Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the majority leader--the Democrat majority leader's comments about the accomplishments that have been made by this Congress. I would just like to say briefly this: the American people don't want to hear this hyperbole. They don't want to hear these long dissertations about what's being accomplished around here. What the American people want is to cut spending and to get this economy moving again and create jobs. And blowing money like the Democrats are doing and creating a debt that our kids will never be able to deal with is not the answer.

And so I'd like the next time that they have this discussion back and forth for 45 minutes that they cut to the chase and say, We're going to do this to cut spending. We're going to do this to create jobs. And we're going to cut taxes like Ronald Reagan did to get this economy moving again, instead of all this other stuff that's going on.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that really concerns me about war is we lose so many fine young men and women in conflict, in the combat area. One of the finest young men in my district from Marion, Indiana, Captain Brandon Aaron Barrett, who was 27 years old, died Wednesday, May 5, while serving in Afghanistan.

Brandon was born January 21, 1983, in Albuquerque, New Mexico. As a child, Brandon was friendly and energetic, making friends with everyone he came in contact with. He played sports, and he dreamed of serving in the United States military. He wanted to be a marine.

After graduating from Marion High School in 2001, he went to the United States Naval Academy and he was very proud of that. He graduated from there in 2006. Upon graduation, Brandon was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Brandon deployed twice to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, once

from March to October of 2008 and then again in December of 2009.

During Captain Barrett's distinguished career, he received multiple awards for his service. The awards that he received include the Navy and Marine Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, and the NATO International Security Assistance Force Medal. He has also recently been posthumously promoted from first lieutenant to the rank of captain. His deep commitment to the United States Marine Corps and the men he led was insurmountable.

Brandon ``Bull'' Barrett will be remembered in Marion, Indiana, as a gifted athlete, avid outdoorsman, and a natural born leader. Those who knew him best will remember him for not only the loyalty and perseverance that served him so well in the Marine Corps, but also his unwavering dedication to the friendships of his youth in Marion. Throughout his life, Brandon kept the city of Marion close to his heart, coming home on nearly every leave, and always greeting everyone he met with a smile.

To the citizens of the State of Indiana, his fellow marines, and the countless others he touched, Brandon will forever be remembered as a hero. Our thoughts, prayers, and deepest condolences go out to his mother, Cindy; his father, Brett; his brother, Brock; and his sisters, Ashley and Taylor.

Mr. Speaker, one of things that we never really think about is the impact it has on other people in the Corps or in the Army or Navy when they lose one of their beloved fighting buddies. His captain, his commanding officer said in an article, ``It's surreal.'' He said, ``I keep expecting him to walk around the corner, big smile on his face.'' They can't believe he is gone. He said that everyone who knew him knew he was a leader, an officer, and a great man, and he is sorely missed.

I would like to say once again to his family, our condolences, our deepest condolences go out to you. Everyone in Indiana and throughout the country is very happy that he served this country with such great distinction.

[From The Chronicle-Tribune, Marion, IN, May 12, 2010]

Brandon Aaron Barrett

Jan. 21, 1983-May 5, 2010

Brandon Aaron Barrett, 27, died on Wednesday, May 5, 2010,

serving his country in Afghanistan. He has recently been

posthumously promoted from the rank of first lieutenant to

captain by the United States Marine Corps.

Barrett was born Jan. 21, 1983 in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

He spent his childhood befriending everyone he met, playing

sports, and dreaming of becoming a soldier for the United

States military.

Brandon graduated from Marion High School in 2001, and he

was proudly accepted into the United States Naval Academy at

Annapolis, Maryland. He graduated in 2006, joined the Marine

Corps, and was promoted to the rank of first lieutenant on

May 26, 2008. Barrett was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 6th

Marine Regiment; 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary

Force at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. He deployed to

Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom from

March to October 2008 and again in December 2009.

Barrett's awards include the Navy and Marine Corps

Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Global War

on Terrorism Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal and

NATO International Security Assistance Force Medal.

Brandon ``Bull'' Barrett was an outstanding athlete, an

avid outdoorsman and a natural leader. He confronted every

task with enthusiasm and accepted each responsibility with

dignity. His passionate commitment to the Marine Corps and to

his troops was insurmountable. Those who knew him will

remember his loyalty and his dedication to friendship most of

all. His eyes held no prejudice, and he greeted everyone with

a smile. Brandon kept the city of Marion, Indiana closest to

his heart, returning home on nearly every leave. To its

citizens and to the countless numbers of lives that he

touched, Brandon Barrett will forever be remembered as a

hero.

He is survived by his mother, Cindy Barrett; his father,

Brett Barrett; his sisters, Ashley and Taylor Barrett; his

brother, Brock Barrett; and his grandmother, Carmen Johnson.

Additional survivors include several aunts, uncles and

cousins.

Visitation will be held on Friday, May 14, 2010 from 4 p.m.

to 8 p.m. in the Marion High School Bill Green Athletic

Arena, 750 W. 26th Street, Marion, IN 46953.

A funeral service will be held at 10 a.m. on Saturday, May

15, 2010, also at the MHS Bill Green Athletic Arena. A burial

service will follow at Gardens of Memory, 11201 S. Marion Rd.

35, Marion, IN 46952.

In lieu of flowers, donations can be made for those wishing

to contribute to a memorial and scholarship fund in Brandon's

name. Please send contributions to STAR Wealth Management,

Capt. Brandon A. Barrett Memorial Fund, 3610 River Crossing

Parkway--Suite 190, Indianapolis, IN 46240.

Local arrangements are being handled by Needham-Storey-

Wampner Funeral Service, North Chapel, 1341 N. Baldwin

Avenue, Marion, IN.

Barrett was killed in Afghanistan a week ago today, 60 days

before he was scheduled to return home from his tour in

combat.

His sister, Ashley Barrett, said she and her family are

looking forward to allowing her brother to be at peace by

finally laying his body to rest.

More details regarding his killing were reported this week

by The Sunday Times, of London.

``That article was very upsetting to read,'' Ashley Barrett

said.

She said the information reported in the British newspaper

was more than what the family received in the casualty report

provided by the U.S. Marine Corps.

According to the article, under the headline, ``Swift and

bloody: the Taliban's revenge,'' a Taliban gunman shot

Barrett while he was fortifying his post in the Helmand town

of Marjah. Barrett and Lance Corporal Marcus Lounello, 21,

did not have their flak jackets on because of the heat that

day. The Times article said Barrett was shot in the chest as

he stood between two armored vehicles and died before a

medical team could reach him, and Lounello was also shot and

suffered extreme internal injuries: Lounello is expected to

recover.

``It's surreal'' Captain Tony Zinni, Barrett's commanding

officer in the 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, told the

Times on Saturday. ``I keep expecting him to walk around the

corner, big smile on his face.''

Barett had been well known in Marjah, according to the

article. He guarded a post that checked traffic coming in and

out of the town that was once a Taliban stronghold. The city

was taken over by the Marines and their Afghan allies in

February. Zinni told the Times that it was generally a boring

duty, but Barrett was good about it.

According to the article, Barrett would visit the

neighborhood elders in Marjah, and could even partially speak

their language--Pashto.

Zinni told the Times he thinks the lieutenant was targeted

and it makes him angry.

``Everyone in the block knew him, knew he was the

officer,'' the captain said of Barrett.

Barrett was the first death in Marjah for the battalion's

weapons company.

Barrett's friend, Andrew Morrell of Marion, said the

efforts Barrett made to know the elders in Marjah and learn

their language was part of his character:

``The main reason why Jesus affected the lives of so many

people in his ministry in Galilee is because he dwelt amongst

the people. This is the exact same reason why Brandon made

such an impact among friends, family, but even more,

strangers,'' wrote Morrell, who, communicated by e-mail while

in Israel.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Poe of Texas comes down here quite frequently and talks about the problems along the border between the United States and Mexico. Yesterday I received an email that I would like to read to my colleagues. The subject is ``The Wild Southern Border.'' And it starts off, and it says, ``A lesson: Don't leave your weapons in the car, don't turn your back on strangers who are somewhere they don't belong, use your cell phone with your off hand, not your strong hand.'' And the reason they start off with that lesson is because of what is said in this email, and I would like to read it to you.

``As you know, one of the local ranchers was murdered in Douglas, Arizona, 2 weeks ago. I received three messages similar to the one below from different officers within the Rangers and law enforcement. Yesterday afternoon, I talked to another rancher near us who is a friend of ours and whose great grandfather started their ranch here in 1880. These are good people. He told me what really happened out at the Krentz ranch and what you won't read in the papers. The Border Patrol is afraid of starting a small war between civilians here and the drug cartels in Mexico.

``Bob Krentz was checking his water like he does every evening and came upon an illegal alien who was lying on the ground, telling him he was sick. Bob called the Border Patrol and asked for a medical helicopter to evacuate the gentleman. As he turned to go back to his ATV, he was shot in the side. The round came from down and angled up, so they know the shooter was on the ground. Bob's firearm was in the ATV, so he had no chance. Wounded, he called the Cochise County Sheriff and asked for help. Bleeding in the lungs, he called his brother, but the line was bad. So he called his wife, but again the line was bad. Several ranchers heard the radio call and drove to his location. Bob was dead by this time. The ranchers tracked the shooter 8 miles back towards Mexico and cornered him in a brushy draw. This was all at night.

``The sheriff and Border Patrol arrived and told him not to go down and engage the murderer. They went around to the back side, and if you can believe it, the assassin managed to get by a B.P. helicopter and a sheriff's posse and back into Mexico. So much for professional help when you need it.''

And I would like to say that I think the Border Patrol and the sheriffs do a great job with what they have down there. Nevertheless, this is what he says in his email. ``One week before the murder, Bob and his brother Phil, who I shoot with, hauled a huge quantity of drugs off the ranch that they found in trucks. One week before that, a rancher near Naco did the same thing. Two nights later, gangs broke into his ranch house and beat him and his wife and told them that if they ever touched any drugs they found, they would come back and kill them.

``The ranchers here deal with cut fences and haul drug deliveries off their ranches all the time. What ranchers think is that the drug cartels beat the one rancher and shot Bob because they wanted to send a message. Bob always gave food and water to illegals, and so they think they sent the assassin to pose as an illegal who was hungry and thirsty, knowing it would catch Bob off-guard. What is going on down here is not being reported. You need to tell the people how bad it is along the border. Texas is worse. Near El Paso, it's in a state of war; 5,000 people were killed in Ciudad Juarez last year, and it's over 2,000 so far this year. Gun sales down here are through the roof, and I get emails from people wanting firearms training. Something has to be done, but I don't hold out much hope. These gangs have groups in almost every city in the United States. Please read below. This is serious business. The Barrio Azteca and their subgangs are like Mexican corporations and organized extremely well. If this doesn't get dealt with down here, you guys''--meaning us up north--``will deal with it on your streets.'' And it's signed Bud.

All I can say is that Mr. Poe and others have come down here day after day, week after week, month after month, talking about the horrible problems on the border, and this government, the Federal Government, is not doing anything about it. They're not approaching this as it should be approached. We need to send the National Guard down there. We need to continue with the border fencing and stop the illegal aliens from coming across, number one, and stop the drug traffic and the terrorists who are coming across. This is a war down there. We're fighting wars in other parts of the world. This is our border, and we need to address this problem.

Mr. Chairman, this is so muddied up I don't know if anybody that's paying attention really understands what's going on.

This is just a process, that's all it is. The people who are going to decide whether or not any territory becomes a State is this body and the Senate. What we are asking for is a recommendation from the people of Puerto Rico. They're dying for this country; more have died percentage-wise in conflicts than any State in the Union. Their Governor wants this plebiscite, their Representative wants this plebiscite, their state senate wants this plebiscite, and the state house of representatives want this plebiscite. They know what this bill is. They've come and they've testified before the Resources Committee. They know, and they represent the people of Puerto Rico.

So these people coming down here from New York and everyplace else, they don't know; they don't know what they're talking about.

Announcement by the Chair

The people who want to have this determination made are the people of Puerto Rico, and their elected representatives altogether say let's have this bill passed. And yet people from New York and from Washington--I mean, I don't know how close the State of Washington is to Puerto Rico, but it's about 4,000 miles, maybe 5,000, and New York is quite a ways away. Why don't we listen to what the elected representatives of Puerto Rico want.

And it's Democrat and Republican. This is not a partisan issue. So my view is, let's let them have the plebiscite. Let's come up with a process that will work. We've tried this before, and it has been split up all over the place. This process will work. It will boil it down to what the people of Puerto Rico really want. I believe they want statehood, and we ought to let them determine that. If their representatives want it, if their Governor wants it, if everybody else wants it, and if they are sacrificing their lives for this country, then by gosh we ought to give them a chance to be a State.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Young and I have an amendment at the desk.

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

This is an amendment I think that everybody will embrace, at least I hope so, because it clarifies what was just discussed. I will read it to you real quickly. It says this amendment would retain the requirement that all ballots used for authorized plebiscites include the full content of the ballot printed in English as well as Spanish. It would also require the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission to inform voters in all authorized plebiscites that if Puerto Rico retains its current status or is admitted as a State that: (1) any official language requirements of the Federal Government shall apply to Puerto Rico to the same extent as throughout the United States; and (2) it is the sense of Congress that the teaching of English be promoted, not demanded or anything, but be promoted in Puerto Rico in order for English-language proficiency to be achieved.

So we are talking about making sure that everybody who votes, everybody who is involved in any kind of an official thing like a plebiscite, that they will see it in both English and Spanish. We are also pushing to promote English more than it has been in the past. I think this is an amendment that everybody should agree with.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

I think the amendment speaks for itself. I think the amendment, Mr. Chairman, says very clearly that we want to make sure that everyone who casts a ballot in an election or on a plebiscite has before them the ability to understand what the ballot is about and be able to cast it intelligently. This is done in all kinds of States. As a matter of fact, many States have as many as 11 different languages, which is really out of control, on one ballot. To say you can't have two on this ballot in Puerto Rico so they can cast their ballot intelligently really doesn't make much sense.

I am a very strong advocate for making sure that everyone in this country speaks English, and I understand what my colleague just said, but in this particular case we are talking about a plebiscite that is going to be advisory for the Congress of the United States. This is just to help this process along and to make sure that it is understood by everybody.

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

I don't know what that has to do with anything, but I yield to Mr. Pierluisi for 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I will take my last 30 seconds to say that the gentleman from Georgia has a very strong accent, but I understand him.

I would just like to say that this is a clarifying amendment to make sure that everybody who votes down there in a plebiscite or in an election has before them the ability to understand and cast the vote intelligently. I can't understand why anybody would be opposed to this. It makes common sense, and I hope everybody will support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Let me just say that Mr. Poe of Texas, my good friend who just spoke, he added a little bit of levity, but it was very important. The point that he was making, in that we have the ability in this country to really deal with things like agriculture and insects that might come in and contaminate our crops, but we have a serious, serious problems on the 1,980-mile border between us and Mexico.

The administration has cut some of the money from the whole project of putting fences and more broad Border Patrol agents on that border. And it's a war zone, as Mr. Poe has said. Mr. Poe is the leader in pointing out the problems with what's going on on the border between Texas and Mexico, as well as the border all the way between the United States and the whole country of Mexico.

So I'd just like to say if I were talking to the President or anybody in his administration, listen to Mr. Poe and the guys who've been down there on the border. They know. The sheriffs and the police in Arizona and all of them know that this is a war zone. American lives are at risk. And we're not doing anything from the Federal level to deal with the problem.

As Mr. Poe said in a letter that he wrote that I cosigned the other day, they need to send, if necessary, the National Guard down there to augment the Border Patrol agents, some of whom are at risk every single day, every single night. And so if I were talking to the administration on behalf of my good friend, Mr. Poe, and all of us that are concerned about the border and the illegals that are coming in by the thousands and now into the millions over the years, we really need to do something to protect that border. No more talking about it. Let's do it. Let's send the National Guard down there with the ability to do whatever is necessary when they're dealing with armed drug dealers or people coming across the border who may mean to do harm to American citizens.

If we give them that right and we put the National Guard down there with the ability to defend themselves against these people that are coming across the border, we can sew that thing up and we can stop the illegal immigration. Then, once we secure the border, we can start talking about a real, viable immigration reform bill. But until we secure the border, we shouldn't be talking about that. That's the number one objective.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues a recent speech by the President of the Republic of China, ROC, Taiwan, discussing his country's future. I have been a longtime supporter of Taiwan and hope that my colleagues and I will continue to improve relations not only between the United States and Taiwan but between Taiwan and the international community. All Americans should be proud that Taiwan and the United States have enjoyed a strong and durable relationship. Taiwan is one of our largest trading partners and the cultural exchanges between our two peoples are as vibrant as they have ever been. Taiwan has stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States to combat the scourge of global terrorism; and the people of Taiwan have always given generously in our greatest times of need with monetary contributions to the Twin Towers Fund, Pentagon Memorial Fund and through the offer of humanitarian assistance to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Taiwan and the United States are not merely allies; we are friends and partners in the truest sense of the words.

Recently, President Ma Ying-jeou of the ROC, Taiwan, took part in a video conference with the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at Harvard University to discuss Taiwan's vision for the future. I ask unanimous consent to include a copy of President Ma Ying-jeou's speech into the Congressional Record. And I urge my colleagues to read the remarks because whatever the future holds of Taiwan, I believe that the people of Taiwan deserve to have a voice in shaping that future.

The Quest for Modernity--Speech by Ma Ying-jeou, President, Republic of

China at Fairbank Center, Harvard University--April 6, 2010

President Ma Ying-jeou took part this morning in a video

conference with the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at

Harvard University. The conference was moderated by Dr.

William Kirby, Director of the Fairbank Center. Harvard

University president Drew G. Faust opened the conference with

a videotaped talk in which she welcomed President Ma to the

video conference. After the moderator's opening remarks,

President Ma followed with a speech entitled ``The Quest for

Modernity.'' Thereafter, professors Steven M. Goldstein,

David Der-Wei Wang, William P. Alford each posed a few

questions to the president. This was followed by a Q&A

session in which the president fielded questions from members

of the audience. As the conference was drawing to a close,

President Ma gave a short closing statement.

Prof. Kirby, Prof. Goldstein, Prof. Alford, Prof. Wang,

Prof. Su Chi, Ambassador Yuan, Director General Hung, Dear

faculty members, students, distinguished guests, ladies and

gentlemen: Good Evening!

I. Nostalgia about Harvard

It heartens me to be once again addressing the excellent

faculty and student body of Harvard University. This moment

brings back a rush of nostalgia because it was here I became

a proud father for the first time before I even got my

doctoral degree. It was also at Harvard when I was cloistered

for long hours in the Law School Library, or debating with

fellow classmates and professors, that I was able to broaden

my understanding of the world, and hone my skills as a

scholar, intellectual and eventually a leader. I also feel

nostalgic on a deeper level. When I think of a long litany of

historic events, figures, and institutions: John Hay's Open-

Door Policy, Boxer Rebellion, American Indemnity Scholarships

for China, with all its recipients, like Hu Shih and Chien

Shih-Liang, Tsinghua University, Yenching University, May

Fourth Movement, Flying Tigers, Pearl Harbor, John Leighton

Stuart, 1949, Korean War, United States-Republic of China

Mutual Defense Treaty, Fairbank Center, the Quemoy and Matsu

Crisis, Cultural Revolution, Shanghai Communique, Taiwan

Relations Act, mainland China's Reform and Open Policy, U.S.

arms sales to Taiwan and so on, I cannot help but think of

the far-reaching impact that America has had on China's, and

later on Taiwan's, convoluted path to modernization. I cannot

help but think my time at Harvard was not only a personal

academic journey, but also a microcosm reflecting a people's

long search for a modern nation.

II. Wealth, Power and Democracy

The late venerable Benjamin Schwartz, who as you know had

been a prominent member of the Fairbank Center, described in

the life of Yen Fu that the evolution of modern China has

been a journey in search of wealth and power. Given the rise

of mainland China's economic power and military strength over

the last thirty years, it seems that it has achieved those

goals to a considerable degree. However, I believe a society

that is truly modernizing should not be limited to wealth and

power but must also include the foundations for freedom and

democracy.

For it is only through the active participation and free

choice of one's citizens that government truly serves the

welfare of the people; only then can a government sustain,

and a nation thrive. So I am proud to say that the Republic

of China on Taiwan has in fact achieved all these three

pillars. The ROC has since become a thriving nation with a

robust economy, viable military and a truly open and vibrant

democracy. With so much already achieved the roadmap of my

administration is quite straightforward: namely to strengthen

the foundation of these three pillars so as to safeguard the

future of Taiwan's posterity, and to share with mainland

China our values and way of life.

III. Coming out of Recession

My administration came into office two years ago in the

midst of a global economic crisis, so it's not an

exaggeration that we definitely ``hit the ground running.''

Since then we have worked relentlessly to revitalize Taiwan's

economy. By taking measures such as guaranteeing 100% bank

deposits, substantially lowering interest rate in seven

instances, investing 16 billion US dollars in domestic

infrastructure in 5 years, distributing 2.7 billion U.S.

dollars worth of shopping vouchers, and providing emergency

assistance for the underprivileged, my administration has

successfully brought the economy out of the downturn after a

year and a half. Now we expect to create about a quarter of a

million jobs to bring the unemployment rate below 5% and GDP

growth up to 4.72% this year. Job creation will remain our

top priority, especially those in the green energy sector.

With carbon reduction in mind, we are now ambitiously

promoting innovation across all of Taiwan's most competitive

sectors. These include the country's traditional strongholds

such as IT, agriculture, and healthcare as well as other

emerging industries like green energy, biotech, tourism and

the cultural creative industries. However, the growing trend

towards regional integration among economic powerhouses in

East Asia, like Japan, mainland China, South Korea and the

ASEAN countries, is threatening to marginalize Taiwan's

heavily export-driven economy. As such, my administration has

been seeking to institutionalize economic relations with

mainland China and diversify our export markets and products

so that Taiwan will not only avoid being cut off from the

global economy but also enhance its international

competitiveness. Therefore, we have been pushing hard for an

Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) with the

mainland that will serve as a critical structural platform

for economic interaction between the two sides. On top of

intellectual property rights protection and investment

guarantee, the framework will include an early harvest

package of goods and services to enjoy zero custom tariffs.

The negotiations are already underway and expect to conclude

in the next few months. We have also established government

programs that will cushion potential shocks to industries and

workers, especially small- and medium-sized enterprises.

Although some assert that signing the ECFA with mainland

China will compromise our sovereignty, this is definitely not

the case. The top priority of my administration has always

been the principle of ``putting Taiwan first for the benefit

of the people.'' The truth of the matter, ECFA will spearhead

Taiwan's return to the accelerated track for economic

integration in Asia-Pacific and beyond. This without a doubt

will strengthen Taiwan's capabilities to enhance its

competitive edge in the global market and brighten its

outlook for negotiating similar arrangements with other

countries.

IV. Cross-Strait Rapprochement and Flexible Diplomacy

In the pursuit of power my administration is not merely

seeking military strength but more importantly to build up

our soft power. In fact, the heart of my foreign policy is to

reestablish mutual trust with all our major international

partners, especially the United States. In achieving this

goal, my administration has worked incessantly to transform

the Taiwan Straits from a major flashpoint into a conduit for

regional peace and prosperity. Therefore, in order to resume

constructive dialogue with the mainland after a hiatus of

over a decade, we first announced in 2008 the policy of ``No

Unification, No Independence, No Use of Force'' so as to

maintain the status quo across the Taiwan Strait under the

framework of the Republic of China's 1946 Constitution, This

breakthrough was further advanced under the framework of the

92 Consensus of ``one China, respective interpretations''

that was reached by the two sides in November 1992. That is

now deemed a feasible formula by government leaders across

the Taiwan Strait as well as many in the wider world

community. We have also adopted a policy of Flexible

Diplomacy and pursued a diplomatic truce with the mainland,

which has by and large ended the vicious cycle of diplomatic

warfare between the two sides. This will assuredly foster

responsible stakeholdership in both Taiwan as well as the

mainland. At the same time, we are working equally hard to

enhance Taiwan's meaningful participation in and contribution

to the international community. This will be achieved

through our strong initiative to develop Taiwan's green

technology and healthcare industries

in conjunction with our foreign aid policies. For example,

under the Flagship Program for Green Energy Industry, we

will be building up Taiwan's industrial base in green

technology especially in Photo voltaic solar cells and

LED. This will not only benefit our people and economy,

but more importantly, Taiwan will be able to share its

resources and expertise with our allies and friends. On my

visit to our Pacific island allies last month, I was proud

to survey firsthand the work that Taiwan has done for some

of the countries in the area. For example, Taiwan has

installed and provided solar energy technology to the

Solomon Islands in hopes of improving the environment and

livelihoods of their people. Taiwan has also set up an

impressive medical mission in the Marshall Islands to

treat the high prevalence of cataracts sufferers. In fact,

our government will boost the overall effectiveness of our

medical aid by initiating many more medical and public

health missions that will target specific conditions and

diseases common among the people of the Pacific island

allies and friends. At the same time, after Taiwan

effectively controlled the spread of the H1N1 Flu within

our own borders, with a mortality rate of 2 deaths per

million, which is only 1/3 of the average for OECD

countries, I am proud to report that Taiwan will also be

giving away locally manufactured vaccines worth 5 million

US dollars to other countries in need. Taiwan's search and

rescue teams were also one of the first on the scenes when

Haiti was hit by a devastating earthquake earlier this

year. In addition to donating $16 million worth in aid and

funds, our government is also planning to set up medical

and vocational training centers to train for hundreds of

medical and skilled workers, and build 1,200 housing

units. Also, as a sign of Taiwan's flourishing civil

society, World Vision Taiwan has collected countless small

donations from our people that will be sufficient to feed

and save more than 8,000 homeless Haitian children and

orphans. However, my administration realizes humanitarian

relief is only a small part of the long and challenging

road to full recovery. This is why we hope to continue the

work we have started in integrating the advances we make

in healthcare and green technology into our foreign aid

framework, so that Taiwan can truly make a meaningful

difference in the countries we help.

V. The Universal Value of Freedom and Democracy

However, coming back full circle, the search for a modern

nation cannot merely lie upon the pillars of wealth and

power. It is only under a true democracy that one's citizens

can live without fear according to the law, and share in the

burdens as well as benefits of good governance. Although

Taiwan has made impressive sociopolitical progress over the

last decades, it is still a young democracy. So, as firm

champions for democracy, my administration will work to

strengthen the democratic infrastructure of my country.

Already we are taking tangible steps to enhance Taiwan's rule

of law and protection of human rights in conformity with

international standards. In the past year, we have ratified

the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

(ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), both administered by the United

Nations. In converting these covenants into domestic law,

they will certainly strengthen the human rights of our

citizenry and further consolidate our rule of law.

Furthermore, I came to power on the promise of combating

corruption in elections and government, whereby we have

already made meaningful progress. Without a doubt this goal

will continue to be a cornerstone of my presidency, which I

am determined to carry through in my capacity as the

President of the country. I will assuredly not waver from the

path in laying the foundations of a true democracy. In fact,

next year in 2011 will be the Centennial Anniversary of the

Republic of China. Against the background of thousands of

years of Chinese history, the last century was in some ways

merely a comma. But from a larger perspective, it was nothing

short of an exclamation mark, as it has been 100 years of

struggle; 100 years of experimentation and 100 years of

education before a people learned that they too have the

unequivocal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of

happiness. This nation-building process undoubtedly was

achieved through the collective efforts of countless

dedicated individuals who traversed between tradition and

modernity that helped bridge the East to the West so many

years ago. Inevitably, this made it possible for a people to

aspire to the same democratic values as you cherish. From the

chaos arising out of the turn of the 20th century, to the

founding of the first republic in Asia in 1912 and its

evolution forward in 1949 when the Republic of China

Government moved to Taiwan, in 1987 when Taiwan lifted

martial law, launched its democratic transformation, and

subsequently allowed Taiwan residents to visit their

relatives on the mainland, in 1996 when people on Taiwan

directly elected its president for the first time, and

in 2000 and 2008 when the presidential elections further

consolidated Taiwan's democracy through two rotations of

power between political parties, the passage of these 100

years has irrevocably transformed the foundations of a

political culture. Distinguished faculty members and

students, ladies and gentlemen, as the elected president

of the Republic of China, I will continue to strive toward

forging Taiwan into an exemplary democracy; one that will

be a source of inspiration and emulation for generations

to come.

Thank you.

Dear distinguished faculty, students and friends; it is my

great pleasure to hold this teleconference with you. Your

questions and comments are very good, and some are very tough

to answer, but in thinking and answering these questions you

force me to think deeper and strive harder on the challenges

that confront the road ahead.

Although today's conference is near an end, I am heartened

by the thought that our friendship will continue to grow as

there is still so much we need to do, together. The

international system that the US forged out of the

devastation of World War II 65 years ago has today become the

enduring foundation of our global village. Being rule-based

and sufficiently flexible, this system encourages positive-

sum international cooperation rather than zero-sum inter-

state conflict. Hence, it changed the underlying dynamics of

the world order that made it possible for countries, big or

small, to prosper together. As a matter of fact, my idea to

seek rapprochement with the mainland find some similarities

with the ideas espoused by the American leaders in having

soft talks with the Soviet Union and to have detente. In

other words, to replace confrontation with negotiations; to

solve international disputes through peaceful means. It is

this very system that has interlocked the world into a

community of thriving interdependence, giving rise to the

possibility where foes can turn into friends, where every

country can be a winner and every contribution become part of

a greater picture.

This is also the system from which I draw my inspiration to

lead my country, particularly in dealing with the mainland.

In taking a responsible stake in the world, and in seeking

rapprochement with the Chinese mainland, my administration

has committed the Republic of China on Taiwan to becoming a

dependable and valuable contributor to this international

system. In my visit abroad last month, I kept saying to our

friends or to the overseas Taiwanese and to members of my

delegations, that what I tried to do as far as my country's

foreign relations is concerned is to make Taiwan a

respectable member of the international community. I want

every Taiwanese when they walk in the streets of New York, of

Paris, of Sydney, of Beijing that they are respected. People

will say they are from Taiwan, and that Taiwan is a

respectful country in the world. Some in my domestic audience

may disagree with me, but I firmly believe that this is the

right path for Taiwan to avoid being marginalized from the

forward march of the rest of the world. However, we will not

merely concentrate on our own interests but equally apply our

resources in hopes of having a positive impact on the world

community. In fact, under this system that the United States

started over half a century ago, we, as a whole, ought to be

able to right what has gone wrong; to unite as one humanity

against the global crises that threatens all that we hold

dear, whether climate change, the global economic downturn,

the risk of pandemics, or the wars that endanger the peace of

our world. In the end, we are the only ones that can overcome

the challenges we face. And in such an important partnership,

I am confident Taiwan will be there to live up to its

responsibilities.

Madam Speaker, what are the people in Arizona supposed to do? What are the people in Texas supposed to do? Or New Mexico?

I hear this rhetoric on the floor here about how the law in Arizona is unconstitutional. I've looked at that. I don't think its unconstitutional. And I think they have an obligation to protect the people of Arizona from the drug terrorists that are coming across the border in droves. They're bringing drugs illegally into the United States. We've got illegal aliens coming across in droves in the Arizona area into the United States and the government of the United States is doing absolutely nothing.

The border between us and Mexico is 1,980 miles long. We've talked about securing that border for a long time, and we have not done it. Those border States have to deal with this on a daily basis and the law enforcement agencies down there have a Herculean job to deal with.

And so I would just like to say to my colleagues, I don't think it's racial profiling for them to stop people that they suspect of being here illegally who may be dealing in drug trafficking and who may be threatening the lives of people down there because the crime rate is going out of sight. Let's support the people of Arizona and the law enforcement people down there. They have a right to make sure that they're safe.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. And I want to tell her how much I appreciate her coming down and taking the time to give this Special Order. It took a lot of preparation to explain this to our colleagues and anybody that might be paying attention to this.

There is no question in my mind that the 10th Amendment of the Constitution is being violated by the bill that we passed, and that's why we have 22 States that have joined in this suit. And I'm glad that they are doing that.

As a matter of fact, on March 29, the Attorney General of Indiana, Greg Zoeller, expressed his intent of having Indiana join in filing the suit against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is the Obama care we're talking about. And here is what he had to say, our Attorney General:

He said, ``There are significant constitutional questions regarding the Federal Government's authority raised by the legislation passed. I believe it's necessary that these ultimately be brought before the United States Supreme Court, and as the Attorney General of Indiana, I will join in the most appropriate legal actions available to represent the significant interests of our State, the State of Indiana, in this matter.'' And he prepared a 55-page report on this that he gave to our legislators in Indiana regarding the Patient Protection and Affordability Act. And he believes, as the other attorneys general do, that this is unconstitutional.

Now, my colleague just talked about the automobile business and how people have to have car insurance. Well, they don't have to drive a car. And if they don't drive a car, they don't have to have car insurance.

This is the first time that I can remember in my life that the Federal Government is telling people they have to buy something. I have never heard of this and I have never read anything that would lead me to believe that the Federal Government has the authority to tell people that they have to buy something.

Now, there have been times in the past when the Federal Government tried to take over the entire commerce of the United States. Back in the 1930s during the Roosevelt administration, they passed a law called the National Recovery Act, and the National Recovery Act gave the Federal Government control over the entire economy of the United States regarding commerce. And there was one case that came to mind that I read in a book called ``The Forgotten Man.'' I don't know if my colleagues read it or not. But it involved two itinerate people from the Middle East that came to the United States and they started selling chickens.

Back in those days, they didn't have frozen chickens in the supermarket. So when people would come to them to buy chickens, they had them in crates, and they would let the people that came to buy the chickens reach in and pick the chickens they wanted. Well, the National Recovery Act, which was controlling the commerce of the United States, had individuals, like the IRS is going to have under this bill, that would come out and tell the people what they could and couldn't do. And the National Recovery Act representative came out and told these

two gentlemen that they could not let the people pick the chickens that they wanted.

I know this sounds crazy. They said because the people that came in and bought the chickens first would pick the fatter ones and they would get the benefit of being there first. And the fellows that owned this company said, Well, this is the way we've always done it. We let the people pick the chickens they want. So they didn't change. They continued to conduct their business that way, and they were indicted under the National Recovery Act and they were convicted, and the case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

Justice Brandeis wrote the opinion, which was 9-0, against the National Recovery Act, which went out the window. Justice Brandeis sent a message back to the President saying, Don't send us any more legislation like this, because if you do, we'll find it unconstitutional as well.

That was the first time that I know where the Federal Government starting taking over the entire area of the commerce of the United States. Even then, even then, I don't believe there was a time when they said somebody had to buy something, which would violate the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Now the National Recovery Act was found unconstitutional, but the 10th Amendment, as far as I can remember, never said you have to buy something. And that is what this bill does and that is why the attorneys general from 22 States are saying, You don't have that power.

As you said, Mr. Carter, very clearly, the power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. The power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively. And so what's happening here is the Federal Government is overstepping its bounds and violating the 10th Amendment and taking away from the States their right to regulate this industry or to deal with whether or not people should or should not have to buy these things. And the attorneys general are saying very clearly this is a State's right and we don't think the Federal Government has the right to do this under the commerce clause.

So I would just like to add a couple of other things that go along with this, Mr. Carter, and that is the cost that it's going to be to the American people. The estimated deficit that is going to be created by this, as far as the health care bill is concerned, is about $385 billion or $395 billion over the next 10 years.

But the fact of the matter is, it's going to cost a lot more than that. The estimated costs, according to CBO, based upon the information that was sent to them, was that it was going to cost about $850 billion or $860 billion over 10 years, and the amount that was going to be as far as the deficit was concerned was about $300-some billion.

But the fact of the matter is they only have 6 years of coverages, but they have 10 years of taxes. So when you take 10 years of coverage and 10 years of taxes and you look at what it's going to cost the American people, it's going to run up over $2 trillion--money we don't have. And the deficit already is out of control. The budget we passed this year was $3.85 trillion--or last year. And this year they won't even send us a budget because they know it's going to be more than that.

The shortfall in spending that increased the debt, our debt to our kids and grandkids, was $1.4 trillion last year. It's going to be $1.6 trillion or more this year, and it's going to get worse as the years go by over the next decade or two. And so in addition to violating the Constitution, as I believe this does, and in addition to having 22 States file suit against the Government of the United States because of this bill, this is going to cost an arm and a leg that we don't have. We don't have this money. And who's going to pay for it?

Well, we borrowed money from China. We owe them about $800 billion. We borrowed $600 billion from Japan. If you add it all up, we are probably into the trillions and trillions of dollars that we owe the rest of the world. If they ever cash in on what we owe them, I don't know how we are going to pay for it.

The fact of the matter is, right now, because of the cost of this legislation and the other programs and the deficits that are taking place right now, I really believe that the Federal Government is going to have to print a lot of money. And when they print money, they inflate the money supply and we have what is called inflation. What they try to do is try to figure out a way to stop that inflation by raising interest rates or increasing taxes.

Now the administration is talking about a value-added tax like they have in Europe. And the value-added tax in Europe is running about 20 percent in many countries. And if you buy a car for $10,000, for instance, and you add the value-added tax to it, you're up to $12,000. Another 20 percent. The American people can't afford it. We can't afford the inflation, we can't afford the taxes, and what it will do to the economy and jobs is unbelievable, not to mention that it violates the Constitution of the United States.

So if I were talking to the American people tonight, Mr. Carter--and we can't talk to the American people; we can only talk to each other and the Members of the Congress--I would say there's a lot more to this than just the violation of the Constitution. There's no question in my mind that there is that violation, but the cost to us and our kids and our posterity is going to be unbelievable. This country can't afford to spend the money the way we are doing it. We can't afford to raise taxes like they are talking about. We can't afford a value-added tax and we can't afford to see jobs slip away from America and go offshore to other countries. That is what I think this is leading to.

This administration believes in a European-style socialistic approach to government, and we have to stop that. I want to pat the attorneys general on the back from those 22 States for leading the charge in dealing with this constitutional abuse of power, and I wish them the very best and I hope that every State in the Union, Mr. Carter, I hope every State in the Union will join in this fight because the Federal Government should not usurp the rights of the people of this country and the several States. And our Forefathers never planned for that. And that is why they gave the States the ultimate power instead of leaving it with the Federal Government. They said that those powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved for the States. And that is the way it ought to be.

I want to thank you once again for taking this Special Order. You're one of my heroes.

Would the gentleman yield on that point real quickly? Our Governor, who I think is one of the best Governors in the country, Mitch Daniels, he said that passing this would put 500,000 people more on Medicaid in the State of Indiana. I just wanted to validate the point that you just made. This is going to be a tremendous burden on States all across this country because they are going to shift an awful lot of the burden that is on the Federal health care system to the States. In Indiana, we are going to be spending billions of dollars more over the long haul because they are going to put 500,000 people more on Medicaid. I don't know that that is the exception. I think every State in the Union is going to suffer like that. Those are costs we are not even talking about.

I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding.

I just want to follow up on what my other colleague from Texas just said. He was quoting the attorney general of Texas, Mr. Greg Abbott, and there was one clause in his letter that I thought bears repeating. He said, ``If there are to be any limitations on the Federal Government, then `commerce' cannot be construed to cover every possible human activity under the sun--including mere human existence. The act of doing absolutely nothing does not constitute an act of `commerce' that Congress is authorized to regulate.''

And this parallels what we were talking about earlier with the National Recovery Act, because it was designed to cover everything back in the 1930s. We talked about a couple of examples. And this attorney general is quoting pretty much what Justice Brandeis was talking about when he wrote the opinion, the 9-0 opinion that destroyed the National Recovery Act, saying that the Federal Government didn't have the right to run everything. And I think that's exactly what your attorney general is talking about.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

You know, I think my colleagues have very eloquently explained the contents of the bill and what we need to do. But the thing I would like to talk about for a minute or two are the ramifications for America and the rest of the world if we don't do something. We get about 30 to 40 percent of our energy from the Middle East, and if I were talking to the American people, I would just say to them that if you look at your lights and you look at the energy you need for your car and for everything else, heating your house, you need to realize that if Iran develops a nuclear capability and that whole area becomes a war zone, the Persian Gulf, where a lot of oil is transported through, we would see a terrible problem as far as our energy is concerned, and that would directly affect our economy.

So it is extremely important that we do something and do something very, very quickly. We have waited too long. We have been talking about negotiating with Iran and putting sanctions on them for the past 4 or 5 years, trying to get our allies to work with us. The fact of the matter is nothing has happened, and Iran continues to thumb their nose at the rest of the world. This is a terrible, terrible threat. A terrorist state, Iran, with nuclear weapons is not only a threat to the Middle East, to Israel, our best ally over there, but it is a threat to every single one of us.

They are also working on intermediate range missiles and possibly intercontinental ballistic missiles. If they get those, nobody is safe. So it is extremely important that we take whatever measures are necessary to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Now, today we are taking a great first step. I hope when this goes to conference committee we come out with something that is so strong it really will have an impact on what Iran does. But if it doesn't, it is important that everybody in the world realize that we have to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons because it is a threat to every single person on this planet in one way or another. We have got to stop nuclear proliferation, but the first thing we have to do is stop Iran, a terrorist state, from getting nuclear weapons.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I was going to talk about the health care bill, and how it's going to affect AT&T, $1 billion they are going to be out; John Deere, 150 million; Caterpillar, 100 million; Prudential a 100 million. All these companies, their bottom line is going to be reduced by all this money because of the health care bill that wasn't supposed to hurt our economy at all. But it's going to. It's going to hurt the bottom line of all these companies, and it's going to affect the people who work for them. They are going to be laying people off. They are going to be offshore many of these companies because of this. And it's something that wasn't talked about during the health care debate. The American people were against the bill. And if they knew this, they would really be against the bill.

But the thing I want to talk about tonight is my good friend, Congressman Poe, was just down here. And usually when I come down here to give a talk at night, I have a subject like this I am going to talk about, but he said some things during his 5-minute Special Order that I wish all of my colleagues who may be watching back in their offices, and if I were talking to the American people, I would wish that they could hear what he had to say.

Mr. Poe, did I understand you correctly when you said that there is a bounty of $250,000 on our Border Patrol agents down there by the drug cartels?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I wasn't aware of that. And I doubt if any of our colleagues were aware of that. Are the sheriffs and all the law enforcement agencies down there, they are aware of it as well?

Who in the world would want to be a Border Patrol agent or work on that border if they know that there is a $250,000 bounty on their head by the drug cartels?

And you showed a helicopter, a Mexican helicopter that was in the United States airspace. And there is no explanation for that as well.

And no American troops, National Guard or military of any kind is down there augmenting the border patrol agents that are risking their lives every day.

Well, you know, what I would like to do, Representative Poe, under your leadership, I'd like to work with you to get a letter signed to the President of the United States talking about this bounty that's on our border patrol agents' heads, and ask him and the Governors of those States to do whatever is necessary to protect that border and to make sure that our border patrol agents aren't at risk like they are today. That's just terrible. I can't believe that. And if we could get a bunch of Members to sign a letter like that, maybe we could wake up the administration to the problem and get some additional help down there because, as you know, well, you of all people know, they're coming across in droves and they're using all kinds of methods to bring drugs into this country. And they're killing Americans. Wasn't there an American killed a couple of miles inside the border just a week or two ago?

Well, I will be glad to work with you, if you would like to, to draft a letter to make sure that everybody knows in this body and the President knows that there is a bounty to kill American border patrol agents or to kidnap them and do whatever they do to them by the drug cartels. This is something that the American people need to know about. And I'm so happy that you brought this up tonight, and I'm going to do everything I can to work with you to make sure we do something to stop it. And I want to go down to the border with you to see this thing firsthand, and we'll be doing that pretty quick.

Everybody in this body owes you a debt of gratitude.

Madam Speaker, it's the end of the week. Another week has gone by, and the Middle East continues to be a tinderbox waiting to explode. Abraham Lincoln said, ``Let the people know the facts and the country will be saved.'' And one of the things that bothers me is it's hard for us to get the facts sometimes.

The President of the United States, Mr. Obama, this week had a summit that was supposed to deal with nuclear proliferation. And they had leaders from all over the world there, and they were talking about how to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons from getting into countries that may cause a problem and weapons that might get into terrorists' hands that could destroy an awful lot of the human race.

But he didn't talk about Iran. It almost never happens anymore. He doesn't talk about Iran. They say that there are going to be sanctions put on Iran that's going to stop them from developing their nuclear weapons program, but the sanctions never take place. We have been talking about sanctions, I know, now for at least 5 or 6 years, and Iran just keeps thumbing their nose at the rest of the world, the United Nations, the United States, and everybody, and they continue to build a nuclear weapons program. They say they're not, but they are, and I think everybody in the world knows it.

Now, this week, the head of the Iranian Nuclear Commission--I think that's the title he has--said that the Bushehr nuclear power plant will be operational in just a couple of months, the production of nuclear fissionable material within a couple of months. And our military leaders say that Iran could have a nuclear weapon in as little as 1 year, and some people say a lot quicker than that. Yet instead of doing something about it, we continue to fool around talking about putting sanctions on them week after week, month after month, year after year, and they continue to build a nuclear weapons program.

And when the head of Israel comes here, Mr. Netanyahu, the Prime Minister. The President gives him the cold shoulder and starts telling him if he doesn't do certain things that we're not going to be supporting them, as we should be. And I think that's terrible. Our only real strong ally in the Middle East that has been with us through thick and thin is Israel, and we should be supporting them right now and doing everything we can to keep the Middle East from going up in smoke. Because if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, there's no question in my mind that they'll use it if they get an opportunity. Because Mr. Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, continues to say he wants, as his number one objective, to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. And I can tell you right now if I know Bibi Netanyahu, and I think I do, he's not going to let that happen. So because we are fooling around, we are

still dealing with the possibility of a major conflagration over there.

Now, how does that affect the Middle East? Well, Israel is in jeopardy, but if Iran gets nuclear weapons and we don't do something about it and Israel doesn't, then all those countries around there are going to be intimidated, and they are all going to start moving toward radical Islam. That's my view, anyhow. And that is something we can't allow to happen. We can't allow that whole area to go down that road.

But in addition to that, we get about 30 percent or 40 percent of our energy from the Middle East, and if that happens, we are going to have trouble getting the oil that we need to keep our lights on, to keep the gasoline in our cars, and all the other things that we do with energy.

So I would just like to say that, instead of holding these conferences, if I were talking to him, Mr. President, and I know I can't, but if I were, I would say quit fooling around. Get with the program. Let Ahmadinejad and the Iranians know that we are not going to stand by and let them become a nuclear power with nuclear weapons. Because if they do, if they continue down that path, we along with Israel will do whatever is necessary to stop them.

They need to know that. As long as they know we're just talking and pushing papers around and talking about sanctions, they are not going to stop. They are only going to stop when they know we mean business. And, Mr. President, you are sure not giving them the right signal, in my opinion.

Let me just say that I am a great admirer of Duke University. I lean a little more toward Butler since I'm from Indianapolis, Indiana, and I thought Duke played a great game. And I want you to know, there is no truth to the rumor that Butler intentionally missed that last basketball shot because they didn't want to hurt Duke's feelings. Are you listening over there?

Anyhow, congratulations to Duke University and to Butler University. Butler is a very small school. It's a private school in Indianapolis, and for them to reach the final game in the national championship is a real tribute not only to the school and the players but to a great young coach who's only been coaching for 3 years. And of course the Duke Blue Devils are always tough, and I'm very proud to say we want to congratulate them. But the Bulldogs did a great job. They were a great team, and next year we're going to get them.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I get a big kick out of my Democrat colleagues talking about how they are doing so much for the poor and underprivileged in this country and giving all these tax cuts. The

fact of the matter is the tax cuts that were passed by the previous administration are going to expire at the end of this year and the Democrats are going to let them expire, which means that in effect all those taxes are going to go up. That is a tax increase.

Mr. Volcker, who was in the Carter administration and raised interest rates to 21\1/2\ percent that put this country into a real economic spiral, he is now saying that we are going to need a VAT tax, a value- added tax of about 15 to 20 percent, which they are going to probably try to push through after the election. And a VAT tax of 20 percent would mean if you buy a $10,000 car it is going to cost you $12,000 because you have a $2,000 additional tax tacked on.

This is a tax and spend administration. We have the biggest deficits in the history of the United States. And when I hear my colleagues talking about all the good things they are doing for America, I wish they would look at the unemployment rate and look at what people are taking out of their salaries and what this country is going through economically. It ain't what they are saying.

I was in my office today, Mr. Speaker, and I was watching the Joint Economic Committee. And one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle was talking about how one of his companies had 300 employees that were in entry level positions and they were getting minimum wage and the employer was telling him how they were going to have to lay a lot of them off because of the inability of them to get loans and for other reasons.

The reason I came down to talk about this is because there is no question that if we have a tight money policy that it's going to affect small businesses. In addition to that, when we load additional regulations and costs onto small businesses, it's going to cause them problems and they are going to have to lay people off.

I was reading in the paper this week the new health care bill is going to cost AT&T $1 billion. They are going to have to take that out of their bottom line. It's going to cost the John Deere & Company $150 million; Caterpillar, $100 million; Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, $90 million; AK Steel, $31 million; Valero Energy, $20 million. All of these companies are going to pay for that, and they are either going to have to take it out of their profits or they are going to have to take it out of the hides of their employees by letting some of them go or they will have to send some of their operations offshore.

As long as we have more government and more government programs, it's going to cost jobs. Because somebody has to pay for those. The money doesn't come out of the sky. So if an employer gets a regulation that costs him money, if an employer is taxed and it's going to cost him money, then he has to find someplace to get that money in order to have a bottom-line profit, unless you believe the government should run everything and we should have socialism in this country or a socialized economy. And some people think that's where we are headed, and I think that is very unfortunate.

But let's just take a look at some of the things that the administration has done since they have taken office that have been a burden to small business and has cost us jobs.

Incidentally, I would just like to say that all the great programs and plans that the Obama administration had was supposed to keep unemployment below 8 percent, and it's still around 9\1/2\ to 10 percent and there is no indication it is going to go down.

But, anyhow, the Economic Stabilization Act, which part of it was this year and part of it was last year, in 2008, so we can't blame all of that on Obama, but the TARP bailout was $700 billion.

And then in January we had $73.3 billion in the State Children's Health Insurance reauthorization, a worthy program, but it costs a lot of money.

The stimulus bill was $1.16 trillion when you add in the interest, money we don't have.

In February, we had the omnibus spending bill, which was $625 billion when you add in interest.

In June, $105.9 billion in the supplemental.

Last year we had the consolidated appropriations mini omnibus bill of $3.55 trillion, again money we don't have.

And then in March of this year, we had the health care bill, which was estimated to cost, if you talk about 10 years of taxes and 10 years of coverage, about $3 trillion or $2.5 to $3 trillion.

You load all this on the back of small business, and there's no way that you can continue to keep everybody employed. You're going to tax them.

Mr. Waxman, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, is bringing before his committee the CEOs of AT&T, Deere & Company, Caterpillar, because he says they really shouldn't be telling people these things because these aren't accurate figures. Well, they are accurate figures: the $1 billion it is going to cost AT&T, the $150 million it is going to cost John Deere & Company, the $100 million it is going to cost Caterpillar, and on and on. They have to report that by law, and because they have reported it, Mr. Waxman wants them to come before the committee to try to make them look like they are blowing these figures up. The fact of the matter is business and industry in this country is suffering and because of that we're going to see more unemployment.

Now, you add to that by the end of this year the tax cuts that were put in by the previous administration are going to expire, and the President has said he's going to let them expire, which means those tax cuts are not going to be there. So that again will, in effect, be a tax increase. And then you add to that Mr. Volker, as I said in my previous 1 minute, is talking about a value-added tax of about 15 to 20 percent. That's going to be a terrible thing for the economy and for jobs.

So I would like to say to my colleagues, if you want to create jobs, cut taxes and cut spending. That's the answer. And cut government regulation.

Madam Speaker, a lot of people in this country thought that the health care bill was a move toward socialism, toward government control over the entire health care industry. But, you know, we went ahead and passed it anyhow, even though probably 60-some percent of the American people opposed it.

But I just want to say tonight to my Democratic colleagues who pushed so hard for it, who said it wasn't a move toward government control and socialism, there is one foreign leader who really thinks it was a great move in the right direction, and that is the Communist leader from Cuba, Fidel Castro, who contacted the President of the United States and said it was a giant step in the right direction. That ought to tell us something.