Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 621 (final passage H.R. 4297), had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King). I have to say that probably there is no way to explain what a precious honor it is in my life to be able to stand on this floor with people like Mr. Poe, and Mr. King and the gentleman that stands on the Speaker podium tonight, Mr. McHenry. These are people that I believe are Valley Forge Americans, and we are all very fortunate in this country to see them in this place.

Mr. Speaker, our brave men and women in uniform have always fought desperately to preserve those unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that is endowed by the Creator himself. And that is exactly what they are doing right now in Iraq, and we should all be deeply grateful for that, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things that I am desperately worried about is whether the people in this body and in this republic itself truly understand what we are facing, not only as a Nation, but as a western civilization. The question we must ask ourselves is not whether we can win this war, we must win this war. The question now is what will happen if we do not.

Mr. Speaker, I am so concerned that this Nation does not really understand that we are at war with an ideology, an ideology that threatens the existence of the free world. This war did not begin on 9/ 11. This war began many years ago when certain Muslim extremists embraced a divergent Islamist dogma that dictates that all infidels must die. Our Nation was first attacked during its very beginnings in the late 1700s by the Barbary terrorists of the day. And more recently, we were attacked in 1979 in Iran. Our embassy and our marine barracks were attacked in Beirut in 1983. The first World Trade Center attack was in 1993, Mr. Speaker, and we still did not wake up to what was happening. Our military complexes and soldiers have been targeted throughout the world. The Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Our embassies were blown up in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. We witnessed the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.

And Mr. Speaker, just 1 year later, on September 11, terrorists murdered 3,000 American civilians on our own soil. And I wonder, have we actually forgotten that? Since then our soldiers and contractors have been kidnapped and executed, their bodies mutilated and dragged through the streets. And we are not alone, Mr. Speaker. This is taking place throughout the world. In Serbia and Bosnia, soldiers, POWs and civilians were beheaded by Mujahadin. In Beslan, Russia, 186 children and 158 teachers and parents were slaughtered in a terrorist attack against a grade school. And just a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, in Indonesia, three young

girls on their way to school were attacked and beheaded by Muslim extremists. Their names were Theresa, Ida and Alfreda. Churches are being attacked. Pastors have been kidnapped, tortured and beheaded, and it seems there is not a day that goes by without some suicide bomber or some car bomb attack in Iraq. And we have witnessed the horrific bombings in Spain and London and Indonesia and Jordan and Israel. And just today, Mr. Speaker, in Bangladesh. We simply cannot deny that we are fighting a war against enemies with an evil ideology that is bent on the destruction of the western world. They are committed to killing us and any others they hold to be infidels. Mr. Speaker, we truly are at war, and to undermine the sacrifice and blood-bought advancements of our valiant American soldiers who are, at this very moment, fighting terrorists in Iraq is unconscionable, Mr. Speaker.

A Nation divided against itself cannot stand. Those of us in this body, along with all Americans, must unite against this evil. We must win this war in Iraq. We must give our troops our unequivocal support, and we must give them everything else in our power to finish this job. Our troops have never failed us, and Mr. Speaker, we, in this body must not fail them. If freedom is to survive, to allow Islamist terrorists to declare victory in Iraq is not an option. We must win and we cannot win if we leave before this job is done, because if we leave too soon, Mr. Speaker, we will not be able to just go on about our daily lives as we once did because the world truly has changed, and those without conscience are relentlessly seeking to destroy us. And we must not let them have even the slightest hope of victory, not ever, Mr. Speaker. God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for yielding to me.

I have to say to the gentleman I am just sitting here cheering him on because I think he is dead on target here.

Always throughout history, our history, we have held to the notion in our Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, that there is something intrinsically valuable about people and, therefore, their freedom was worth protecting and defending. And I think that when he has pointed out that we faced this battle between freedom and despotism for a long time, it is such a foundational issue.

And I am not sure that we all understand how the war has changed a little bit. The basic foundation is the same, but the war has changed a little bit with terrorism. When we were fighting in World War II, when the war was over, we had the Cold War, and in a sense we based our safety upon the sanity of our enemy. We had this thing called ``mutually assured destruction.'' We had an enemy that cared about their own people, that did not want them to perish. So there was a peace in a sense because there was a concern about innocent human beings.

The kind of war that we face now is a war with terrorists who do not seem to have any sort of concern for innocent human life, and that makes them very dangerous. When they stand there and cut someone's head off, screaming before the world, I think that we need to understand we are up against a mindset that is either going to grow within the world or it is going to be crushed out of the world because if we let that thing get away from us, it could literally change everything.

And I think that is why it comes back down to this thing called Iraq. I am not sure that we all understand that in the mindset of the terrorists that Iraq is sort of the frontline. It is a symbolic battle. And if we somehow fail in Iraq, we, I believe, will activate this ideology within the terrorist world that will cause them to be able to recruit more and essentially begin to germinate throughout the planet. And I am not sure that the country, or really the world, understands just how serious a challenge that we really face.

And so I think that the gentleman is right on to point out that there has always been this battle for freedom throughout history, and if we stop now, as our Forefathers fought for freedom for us so that we can stand on this floor in freedom, if we do not build our step in the stairway of freedom for our future generations, then we really fail the cause that we have called to action tonight and always on this floor.

And, again, I just think that the President has understood that. I think he understands that in order to fight terrorism that we have to be on the offensive, that we cannot let this ideology that if a knife that cuts someone's head off could become a nuclear weapon, how much it would change our concept of freedom forever. And we have to win in Iraq. We have to see that beachhead of freedom established in the Middle East. It could germinate and see the whole of humanity turn in a better direction if we continue to do our job here.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the Special Order time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, it has been a meaningful and historic night. But it still deeply concerns me that there are Members of this body that have been constantly misinforming the public about pre-war intelligence on Iraq and demanding timetables for troop withdrawal. They seem to be wholly unaware of the dire consequences of even talking about pulling our troops out, let alone demanding it.

Our brave men and women in uniform have always fought desperately to preserve those unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness endowed by the Creator Himself. And that is exactly what they are doing now in Iraq, and we should all be deeply grateful for that.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I am so desperately worried about is whether the people in this body and in this Republic truly understand what we are facing, not only as a Nation, but as Western Civilization.

The question we must ask ourselves is not whether we can win this war. We must win this war. The question now is what will happen if we do not.

Mr. Speaker, I am so concerned that this Nation does not yet understand that we are at war with an ideology, an ideology that threatens the existence of the Free World. This war did not begin on 9/ 11. This war began many years ago when certain Muslim extremists embraced a divergent Islamist dogma that dictates that all infidels must die.

Our Nation was first attacked during its very early beginnings in the late 1700s by the Barbary terrorists of the day. More recently, we were attacked in 1979 in Iran. Our embassy and our marine barracks were attacked in Beirut in 1983. The first World Trade Center attack was in 1993, Mr. Speaker; and we still did not wake up to what was happening at the time. Our military complexes and soldiers have been targeted throughout the world. The Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Our embassies were blown up in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. We witnessed the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Mr. Speaker, 1 year later on September 11, terrorists murdered nearly 3,000 American civilians on our own soil, and I wonder tonight have we forgotten that.

Since then our soldiers and our contractors have been kidnapped and executed, their bodies mutilated and dragged through the streets.

And we are not alone, Mr. Speaker. This has taken place throughout the

world. In Serbia and Bosnia, soldiers, POWs, and civilians were beheaded by mujahideen. In Beslan, Russia, 186 children and 158 teachers and parents were slaughtered in a terrorist assault against a grade school. And just weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, in Indonesia, three young girls on their way to school were attacked and beheaded by Muslim extremists. Their names, Mr. Speaker, their names were Theresia, Ida, and Alfrita.

Churches are being attacked. Pastors have been kidnapped, tortured, and beheaded. And it seems there is not a day that goes by without a suicide or a car bomb attack in Iraq.

We have witnessed the horrific bombings in Spain, London, Indonesia, Jordan, and Israel. Rioters have completely disrupted hundreds of cities in France.

We simply cannot deny that we are fighting a war against enemies with an evil ideology that is bent on the destruction of the Western World. They are committed to killing us, Mr. Speaker, and any others that hold in their mind to be infidels.

Mr. Speaker, we truly are at war, and to undermine the sacrifice and blood-bought advancement of our valiant American soldiers who are at this very moment fighting terrorists in Iraq and across the world is unconscionable.

A nation divided against itself simply cannot stand, Mr. Speaker. And those of us in this body, along with all Americans, must unite against this evil. We must win the war in Iraq. We must give our troops unequivocal support and everything else in our power to help them finish this job. Our troops have never failed us, and we must not fail them.

Mr. Speaker, if freedom is to survive, to allow Islamist terrorists to declare war and victory in Iraq is not an option. We must win and we cannot leave before the job is done. Because if we leave too soon, Mr. Speaker, we will not be able to go on with our daily lives as we once did. Because the world has truly changed. And those without conscience are relentlessly seeking to destroy us, and we must not let them ever have even the slightest hope of victory. Not ever, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, these are historic and great days in America because President George W. Bush has nominated Judge Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, this is a man of outstanding character and one who has more experience as a sitting judge than any nominee for the Supreme Court in the last 70 years. As always, extremists on the left are viciously attacking this highly qualified nominee because he shares a judicial philosophy with this duly elected President.

Mr. Speaker, what is at stake here with these judicial nominations is the Constitution itself, that miraculous document by which we guard our God-given rights in this country; and what is also at risk is keeping secure the American dream for future generations.

In this day, we sometimes forget that the American dream is actually about human dignity and freedom and self-governance. It is not about the left's moral relativism, which means that those without conscience have a license to do anything without consequence, regardless of its harm to others.

True freedom actually means having a system of self-government that protects the rights of innocent people to live and to be free and to pursue their dreams in their own way, as long as they do not desecrate the lives and rights of others. The choice that faces us in these pivotal times is whether or not we as a people are still capable of understanding and guarding the fundamental rights that undergird our freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I have great hope that we still are. Liberal activists on the courts have been undermining the Constitution and America's fundamental rights of liberty and life and property for decades.

Just yesterday, the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, ``There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children. Parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students.''

Mr. Speaker, for these liberal judges to say that parents have no right to determine what their children are taught about sex, or anything else, for that matter, is outrageous. America has rejected this sort of bankrupt, liberal extremism at the ballot, and now the left is desperately trying to hold on to the courts to force this extremist agenda down the throats of all Americans.

The liberal, secular left wants to take the words ``under God'' out of the Pledge of Allegiance. They want to completely dismantle marriage and family. They want to end voluntary prayer, any kind of traditional voluntary religious expression in public places.

They teach your children in school that it is ``mainstream'' in America to use abortion and even partial-birth abortion as a means of birth control. They are saying to the parents of America that if your underage daughter is impregnated by a man, he should be able to take her to have an abortion without your knowledge or permission, that it is none of your business.

Mr. Speaker, those attacking Judge Alito are so far to the left that they cannot even see the majority of us here in America, and it is so important that the people of this country understand what the left means when they say ``mainstream'' when they say that Judge Alito is out of the mainstream. They are talking about his rulings in cases where the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with him. That is the very definition of ``mainstream.''

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of this Republic, we must invite those leftists who insist on smearing Judge Alito's reputation to step into open debate where the bright light of truth can shine on their ideology and expose to the people of America exactly how far out of the mainstream they really are.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for this debate. It is long overdue. The future of the American people living in freedom depends on it.

Mr. Speaker, there is a new dawn in America today as President Bush has nominated Samuel Alito to be an associate justice on the United States Supreme Court.

Justice Alito has been a prosecutor and is renowned for courageously taking a stand against organized crime in New Jersey. He was a U.S. Attorney in the District of New Jersey. He has been an assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, as well as an assistant solicitor general.

Judge Alito is a first generation American. His father was an immigrant from Italy. He has served in the United States Army Reserve for 8 years, being honorably discharged at the rank of captain.

Judge Alito is an outstanding jurist with more experience as a judge than any Supreme Court nominee in the last 70 years. He has been seated on the Third Circuit Court for 15 years and has written opinions on over 300 cases.

Mr. Speaker, Judge Samuel Alito is one of the most prolific, experienced legal minds we have in this country today. We are blessed to have him in public service. I urge the other body to give him the consideration and respect that he has so laboriously earned all of his life.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight regarding some very significant things that are happening in our country today. We are in a critical time in our history when we have two U.S. Supreme Court vacancies and when we have a nominee like Judge John G. Roberts put forth by the President for Chief Justice of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to talk about the importance of having people on the courts who will read the Constitution for what it says, because I believe that it goes to the very heart of this Republic.

Our Founding Fathers, those who fought in the Revolution, did so because they wanted a rule of law and not a rule of men. Mr. Speaker, I believe with all of my heart that the historical moments that we are in will dictate whether or not that revolution is affirmed or vitiated, and I hope with all of my heart that the President, that the U.S. Senate and that this body will do everything that they can to make sure that we find people who will have fidelity to the Constitution and will read those words that our Founding Fathers so meticulously put down for what they say and not for what a liberal activist judge might wish them to say.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we write constitutional words down, the reason we write words down in agreements, in constitutions, or declarations is because we want to preserve their intent. We want to preserve the agreement between the parties. We also want to make sure that no one can distort them in the future. And I will say more about that later; but, Mr. Speaker, there is going to be a great battle in the body next to us, because the liberal activists in that body will do everything they can to stop the confirmation of John G. Roberts or anyone who is committed to the rule of law, anyone who is committed to the original intent of the Constitution.

I am convinced that no matter what the President does in the next nomination, no matter what he does, they will attack the next nominee with equal force. It occurs to me that it is just important for us to encourage the President, to encourage the Senate to appoint and confirm people that will read the Constitution regardless of the outrage that the liberal activists put forth.

There is an old rhyme that says: ``No one gains when freedom fails. The best of men rot in filthy jails. And those who cried appease, appease, are shocked by those they tried to please.'' And that is really the scenario before us. No matter how the efforts are made to appease those that want to use the judiciary to impose liberal activist notions on the people as a whole, no matter how we try to appease them, they are going to attack. I just hope that we see people that will firmly read the Constitution for what it says and will do what is right no matter what. And I pray the President can steel his heart and that the Senators that stand for the rule of law will steel their own and that we will make sure that we find people on that Court that will do what is right.

You know, popularity sometimes overrules principle; but in this case I do not think it is going to, because popularity has always been history's pocket change. It is courage that is history's true currency, and I pray that for the President and for the U.S. Senate.

I use one example to start out this evening to relate how an out-of- control liberal judiciary affects our Nation. Just last week, an activist Federal judge once again ignored the law and the great traditions of this Nation to declare that the Pledge of Allegiance of the United States of America is unconstitutional. Now, Mr. Speaker, this speaks to the desperate need that I have outlined here to confirm judges who will apply the law, judges like John G. Roberts. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Roberts is a man that will read the Constitution for what it says, and the Pledge of Allegiance should have no fear with him as Chief Justice.

Last week's ridiculous ruling and decision by Jimmy Carter-appointee and Federal liberal judge Lawrence K. Karlton is an outrage and a breathtaking example of arrogance on the part of a bigoted tyranny of liberal extremists on the Federal bench. In this decision, this activist judge cited as binding the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that said that the voluntary recitation of the Pledge violates ``the children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.''

In 2003, the United States Supreme Court dismissed for lack of standing that preposterous 2002 ruling by the Ninth Circuit, and that is the one we all know that found the Pledge unconstitutional. Michael Newdow, a self-professed atheist, did not even have custody of his daughter when he sued on her behalf. What is more, Mr. Speaker, his daughter did not even object to reciting the pledge in the first place. So when the Supreme Court vacated this obscene ruling, the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist concurred, and he so eloquently put forth the very simple truth of this matter. He said that the phrase ``under God'' does not change the Pledge into a religious idiom and it ``cannot possibly lead to the establishment of religion or anything like it.''

The late Chief Justice listed many references to Presidents invoking God, going all the way back to the very first one, George Washington. He cited other events as well that, ``strongly suggest that our Nation and our national culture allows public recognition of our Nation's religious history and character.''

Sandra Day O'Connor in her concurrence even stated that to eliminate references to divinity would ``sever ties to a history that sustains this Nation even today.''

Mr. Speaker, for 50 years the Pledge of Allegiance has been voluntarily recited in schools throughout the United States of America and it has always been voluntary. Nobody in America has ever been required by government to say the Pledge of Allegiance. And if they say it voluntarily, they are not required to say the words ``under God.'' However, it is an outrage that beggars my vocabulary for those who hold the office of Federal judge to rule that it is now unconstitutional for students who want to voluntarily say the words ``under God'' if they so choose.

In my opinion the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution would deem those who handed down such outrageous rulings to be pitiful excuses for Federal judges and to be traitors to the Constitution itself. This ruling is a prime example of the liberal, activist priesthood of the black robe seeking to force upon the people a state of irreligion, and it is a pathetic example of jurisprudence that has dictated that the people must ignore their own belief and faith and embrace only a nonreligious expression. Mr. Speaker, it is a violation, pure and simple, of the free exercise clause.

We must not allow the people of this Nation to be forced by judicial tyranny to follow such an empty creed. This ruling is disgraceful and it serves as exhibit A in the case against judges who are intent on ignoring the Constitution and imposing their own twisted ideology upon the people. When liberal activist judges discount laws enacted by the people's representatives to enact their own agenda, the Constitution itself provides a remedy; and it is time for the people's House to fulfill our duty to the people, to protect the Constitution from liberal activist Federal judges.

Mr. Speaker, in striking down our Pledge of Allegiance, this judge has once again ignited a resolve in the American people that will ultimately lead to Federal reforms limiting their power to legislate from the bench. This judicial obscenity will not stand.

With all of that said, I still stand on this floor with great hope in my heart for the future of this country, because even a cursory, a cursory glance back at America's history should impart hope to all of us.

By the time the 1860s had come to America, the world had marked 7,000 years of powerful societies enslaving their fellow human beings. And, sadly, this was also true of America. However, America was never truly at peace in her heart with this hellish institution of slavery, and so it was that American slaves began to earnestly pray to God to intervene, and it seems God sent them President Abraham Lincoln, a man who understood the true meaning of those magnificent words, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.''

Mr. Speaker, our Founding Fathers wrote those words down for us because they did not want us to forget their true meaning or fall prey to those who would deliberately destroy it. That has always been the preeminent reason why we write down documents, agreements, or constitutions in the first place: to preserve their original meaning and intent.

When the smoke of a horrible Civil War finally drifted from the air, 7,000 years of the world accepting the unrequited toil of human slavery was over. The prayer of slaves had been answered, and the United States of America began to emerge as the flagship of human freedom in the world.

But only 100 years later we began to stray from that path. We began to think only of ourselves. And in 1973 Roe v. Wade was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court, and it brought wholesale abortion on demand to the land of the free, and the veil of darkness fell upon America. In that darkness we heard, but we disregarded the mortal cry of one little baby in the womb, and then there was another, and even another was heard until that sound had become the soul-wrenching cry of tens of millions.

We found ourselves and our national conscience disoriented and awash in the blood of our own children. Millions of prayers called out for another leader to remind us of those words that speak the divine message of human dignity, ``all men are created equal.''

Mr. Speaker, from the time we were conceived, all human beings are created equal. We do not become equal when we each reach a certain age or status. This is America's creed, that is our foundation, and how grateful we should all be that our Founding Fathers wrote those words down, and how desperate our commitment should be to remember what they mean.

Now in this day, in these moments, that test is upon us. The President of the United States has nominated an individual in John G. Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States who understands that all men are created equal. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this President understands those words in his own heart; and, indeed, it is his commitment to their meaning and his commitment to human dignity itself that has given him the courage to stand resolutely against terrorists to protect innocent human life.

But this President and each one of us in this body and each person in the body across the way must never forget that this thing called Roe v. Wade has taken more than 15,000 times the number of innocent lives lost on that tragic day of September 11. We live in a time when there is truly a glimmer of light breaking on the road before us; but the curve just ahead is sharp, and to miss it may be to plunge into the darkness. The voice of destiny calls to our President and all of us in these decisive days to once again steel our hearts and to ask anew, Is it true in America that all men are created equal?

Mr. Speaker, our legacy to future generations and the survival of human freedom in the world will depend upon our answer. May God bless America, may God bless President George W. Bush, and may God bless Judge John G. Roberts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), whom we call Judge, who we all have the deepest respect for.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) for his comments. Mr. Speaker, we are all, again, so fortunate to have the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) in the House of Representatives because of the experience that he has. I could not help but see so clearly his commitment to the Constitution itself and his understanding of what the role of a judge is. I have to say that I think that the only time I have ever heard it put as succinctly was when Daniel Webster said: ``Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. For miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6,000 years may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.'' And I know that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) holds on to the Constitution.

I want to also yield to another man that holds on to the Constitution. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is one who always has a copy of the Constitution in his pocket wherever he goes, and he is someone who has shown himself to be a true champion of this Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I would just echo some of the comments of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) in that this man, Judge John G. Roberts, is perhaps the most qualified person for Chief Justice, certainly in my lifetime, that we have seen. And if he is somehow castigated by liberals in the Senate and attacked because of his fidelity to the Constitution, then it seems that our only road leads to a judicial oligarchy, and those of us in this body can lock the doors and go home and quit pretending to be lawmakers, because the courts will then prevail over all.

It is interesting, because some of the Founding Fathers, and one in particular, Thomas Jefferson, said it this way. He said, ``The object of my great fear is the Federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding when it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them.''

This is not a new concern. Our courts have ruled that the black man was property. Our courts have ruled that unborn children are not human beings. Our courts have ruled that marriage and the family itself may be unconstitutional. Our courts have ruled that it is unconstitutional to protect a 9-year-old girl from Internet pornography. Our courts have ruled that that same little girl cannot say a certain prayer in school. Our courts have now ruled that it is unconstitutional for her to say the Pledge of Allegiance. And I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if those of us standing in this place would look out across the fields of Arlington and ask ourselves, is that why they died, so that we could uphold those kinds of asinine, ridiculous interpretations of the greatest Constitution that was ever written by man?

I think that we are turning a corner, and I think John G. Roberts is going to be a significant part of that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like very much to yield to my very good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and I are such good friends and that I hold him in such high regard, I am going to forgive him here on the floor for suggesting that I might be a lawyer. I do not know if the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) might want to extend such a forgiving hand as well. We are both on the Committee on the Judiciary and, of course, sometimes it is assumed that we are lawyers. But his points are so well taken, in that we do need judges that will simply read the law for what it is.

I know that we repeat this a lot, Mr. Speaker, but when courts forcefully interject false and unconstitutional notions that go against justice and natural law and common sense, without allowing the issue to go through the legislative process of debate and consensus, it abrogates the miracle of America and it abridges the freedom of the people to govern themselves. I just am hopeful that we can recognize that our courts, I say to the gentleman from Texas, were never intended to decide social policies, or any policies, for that matter. This is the job of the people's Congress. This is why people send us here. The legislative process creates a dynamic for opposing voices on any issue to be heard in an open forum, and a strong consensus is necessary for any kind of decision, and where each decisionmaker can ultimately be held accountable by the people they govern.

And I know that the people of Texas are very proud that they have sent Judge Carter to the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, Judge Carter can call the balls and strikes, in my judgment, any time.

With that, I would yield to my friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), for any further comments he might have.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of these men. You know, it is said in this place that the friends you find here, you can pick your pallbearers out of them. And I certainly feel that way about these three men.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to serve at this time in history with men that love America, that love freedom, that love their fellow human beings as much as these men do.

We have talked a lot tonight about protecting the Constitution. But you know, really, sometimes it is good for us to step back and ask why we are really here. And ultimately we are here because we believe that the miracle of life in America is something that is unique.

Mr. Speaker, I guess he says it so well, there is so little to add. But you know, the umpire kind of corollary has been used quite a lot here tonight, and what some of us have objected to is like in the book, The Judicial Supremacist, when the umpire says strike 2, you are out. And that is what has happened a lot in some of these decisions lately.

The courts and some of the activist judges have simply thrown the Constitution aside and said that they are not going to follow it. That is why we are so grateful that John G. Roberts is going to be our next Chief Justice, because he, I believe, will have the erudition and the mentality and the heart to bring the rest of the Court to reaffirm what the rule of law is all about.

And, again, we talk about the rule of law. But, really, is it not about trying to uphold our fellow human beings? Because if we were willing to let judges drag us into that darkness where this concept of the survival of the fittest prevails, and whoever was strongest prevails, then it would not matter.

But, no, we believe that all people are created by God and have a divine spark in them and that they deserve to be protected and that is what the rule of law is all about.

And I just pray that God will continue to give the President of the United States the courage and the insight and the soundness of mind to protect America and the world and this United States Constitution that has given us the greatest Republic on earth.

Mr. Speaker, as the International Atomic Energy Agency meets on Monday to determine whether to refer Iran to the Security Council, the United States must clearly and firmly state its position on Iran.

Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program has been in the works for the past 2 decades. As a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, all of Iran's nuclear activities must be constantly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Since 1987, Iran has pursued a hidden nuclear program in flagrant violation of its treaty obligations.

Mr. Speaker, Iran's actions over the past 18 years are clearly directed toward building a nuclear weapons capability. Yet Iran calls upon the western countries to trust Iranian intentions. But how could we possibly do that, Mr. Speaker? Iran claims its nuclear program is intended only for peaceful purposes, but that claim is simply not credible.

Iran has the world's second largest proven natural gas reserves and huge crude oil reserves as well. It is neither cost effective nor expedient to develop nuclear capabilities for Iran's energy needs.

The world must not be so naive in this grave situation. We must look at Iran's past and present actions as the most reliable indication of its true intent.

For years, since the early 1990s, Iran has persistently stated its need for nuclear weapon development. Its newly elected president pledged that he will continue to support Hezbollah's struggle against ``the enemies of Islam.'' He has even vowed to reinforce Hezbollah; and he announced just today, Mr. Speaker, that his country is prepared to provide nuclear technology to other Islamic nations.

Mr. Speaker, the spiritual adviser to and supporter of the president, Ayatollah Misbah Yazdi, issued a call for the public to join the swelling ranks of Iran's homegrown suicide bombers, stating that ``Suicide operations are the peak of the nation and the height of its bravery.'' And President Ahmadinejad himself has equated martyrdom with art and made known his ambition to spread his government's Islamic ideology to the world.

Mr. Speaker, the possibility of the regime in Iran having indigenous nuclear capability is a recipe for destruction that is simply unthinkable, and we absolutely must not make the cataclysmic error of believing that those now ruling in Iran have only peaceful purposes in developing nuclear capabilities.

Iran attempts to allay international concerns, pledging that its nuclear program will be subject to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Yet this assurance is completely unassuring when we put it in the context of 18 years of unremitting deception in the IAEA's ineffectiveness. Iran has violated its obligations and forfeited its credibility.

On Sunday, Iran's Foreign Minister Mottaki warned that referral to the UN Security Council would be a political no-win situation with ``certain consequences affecting Iran's decisions.'' It is totally disingenuous for Iran to appeal to the West's conscience in this regard. Iran has set on a course that it has never wavered from, and it is seeking only to buy time. Mr. Speaker, the International Atomic Energy Agency should refer Iran to the Security Council.

It goes unnoticed, Mr. Speaker, that it is the Iranian people who are suffering the most as a result of this radical clerical regime. The people of Iran should know that they have at least this Nation's unequivocal support to take the stand that they have yearned for for so many years. This support should be stated openly, clearly, and repeatedly.

Regardless of what the International Atomic Energy Agency decides, United Nations policy should be clear. It should be articulated, and it should be open support for the freedom-loving people of Iran to establish a restored Iran, an Iran that contributes to its people and to the world, as it classically has done. What is required, Mr. Speaker, as Assad Homayoun has articulated, is ``legitimization through recognition'' and the people of Iran will rightfully have the resolve and recourse to establish a government by the people and for the people. This is a day we all should look forward to with gratitude to the good people of Iran.

Mr. Speaker, as the International Atomic Energy Agency meets to determine in the next days whether to refer Iran to the Security Council, the United States must clearly--and firmly--state its position on Iran.

Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program has been in the works for the past two decades. As a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, all of Iran's nuclear activities are treaty-bound to be constantly safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Since 1987, Iran has pursued a hidden nuclear program in flagrant violation of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iran's actions over the past 18 years are clearly directed toward building a nuclear weapons capability. The Iranians have already built a pilot uranium enrichment facility and are currently completing a huge facility capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium to produce forty nuclear weapons per year.

Iran has secretly imported 18 tons of uranium yellowcake from China and constructed a conversion facility to produce uranium hexafluoride gas for enrichment.

Iran has also experimented with separating plutonium, and are presently building a heavy water reactor.

Further, it has now been reported that Iran has experimented with polonium. Polonium is a radioactive isotope with only one principal use: to trigger a nuclear explosion.

Further, Mr. Speaker, analysis by the U.S. Department of State released as of August 2005 states that ``the United States believes

that Iran has manufactured and stockpiled blister, blood, and choking chemical agents, and weaponized some of these agents into artillery shells, mortars, rockets and aerial bombs in contravention to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

In July, Iran announced that it succeeded in developing solid fuel technology for ballistic missiles, which can be launched with almost no warning, far more quickly and reliably and with greater accuracy than those with liquid fuel.

In August, Iran resumed converting uranium to gaseous state. This is a step that precedes enrichment which then can produce nuclear material usable both as fuel in nuclear reactors and as material for an atomic bomb.

Mr. Speaker, Iran calls upon the Western countries to trust Iranian intentions, but how could we possibly do that?

Iran's claim is that its nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes only--to produce electricity. That claim is simply not credible. Iran has the world's second largest proven reserves of natural gas, along with huge crude oil reserves. It is neither cost effective nor expedient to develop nuclear capabilities for Iran's energy needs.

The world must not be so naive in this grave situation--we must look at Iran's past and present actions. They are the most reliable indications of its true intent.

For years--since the early 1990's, Iran has persistently maintained the need for nuclear weapon development. Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who some hail as a ``moderate'', has repeatedly stated that nuclear development was a ``necessity.'' Rafsanjani has also stated that ``If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.'' What frightening words.

Iran is in violation of numerous treaties--and continues its patterns of deceit. Iran is trying to create a Euro dominated exchange of oil, and has a strategic economic relationship with China.

Iran suppresses its people with the harshest and most brutal kind of treatment. Just last Tuesday, September 6th, prosecutors' offices in provincial centers announced that ``Women who violate Iran's strict Islamic dress code will be flogged immediately''--they will appear before an Islamic judge immediately after arrest to receive a sentence, which is usually 100 lashes in public.

Its newly elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pledged that he will continue to support Hezbollah's struggle against the ``enemies of Islam.'' He has even more recently vowed to reinforce Hezbollah.

And, Mr. Speaker, the spiritual advisor to and supporter of President Ahmadinejad, Ayatoilah Misbah Yazdi, has issued a call in an Iranian newspaper for the public to join the swelling ranks of Iran's homegrown suicide bombers, stating that ``Suicide operations are the peak of the nation, and the height of its bravery.'' And President Ahmadinejad himself has stated that ``Is there art that is more beautiful, more divine, and more eternal than the art of martyrdom?'' The Iranian President has said that his ambition was to spread his government's Islamist ideology to the world.

Mr. Speaker, the possibility of the regime in Iran having indigenous nuclear capability is a recipe for destruction that is unthinkable. And we absolutely must not make the cataclysmic error of believing that those now ruling in Iran have only peaceful purposes in developing nuclear capabilities.

Mr. Speaker, Iran is attempting to allay international concerns, pledging that its nuclear program will be subject to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Yet this assurance is completely unassuring when put in the context of 18 years of unremitting deception, and the IAEA's ineffectiveness. Iran has violated its obligations and forfeited its credibility. We must not allow this defiant threat to the world to pass by unnoticed. The IAEA should refer Iran to the Security Council. The world cannot allow the current ruling regime of Iran to obtain and develop indigenous nuclear capability.

It goes unnoticed, Mr. Speaker, that it is the Iranian people who are suffering the most as a result of this radical clerical regime. It seems all too possible that Iran wishes to develop nuclear capability to stifle international support for an Iranian popular revolt as much, and possibly more so, than to counter an Israeli nuclear ``threat''. The people of Iran should know that they have this nation's support-- unequivocal support to take the stand that they have yearned for, for so many years. This support should be stated openly, clearly, and repeatedly.

Regardless of what the IAEA determines--Security Council or not, United States' policy should be clear, articulated support for the freedom-loving people of Iran to establish a restored Iran, an Iran that contributes to its people and the world, as it classically has done.

What is required, Mr. Speaker, as Dr. Assad Homayoun the President of the Azadegan Foundation has articulated, is ``legitimization through recognition'' and the people of Iran will rightfully have the resolve and recourse to establish a government--by the people and for the people. That is a day we should all look forward to, with gratitude to the good people of Iran.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you. We call you Judge Carter here in this institution. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) has earned a great deal of respect in this institution because he is not only a man that brings judicial experience to this body, but he is someone that we can all trust. He is someone that we know has a heart that burns with patriotism, for love for his country, for love for his fellow human beings and just a commitment to human freedom.

And I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that it is my precious honor to serve with a man like Judge Carter, we call him. You know, and perhaps that is all too appropriate tonight as we speak of judges, because we talk sometimes of judges legislating from the bench. Maybe Judge Carter comes to this body with just the kind of experience he needs to have. But we are grateful that he is a man that did not legislate from the bench, and that he understands the difference between the judiciary and the legislative body.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to pay a few words tonight of tribute to a towering figure in our country, Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

The era of the Rehnquist Court has come to a close, and William H. Rehnquist has stepped quietly into the arms of God. Chief Justice Rehnquist was one of America's great Chief Justices. This Nation has suffered a great loss with his passing, and as twilight falls upon this remarkable man's career, the most notable elements of his extraordinary legacy must not be lost to revisionist history, Mr. Speaker, because in his tireless defense of the United States Constitution, Chief Rehnquist strongly advocated for a judiciary that applies the law rather than legislates from the bench.

We, as Americans, should be very grateful for our Founding Fathers and for the genius of the constitutional system that they left to us. It was a framework that protects human dignity and individual freedom by enforcing limits on government power. It is incumbent upon ours and future generations to jealously guard that precious gift bestowed upon us by our forebears.

Chief Justice Rehnquist spent decades on the highest Court in the land acting as the Constitution's protector. He was a constitutional originalist, defending the process of interpretation of the law that is constrained by the text and the original meaning of that great document.

Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental reason why we, as a self- governing people, so carefully put pen to paper to memorialize our Constitution and our laws and our great founding documents. They are written words that have become an agreement between the people and the government. We write it all down to keep a record and an understanding of the limits placed on government by the will of the people.

Chief Justice Rehnquist's efforts to advance this understanding that at times the Federal courts must enforce limitations on Federal power while recognizing the preeminent role of democratically elected institutions at both the State and Federal levels, Chief Justice Rehnquist was a valiant defender of States' rights in recognition of the superiority of a federalist system when governing peoples of divergent views, divergent faith and cultures.

He was an influential man in leading the Court back toward the original intent of the Constitution after decades of abuse by a liberal activist Court born of the Roosevelt era and the New Deal philosophy.

Mr. Speaker, that New Deal activist Court actually delivered such bizarre rulings as in Wickard v. Filburn, a ruling that a man in Ohio who was growing wheat in his own backyard as a

means to feed his family and his own livestock had somehow violated the Interstate Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution because of the quantity of wheat that he grew could have actually been sold.

Moreover, in their unanimous decision, this liberal activist Court affirmed, ``If we assume it is never marketed, homegrown wheat competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitive and quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon.''

Mr. Speaker, what a circuitous and false logic.

The stage was then set of course by this activist Court for massive expansion of Federal power. Year after merciless year a liberal Supreme Court, drunk with self-imposed power, delivered an unprecedented assault upon the rights of the States and of the people.

During his years on the court, especially his early years, Mr. Speaker, Justice Rehnquist was often called the lone dissenter to outrageous decisions, even once receiving a Lone Ranger doll awarded by his friends. But yet his adherence to the Constitution, faithfully expressed in some of his earliest dissents, had great influence upon the Court as evidenced in later majority opinions where he was vindicated in his previous conclusions.

In 1973, when the Supreme Court illegitimately bestowed its imprimatur on abortion on demand, it was Justice William Rehnquist who wrote a scathing dissent to that majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. He said, ``To reach its results, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the 14th amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the amendment.'' How very eloquent.

Chief Justice Rehnquist was also instrumental in fighting back assaults on religious freedom in his efforts to make clear that the Constitution ensures government neutrality in matters of religious conscience, but not the requirement to move religion altogether from the public square. He understood the Constitution.

In the 1995 case of United States v. Lopez, the Rehnquist Court marked the first time in over 50 years, Mr. Speaker, that the Supreme Court upheld the rights of States, ruling against the expansion of Federal power and finding a Federal law in violation of that now woefully distorted commerce clause of the Constitution.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist was often found standing in the breach of defense of the Constitution, endowing this Nation through the years with a noble legacy of resistance to a liberal, activist Court determined to make its own law and enact its own agenda.

Mr. Speaker, he gave the American people his last full measure of devotion and stayed at his post through great personal pain and sacrifice while he was fighting cancer. To the very end, he led a brave and good-natured effort to restore the Supreme Court to its ethical grounding.

Mr. Speaker, as we bid loving farewell to this stoic champion, I reflect upon the words of Alfred Lord Tennyson in tribute: ``Though much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength in which the old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are, one equal-temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.''

Mr. Speaker, when the final battle with illness and physical weakness came to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, he resolutely remained at his post for his President, for his country, and for the future of all mankind. He did not yield.

Mr. Speaker, I think my primary reason for being here tonight was just to not let this man's towering contribution to the judicial process slip away into history. There is an old quote by Dostoevski. He said, ``He who controls the present, controls the past. And he who controls the past, controls the future.''

Of course, as somebody was saying, there are a lot of revisionists out there trying to rewrite history in order to affect the future, but this man's history is very important to our country. I will make a prediction tonight that a lot of the decisions, where he found himself in dissent, in the next 20 or 30 years will turn in the other direction, and we will see that this man was before his time.

There is a saying that if you fail without succeeding, if you struggle without succeeding, it is so someone else might succeed after you. And if you succeed without struggling, which I think some of our modern-day justices are going to do, it is because someone has struggled and succeeded before you. This man, I believe, is going to be vindicated in society, because he did not find a lot of these hidden things that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) talked about.

We have seen judges say that somehow the words in the Pledge of Allegiance, ``under God,'' might be unconstitutional; or that it is unconstitutional to protect a 9-year-old girl from Internet pornography, or it is unconstitutional to protect an unborn child from partial-birth abortion. With regard to all of these insane notions, he did not see them.

One woman said, Maybe these judges who find all these things ought to be out looking for Osama bin Laden if they are that good at finding things that are not there.

This judge saw the Constitution for what it was. He did not try to make a new revolution. He simply tried to affirm the one we already had. I think that tonight we celebrate the life of a man that many justices of the future will stand on his shoulders and look back and say, you know, Judge Rehnquist was right, Justice Rehnquist was correct.

The ship of state turns slowly sometimes, but this man had his hand on the rudder long before the rest of us

even knew. And I again just wanted to join with all of my colleagues and honor this man's life.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

In a controversial and sensitive environment, section 1019 requesting a report on consular and visa services is not a diplomatic or prudent congressional action at this time.

In the hour of future negotiations between Belgrade, Pristina, and the international community on the status of Kosovo, congressional action of this nature will be perceived as one-sided and prejudicial. Further, moving towards giving authority to the Secretary of State to empower the U.S. Mission in Pristina to render U.S. visas would be a dangerous precedent to set because the United States cannot render visas within the territory of a country without that country's consent in accordance with the Vienna Convention.

Therefore, conducting such a ``report'' is to ignore Serbia's role entirely and sends the wrong message. Kosovo remains within the territory of Serbia and Montenegro, and, therefore, citizens of Kosovo should go to the appropriate place to obtain visa and consular services, which is not prohibitive and, since it is only a 2-hour bus ride, is certainly in keeping with most of the applications that need to be made by those seeking visas across the world.

The text of section 1019 is itself prejudicial, Mr. Chairman. The name of the province, in international use and the official U.S. use, is ``Kosovo,'' not ``Kosova.'' The term ``Kosova'' is a one-ethnicity- based pronunciation of the name of the province. It would be highly prejudicial for the U.S. Congress to refer to Kosovo as ``Kosova,'' which by it would recognize and imply that the province is only Albanian and would ignore the minority populations living there. Albanians would have the same objections to the U.S. Congress referring to Kosovo as ``Kosovo-Metohija.''

Mr. Chairman, Congress should not send the wrong message at the wrong time, and I urge support for this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), although he is in opposition to this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) really was able to get to the heart of the purpose of my amendment, and that is very simply that the Balkan region is one that is fraught with great historical tragedies, with enough heartache and hurt to go around for every ethnic group that is in that area. It certainly is obvious to the world that the ethnic and cultural tensions there are responsible for some incredible tragedies.

It is my contention that the process that takes place there now or is in the imminent process of occurring is important to allow it to go forward in a way that the people on the ground have the greatest control over. My concern is that if the Congress should try to impose from the top down prejudicial language, that it could only exacerbate some of the problems that have caused such tensions there that have led to such death and suffering already.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that even though it is true that Kosova has appeared in our bills a number of times in the past, it is in conflict with U.S. policy and with the U.S. official position on Kosovo; and consequently, I do not think that the mistakes of the past would be a foundation for repeating them here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 14, 2005, I was unavoidably detained and rendered unable to vote on H. Res. 356, condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in London, England, on July 7, 2005. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I am both saddened and angered by the terrorist attacks on the people of London on July 7, 2005. I extend my sincere and most heartfelt condolences to the families of victims. It is shameful that innocent citizens can no longer live in peace throughout the world.

It is because of such attempts to derail our united fight for human liberty that we must continue to hold steady and strong in this War on Terror.

I will in all ways continue this fight to protect our inherent rights to live free of fear from radical extremists. It is for such reasons that I supported the supplemental spending bill to aid our troops in this War on Terror. We must never falter or retreat.

The lives lost in the tragedy of July 7, 2005 will remain etched in our memories as proof that fear tactics must never win. Our prayers remain with the families of the victims and all the people of London.

Mr. Speaker, I voted ``yes'' on H. Res. 199 to recognize the horror suffered by those who lost their lives at Srebrenica and the loss to their families.

However, the resolution falls far short in that it does not recognize the horrors, tragedies, and losses suffered by all sides. For example, for several years early in the conflict, the Serbian population of Srebrenica and scores of nearby villages were either killed or forced to flee because of Nasir Oric, a Bosnian Muslim warlord, according to UNPROFOR Commander General Phillip Morillon.

Nasir Oric also carried out many attacks on nearby villages and towns, including an attack at Kravica on Orthodox Christmas Eve. Reporter Joan Phillips commented in the South Slav Journal that by March 31, 1993, at least 1,200 Serbs had been killed and another 3,000 wounded by Oric's forces, adding ``Today there are virtually no Serbs left in the entire Srebrenica municipality. Out of 9,300 Serbs who used to live there, less than 900 remain. Out of 11,500 Serbs who used to live in Bratunac municipality, more than 6,000 have fled. In the Srebrenica municipality, about 24 villages have been razed. The last major Serbian villages in the vicinity of Bratunac and Skelani were attacked and destroyed on January 7, 1993.''

In the interest of justice and truth we must have a day of reckoning where we acknowledge that no one side was entirely at fault in the Balkan wars, and even evaluate where United States' policies exacerbated the tragedies suffered. For example, Operation Flash was an attack on the civilian Serb population of a U.N. Protected Area and was directly authorized by then-President Bill Clinton.

Likewise, it is my express belief that we should do more to achieve reconciliation and mutual trust between the ethnic groups in Bosnia- Herzegovina.

Mr. Speaker, I stand on the floor of this House tonight with great hope in my heart for

the future of this country, because even a cursory survey of America's history should impart hope to all of us.

By the time the 1860s had come to America, the world had marked 7,000 years of powerful societies enslaving their fellow human beings. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, this was also true of America. However, this country was never truly at peace in her heart with the hellish institution of slavery.

So it was that slaves began to earnestly pray in America for God to intervene. Mr. Speaker, it seems that God sent them Abraham Lincoln, a man who understood the true meaning of those magnificent words: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.''

Mr. Speaker, our Founding Fathers wrote those words down for us because they did not want us to forget their true meaning or to otherwise fall prey to those who would deliberately destroy it. This has always been the preeminent reason why we write down documents or agreements or declarations or, Mr. Speaker, constitutions in the first place, to preserve their original meaning and intent.

When the smoke of a horrible Civil War finally drifted from the air, 7,000 years of the world accepting the unrequited toil and misery of human slavery was over. The prayer of slaves had been answered, and the United States of America began to emerge as the true flagship of human freedom in the world.

But only 100 years later, we began to stray from that path. We began to think only of ourselves; and in 1973, Roe v. Wade was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court and brought wholesale abortion-on-demand to the land of the free, and a veil of darkness fell upon America.

In that darkness we heard, but disregarded, the mortal cry of one little baby in the womb, and then another, and even another was heard, until that sound had become the soul-wrenching cry of tens of millions. And we found ourselves and our national conscience disoriented and awash in the blood of our own children. Millions of prayers called out for yet another leader to remind us of those forever words that speak the divine message of human dignity: all men, all men are created equal.

Mr. Speaker, from the time we are conceived, all human beings are created equal. We do not become equal when we reach a certain age or status. This is America's creed. This is our foundation. And how grateful we should all be that our Founding Fathers wrote those words down, and how desperate our commitment should be to remember what they mean.

And now that test has come upon us, for there is soon an opportunity for the President of the United States to nominate individuals to the Supreme Court who understand that all men are created equal. And Mr. Speaker, I believe in my soul that this President truly understands those words. Indeed, it is his commitment to their meaning that has given him the courage to stand resolutely against terrorists to protect innocent human life. But this president and each one of us must never forget that Roe vs. Wade has taken more than 15,000 times the number of lives lost on that tragic day on September 11. And we now live in a time when there is a glimmer of light breaking on the road before us. But the curve just ahead, Mr. Speaker, is sharp, and to miss it may be to forever plunge into that darkness. And the voice of destiny calls to this president, to our president and to all of us in these decisive days to steel our hearts and to ask anew, is it still true in America that all men are created equal?

Mr. Speaker, our legacy to future generations and the survival of human freedom in the world will depend upon our answer.

May God bless America and may God bless President George W. Bush.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to rise today in support of a statement entered into the Record June twenty- first by my friend and colleague, Mrs. Musgrave of Colorado, to pay tribute to an extraordinary man, Vernon Parker, who is the kind of man that represents the backbone of the American way of life.

Vernon is first and foremost a husband to Sylvia, a father to Jim and Joe and a grandfather to Jennifer and Nicholas. He has been a teacher, an elementary and junior high school principal and an outstanding civic leader. But it was as the school superintendent in Briggsdale, Colorado, that our life paths intersected. There were eleven children in my third grade class. The entire school system, kindergarten through twelfth grade, had only one

hundred and two students. In that idyllic setting, Vernon Parker made the third grade a special place of learning for me. As I look back upon those years, it is easy to recognize that Vernon Parker planted more than just a garden we could always find him tending. He planted hopes and dreams into the minds and hearts of the children of Briggsdale, Colorado.

As I reflect on the impact that educators have on the lives of their students, I think not only of scholastic standards but of their ability to instill the invaluable desire to learn--to reach for something greater than ourselves. For many years, as a teacher, a principal and school superintendent, Vernon Parker touched literally all of the lives of the children in the small town of Briggsdale. That is quite an honorable legacy in itself.

Yet we also as Americans owe a debt of gratitude to this man for his service to our country in the Korean War where his efforts as a member of the ``Wolfpack,'' a special unit which aided friendly North Koreans, helped save American lives. He served from 1949 until 1953. He was awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in action, and during one battle he used a bazooka to destroy a Communist North Korean tank. Also in that battle, he was wounded by a mortar shell and was awarded the Purple Heart.

When Vernon retired from teaching and then oversight of the school system, he opened and ran a small business. He was a member of the Lions Club and the V.F.W., a Boy Scout leader and a volunteer fireman.

Vernon Parker has dedicated his life to public service and most importantly to children. I am greatly privileged to count myself among those children whose lives he touched and encouraged, motivated and disciplined on my childhood journey to that better day in life.

May God Bless our educators, may God bless our veterans, may God bless America and may God bless Vernon Parker!

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a fallen hero--Sergeant Kenneth J. Schall of El Mirage, Arizona.

On May 22, 2005, we tragically lost this soldier of freedom when his military vehicle was involved in an accident. Kenneth was nobly serving his country in Yusafiyah, Iraq as a vital and supportive member of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

At the young age of 22, Kenneth has marked history as a true American hero. He sacrificed his life to protect the citizens of this great Nation and the cause of human freedom. Today, we deeply honor his memory with our profound gratitude and extend our most loving condolences to his family and parents, Mr. and Mrs. John and Terri Schall.