Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution calls upon the other body to advise and give consent to judicial nominations. For 214 years, they have done this effectively. Yet, today, we see what is becoming a constitutional crisis which is completely unprecedented,

and that is the use of the filibuster to basically stop the confirmation process both for circuit court and Supreme Court nominations.

In light of this mounting problem, it may become necessary to restore the confirmation process by adjusting the rules in the Senate. Of course, the Constitution gives the Senate the right and the authority to govern itself and has set up its own rulemaking. In fact, the Democrats in the Senate, when they were in the majority, advocated the total removal of the filibuster in 1995, and that was voted for by Senators Boxer, Harkin, and Kennedy, and some others. So there has been discussion on this subject in the past.

But we are not suggesting the removal of the filibuster, not at all. But we do not stand for the complete filibuster of judicial appointments. Rather, the so-called Constitutional Option actually is a very narrow rule change, and it affects only the Supreme Court and circuit court nominees.

So, once again, we come back to where we have been for 214 years, and that is the fact that never, never in the history of this Republic has it ever happened that a judge that was supported by a majority was denied the right to have a simple vote on whether or not they could serve. Never in our history has a nominee with clear majority support failed to receive a vote in the U.S. Senate. This is our long-standing tradition.

We believe that at least a majority should have the right to cast a vote on whether or not we will seat a judge, and that is all that we are talking about. It is an essential tenet of our whole representative form of government, the idea that there should not be some tyranny which makes it so nobody can even have a chance to vote. And that is certainly a new use of the filibuster and something which threatens to shut down our entire confirmation process for the courts.

We have never embraced a system in which it requires 60 votes to confirm a judge, and we should not be doing that now. With this change, Mr. Smith can still come to Washington, he can still filibuster legislation, but our constitutional call to confirm judges will continue so that the work of the judiciary may go on without the obstruction that we have been seeing in the last several years.

Mr. Speaker, about 50 percent of Americans or so are employed in small businesses, and obviously if something is employing almost half of Americans that are working, that should be a priority. And one can imagine my surprise the other day to find out about a guy who drove up to a bank in an old Ford, about a 15-year-old Ford pickup truck, with rust holes in the floor. He went into that bank and he took out a loan for $2 million. And the head of the bank was inquiring of the guy that is the accountant that handles our books that I have to do as a Congressman. He said, Why in the world did this guy have to take a $2 million loan out? And it particularly seemed out of place with this guy with his old rusty holes in his pickup truck.

He said, His father just died and they have to pay the estate tax on the farm.

I had heard stories like that before, but there it was right in front of me.

So what this bill is seeking to do is to try to make it possible that we do not destroy farms and small businesses that employ close to half the people that have jobs in our country; and that seems to be only reasonable. And yet I am hearing the Democrats saying over here that they are all upset because we have already taxed a dollar the first time the guy earns it; then we are going to tax him again on sales tax and other things he buys, and now it is not fair to tax a dollar the third time it comes around.

It just seems to me we do not want to destroy the businesses and farms. What we want to do is make those jobs available, and we want to get rid of this death tax. Just dying should not be a reason for taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Pope John Paul II. The Holy Father held a special place in the hearts of more than 1 billion Catholics worldwide. For many younger people, he was the only Pope they had ever known. However, his influence was by no means limited to the Catholic community. Rather, his moral courage and spiritual passion gave encouragement, clarity, and strength to people around the globe.

My hometown of St. Louis was honored by a visit by the Pope in January of 1999. The arrival of the Pope to the birthplace of the first cathedral west of the Mississippi was truly an honor and Americans poured into St. Louis to participate in prayer services, a rally and celebration mass.

Of particular note was the enthusiasm of the young people who came to a rally held in St. Louis on the evening of January 26, 1999. Reaching out to young people truly seemed to be a characteristic of this Pope.

The Holy Father spoke not only to the Catholic community, but to men and women of conscience on every continent. Most notable may be his courage in standing for a culture of life, as well as defying communism and standing in solidity with those opposed to that great evil. That courage will be noted in history as a fulcrum that turned the wheel of history from dictatorship to freedom.

His defense of the culture of life is best embodied in his own words given in October 1979 right here in Washington, D.C.

Let me quote just for a moment. ``I do not hesitate to proclaim before you and before the world that all human life is sacred, because human life is created in the image and likeness of God. And so, we will stand up every time that human life is threatened. When the sacredness of life before birth is attacked, we will stand up and proclaim that no one ever has the authority to destroy unborn human life.''

In recent decades I believe there have been no more stirring or inspiring words to encourage those of us who believe in protecting unborn life than these. The Pope's consistent fight for the sanctity of life never wavered. His defense of life extended from the moment of conception to natural death. His heart was always toward the weak and powerless, those whose voices were silenced cruelly or unjustly.

The same defiant commitment to human dignity animated his resolve to oppose communism. In the 1980s, communism faced three implacable foes: Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II. The Pope's courageous and historic leadership emboldened the downtrodden people of Poland and all of Eastern Europe to say, ``Enough.'' He deserves the thanks of all people for that critical role in consigning the former Soviet Union and its satellite dictatorships in human memory.

Pope John Paul will be fondly remembered as a person of great energy and courage and faith, a man who did not shrink from fascism when he entered into an underground seminary in Poland during Nazi occupation, nor from communism when he challenged the world to rid itself of that evil. In his final years, he countenanced great personal suffering with great dignity. He died as he lived, with bravery and faith.

Today we honor his memory. May we always honor his legacy.

Mr. Speaker, today Members of Congress have come from all over the Country, WTA to uphold the most essential right that any of us posses the right to life.

As we stand here today, a woman is dying. She dies not as the result of an underlying disease or illness, but because a judge has decided that her life is not one worth living. This despite evidence that she makes attempts to respond to her parents, cries, follows movement with her eyes. With such evidence and her parents crying out in her defense, how can we not intervene?

As we stand here in Washington, Terri is being starved to death. We refer to the ``removal of feeding tubes,'' but let's talk about what is really happening. Not only has a tube delivering food and water been removed, but her parents have been barred from even putting ice chips on her tongue. Yesterday, advocates were arrested for attempting to bring water to Terri. To bar parents and relatives from offering the most basic of comforts to a dying loved one is not only an egregious overreach of judicial powers it is cruel and morally wrong. I ask, is this about removing a tube or about starving a disabled woman?

Some will argue that this is about Terri's right to die. Yet, Terri has no living will, no Do Not Resuscitate order and her husband's claim that she would not want to be kept alive only surfaced years after she became disabled.

Last week this body passed legislation that would protect all Americans in cases similar to this one, but Senate democrats stood in the way of that valuable measure. Now for nearly sixty hours, Terri has been denied sustenance while Republican leadership in both Houses have negotiated the legislation before us today. Though I regret that certain members of this body and the Senate, stood in the way of passing the legislation. approved last week, I am pleased that we now have an opportunity to vote on this measure.

This bill does not ensure Terri's survival, but it does give her and her parents an opportunity similar to that which we make available to murderers sentenced to death row. Under this legislation Terri's case will be reassessed in a federal court and we expect that she will be fed once again. It is my hope that the federal court will handle this case better than the egregious dereliction of judicial duty exhibited in the Florida Court.

Mr. Speaker, regardless of the motives of those who would remove Terri's link to life, their judgment would violate the most cherished right endowed to all persons: the right to life. We stand today not for political purposes, but consistent with our constitutional duty to sustain that right for every citizen.

Mr. Speaker, in December, the Standing Committee of the Chinese National People's Congress announced its intention to include an ``anti-secession law'' in its legislative agenda. This law would define China and Taiwan as a unified country, and unilaterally change mainland China's legal approach to status of Taiwan. This is an unwelcome and provocative action that would increase, rather than calm, tensions in the region.

In 1949, China and Taiwan were separated by civil war, each establishing its own form of government. Taiwan has never been a part of the People's Republic of China, much to the dismay of Beijing.

If the legislation passes, Beijing will be usurping all diplomatic efforts and simply declaring that its desired outcome is the only acceptable alternative to the current impasse. China has been claiming that this legislation is a reflection of its sincere desire to solve this dispute peacefully, and to maintain Taiwan's stability and prosperity. But Beijing real motivation is clear: China is laying the legal groundwork for forcible unification. And far from solving the dispute peacefully, passage of this law is tantamount to a demand. If unification is to occur, it must be through peaceful negotiation and without the threat of military action.

Understandably, the Taiwanese people are alarmed by China's action. Self-ruled Taiwan cannot be expected to accept such an affront to the legitimacy of its government and the self-determination of the Taiwanese people. Taiwan's government has said that if the anti- secession law passes, Taiwan would be forced to respond with a law against annexation by the People's Republic of China. This is entirely reasonable, as any free people would affirm their opposition to the imperialistic claims of another power.

Our country must make its deep displeasure with an ``anti-secession law'' known to the world and, most specifically, to the Communist leaders on the mainland. In The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, the United States committed to aiding Taiwan against any unilateral attempt by China to unify Taiwan with the mainland. This responsibility is not only a legal one. Taiwan is a budding democracy, and the people have participated in multi-party democratic elections since 1996. By contrast, China is a repressive regime that denies its citizens the essential freedoms of religion, political dissent and representative self-government. It is our responsibility, morally and legally, to stand with Taiwan against Communist aggression and unsound Chinese law.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) congratulating ASME on their 125th anniversary, celebrating the achievements of ASME members, and expressing the gratitude of the American people for ASME's contributions.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. Con. Res. 13.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 13, a resolution recognizing the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME, on the occasion of its 125th anniversary.

125 years ago, a group of prominent mechanical engineers gathered in the New York offices of the ``American Machinist'' to form what ultimately became ASME, one of the premier professional engineering organizations for technical education and research issues. Since 1880, ASME has worked to advance technological knowledge and facilitate the transfer of information from research to application.

Significant among ASME's many achievements is its efforts to improve the safety and reliability of equipment, especially boilers. In the year that ASME was founded, nearly 160 boiler explosions occurred in the U.S., each of which brought death and injury. During this period of industrial growth, boilers were becoming larger, more numerous and dangerous.

On March 10, 1905, a boiler explosion at the Brockton Shoe Factory resulted in 58 deaths and 117 injuries and completely leveled the factory. Terrible accidents like Brockton drove the creation of ASME's comprehensive Boiler Code, a set of standards to ensure the reliability and predictability of machine design and production. Quickly adopted by most States, this code virtually eliminated boiler explosions in the United States.

Today, ASME has thousands of volunteers working on committees that combine to issue more than 600 standards, ensuring proper specifications for a wide range of manufactured items. From the pressure valve of boilers to the threads on a screw, these standards ensure that equipment fits and holds safely, protecting American workers and the general public.

Some of our most prominent Americans have helped found ASME and many of our greatest innovators have occupied its board. Many will recognize the names of such members as Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and George Westinghouse.

ASME continues this proud tradition more than a century later, engaging men and women of substance in emerging and future technical fields and cultivating the next generation of industrial leaders. In fact, ASME fellows can be found in the Halls of Congress and throughout the administration, providing valuable insight on legislation, regulation, and policies related to technology and the practice of engineering. The ASME members are tireless advocates for quality science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education for students of all ages.

For 125 years of service to the U.S., I want to extend my warmest and heartfelt congratulations and sincere appreciation to President Harry Armen and the members of ASME for their strong and inspired leadership. I look forward to our continued association and future ASME achievements.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Kevin F. Kast, an exceptional leader from my district in St. Charles, Missouri. Kevin recently announced his retirement as President of three major health facilities--SSM St. Joseph Health Center, SSM Joseph Hospital West and SSM Joseph Medical Park in St. Charles County.

I have known Kevin for many years, and I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge and praise him for his years of service, not only to SSM St. Joseph, but also to the St. Charles community at large. Kevin is a visionary and a compassionate, energetic, and inspiring leader.

Under Kevin's leadership, SSM St. Joseph has earned a variety of local, state and national honors. It is the first recipient of the MissouriPRO Quality Award, and twice has been named by Solucient as one of the 100 Top HospitalsTM in the country. SSM St. Joseph is a member of SSM Health Care, the first health care winner of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award.

Kevin has been active in St. Charles County and our larger region with memberships in many civic, professional and volunteer organizations, and has an impressive list of personal accomplishments.

Again, I am pleased to be able to honor Kevin Kast today. He is a shining example of the great leadership we have in Missouri and I know all of my colleagues join me in wishing him the very best as he begins the next chapter in his life and career.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act. This is not about who is running the media, this is about the question of the shock jocks who have been pushing the moral envelope for all too long and the vulgar and indecent comments that come over the public airwaves.

I think that seems to be a very different subject than who happens to own how many shares of stock somewhere. And there was, of course, the Bono use of vulgarity during the Golden Globe Awards, and of course the infamous Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction during last year's Super Bowl and the half-time show.

This was the last straw for many Americans, and families and parents and concerned viewers erupted in outrage, and rightly so. There is simply no excuse for that crudeness on the public airwaves. I want to emphasize that the anecdotes I just cited are only among the most well- known commercial media strident efforts to edge ever further into the terrain of immorality and debasement.

I commend outgoing Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Powell for showing leadership and for enforcing decency regulations. But at a time where a 30-second television ad costs $2.4 million, is a $32,500 cap on penalties, that seems almost absurd.

The legislation before us today would give the FCC true enforcement authority. It increases the cap to half a million dollars, which is a significant fine. It allows the fines to occur per violation instead of per broadcast, and it also permits the fines to be levied against individuals as well as broadcasters and establishes a three-strikes- and-you-are-out policy.

Each of those provisions strengthens the FCC's ability to enforce existing decency regulations and protect the airwaves, and thereby ordinary Americans, from offensive material.

So I would urge that we proceed on the subject before us, which is dealing with these offenses, and worry about the other questions about who owns stocks where at a different time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 36.

Once again, activist judges threaten our authority, first of all, to direct Federal fund spending; and, second of all, they attempt to create law.

We have required here in Congress at universities that receive Federal dollars to extend access to military recruiters equal to other outside groups. But in the name of free speech and association, some schools seek to deny their students access to recruiters and ROTC, obviously afraid that their students would maybe even make a wrong choice.

It is ironic that an institution whose sole function, whole reason for being, is based on the free exchange of ideas, would then boycott the Armed Forces, the very people who actively protect their academic freedom.

It is further ironic that those who are often noted for concern that low-income Americans are serving in disproportionate numbers in the Armed Forces would block many of their students born with a silver spoon access to ROTC.

My own son currently serves in Iraq. He graduated near the top of his class from the U.S. Naval Academy; and, last Sunday, he had the satisfaction of witnessing the birth of freedom in a land where for 50 years freedom has been an exotic concept.

By passing H. Con. Res. 36, we reassert our support for freedom and our disdain for those liberal, elite institutions that seek to sensor choices for their wealthy clientele.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Peter H. Diamandis, the X Prize Foundation and SpaceshipOne. The X Prize Foundation is based in St. Louis and SpaceShipOne is the now famous commercial rocket which won the Foundation's $10 million award for successfully completing two trips into space within a 14-day time span on October 4, 2004. Without the leadership and initiative of Peter H. Diamandis, president and founder of the Foundation, this historic feat would not have been accomplished.

Resurrecting the ingenuity of the Spirit of St. Louis Organization and the legacy of Charles Lindbergh, the X Prize Foundation ensures that Americans will continue to lead. The X Prize Foundation utilized the inspiration and ``can-do spirit'' so characteristic of other great American entrepreneurs and innovators. Astounding the world and catapulting the commercial aviation industry into a new economic stratosphere, Charles Lindbergh's flight in 1927 was truly transformative. Lindbergh proved that the vision and leadership of the individual and private industry compose the greatest impetus to secure new technology and expand the horizons of human accomplishment. Seventy-seven years later, the X Prize Foundation provided the opportunity for pilots Brian Binnie and Michael Melvill to complete the two trips in order to claim the prize. With this most recent triumph, the horizon is no longer the objective, but rather the runway to the stars.

Beginning with the 1904 World's Fair, St. Louis has played an integral role in the aerospace industry. St. Louis has been home to the designers and builders of the beginnings of the Apollo Moon landings, the origin of Lindbergh's historic flight, a center of aerospace manufacturing and, most recently, the X Prize Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the initiative and ingenuity of the X Prize Foundation and the crew of SpaceShipOne for their great accomplishment of opening the door to the heavens more widely to everyone.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment rule. We did not ask for this debate. It was brought on us by activist judges who have chosen to impose on the will of the people this redefinition of marriage.

Sociologists, psychologists, and other experts can give us all sorts of technical explanations, but we all know from experience that kids are best off when they have a mom and a dad. And kids are what this debate is all about. It is not about civil rights or the rights of same-sex couples. Same-sex couples are free to live as they choose. This amendment does not change that. Instead, this amendment simply defines what marriage is, the union of one man and one woman.

There are some here that would claim that traditional marriage is discriminating. But my question is this: Did 342 Members of this House and former President Clinton in their support of the Defense of Marriage Act discriminate when they voted that marriage is between one man and one woman? Are we saying that 70 percent of the voters of my State that just said that marriage is between one man and one woman, are they discriminating? How about 80 percent of the voters of Louisiana, are they discriminating? I do not think so.

Activist judges are trying to institutionalize a lie, that marriage is just about big people's relationships. But they forget the little people, about the children, the whole generation of kids who will struggle because of the terrible precedent set by changing the institution of marriage.

We do not have to look very far to see the results of family deterioration. Whole cities have suffered terrible poverty and crime because the model of traditional families has been weakened. Should we now stand idly by while a mere handful of activist judges seek to institutionalize the lie that marriage is disconnected from child rearing? Certainly the experience in the Netherlands would tell us that we should not. When they changed the definition of marriage, they had many more children born out of wedlock.

The other night I went to dinner, and there was a beautiful little 16-year-old girl there. She had never had a family. She said that there was one thing that she had wanted all of her life and there was only one thing she had ever wanted and that was she wanted a family. Her heart was telling her the truth. Think about what she had lost. Have you ever been completely lonely? No mom? No dad? Nobody to turn to? Think about what a family provides: the love, the affection, the security when you have a bad dream at night, self-discipline and obedience and the grace of forgiveness and sharing as opposed to selfishness.

I remember as a kid riding a bicycle. I was trying to learn. My dad ran along beside. He was so big and strong. I got it to go a ways and crashed into a bush. I came up all crying and scratched. He put me back on the bike and taught me something about persevering.

That is what this whole story is about. It is about little people and whether they are going to have a mother and a father. The real discrimination here is the activist judges who would deny children the rich advantages of a mom and a dad. If this Congress does not act to protect families, it is a gross dereliction of our duty.

Vote to protect our children and vote to protect marriage.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment.

There have been references to the Constitution. Mine starts out ``we the people,'' not ``we the judges.'' We did not ask for this debate. It has been brought on us by activist judges who have chosen to ignore the will of the people and instead redefine marriage for all Americans.

Sociologists, psychologists, and other experts can give us all sorts of technical explanations, but we all know from experience that kids are best off when they have a mom and a dad.

And kids is what this debate is all about. It is not about civil rights or the rights of same-sex couples. Same-sex couples are free to live as they choose. This amendment does not

change that. Instead, this amendment simply defines what marriage is, the union of one man and one woman.

Now, some have used the word ``discrimination'' or ``discriminating.'' You know, 342 Members of this House, along with the President, signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Does that mean they were discriminating? How about the 70 percent of the voters in of my State of Missouri or 80 percent in the State of Louisiana? Are they discriminating? I think not.

Activist judges are trying to institutionalize a lie that marriage is just about big people relationships, but they forget the little people, the whole generation of kids who will struggle with this terrible precedent.

We do not have to look very far to see the results of family deterioration. Whole cities have suffered terrible poverty and crime because the model of traditional families has been weakened. Should we now stand idly by while a mere handful of activist judges seek to institutionalize the lie that marriage is disconnected from child rearing?

It has been tried before. It has been tried in the Netherlands, and the result is a tremendous increase in the number of little children who are born without any families.

The other night I went to a dinner, there was a 16-year-old little girl, and she said that ever since she could remember being alive she had only one wish: She wished that she had a family.

Do you know what it is like to be lonely, to be really lonely, to have no mom and to have no dad? Do you realize what you miss when you do not have a family, about the love and the affection? When you wake up in a bed and dream at night and there is someone there to give you a hug? The self-sacrifice and self-discipline and grace, forgiveness, all these things that families teach us?

I remember when I was a little kid trying to learn to ride a bicycle. I finally got it going and ran it smack into a bush. I was all bruised and scratched and in tears; and my dad, my big strong dad, came over and he picked it up and he said to me, ``It is time to get back and try again.'' See, those are the kinds of things that moms and dads provide.

So this thing is about the little people. It is whether kids are going to have a mom and a dad. The real discrimination here is by activist judges who are trying to deny children the advantages of a simple family. If this Congress does not act, then it is a gross dereliction of duty if we do not protect our children and protect our marriages.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of legalese this morning, and perhaps trying to make a subject that is not very complicated a lot more complicated. The simple question is whether or not school kids are going to be able to say the Pledge of Allegiance the way we have done it for the last 50 years.

Some may say that is not that important an issue, but I would ask this question: If Members were asked, and perhaps it would be one of these big old TV cameras, and somebody came up and said, you have lived in America all these years, how would you, in the simplest form, describe what is the glue that holds us all together as Americans? What is the heart of America? If, like an onion, we peeled off the layers and got to the very center, what is it that makes America such a unique and special place? What is it that made people from all different nationalities come here and call themselves Americans? What is it that makes illegal immigrants try to come here? What is it that makes America special?

I think the answer can be found in our birthday document, our Declaration of Independence. It sets out essentially a three-part formula. It says we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And it goes on to say the job of government is to protect those rights. The three-part formula is that there is a God; God grants all people everywhere certain basic fundamental rights; and it is the job of government to protect those rights.

Now, if we allow activist judges to start creating law and say it is wrong to somehow allow school children to say ``under God'' in the Pledge, we have emasculated the very heart of what America has always been about.

This is quite simply a matter of judges turning the first amendment upside down. The first amendment was supposed to be about free speech, religious or political free speech, and now these judges are censoring our very Pledge of Allegiance and telling school kids they cannot say the Pledge. If we allow activist judges to go there, what is next?

Behind me, set in brass above the Speaker's desk, ``In God we trust.'' Is this a sense of the co-equal power of the branches of government that the court can next step in here and take ``In God we trust'' off that? Are they going to tell us we cannot have chaplains? Are they going to go to the Jefferson Monument that has in stone that God that gave us life, gave us liberties, and can the liberties of the people be secure if we remove the conviction that those liberties are the gift of God? Is that going to be plastered over? Are we going to get rid of the Gettysburg Address? How far will we let them go?

Yet my colleagues have been arguing that anything the court says; it is unconstitutional to challenge the Supreme Court. In my State of Missouri, the Dred Scott decision was brought, and the Supreme Court said black people are not actually people. That was a dumb decision, and we need to be able to tell the Supreme Court or any other court that makes ridiculous decisions they are wrong. Yet we are hearing it is off base to try to check their authority. It is the job of the other two branches of government to draw up short the judiciary when they exceed their constitutional authority. And legislating from the bench and using the first amendment as a tool of censorship certainly qualifies that we should weigh in.

Mr. Chairman, I would close by saying that I have heard a number of assertions that there is absolutely no precedent to use article III section 2. And yet, if Members were to simply check with the congressional research people, as our office has done, they would tell Members they cannot print them all out there are so many examples. In the 107th Congress, most of us voted for the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act has article III section 2 language in it, and we have it used in all kinds and numbers of ways.

A certain prominent Senator from South Dakota made an amendment to a bill that said we are going to clear the undergrowth from the forest of the Black Hills. That, of course, is against environmental law, but the problem is that all that undergrowth was fueling forest fires. This particular gentleman made the comment and put it into law, regardless of what any Federal court says, we are going to clear the undergrowth. Another use of the limitation of the appellate jurisdiction of the courts. There are numerous cases to that regard. Certainly, these charges are completely and factually inaccurate.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the reason why we should vote against this amendment is fairly basic and pretty simple mathematics, and that is, in the last decision, when the Newdow case was thrown out on standing, that decision made it clear that there are only three chief justices who support the Pledge of Allegiance, and three is not enough to keep ``under God'' in the pledge.

Now, what this amendment is going to do is it is going to allow the Supreme Court to hear additional or any future challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance. And when the current court hears that challenge, we are struck with that simple mathematics, that there are only three votes on the Supreme Court that would keep ``under God'' in the Pledge.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting. I have heard a number of people here professing that they think the words ``under God'' in the Pledge are a good thing to have. I have even heard that developed even further in references to Jefferson and to the second inaugural address of Lincoln which made references to God. And there seems to be a pretty good consensus that we want to leave the Pledge as it is.

But the interesting thing is that this amendment would clearly not leave the Pledge as it is. But I guess my question is, and we are getting to a very fundamental kind of question about what our job is as legislators here, and the question is, is it our responsibility to be a co-equal branch of government. If we really believe in the words ``under God'' in the Pledge, do we assert ourselves or do we roll over if the court decides they want to take something out that has been there for 50 years.

I guess it goes down to the very first day when we come down here to serve in this body and we put our hands up and we take an oath that says that we will uphold the Constitution. And that means that we are one of three co-equal branches of government. And yet today, what I hear people saying is with their lips, I like the words ``under God,'' but I will not lift a finger, in fact, I will vote for an amendment to make sure that under God gets stripped out the next time this thing takes a trip to the Supreme Court.

I guess my question is, how bad does it have to get before we assert our authority? I mean, how far does some activist judge have to go? You just use your imagination, is not there some point when we say enough already? The fact is historically, the fact that we have a right to recognize that is long recognized. There was a number of references to Marbury versus Madison, of course that was coming out of Marshall's court. It is just interesting to note that Chief Justice Marshall recognized our constitutional right to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Druso versus the U.S.

So this is clear-cut. It is something that has always been, but we do not want to somehow do our job. We do not want to exercise the authority the Constitution gives us.

There are repeated cases, others that have not been mentioned, Barry versus Merson. This is one that says the Supreme Court ruled that its appellate power was limited because Congress had neither expressly nor implicitly given the appellate jurisdiction in a class of cases involving the writ of habeas corpus in child custody. Then we have the other one, Wiskert versus Douchey where it says, if Congress has provided no rule to regulate our proceedings, we cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction, and if the rule is provided we cannot depart from it.

I had a couple of things I wanted to say in closing. That is, there is a certain point where the courts go too far. We know where the votes are on the Supreme Court. In the last decision when Newdow was struck down, it is clear, the fact remains that there are only three votes that are going to uphold ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance. If you support ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance, you will have to vote this amendment down because what this amendment does is it opens a hole that the Supreme Court can take this case out of State courts.

Mr. Speaker, I would start by asking a question that I have had a chance to ask a number of times to different school groups and other collections of Americans, and that is, if you were to take a look at America, the unique nation that it is, and you were to try to put into a phrase or a sentence what is the heart of what America is all about; if you had to, in a sense, as an onion, go through all of the different things that are America and get down to the center nub of what is it that we believe, what is it that people who came from Germany or Scotland or England or all of these other different countries believe; they came here together. They do not call themselves by their old name, but they call themselves Americans, and America is a unique and special place to all of us.

Now, what is the heart of what makes America? What is the central formula? Why is it that our young men and women would go and risk their lives overseas for this Nation?

I would suggest to my colleagues that the answer can be found in our birthday document, that Declaration of Independence, that document which paints a vision which goes beyond just the shores of America but touches the hearts of all freedom-loving people around this entire world. It is the sentence that says that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The sentence goes on to say that it is the job of government to protect those rights.

Notice that that sentence is essentially a three-part formula. It says, first, that there is a God; secondly, that that God is the grantor of human rights; and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And then our job in civil government is to protect those basic rights, and that, I would suggest, is something that Americans have largely agreed to down through the ages and has been something that has united us. It is also something that we have exported as we export freedom around the world.

Now, if we take the concept of God out of the equation, then our rights cannot come from God, and then the whole essence of what America is has been threatened.

Now, this concept that I am suggesting is not something that I just invented; anybody who would like to can go down to the Jefferson Memorial, and they can look at the stone where these words are inscribed and Jefferson says, the God that gave us life gave us liberty, and can the liberties of the people be secure if we remove the conviction that those liberties are the gift of God? What Jefferson was saying is people will not fight for something if they do not believe that those liberties were the gift of God.

And ironically, here on this floor, just in the last few minutes, I have heard people make the statement that they are very content to let the Supreme Court decide what our rights should be. Whatever the Supreme Court says, oh, well, that is just fine. The problem is, the Supreme Court has men and women on it, and they make mistakes, and we have three coequal branches of government to act as checks and balances on each other.

Before us today is an important matter. It is important because what we are dealing with is a question of free speech. Our Founders fought wars because we really thought that people should be able to have freedom to state a religious or a political conviction and to be free to express that opinion.

Yet, we have activist judges among us today who have the intent and who have even stated fairly clearly where they stand on this issue, that school children are not allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance as we have said it for the last 50 years. Now, no school child is required to say the Pledge, but to tell a school child that we have been saying the Pledge this way for 50 years in America and, now, you cannot say it, is akin to censorship. That is completely turning the first amendment upside down. I do not think that it is right for the judges to do that.

I also know that I took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, and as a member of the legislative branch, I realize that it is part of my responsibility and part of the responsibility of other Members who call themselves Congressmen to stand up for the Constitution, to stand up for free speech, to tell the judges that they are wrong to tell school kids that they cannot say the Pledge of Allegiance.

Now, there is all kinds of legal mumbo jumbo that people might want to talk about, but let us not make the issue too complicated. It is about the Pledge of Allegiance; it is about the fact that we have activist judges saying that kids cannot say the same pledge that you and I have said for the last 50 years.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Well, Mr. Speaker, fortunately, because of the fact that the Supreme Court dismissed this case just based on a technicality, there are none. There were some before. At the moment, there are not. And that is why it is so important to move this bill rapidly before something gets in the pipeline again to threaten the Pledge.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I appreciate what the gentleman is saying, and I think that what the gentleman is saying gets to the heart of our disagreement on this point.

The gentleman said that the Supreme Court has made decisions that he strongly disagrees with, but he refused even to open his mouth hardly to refer to them other than in this context.

My sense is the three coequal branches of government means that we have a right to speak when we disagree and that we have even a responsibility to express that disagreement. And so our difference of opinion is that the gentleman really sees them as supreme, as the final decision on everything, and regardless of what they say, we have to suck it in and live with it. What I am saying is, that is alien to the thinking of our Founders. It is completely wrong.

Out of my State, I say to the gentleman, came the Dred Scott decision on slavery. I would not sit here and say, oh, I have to sit here and live with it. They are wrong, just as you and I can be wrong. We all make mistakes.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 407) saluting the life and courage of the late Commander Lloyd ``Pete'' Bucher, United States Navy (retired), who commanded the U.S.S. Pueblo (AGER-2) at the time of its capture by North Korea on January 23, 1968.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the concurrent resolution currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, some observers have argued that the United States won the Cold War without firing a shot. While we may have secured our victory without a large-scale military conflict with the former Soviet Union, there are many Americans whose lives were indelibly marked by this not-so-Cold War. One of those Americans was Commander Pete Bucher. I rise today to honor this American patriot and the men who served under his command on the USS Pueblo.

On January 23, 1968, the USS Pueblo was commanded by Pete Bucher and was monitoring Communist ship movements and intercepting messages in international waters near the North Korean coast when it was attacked by North Korean naval forces. As a result of the attack, one Navy sailor, Fireman Duane Hodges, was killed and the remaining crew members were captured. Their incarceration marked the beginning of a nearly yearlong ordeal for Commander Bucher and the crew of the USS Pueblo.

Held in concrete cells for 11 months, Commander Bucher and the Pueblo crew were starved and tortured by the North Koreans. Mostly fed turnips, many of the malnourished crew members began to lose their sight. They were repeatedly beaten and burned. According to Crewman Bob Chicca, the North Koreans would use ``rifle butts or pieces of wood, whatever they had handy, to beat us.''

By all accounts, Pete Bucher bore the brunt of the North Koreans' wrath. According to crewman Stu Russell, Bucher ``was a giant.'' As commanding officer, Bucher was the focus of the North Korean efforts. Russell recalled that ``he took the brunt of everything. No matter who did what, he was always punished. I simply don't know where he

got the strength and courage to go through what he did.'' Eventually Bucher, when he was wounded when the Pueblo was shelled, was beaten and tortured into signing a ``confession,'' an act he also felt would save the lives of his crew.

During her husband's captivity, Rose Bucher, a native of my home State of Missouri, worked hard to make sure Americans did not forget the men of the Pueblo. Rose handed out bumper stickers reminding the public to ``Remember the Pueblo.'' Finally, 2 days before Christmas 1968, Commander Bucher and the crew of the Pueblo were released one by one across the ``Bridge of No Return'' from North to South Korea. At the time Bucher stated, ``It was like coming out of the grave.''

On 28 January 2004, this courageous warrior passed from this world into the next. He was subsequently buried with honors at Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery in Point Loma, San Diego, California. Three men who served under Pete Bucher on the Pueblo carried the flag-draped coffin to its final resting place overlooking San Diego Bay.

Today, I am pleased to be joined by 26 of my House colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, in offering this resolution to honor Commander Lloyd ``Pete'' Bucher and the crew of the USS Pueblo. Pete Bucher and his crew sacrificed that each of us may enjoy the liberty for which so many others have given the ultimate sacrifice. In passing this resolution, we continue to remember the Pueblo.

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

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