Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thought it would be appropriate to make a comment or two about engineering because I was trained as an engineer. I must not have been much of one because I ended up in politics. It doesn't happen that often that people who have an engineering background end up in the political sector; but it is quite common in engineering for people to get the undergraduate degree and then to move into other kinds of areas, and the engineering background gives them a tremendous problem-solving basis to be able to be quite effective in various other kinds of careers.

It is a national concern to us as Americans that we are producing fewer and fewer engineers. What happened was, in the era of Sputnik when I was a kid, everybody realized we were technologically behind, particularly behind the Soviet Union, and realized the urgency in having people develop an interest and background in science and engineering. At that time, we produced a good number of engineers, and they were fine engineers. They now work for many of our household-name large corporations, certainly many in my own district, Boeing Corporation, for example.

These engineers have also started all kinds of different businesses and been very successful, and have been very successful in producing a lot of the technology that keeps our young men and women safe on the battlefields. It also is technology that has given us a wonderfully high standard of living and has allowed America to prosper in many ways.

Unfortunately, now there is a tremendous dearth of engineers. We have a number of small companies that produce products that are related to the defense industry that I know of in the St. Louis area, just as an example, and they are saying that we would give anything to be able to hire engineers. We just can't get any of them. The only engineers we can get are coming out of India or some other country far away, and our own students, Americans, are not choosing careers in engineering. That is distressing.

I suppose that there are reasons for why this is going on. Perhaps one of them is the malaise and the very lukewarm kind of results that we are getting out of secondary education in America. The SAT scores are continuously changed year to year, and they can be adjusted downward. Engineering is very rigorous. It requires an understanding of mathematics, and it is a very hard undergraduate degree. Many people that start in engineering end up in something like political science. It is far easier than engineering.

But there are rewards in engineering, and if there are young people that are paying attention to what we are discussing here on the floor of the U.S. Congress today, I would encourage them that engineering is a fantastic undergraduate choice, and it doesn't have to end up behind a drawing board. It ends up in all kinds of positions and opportunities to those who have a disciplined mind and are capable of understanding basic principles of how things work.

I have to say, in Congress it is tremendously helpful. I serve on the Committee on Armed Services, and we are constantly getting involved in technical kinds of questions, things like armor on Humvees, body armor, how to defeat IEDs, all of the technology of software and people tapping into databases. On the Science Committee, as well, we deal with all kinds of areas, everything from exploration of space to the simple use of materials.

I would encourage all young people to seriously consider engineering.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to discuss the question here about our dependence on foreign oil.

The leadership in the House of Representatives because of the last election has changed, but the problems that confront our Nation remain the same. The question is how are we going to deal with our dependence on foreign oil, and that is a serious question for many reasons.

Well, there are different ways to approach it, but it is certainly hard for the party of the Democrats that are now in charge to advocate a lot of nuclear because they have a lot of people who do not like that. Very well. And they really do not like burning a lot of fossil fuels because of global warming.

Well, what tool are we going to use? Well, we use our favorite tool, a tax increase. The only trouble with a tax increase, though, is what it is going to do is it is going to make the problem worse because when you increase the taxes on American oil and gas by $10 billion you make it less competitive, and if they are less competitive that means OPEC fills in the gap.

Now, is this just about the problem of $3 gasoline? The answer is no. It is about a lot more than that. When you go over to the Middle East, particularly a human rights trip that I took about a year or two ago to Pakistan, what you find is that there is a very nice country by the name of the Saudis who are funding private education so the little kids in Pakistan can learn. Well, until you find out what they are learning. They are being trained to be radical Islamic terrorists. And who is funding this? Saudi oil money, OPEC oil money.

So this question before us today is not just about SUV owners paying $3 for gasoline. It is a question about where is that money going and the radical Islamists that we are going to fund essentially with this tax increase.

So this is a bill that is trying to deal with a problem that is a serious problem, but a tax increase is not the way to go.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Catholic Schools Week.

The Nation's nearly 8,000 Catholic schools will celebrate Catholic Schools Week January 28 through February 3. Catholic schools have made many significant contributions to the education of our Nation's children.

Catholic schools have a longstanding and proud tradition in the Archdiocese of St. Louis. The percentage of Catholic families who choose Catholic schools for their children here is among the highest in the country. There are about 51,000 students enrolled in our Catholic elementary and high schools. Catholic schools foster an atmosphere of mutual respect. Students learn to value God, themselves, and others.

Today I would also like to recognize and commend our Catholic educators who are committed to a living faith community founded on the Catholic tradition of academic excellence and enriching the lives of the children they teach spiritually, academically and socially.

I strongly support the goals of Catholic Schools Week 2007 and laud their efforts to produce students dedicated to their faith, families, and values.

Mr. Speaker, there is a cynic that once said that one of the things that we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history. I don't accept that entirely, but it certainly appears to be that way on the floor of the U.S. Congress today.

You don't have to look in the recent past; you go back to 1640 in England. And they had wage and price controls. They thought it was a compassionate thing to set a price on a loaf of bread, a day's labor and a ton of coal. Then the Black Death came along and killed a whole lot of their workforce, and the price for a day's labor remained the same. England and their economy languished until a guy came along that the Brits don't even like by the name of Oliver Cromwell, and he abolished all of the government wage and price controls, and the economy surged.

The effect of an increase of 40 percent on minimum wage is going to be several things. The first thing it is going to do is: any job between the current minimum wage and the $7 is going to do one of several things. First, it will be exported overseas. If it is not exported, it will be taken on the black market by, perhaps, some illegal immigrant who is willing to work for less than the minimum wage. Or it will just be passed on to everybody as an increase in cost of living.

Those are the alternatives. It would be very nice if we could, by mandate from this floor, say that everybody is going to make a lot more than that. Why not $20 an hour? The reason is because what happens is we become less competitive, and we ship the jobs overseas.

We are proposing that if we are going to do this, particularly to all of these jobs in small businesses, that we at least give the small businesses some kind of a break to compensate and to try to provide some health care for some of those people. That is the reason why we are opposing just a straight 40 percent increase, because the effect is going to be, yes, some people are going to get more money, but a lot of jobs, it is just like taking the old chain saw out and chopping off another low rung in the ladder.

There are people who will end up in welfare accordingly. Vote ``no'' on House Resolution 2.

Mr. Speaker, I am one of the two Congressmen who serves on the board of this Truman Scholarship fund. As has been explained here today, it is a very good use of money to help students obtain these different scholarships, to prepare them for work in public service.

The problem is that the principal cannot be invested in a very flexible kind of way. That is why this is a modernization act, to allow us to use those funds. I think it is completely noncontroversial. I serve with a Member of the other party on that board. Everybody, as far as I know, is in agreement that this modernization needs to take place. It is going to result in more money for scholarships, and people will be better prepared for public service. It seems like everybody wins, and so I am a strong supporter. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6206.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, my Democrat colleague, on the other side of the aisle there is making reference, I believe, to a study that was done. The lead author of that was Susan Lee, who is a lawyer for NARAL. That is not exactly a credible witness.

And what we have on the other side of the argument, you have Dr. Myers and Dr. Bulich. They are authors of the textbook ``Anesthesia for Fetal Intervention and Surgery.'' They are professors at Harvard Medical School. And what they are explaining is that as we do these different routine operations to little children, before they are born, what we are doing is we are administering anesthesia because we understand that they feel pain. This is common practice in the medical community. And I am really amazed that anybody would be opposed to the idea of simply giving a mother a choice, a choice as to whether to administer anesthesia to her child. I mean, I hear these people. They say they are pro-choice, and here is something that is choice, you can administer anesthesia; oh, no, we are against that. You might impose on giving them this opportunity to administer anesthesia. I can't understand why anybody could oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor one of my constituents, Mr. Dennis Hahn, who has received a Certificate

of Merit from the Freedoms Foundation. The Freedoms Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to teaching young people the principles upon which our nation was founded. They work to convey the close link between the rights and the responsibilities of citizens in society.

Among other things, Dennis was recently nominated for the Freedoms Foundation ``George Washington Honor Medal'' because of his love of history in general and admiration for President Washington specifically. In a letter endorsing Dennis, James Cale, Superintendent for the City of St. Charles School District, summed up this way why he should be considered for the award:

``[T]he highest compliment I am able to pay Mr. Hahn and to his consideration for the George Washington Honor Medal is a simple one. I would like to be more like Dennis. His level of personal commitment, his ability to focus on service to others . . .'' and the way ``he leads his life with a total aura of personal humility'' is a ``model to my children, my friends and me.''

Elected in 1999, Dennis is currently the Board of Education President for the City of St. Charles School District located in my congressional district. His wife, Shirley, is a teacher in St. Charles.

I am honored to have the opportunity to recognize Dennis Hahn and congratulate him for receiving this Certificate of Merit from the Freedoms Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor one of my constituents, Mrs. June Lanz. June has been selected as the 2006-2007 Freedoms Foundation--Missouri (St. Louis) Chapter ``Spirit of '76-- Patriot''. The Freedoms Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to teaching young people the principles upon which our Nation was founded. They work to convey the close link between the rights and the responsibilities of citizens in society.

June is a thirty-nine-year member of the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution, DAR. As State Regent of the Missouri State Society DAR, June successfully placed the 1809 Cold Water Cemetery on the U.S. Department of the Interior's Register of Historic Places and restored and rededicated the Madonna of the Trail Statue in Lexington, Missouri.

June is a member of the Missouri Historical Society, the Freedoms Foundation of Valley Forge and a Friend of the St. Louis Art Museum. She has published a history of Missouri State Society Daughters of the Revolution, which includes American Revolutionary Patriots reported buried in Missouri. She has provided this to the National Society DAR and other research facilities.

Married fifty-five years, June and her husband, George Lanz, have four daughters and seven grandchildren.

As one who has a deep and abiding love for American history and the Patriots who have gone before us, I want to thank June Lanz for her commitment to preserving our history and congratulate her for being selected 2006-2007 ``Spirit of '76--Patriot''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to state for the record how deeply saddened I am by the recent death of Dr. Dennis Spellman.

As President of Lindenwood University in St. Charles Missouri since 1989, Dr. Spellman leaves a legacy of success. His unique leadership style resulted in the tremendous growth of Lindenwood from a small struggling college, to the beautiful sprawling campus of almost 3,500 students (living on campus) that it is today as Lindenwood University.

In my many conversations with Dr. Spellman over the past five and a half years, I was keenly aware of his convictions. He was a man of deep faith and commitment. He was a patriot and a proud American who made his life a reflection of what our forefathers intended in ``life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness''. His love and concern for the students and faculty under his charge was evident in the vigor and passion with which he approached every issue and hurdle he navigated.

As the Congressman for Missouri's second district, I know I speak for many, especially those in St. Charles County who are the most direct beneficiaries of the many successes of Lindenwood University during Dr. Spellman's tenure, when I say, he will be greatly missed.

Madam Speaker, I came here to discuss, I thought there would not be much discussion on the rule, because that is what we are supposed to be debating and discussing right now, the rule on the Pledge Protection Act.

Instead, most of the discussion that seems to come from the other side is complaining about priorities. I did not know that this is where we were going to complain about priorities. I suppose there are some connections.

It seems that judging by the comments in the Rules Committee yesterday, that the Democrats have a very hard time understanding the importance of the Pledge or the words ``under God'' or even the first amendment, which is about free speech. They seem to consider that to be a rather minor thing, and that perhaps may fit in with their view of government.

But I would recall that if you were to summarize what America stands for, we have always stood for the idea, the simple principle, that there is a God, even though we disagree as to who He might be, who gives basic inalienable rights to all people, and that it is the job of government to protect those rights.

That is, in a sense, a formula that Americans have gone to war about through the ages. That is why we went to war with King George, that is why

we fought the War of Independence, because we believed in that basic formula.

The Democrats are saying now that formula is not very important, we should not give it time to discuss it or think about it. But if they spent a little more time thinking about it, they would realize that is why we are in the war against these radical Islamists, why we fight the war of terror, why our sons and daughters are overseas.

The reason we fight is because these terrorists take away people's innocent lives and blow them up for political statements. We fight because these terrorists want to terrorize, to take away people's freedom. And the other side, the Democrats, want to cut and run from that fight. They would not want to cut and run if they understood the importance of those basic principles and that inalienable rights are impossible without a recognition of God, and that is why the Pledge bill is important and not irrelevant or trivial.

And so while we hear all of these discussions about, oh, you are not doing this, you are not doing that, you are not doing the other thing, fortunately government can do more than one thing at a time. There are many people at work in government.

The energy bill was brought up. I am surprised that the Democrats would mention the energy bill. It would be an embarrassment to me if I were a Democrat, and the Republicans had brought an energy bill on this floor in 2001, and it was killed by Democrats in the Senate. 2002, we brought an energy bill. That was killed by Democrats in the Senate. 2003, we brought an energy bill. It was killed by the Democrats in the Senate. And 2004, the Democrats killed it again. Finally in 2005, we get an energy bill.

If I were a Democrat, I would not be talking about energy prices after basically filibustering an energy bill for 5 years.

Madam Speaker, the question has been placed: Is there really a need for this legislation? And I think the statement was made, inaccurately, that there was just only one time that the Pledge had been challenged as being unconstitutional.

The words ``under God'' were found by the Ninth Circuit to be unconstitutional. It was not once. It was done first by a three-judge panel there. They came to the conclusion that school kids are not allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance. They were then backed up by the entire Ninth Circuit that supported that same position.

The case then went to the U.S. Supreme Court. If we could be so assured that the phrase ``one Nation under

God,'' Madam Speaker, that is over your head is safe, if the words ``in God we trust'' on our money is safe, well, then certainly the words ``under God'' in our Pledge should be safe. So the Supreme Court could simply have ruled this is a ridiculous and a silly case that the Ninth Circuit has sent to the Supreme Court; we strike down their decision. They could have ruled that way.

I was there when the case was heard. The President's attorney recommended that the Court dismiss the case based on lack of standing of the person who brought the case. And one of the Supreme Court judges said we consider that the lower courts will take care of whether or not somebody has standing; that is not the kind of issue we consider. And yet on deliberation, instead of striking the Ninth Circuit decision, the Court said, oh, we are going to dismiss it for lack of standing.

That gives many of us very little cause to not be concerned not only with our Pledge, but with the money that says ``in God we trust,'' ``in God we trust'' over the Speaker's chair, and ``one Nation under God'' on our money. So it is a matter of debate whether or not there is a threat here, but this is the same Court who not so long ago made the decision that we could also ignore the fifth amendment and redistribute private property to other people without it being for government use. If they would ignore the fifth amendment, is it possible they might turn the first amendment upside down and use it as a tool of censorship? Certainly, many authorities think so.

This bill has merit, and it needs serious consideration. We take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. That includes the first amendment, and this is about free speech, not censorship.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to introduce the Pledge Protection Act and just to give a quick and brief history as to why it is important. We have heard some discussion that this is really not necessary, that we can rest assured that the words of the Pledge of Allegiance will just stand firm forever. Unfortunately, that is not what our recent history shows.

First of all, three judges on the Ninth Circuit Court in California ruled that the words ``under God'' are unconstitutional. They were supported by the entire Ninth Circuit.

The case went to the Supreme Court, and I was there at the hearing at the Supreme Court. The President's attorney there argued that the Supreme Court should kick the case out because the person, Mr. Newdow, bringing the case did not have standing. The response of one of the Judges was, as a Supreme Court we never kick a case out based on standing, because we assume the lower courts have already taken care of that.

Why did the Supreme Court do this? They could easily have ruled that the Pledge is just fine, that it is completely constitutional. Is that their ruling? No. They kicked the case out based on standing.

So we believe that there are not five Judges on the Court, which is what it would take to uphold the Pledge of Allegiance. Hence we use a constitutional authority granted to us from the Founders that wrote the Constitution to protect the Pledge of Allegiance. That constitutional authority is known as Article III, section 2.

What we do is we create a very simple fence around the Federal court system. We say just regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, that no Federal Court has authority to hear a claim that the Pledge is unconstitutional. So we put a fence around the Federal court system.

Well, what does that mean, if somebody really wants to make a claim that the Pledge is unconstitutional? It means that they go to their local State courts, with the ultimate decisions being made in 50 separate supreme courts and a court here in the District of Columbia. So that is the reason for why we need to pass the Pledge Protection Act.

It seems a bit ironic that some people will complain about the fact that we have no respect for the Constitution and that we are eroding the separation of powers, and yet it is the very Constitution that gives Congress the authority and the responsibility to stand up to the Court when they are misusing the Constitution. If you claim you respect the Constitution, part of that is the first amendment, and the first amendment to the Constitution is about free speech. It is not about censorship.

To say that a child cannot say the Pledge of Allegiance is a form of censorship. The Court has already ruled that no child has to say the Pledge. But now the Court wants to go the other step and say no, we are going to use the first amendment about free speech to say that you cannot say the Pledge. We must step in.

Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman made the scenario, let's assume the bill passes that we are discussing now, is signed by the President.

Now is law. What happens then is you are going to a particular State, you are saying West Virginia. And what happens is that a school board or something like that in the State decides to just basically go against what is already established Supreme Court policy.

From 1944, the Supreme Court made the ruling that nobody is required to say the Pledge of Allegiance. We have no interest in changing that. We think that is good policy.

What you are saying is, first of all, you are making, obviously you are taking this to a pretty extreme situation. You are saying a whole series of courts in West Virginia are going to overturn Supreme Court policy on the fact that people have to say the Pledge.

So first of all, they are going completely against what the Federal courts have already established. They then expose themselves to the checks and balances within that State. In at least 45, probably more, of the States, there are provisions where those judges can be removed by the people of that State.

Well, the situation is that you are dependent on this bill with the various checks and balances on the Supreme Courts in the States. That is, those justices could be impeached for violating the Supreme Court.

And the voters of that State. It depends on the State laws.

The bottom line is we have a system of republics. We have a system of federalism. We have 51 established republics, one federated and 50 States.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by quoting a person who I believe is the founder, or at least acknowledged as the father, of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson. His words encased in stone on his monument read: ``The God that gave us life gave us liberty.'' It goes on to say: ``Can the liberties of a people be secure if we remove the conviction that those liberties are the gift of God?''

The author of our Declaration well understood that it is impossible to assert that we have inalienable rights and at the same time ignore the person that gave us the inalienable rights, the God that provided those rights itself.

This question goes to the heart of what America has always stood for and always fought for. We believe that there is a God that gives basic rights to all people, and it is the job of the government to protect those rights. If the courts come to the decision that we cannot acknowledge God, then we have ripped the heart out of the logic of what makes America, the fact that our rights come from God Himself, and we have thumbed our nose at Thomas Jefferson and our Declaration and our 300-plus years of history.

Now we have good reason to fear that the Court will not be content to ignore just the fifth amendment and say that you can take private property from people and redistribute it without a public purpose, but that they may also decide to take the first amendment and turn it upside down and use it as a sword of censorship rather than an oasis of free speech.

I am not persuaded by the pious hand-wringing of liberal activists who flinch not at the courts' unfettered march to create some imagined utopia at the expense of the separation of powers in the Constitution itself.

It is time for the Congress to reassert our legislative authority. It is time for the Congress to signal an end to the courts' freewheeling forays of unchecked legislative license.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

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

Essentially what our bill does, if you want to put it in a simple word picture, we are creating a fence. The fence goes around the Federal judiciary. We do that because we don't trust them. We don't trust them because of previous decisions and because of the simple fact that there are not five votes on the Supreme Court to protect our beloved Pledge of Allegiance. And 80 percent to 90 percent of Americans would like to leave the Pledge of Allegiance the way it is.

So what does this amendment do? This amendment simply opens a big hole in the fence. So the gentleman from Iowa was absolutely right: this is a gutting amendment. There is absolutely no reason to pass the bill if this amendment were to pass. We simply allow the Supreme Court to come in whenever they choose, turn the first amendment upside down and simply say to kids, you are not allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance, and we are going to use the first amendment from now on as a weapon instead of for free speech to censorship on the courts.

So I am not persuaded by the pious hand-wringing of liberal activists who flinch not at the courts' unfettered march to create some imagined utopia at the expense of the separation of powers. It is time for us to do our job as Congressmen. It is time to assert ourselves, that we will not give unchecked legislative authority to the courts. We have been too long rolling

over to them. It is time to stand up and say on the Pledge of Allegiance, enough is enough.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Arizona, Trent Franks.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, could I just ask, is the other side going to be speaking on the amendment?

That is a good assumption.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment and the reason it was added, to some degree in a last-minute nature, was because of the Hamden decision. The Hamden decision, a majority of the Supreme Court on an Article III, section 2 question said that because a particular issue, in this case it was Gitmo, was being considered in the courts, that the article III, section 2 language didn't apply.

Now, this is completely inconsistent with all previous rulings of the Supreme Court. But we thought, just to be safe, that what we would do here would be to add language that makes it clear that not only does this bill consider any future cases that are brought before the court, the Federal courts, but also existing cases, in this case, again, the challenge to the Pledge that is already in the Federal court system and is before the Ninth Circuit out in California and some of the States in the West. So that was the reason for this technical and perfecting amendment, certainly to clarify, just simply to clarify that this bill would apply not only to future legislation but cases that are currently before the Court.

Along those lines, I think it is very important for us to once again affirm the importance of our discussion and our debate here today. It is ultimately the job of the legislative branch and the executive branch to provide some check and balance on the Supreme Court.

There would be no argument from me if the Supreme Court based all of their decisions on the rules, that is the U.S. Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has gone beyond that increasingly, and it is our concern that they will go well beyond the U.S. Constitution in considering this case.

We have every reason to believe that we do not have five Justices that will support the Pledge. We have every reason to believe that the Pledge could easily be struck, and it is for that reason that this bill has been introduced.

Now, some would say that, in fact I believe the minority leader called what is going on on this floor a charade. I think that is a rather harsh way of describing people that have a genuine interest in the Pledge of Allegiance, have a genuine interest in the heart of what this good Nation was based on, the idea that there is, in fact, a God that grants basic inalienable rights to all people, and that the job of government is to protect those basic rights.

Part of that U.S. Constitution includes the first amendment, and the first amendment has to do with free speech. I can understand the use of the first amendment to say to someone, you are not required to give an oath that you don't believe in. But I cannot understand how you can look at free speech as a tool to censor school children across America from saying that they cannot, they are going to censor the Pledge of Allegiance, they cannot say the Pledge of Allegiance.

This is the time for this Congress to stand up, to be strong, and to take notice of the fact that the Court will no longer be making these forays of absolutely unchecked legislative decision-making. And it is time for us to stand up and say no to a Court that is effectively trying to create their own set of rules instead of reading the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, I think that there is good evidence from the way that the Court has handled the fifth amendment in allowing the redistribution of private property willy nilly, without a government purpose, I think there is good reason to be concerned as the Court has taken to itself a power to tax, which is unconstitutional. There is good reason for us to be concerned about the Court's overrunning their constitutional bounds.

It is time for us to show the backbone to stand up to the Court. It is time for us to say no to this unregulated, general legislative authority.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, the debate before us today, as has been highlighted by people from both sides of the aisle, is about a definition of marriage. I think that the point that in the subtlest way has to be made clear, it is something that most Americans understand logically, and that is marriage is not about love; it is about a love that can bear children. There is a difference.

I love my parents. I love my family. I have friends that I love. But I love my wife and we are married. Marriage is a love that bears children and replenishes society along those lines.

I have been married personally for 31 years. We have six children and even a grandson. The children are doing well. One is a first lieutenant that just came back from Fallujah. The other two sons are over at the Naval Academy. I have two daughters that have not gone off to school yet.

All of those children, growing up with a mother and a father, have understood the first primitive concepts of government. They have understood what it is like to live under authority. They understand what it is like to work hard. They have learned to walk and to talk and to get along with each other and all of those things.

We also know that historically the people that are filling our prisons, the people who socially get in trouble a lot are statistically people who have not had the blessings of a loving mother and father and a stable home. It doesn't mean that people can't get in trouble when they come from that background, but statistically it is a lot easier for a child to grow up with the benefit of a loving home with a mother and a father.

So from a practical point of view, to preserve our civilization and society, it is important for us to preserve marriage. It is not just love; it is a love that produces children.

We ask ourselves, well, is this such a big debate? Really it shouldn't be. We have 45 States that have passed legislation saying a marriage is between a man and a woman. Also anybody who knows something about the history of the human race knows that there is no civilization which has condoned homosexual marriage widely and openly that has long survived.

It is for the practical reason that marriage is about bringing the next generation along, and it works best with one dad and one mom. That is what a great majority of Americans believe.

So it is sad that we have to basically tell our courts, because of their activist nature, the beliefs of such a great block of Americans.

I will conclude my comments by doing something that I don't know that I have done on the floor before, and that is to call attention to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Colorado, Marilyn Musgrave, who has had the courage to do what seems so obvious, so obvious to at least 45 States' worth of Americans, to bring this amendment to the floor.

For her efforts to defend plain old traditional marriage, she has had millions of dollars thrown against her, and even a television ad that I have seen of some fat pink-dressed lady that is stealing jewelry off a corpse. She has had to put up with that.

I say to you, Congresswoman Musgrave, we are proud of you, and we thank you for standing up for something that is so foundational to our society.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring the Sisters of Mercy in my hometown, St. Louis, Missouri on the 150th anniversary of their arrival to the United States. Throughout their long years of service the Sisters have tirelessly devoted themselves to sacrificial living--assisting the poor, the sick, and the uneducated throughout Missouri communities.

This tradition of service began on June 27, 1856, when the Sisters of Mercy arrived in St. Louis to open St. Francis Xavier Parish School at the request of then Archbishop Peter J. Kenrick. The Sisters later expanded their ministry beyond the school walls, establishing an orphanage, instituting an industrial school for single-parent children, beginning a Sunday school course for African American women, and continuously visiting the poor, sick, and imprisoned. The Sisters in these ministries frequently incurred personal sacrifices, but this did not deter them from their good works.

In spite of their worthy efforts, the Sisters of Mercy frequently encountered obstacles throughout their service including shortages of food and clothing, as well as insufficient funding. With undying faith and dedication, however, the Sisters were able to overcome these challenges. In their many years of service, the Sisters of Mercy have worked at five high schools and more than 20 parish elementary schools. Additionally, the Sisters have been active in healthcare since 1871, when they converted their original school into a hospital that continues to provide medical care today. After 150 years of service to students, families, the sick, and the underprivileged, the Sisters of Mercy have demonstrated their great commitment to the St. Louis community. Today we recognize their efforts with the best of our admiration and gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this debate is helpful. I think that whenever you get into a complicated project, even if you are solving a physics problem, many times it is helpful to just stop, stop right where you are and say to yourself, just using common sense, are we on the right track?

I think we should stand back from the war for just a moment tonight and ask that simple question: Are we on the right track? And we can think about this country that we love so dearly, the flag that we have just celebrated, and all that makes America special.

But what happens if you were to try to condense the goodness that we love in America into a formula, which is, which really states what Americans have been for all time?

If you were like an onion to peel off the outer things of hot dogs and baseball, what would be the core that makes America what we love? I would suggest that the answer to that question is found in your birthday document, the Declaration, that says, we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

And it goes on to say the job of government is to protect those rights. And that is what we have fought wars all through history, to support that basic idea. And so should it surprise us this evening to find ourselves on the battlefield against terrorists?

Let's see. Terrorists blow up innocent people. We say, innocent people have a life that is given them by God. They say they want to terrorize so that people cannot be free, to compel you to do what you do not want to do.

We say, liberty is a gift of God. And so it should be no surprise, just as we have found ourselves in the War of Independence and the wars against Hitler and the other wars of our history, that we are arrayed against people who have no respect for the formula that has made America so great.

And just as in the past, there is a cost. You know, my own son just came back from Fallujah. They say that the cost of freedom is not free. And the parents all across our country, just as my wife and I did, would look at the local paper in the morning. We would say, oh, three marines killed in Fallujah. I wonder if my son is one of them.

No, freedom is not free. But we were proud that our son, just as other families are proud of their children, can carry on that same tradition that the patriots did. That is what makes us feel so good when we see the flag flying, the heart and soul of America, that there is indeed a God that gives basic rights to people and government should protect those rights. And the terrorists will not stand, because that formula does not apply just to Americans; it applies to people all over the world.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman taking the time to take a look at this subject that obviously is so important to us, the whole area of border security and immigration. There are so many different facets to this. I just wanted to ask a question or two.

Aside from the technology of how do you enforce the border, how do you build at least from a physical point of view or a deterrent point of view, some of the different aspects of this question because the more that people look at it, it seems like there are more and more questions.

One is you have a couple of parents that are illegal immigrants. They have children. My understanding is that some of our judges have decided those children become automatically American citizens. But I also understand that could be very easily challenged, whether the Constitution should be understood in that way. I think that is one of the issues that we are dealing with.

Another one is the question of English as a language. Do we enforce the things that have made us unique as a Nation? Do we make English the official language of the United States? We assume it is, but we have never passed a law to do that very thing.

There are other questions. There are questions about the employees, whether employers should check Social Security numbers, names and birthdays before they hire somebody. Are we going to enforce that law or are we going to ignore it and go in the other direction?

All of these are significant questions. If it is all right, I would just inquire if you would like to talk about those questions in a little more detail with the time we have.

My understanding is the same thing. The understanding of that section in the Constitution dated back about to the time of the Civil War and it was dealing with a different situation and it does not necessarily apply to two people who are here illegally, or just the automatic granting of citizenship just because of where are you born.

From my understanding, we could pass a law, and it might be challenged and the courts would have to take a look at that, but there is a good case that could be made to support what you are saying, which is if we are going to talk about birthright, there needs to be at least one parent that is a citizen of the United States.

Also, it troubles me that America, and one of the things I love about this country is the fact that America has always been a place where there is just one class of people. We call them Americans. From our Declaration of Independence it says ``all men are created equal.'' That means equal before the law. Nobody is better than anybody else. We have one class of Americans.

Yet by us ignoring our own laws on immigration, de facto we are starting to move into or create sort of a second class of citizen that does not really have any rights. They are not subject to the minimum wage or any of those things. They do not have a chance to be part of organized labor or anything like that. They simply come here and if they say anything, they are threatened that they can be sent back over the border. We are almost creating a second class of citizenship, and that concerns me a lot.

I think it is absolutely time that we start to enforce the laws that apply to immigration in this country. There are some people who want to argue that we do not have a right to make any laws that control immigration. That is an interesting question, but we really have two choices. We either say we are going to open the borders wide open and no law is legitimate whatsoever, or we are going to enforce the laws we have. If we cannot enforce them, we can take them off the books.

The thing that concerns me is this whole idea of shifting what America really is, which is one people, Americans, instead of us being so weak in terms of enforcing law that we are starting to create a different America and one where people are not all equal.

I do not know if you have thought about that concept of two classes of Americans. It is very distasteful to me.

The American dream, live and well.

Mr. Speaker, some of the studies that I have seen, the people that get hurt the most by having illegal immigrants working are the people at the lower end of the wage scale, because those are the people taking the jobs that would have been taken by people who are legal citizens of this country, people who waited in line, people who took the classes on citizenship. Now all of a sudden they want to be able to take a job and there is somebody who is taking the job for a couple of dollars less. Those are the ones that are hurt the most by this process of what is going on.

I guess the bottom line is that one of the things that people say is if you want less of something, you tax it. If you want more of it, you subsidize it. My concern is that some of the discussion I am hearing from the other body

and not so much from the House here is the idea that we are going to make it easy for the illegals just to basically give them citizenship or amnesty. My concern is whatever you reward, get more of.

In 1986, we granted amnesty to a number of people, and then we had a huge wave of other illegals coming here saying pretty soon they will do that again.

We need to avoid making that mistake, make the tough decision and say no amnesty and say we are going to enforce our laws. We have to say we are going to let the people waiting in line trying to follow our laws, we are going to reward those people and not reward law breakers.

My concern is that any proposal we deal with would not be rewarding law breakers because if we do, we will encourage more of them. I think those reasons, economic reasons and many others, we need to take a very good look at our policy on border security and immigration.

I know that you have done some innovative work in terms of what can be done on the border.

In some ways to have certain crossings where everybody knows that is where you go through and we stop just these hordes of thousands of people coming across every day. I really appreciate your imagination and your good work and also your scheduling this time to talk about what I believe is one of the questions that is really foremost on the minds and hearts of many Americans.

We all have a great deal of respect for the American Dream and for the fact that we are really all Americans. I do not even like to use the word ``class.'' I do not think it applies in America. But I know that you have that love and respect for this country, and I appreciate your taking a tough issue this afternoon and dealing with it, and I appreciate the fact that your views on this subject are ones which are going to strengthen our country overall. So thank you very much for taking a little time on that subject.