball? He said, because I never saw it. And as I read the resolution by Representative LaTourette and realize that Bullet Bob was throwing a 109 mile-an-hour fastball, it is understandable.

So for me to have an opportunity to take just a few minutes to relate that anecdote to my colleagues and say, God bless Bob Feller. Representative LaTourette assures me I will have an opportunity to meet him tomorrow.

I really look forward to that. I don't know if he will remember Bill Ayers, but certainly that is a great memory for me and my family.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet later this week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 4157, the Health Information Technology Promotion Act of 2005.

The bill was ordered reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce on June 15, 2006. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 11 a.m. on Wednesday, July 26, 2006.

Members should draft their amendments to the text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute posted on the Web site of the Committee on Rules.

Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format and should check with the Office for the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the Rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet later this week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 5766, the Government Efficiency Act of 2006.

The bill was ordered reported by the Committee on Government Reform on July 20, 2006. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 11 a.m. on Wednesday, July 26, 2006.

Members should draft their amendments to the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on Government Reform, which is expected to be filed today. The text of the bill as ordered reported will be made available on the Web sites of both the Committee on Rules and the Committee on Government Reform.

Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format and should check with the Office for the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the Rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate two Georgia hospitals, Piedmont and Piedmont Fayette, which this month were named two of the Nation's Most Wired Hospitals by a Benchmarking survey.

The Piedmont health care group is known for its longstanding commitment to health information technology. With this award, the whole Nation now understands how these hospitals are using electronic medical records, e-prescribing, and digital radiology to help streamline practices and to reduce medical errors.

I am a strong supporter of health information technology because it saves lives, time, money. And as a physician, I know that encouraging the adoption of health care technology is one of the most important ways we can work to lower costs while also raising quality of care.

This is why I have introduced legislation to incentivize more physicians to adopt information technology. And I hope the success of Piedmont health care will encourage other providers to look at the real savings that this technology offers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in congratulating Piedmont for their leadership in the field of health information technology.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University of West Georgia on its centennial anniversary. For the past 100 years, West Georgia has been educating some of our State's brightest minds, and I know the school will continue providing educational excellence for many years to come.

West Georgia's roots are humble. In 1906, it was founded as the Fourth District A&M School, a charter member of the university system of Georgia. In January 1908, the school opened its doors to students, enrolling 52 boarding pupils and 58 day pupils. Those first students would hardly recognize West Georgia today, home to more than 10,000 pupils and over 100 programs of study.

Yet despite the changes of the past 100 years, one thing has remained the same, and that is the dedication of the staff, faculty, students, and community. I want to congratulate university president Dr. Beheruz Sethna, the city of Carrollton, County of Carroll, and the entire West Georgia community on reaching this historic milestone.

Madam Speaker, I ask that you join me in congratulating the University of West Georgia, and here is to another 100 years of educating Georgia's students.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 920 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 920 is a structured rule, and it provides 1 hour of general debate that is equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and minority leader or their designees. This resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and it makes in order only those amendments that are printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution. It provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Further, it waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, and it provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 920 and, of course, the underlying bill, H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection Act of 2005.

Madam Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to thank my friend and colleague from Missouri, Representative Todd Akin, the author and lead sponsor of the underlying bill. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 2389, I am glad to see that we will have the opportunity to set the record straight and defend our traditions against a few activist judges who would supplant the will of the people with their own personal agenda.

Yesterday, this House had the opportunity to debate and vote on an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Unfortunately, the necessary two-thirds vote in support of the amendment simply was not there. While some may characterize yesterday's debate as an act of futility, I

wholeheartedly disagree. Yesterday's vote put each and every Member of this House on record with their constituents and with the American people as to where they stand on defending our culture, on defending our values, against a few activist judges seeking to turn our society upside down.

I make mention of this because I anticipate that the opponents of this underlying bill will attempt to make the same arguments against this bill as they did yesterday against the Marriage Protection Act. And, Madam Speaker, they were wrong yesterday, and they continue to be wrong today.

The Pledge Protection Act, as well as the Marriage Protection Act, represents more than just the underlying issues of our Pledge of Allegiance or the traditional definition of marriage. These bills affirm that it is the American people, not a few activist judges, that have the right to create laws and establish the policies that will shape their lives.

Now, I know that the opponents of this bill will also try to confuse and confound this debate by arguing that there are other more pressing things to consider and that this Congress has passed nothing of importance to the American people. Well, Madam Speaker, I have to ask myself, where were they? Where were these individuals when we passed H.R. 4297, that cut taxes and prevented tax increases for millions of Americans? Where were they when we passed lobbying reform out of this House with bipartisan support? Where were they when we passed out of this House comprehensive border security legislation? Where were they when we passed 10 of 11 appropriations bills that fund the operations of this government? Where were they when we passed legislation to increase oil production through domestic production and refinery capacity to bring down the price of gasoline?

Madam Speaker, I could go on and on, but I believe I have made my point that this House has a proven track record of passing legislation important to the American people and their families, and the Pledge Protection Act simply builds upon that track record.

H.R. 2389 will affirm the ability of Americans across this country to recite the Pledge of Allegiance anytime, anywhere, with or without the phrase ``one Nation under God.'' The point is, the individual will get to choose.

Since the days of colonial America and the founding of this great Nation, the vast majority of our citizenry has celebrated and honored the role of Almighty God in shaping the history of this great land and defending her through many trials and tribulations and in lifting her up as a shining city on a hill.

As our founders set forth in the Declaration of Independence, ``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.''

Madam Speaker, the recognition of a higher authority above human law and above temporal law is fundamental to the establishment and preservation of our fundamental rights and liberties. Those who would divorce the recognition of a higher authority from the rights he secures are guilty of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

If our fundamental rights come from human beings, then human beings can take them away. But because our rights are endowed to us by our creator, no man, no woman, no government can take them away. Therefore, we in this Congress have an obligation to uphold the ability of citizens across this great land to recite and pledge their allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

I just wanted to respond to my friend from Florida. I didn't see that quote. I need to grab that newspaper that he was referring to. It sounds like I was either misquoted or my words were taken out of context.

Yesterday I spoke several times, and I mainly was speaking about our value system as a great Nation. We were talking about values yesterday from my perspective and the image that we present to the rest of the world, and particularly at this time to the countries in the troubled Middle East. So I don't know what the exact quote was, but I just want to try to clarify that

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to my colleague on the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just in response to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Madam Speaker, a couple of weeks ago on another rule that I was managing, this same issue was brought up, had really nothing do with the subject at hand, but was in regard to the minimum wage. I pointed out in a little colloquy with the gentleman from Wisconsin that I did not vote for that congressional pay raise, and he said that he did not either.

I just want to point out, this gentleman from Georgia, to the gentleman from Wisconsin that this just once again proves that cheese and crackers occasionally go good together. So I do not disagree with the gentleman on that particular point.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the author, the distinguished author, of this bill, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We have heard on both sides reference, of course, to our Founding Fathers in this debate. Madam Speaker, deep concern that Federal judges might abuse their power has long been noted by America's most gifted observers, including Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.

Thomas Jefferson lamented that, this is the quote, ``the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal judiciary; . . . working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped . . . ''

In Jefferson's view, leaving the protection of individuals' rights to Federal judges employed for life was a serious error.

Listen to what Abraham Lincoln said, Madam Speaker, in his first inaugural address in 1861. ``The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practical resigned their Government into the hands of eminent tribunal.''

That is the concern that we express today in this debate, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman from Rhode Island, I greatly respect. The other side, making points about minimum wage or mental health parity and implying that these are the godly things to do, then I think in a way that they are inadvertently making my case.

Let us go along with the wishes outlined in this bill to keep ``under God'' in our Pledge of Allegiance, as we stand up every day and honor our flag. That, indeed is what it is all about. I thank them for helping to make the case for this particular piece of legislation, H.R. 2389.

I do hope that we have a recorded vote on the rule, and obviously on the bill, and I look forward to wide, maybe unanimous, bipartisan support on this issue.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, to my good friend from Florida, at this time I have no additional speakers. I will reserve to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), the author of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise again in support of this rule and in recognition of the importance of the underlying bill, H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection Act of 2005.

I want to express my appreciation to my colleagues who participated in the preceding debate on this rule, and I want to ask my colleagues to continue their participation as we move into the general debate.

I also want to again commend Representative Akin, both a friend and a colleague, for leading the charge in defense of not only our Pledge of Allegiance, but also many of our time-honored traditions that are currently under assault by some activist judges, as he just enumerated.

As I stated yesterday, we did not raise these issues; a few activist judges did when they decided to throw out precedent and make new law without one vote cast in either a legislature or at the ballot box. So it is now the responsibility of this Congress to stand up for the will of the American people and sanction our Pledge of Allegiance. Let us affirm this is ``one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.''

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Previous Question on H. Res. 920, Rule for H.R. 2389 The Pledge

Protection Act of 2005

At the end of the resolution add the following new section:

``Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution

it shall be in order without intervention of any point of

order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2429) to amend

the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an

increase in the Federal minimum wage. The bill shall be

considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall

be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) 60 minutes of debate equally

divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; and

(2) one

motion to recommit with or without instructions.''

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today proud to stand with our President to ensure that our society remains a people that values life. The President is a man of his word, and today he made good on his promise and he issued his first Presidential veto against H.R. 810, a move to protect the sanctity of human life.

Mr. Speaker, over the last few days, I have had the privilege to meet and visit with the families of the so-called ``snowflake babies.'' These are children who started out life at frozen embryos, indeed no larger than the point of a pen, whose parents, instead of discarding these precious little lives, allowed them to be adopted.

Each of these families has their own unique story. They are families who have longed for and prayed for children. They are families who now enjoy the blessings of these little ones' smiles and tears, laughter and heartbreak. These children represent what advocates of this bill see as unwanted leftovers, collateral damage on society's path to medical research called for in the Castle-DeGette bill.

Mr. Speaker, the interesting aspect of this debate is that embryonic stem cell research does not have to divide this House of Representatives. I am here today to tell the American people that science has delivered the solution to this ethical divide. Scientists have made extraordinary advances in research that now allow them access to embryoniclike stem cells without destroying the human embryo. The answer that science has given us is that our government can have both, and, most importantly, so can the American people.

Yesterday Members of this House, those who claim to be supporters of all types of embryonic stem cell research, stood in the way of a bill that would have funded these ethical and exciting new breakthroughs.

Mr. Speaker, we need to sustain the President's veto, and I call for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 918 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 918 is a closed rule. It provides 1 hour and 30 minutes of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees. This resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution, it provides one motion to recommit, and it provides that during consideration of the joint resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the joint resolution to a time designated by the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 918 and the underlying joint resolution, H.J. Res. 88, the Marriage Protection Act.

First, I would like to thank Representative Marilyn Musgrave, the author and lead sponsor of this constitutional amendment, for her steadfast commitment to the preservation of traditional marriage.

As the manager of this rule and an original cosponsor of the underlying joint resolution, I am very pleased the House will have an opportunity today to consider and debate this very important amendment to our Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, the proceeding debate, both on the rule and the underlying resolution, either can be divisive and disrespectful, or it can be respectful and productive. This amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with exclusion, but it has everything to do with protecting the traditional and historical definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Contrary to what the opponents of this resolution might say today, this amendment will simply preserve the

traditional definition of marriage as it has existed for millennia.

I anticipate there will be those on the other side who will say this amendment was concocted for political purposes. To the contrary, Mr. Speaker. This amendment is in response to a few activist judges who are trying to throw out the definition of marriage, along with over 200 years of American judicial precedent.

These judges, and these judges alone, made this matter an issue, and they did so without one vote cast in either a legislature or at the ballot box. These activist judges substituted legal precedent and the will of the American people with their own personal desires and political beliefs. Their decision to scrap the traditional definition of marriage has forced us, forced us, to now consider enshrining the definition of marriage into our Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, like most of my colleagues, I would prefer to not have to address this issue in this manner. But, unfortunately, I know my constituents and a strong majority of the American people want us to defend the traditional definition of marriage. A poll by the New York Times, not exactly a bastion of right-wing conservatism, they found that 59 percent, I repeat, 59 percent, of Americans favor an amendment to the Constitution stating that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

I also, sadly, realize this amendment will probably not have the necessary two-thirds majority to pass and opponents will cite this as a reason to not even consider the underlying resolution. We heard it in a couple of the 1-minute speeches from the other side just a few moments ago. Well, this vote will serve as an opportunity for each and every Member of this body to go on record in support or in opposition to protecting the traditional definition of marriage. And after this vote each of us will be judged accordingly by our constituents, and I can say with a clear conscience and without hesitation that I will support this rule, I will support the underlying resolution for the sake of the sacred institution of traditional marriage and for the sake of our precious children.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to encourage my colleagues to support the rule and this underlying resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In response to a couple of things that my good friend said, Mr. Speaker, nowadays lots of people are claiming that marriage is a discriminatory institution. Same-sex couples say marriage discriminates against them. Believe it or not, single people are now complaining that marriage discriminates also against them. After all, say the singles, why should the State give special benefits to married parents but not to us?

It gets worse. Even polygamists and believers in group marriage, who call themselves polyamorists, are saying that marriage discriminates against them.

Now, if the support society gives the men and women who have the potential to create children is going to be called discrimination, pretty soon there is not going to be such a thing as a marriage at all. When one group can call marriage discrimination, then any group can make the same claim.

And, also, Mr. Speaker, there was a comment about a couple loving each

other. But this is not a civil rights issue. Love, of course, is a great thing. But in my humble opinion, marriage is not just any kind of love. It is a love that can bear children, and it is a love that involves both a mom and a dad. Two men might be a good father. But neither one is a mom. The ideal for children is the love of both a mom and a dad. No same-sex couple can provide that. The ideal for marriage is about bringing together moms and dads so children have a mother and a father to learn from.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Representative Virginia Foxx.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

The gentleman from Ohio is concerned and says, what next? Is the Congress going to take out from the Pledge of Allegiance ``with liberty and justice for all''? I say to my friend from Ohio, no. Later on this week we will have the opportunity to defend ``one Nation under God'' and keep the Federal judiciary from taking that out.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

The gentleman from Massachusetts I am sure is aware of the fact that in his State, opponents have gathered 170,000 signatures supporting a constitutional amendment they hope would end gay marriage, despite what their supreme court did.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin that 45 States currently define marriage as a union of one man and one woman or expressly prohibit same-sex marriages; and those 45 States we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, include 88 percent of the population of this country. We are not just talking about Georgia. The fact is in a constitutional amendment, three-fourths of the States will have to ratify it.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is because of these activist judges who are chipping away at the will of the people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the gentleman from Virginia that it is not all about money and how we spend it that we are in this Congress, but it is also about values and how this great country represents them to the world, not the least of which is the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I could debate theology with the gentleman from Missouri, as an ordained minister, but I do know a little bit about the sacrament of marriage, Mr. Speaker, as one of about 200 Catholic Members of the United States Congress.

I think God has spoken very clearly, very clearly on this issue. And I would refer the gentleman to Holy Scripture, and what the word says in regard to marriage and the sanctity of marriage. I think it is pretty clear.

The gentleman wants to talk about the fact that this should be a church issue. I agree with you. I wish it were, if it were not for these activist Federal judges and these public officials. I will remind the gentleman from Missouri, the good Reverend, that they will be the one that would be performing these marriages and they would do it to a fare-thee-well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

My good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee, decried politics, and then he started his remarks about politics. He talked about whether these judges were Republican judges and Democratic judges and gave numbers.

In response to him, we are blaming activist judges, whether they are Democratically appointed or Republican appointees, who are attempting by judicial fiat to redefine our constitutional definition of marriage which has stood for 223 years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to my good friend from Texas, who has been married to his lovely wife for 37 years, Judge John Carter.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly yield 2 minutes now to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), who has been married 37\1/2\ years.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers on my side. While I am going to reserve the balance of my time for closing, I want to respond and give myself as much time as I might consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts, for whom, and whose intellect, I have a deep respect. I think he knows that.

Let me just say that Americans are a good and tolerant people. The people of this country believe in equality and freedom, and we respect the rights of individuals to conduct their personal lives as they see fit.

Reasonable people can differ in their views on homosexuality or its causes, consequences, and moral significance. Personally, I think it is a good thing that American citizens who happen to be gay are accorded more tolerance and respect today than was the case 50 years ago.

But I honestly believe that the issue facing us today is not the issue of homosexuality. Most fundamentally, the issue we face today is marriage, the meaning of marriage as an institution and how best to support it. I favor the Federal Marriage Amendment because I want to support the institutution of marriage and keep it strong.

This issue is not, in my humble opinion, about homosexuality.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Well, in response to the gentleman, again, as I said, it is not an issue of same-sex union.

And benefits that are afforded them by many States. The States certainly have the right to prescribe that in regard to issues of consanguinity and the age of consent and benefits for same-sex unions.

But they don't, in my opinion, have the right to redefine the definition of marriage.

Reclaiming my time, I think that the gentlewoman from Colorado and those of us who support this constitutional amendment feel that this is all about marriage that results, or potentially can result, in the procreation of children. This is what our Constitution has implied for 223 years and, indeed, what the word of God has implied for 2,000 years.

With that, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again in support of this rule and in full support of and recognition of the importance of this underlying amendment to our Constitution.

I appreciate each and every one of my colleagues who spoke during the debate on this rule. I fully recognize that many of us will have to simply, yet respectfully, as I said, disagree.

However, Mr. Speaker, I know that I stand today with the citizens of Georgia's 11th Congressional District, as well as the vast majority of Georgia and the Nation's citizens who continue to be outraged by the ability of a few judges to overturn our legal precedent and our traditional family values.

In 2004, the people of Georgia affirmed with a vote of 76 percent to 24 percent that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman, and I proudly count myself among that 76 percent.

I want to close this debate by reminding my colleagues that we have an opportunity today to stem the tide of this judicial activism and to restore the ability of the American people to establish policies that affect them and their lives through their elected Representatives.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues, please support this rule, and upon the conclusion of general debate, I ask my colleagues to affirm legal and historical precedent and defend our traditions about supporting the underlying amendment to restore the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.