Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, President Lincoln said, ``Let the people know the facts, and the country will be saved.''

Today, I listened to former Vice President Cheney give the facts to the American people about the war against terror. I think my colleagues who didn't get to hear it today really ought to hear some of the things that he has said that were very, very important and relevant to the war against terror.

So I would like to read a few excerpts from his speech tonight so I hope my colleagues will take these to heart and hopefully put them on their Internet sites.

First of all, he said, ``I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.

``Attorney General Holder and others have admitted that the United States will be compelled to accept a number of the terrorists here, in the homeland,'' in America, ``and it has even been suggested U.S. taxpayer dollars will be used to support . . . '' the terrorists here in America.

``The administration has found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe

for closing Guantanamo. But it's tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America's national security.

``Now the President says some of these terrorists should be brought to American soil for trial in our court system. Others,'' he says, ``will be shipped to third countries. But so far, the United States has had little luck getting any other countries to take hardened terrorists.''

I think only one of them has been given to another country.

He says, ``The administration seems to pride itself''--the Obama administration ``seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned, one lead that goes unpursued can bring on catastrophe--it's no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.''

He went on to say, ``It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America's moral standards, one way or the other. Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values.

``But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

``Somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted.'' They crossed things out ``to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.''

And the bottom line, Madam Speaker, is our intelligence agencies have done a great job in protecting this country for the past 8 years ever since 9/11. We should not be hamstringing those, and today I think former Vice President Cheney really told the story the way it ought to be told, and I hope all of my colleagues and every American is paying attention.

Mr. Speaker, on July 28, 1787, there was a real problem with the Constitutional Convention. They couldn't reach agreement on a Constitution. So Benjamin Franklin stood up in Constitution Hall and he said this. Let me read what was going on. I want to draw you a picture first.

The Constitutional Convention was on the verge of breaking apart completely over the issue of representation, a stalemate created by the concern of smaller States that they would be overpowered by the larger States, and the concern of larger States that smaller States would be given representation out of proportion to their relative size.

Tempers were short, and the ship of state seemed headed for the rocks before its maiden voyage had barely begun, when Benjamin Franklin rose and said these immortal words:

``In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding?

``In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in a struggle must have observed instances of superintending Providence in our favor.

``To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?''

And this is the part that I think every American remembers, when he said, ``I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?''

Tomorrow is National Prayer Day. And I hope that everybody in this country during these perilous times with our economy and the problems around the world will join together, regardless of their faith, and pray that we solve these problems and that there is peace and prosperity in America and around the world. The President of the United States, President Obama, will be signing a proclamation tomorrow observing National Prayer Day. And we appreciate that he is going to do this. And if he has time tomorrow, I hope the President will manifest his support for this great day by showing publicly his support by praying with a number of his members at the White House. I think it would be a great example.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill titled, ``The Energy Independence Now Act of 2009.''

Few things affect American consumers like high energy prices. During the summer of 2008 with the price of oil hovering near $150 a barrel, Americans faced record prices at the gas pump--in many cases well over $4.00 per gallon. These high prices contributed to a downturn in economic growth, an increase in inflation and forced many American families to make difficult financial choices. According to the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration, gasoline prices are down to around $2 per gallon and the price of oil is close to $50 per barrel. Though the price of gasoline has decreased significantly, many are still concerned that it will rise again and quite possibly because of the disproportionate amount of oil that we import from regimes that are unfriendly to us.

The old adage goes that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Apart from creating the Strategic Petroleum Reserves after the oil embargoes of the 1970s, the United States did painfully little to make sure that oil could never again be used as a weapon against us. If anything, we put ourselves further under the thumb of foreign oil. In 1972, we imported approximately 28 percent of the oil we consume from foreign countries; today the United States imports 62 percent of its oil from other nations. While half of that amount comes from our friends in Mexico and Canada, the other half of our imported oil travels from unstable, undemocratic or unfriendly regimes. That means that every time I fill up my gas tank--whether the price is $2 a gallon or $4 a gallon--at least half of my money goes into the economies of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Angola. And while the tactics of oil manipulation may change--price spikes versus an outright embargo--the results are eerily the same.

That is why I am introducing this bill, to continue to move our country forward on the path toward breaking America's dependence on foreign sources of oil while at the same time investing in a renewable energy future. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are looking to pass a costly cap-and-trade program that will only serve to increase the price of energy for the American consumer and devastate energy companies in my home State of Indiana. Now is not the time to burden families with higher energy costs, when many of them are already struggling to find and keep jobs, pay for college and provide for their families.

I believe that in the long-run we need to get off oil and that requires more investment in alternative energy and energy conservation technologies. My bill addressed this through provisions that would increase alternative energy sources and diversify the energy grid with currently available alternative energy technologies. As a nation, we waste far too much energy with inefficient engines and machines. That is why my bill would provide tax incentives for companies to produce fuel efficient vehicles. In fact, it provides a $500 tax credit for individuals who purchase hybrid cars made by American-based companies.

However, while we are discovering new, clean and cost-effective ways to increase the American energy supply, we must recognize that oil will remain a part of our energy mix for some time. The good news about this is that we have plenty of it. The Department of the Interior, DOI, conducted a comprehensive inventory of oil and natural gas resources located off our coastlines within the last several years, and according to the Department's figures there is an estimated 8.5 billion barrels of known oil reserves and 29.3 trillion cubic feet, tcf, of known natural gas reserves along our coastlines; with 82 percent of the oil and 95 percent of the gas located in the Gulf of Mexico, GOM. However, even more importantly, the Department of the Interior estimates that there are untapped resources of about 86 billion barrels, 51 percent in the Gulf of Mexico, and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, 55 percent in the Gulf of Mexico, out there. My bill would open up these areas to access these resources. Domestic production of these resources would provide much-needed real energy jobs without any cost to the taxpayer.

In addition, my bill opens up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, which holds the single largest deposit of oil in the entire United States. Its 10.4 billion barrels of oil is more than double the proven reserves of the entire State of Texas and almost half of the total proven reserves in the U.S., 22 billion barrels. Had President Clinton not vetoed ANWR energy production in 1995, the United States could be getting nearly 1.5 million barrels of oil per day from the arctic right now.

In addition, the U.S. has been called the Saudi Arabia of oil shale. It has been estimated that oil shale deposits in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming hold the equivalent of as little as 1.8 trillion barrels of oil and potentially as much as 8 trillion barrels of oil. In comparison, Saudi Arabia reportedly holds proved reserves of 267 billion barrels. Unfortunately, oil-shale is rough equivalent to diesel fuel and a number of Clean Air Act regulations--such as low-sulfur diesel--and federal motor fuel taxes--which favor gasoline over diesel fuels--have created a strong financial disincentive regarding the production and use of oil-shale fuels. Many of these deposits are on public land making it more bureaucratically complicated to exploit this resource. My bill would provide a financial incentive for companies to invest in and produce more oil from oil shale.

Getting more domestic oil on the market is only half the solution. We haven't built a new refinery in this country in more than 25 years because the approval process for new refinery construction is estimated to require up to 800 different permits. While existing refineries have undergone significant expansion over the years, even as others have been shuttered, our aging refinery infrastructure leaves little margin for error. If we begin to produce more domestic crude oil we would need to turn it into home heating oil, gasoline, or diesel through the refining process. The ability to refine oil must keep pace with the demand for gasoline and diesel. My bill would create an expedited process for the construction of new refining capacity by streamlining the permitting process and opening up closed military bases for construction.

Clearly, developing new oil fields and refineries will take some time. In the interim my bill also helped promote the production of non- food sources for biofuels. It also opens up Federal land for the production of biofuel crops in order to provide relief from high food prices that have resulted from ethanol production.

Madam Speaker, I believe in conservation, I believe in energy efficiency, and I believe in diversifying our energy supply by using wind, solar, coal-to-liquid technologies, ethanol and other renewable energy sources. But the fact of the matter is that oil and natural gas are still going to be a part of our energy mix for a long time to come and we must be able to access our own resources rather than becoming more dependent on unstable parts of the world.

I would like to urge my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring this important legislation to help America get on the road towards energy independence and to create real jobs at no cost to the taxpayer.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to express my appreciation and thanks to the faculty of Dongguk University for the Honorary Doctorate in Political Science they bestowed upon me during my recent visit to South Korea. I wish to also recognize my friends in Korea and at Dongguk University who help make the conferral of this Honorary Doctorate possible. These individuals include: President Young-Kyo Oh and President Dong-Jin Sohn of Dongguk University, Governor Kwan-Yong Kim of Gyeongsangbuk-do Province, Mayor Sang-Seung Baek of Gyeongju City, former Korean Ambassador to the U.S. Tae-Sik Lee and Mrs. Lee, Mr. and Mrs. Il-Hwan Cho and Mr. and Mrs. Dong-Suk Kim of the Korean American Voter's Council in New York.

I have always believed that the Republic of Korea is one of America's most committed friends and allies, and the warmth and hospitality extended to me and my wife during our stay in April reinforced my belief that the bonds that bind the people of the United States together with the people of South Korea are as strong today as they have ever been.

Even so, I believe we should always look for opportunities to strengthen our alliance and friendship and one of the key areas of opportunity is passage of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.

During my stay, I had the privilege of meeting with Foreign Minister Myung-Hwan Yu, National Security Advisor Sung-Hwan Kim, Chairman Jin Park of the Korean National Assembly Foreign Affairs Committee, our U.S. Embassy senior officials and the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea. In practically every meeting, the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement was high on the agenda. No agreement or treaty is ever perfect, as it is always a product of compromise. And I agree that Congress has a legitimate right to debate the merits of the agreement; so let's have that debate; let's take this agreement out of legislative limbo, bring it to the House Floor, have an honest up or down vote, and let the chips fall where they may, Madam Speaker. I think we owe our South Korean friends that much respect because there's more at stake here than just economic growth; this Free Trade Agreement recognizes our special relationship with South Korea and reinforces the message that the United States stands squarely behind our friends and allies.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent to place in the Congressional Record a copy of the remarks I delivered at Dongguk University, entitled: ``The Korea-U.S. Alliance Partnership.'' And I would also ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing the historic significance of the U.S.-Korea alliance and its growing importance in the years to come.

President Young-Kyo Oh, distinguished members of the

faculty, and students of Dongguk University, ladies and

gentlemen and friends: Thank you for your kind introduction.

It is a great pleasure to be here today in the heart of

Korea's ancient capital city. We are surrounded by history,

culture and the memories and friendship that our nations have

made together through battles and treaties, commerce and

trade.

When I think about this partnership, one particular Korean-

American friend comes to mind. His name is Johnny Yune. When

Johnny was eleven years old, his family's home town was

bombed by communist forces. As they attempted to flee, a

particular blast knocked Johnny off his feet and sent him

tumbling to a ditch where he was left to die. An American

soldier named Private Brown found Johnny, rescued him from

the ditch and saved his life that day.

In the weeks and months that followed, the Yune family got

to know this Private Brown very well. Johnny remembers how he

used to come over to his home, unshaven, with a guitar on his

back and a truck full of rationed food. Private Brown would

sing and teach them American songs like ``Oh Susanna'' and

give them candy. Johnny is alive today because of that

American soldier; and, although he never saw the Private once

his unit had moved on, Johnny never forgot his kindness. In

his career as a television and movie star, he often speaks of

the war hero.

The virtues of the personal relationship between Private

Brown and Johnny are not limited to this experience. In a

greater sense, The United States and Korea also share a very

special relationship.

The United States and the Republic of Korea first became

partners more than 125 years ago, when we signed a treaty of

amity

and commerce in 1882. This partnership was forged on the

battlefield during the Korean War. The South Koreans fought

bravely to stay free from the chains of tyranny and communism

and have remained a beacon of light and democracy ever since.

For more than half a century, we have been diplomatic,

political, economic, and cultural partners and great friends.

In the early years, the United States reached out a hand to

South Korea, assisting as the nation transformed itself from

a war-torn ``basket'' economy into what it is now: a full-

blown democracy with the world's 13th largest economy. South

Korea is now an indispensable partner in promoting democracy

and extolling the benefits of free market economies. Today,

South Korea is the United States' seventh largest export

market and the fifth largest market for U.S. agricultural

products.

South Korea is committed to the freedom of its people, even

when threats grow daily, and especially in light of the

North's recent missile launch. The nation is a key partner in

the Six-Party Talks to resolve North Korea's nuclear issue,

despite the constant fear of war that clouds the peninsula.

South Korea is an important military ally with over 29,000

U.S. troops stationed in the country and plays a vital part

in securing peace and stability in the region. The United

States is committed to the strengthening and survival of

freedom on the Korean Peninsula.

South Korea has also reached out a hand to the United

States in times when we have been threatened. It is one of

only three nations which stood alongside the U.S. in all four

major conflicts that the U.S. has faced since the Korean War.

The nation has been a strong ally in the U.S.-led War on

Terror, having committed troops to Iraq, Afghanistan and

Lebanon. Korea is a true friend of the United States. We are

committed together to defending freedom and liberty

throughout the world.

Over the past several years, the relationship between the

United States and Korea has grown even stronger. As a Member

of Congress and, especially, a Co-Chair of the Congressional

Caucus on Korea, I have been able to observe and participate

in legislative actions that have contributed to consolidating

the U.S.-Korea alliance. The Embassy of Korea in Washington

and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Seoul have

played a larger role in recent years in bringing to the

attention of Congress those issues of importance and concern

to the Korean people. This has informed congressional action

and improved the legislative process.

Of the important legislative achievements of the past few

years, the inclusion of Korea in the Visa Waiver Program,

which makes it easier for Koreans to visit the United States

for business, leisure, or family purposes, deserves special

mentioning. In early 2006, there were about two dozen

countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program

administered by the U.S. Department of State. Most of them

were European allies and trading partners. While

responsibility for expanding or contracting the Visa Waiver

Program lies with the Executive Branch, Congress took the

lead in persuading the Bush administration to include Korea

in the program.

My colleagues and I argued that, by allowing South Korea to

participate in the Visa Waiver Program, we would not only be

adhering to its stated goals, but at the same time we would

build upon a strategic partnership with our close friends in

East Asia. Although it took some time, legislation to open

the door for Korea to accede to the Visa Waiver Program

passed in July 2007, and in November of last year, Korea

officially joined the program at long last. It was a major

accomplishment for our bi-lateral alliance.

A second great achievement was the upgrading of Korea's

Foreign Military Sales (FMS) status to NATO+3. As I have

already noted, Korea and the United States have a close and

integral military alliance. But for years, Korea was treated

in an unfair fashion by U.S. laws related to the sales of

military equipment. So the U.S. House of Representatives and

U.S. Senate sought to correct this problem by raising Korea's

Foreign Military Sales status to something known as NATO-

plus-3. This status elevation was long overdue and absolutely

necessary to reverse the unfair exclusion.

In doing this, we acted on our firm belief that the

Republic of Korea has been one of our most important and

staunchest allies in the Asia-Pacific region. Our mutual

alliance is dynamic and comprehensive, encompassing

political, economic, military, security, cultural, and social

spheres. By the end of last year, Congress had approved the

upgrade in status for Korea and it now stands at NATO+4. I am

convinced that both of our countries will benefit from the

greater partnership that this status upgrade brings.

Finally, we were able to see the passage of a resolution

bringing world attention to the plight of the ``Comfort

Women'' who suffered at the hands of the Imperial Japanese

Army during the Second World War. In 2007, the House of

Representatives at long last passed House Resolution 121,

which I co-sponsored and which received bipartisan support

and worldwide attention in the news media.

In fact, Congress took the lead in raising the issue of the

``comfort women.'' We invited survivors from Korea to tell

their stories in front of television cameras on the record.

After the United States Congress acted on this critical human

rights issue, other legislative bodies around the world took

notice and acted themselves. Thus, the plight of Korea's

comfort women became an issue of international concern that,

we hope, will serve as a reminder to future generations that

such horrific violence shall never occur again.

While some cynics dismissed the resolution as simply

revisiting a tragedy of the distant past, I believe a

relevant assertion of the importance of respecting human

rights is timeless, and the world should never again deny

women the right to be safe and secure and to maintain their

dignity.

Though these accomplishments are notable, I believe there

are even greater accomplishments in our future. In the coming

months I hope we can pass the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

of which I am a strong supporter. As most of you undoubtedly

know, the United States and Korea signed a free trade

agreement in June of 2007, after months of diligent

negotiations. The agreement has not yet been ratified and, to

be candid, action on the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement may

not take place for some time.

It is no secret that there are members of both the United

States Congress and the Korean National Assembly who oppose

the Free Trade Agreement. But there are also those of us--and

I include myself among them--who believe that free trade

among free peoples is a positive good, and those agreements

or treaties that advance the principles of free trade bring

more benefits than risks, promote future prosperity, and

provide a stronger foundation for peace and stability around

the globe.

Just last month the World Trade Organization warned of a

rising threat of trade protectionism around the world. This

threat has emerged because of the general decline of the

global economy over the past two or three years. Governments

are doing what they have done for centuries in the face of

economic contraction: they look inward. This is, in my

opinion, a mistake, and it is a mistake borne out by the

lessons of history.

The benefits of a U.S.-Korean Free Trade Agreement are

manifestly clear. This agreement, once it is ratified, will

constitute the largest and most commercially significant Free

Trade Agreement the United States has negotiated in 15 years.

The numbers are truly impressive. Korea is the 13th largest

economy in the world with a GDP of nearly one Trillion U.S.

dollars and a per capita income of over $20,000. It is the

United States' 7th largest trading partner and our 5th

largest market for U.S. agricultural export products. Trade

between our two nations is nearly $80 Billion and includes

important goods like computer chips, industrial machinery,

organic chemicals, agricultural produce, civilian aircraft

and, of course, beef. A Free Trade Agreement would bolster

U.S. exports to Korea, open duty-free access for Korean goods

in the U.S. market, and stimulate job growth in both of our

countries.

A Free Trade Agreement would also benefit the great State

of Indiana, which I proudly represent in Congress. Korea is

Indiana's 10th largest export market, and Indiana exports

$303 Million in goods to Korea annually. Not only that, but

almost 10,000 Korean-Americans reside in the State of Indiana

and more than 2,000 Korean students study at Indiana's

prestigious academic institutions.

This new partnership between the United States and South

Korea is sure to be a win-win for both of our countries. I

pledge that I am committed to working closely with the U.S.

and Korean negotiators as FTA talks proceed, so that we can

ensure the best opportunities for Americans and Koreans

alike.

Unfortunately, the political mood in the United States

right now is not conducive to the ratification of the U.S.-

Korea Free Trade Agreement, or any other such trade

agreement. I can assure you, however, that my colleagues and

I who believe strongly in the principle of free trade and

specifically in the importance of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade

Agreement, will not let this agreement die for lack of

action. We will continue to fight for its approval by

Congress, we will press the White House to fight for it, and

we will go directly to the court of public opinion to

persuade American consumers, business leaders, and workers to

support it. I know that, with time and wisdom on our side,

the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement will be ratified and the

relationship between our countries will become even stronger

because of it.

In closing, I am reminded of the look on my good friend

Johnny Yune's face, and the way his voice cracked as he re-

tells the story of Private Brown. It is the same affection I

have experienced on my visit here and the affection I have

felt toward my old and even new Korean and Korean-American

friends.

Our friendship is different from the relationship of any

other country with the United States. I would say to my

Korean friends that we should continue to focus on what keeps

our relationship strong and more unique than any other

alliance in world history. It is my fervent belief that the

U.S.-Korea alliance is worth protecting and strengthening.

That is why the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement is so

important to me.

Once again, I have been struck personally by the

extraordinary warmth and hospitality of the Korean people

since my arrival here in this beautiful country. This has

been true not only among my formal hosts, but with everyone I

meet. I am honored and humbled

to accept this honorary degree at this historic institution,

and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. May we never

cease to find ways to strengthen and deepen the ties that

bind our two nations together.

President Oh, distinguished faculty and students of Dongguk

University, friends and colleagues, it is my distinct honor

to accept this degree. I will always cherish this moment with

great humility and I pledge to do all I can to see that our

very special alliance to grow even closer in the coming

years.

Thank you, and ``GAHM-SAH-HAHM-NIDA!''

Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago America lost one of its greatest patriots, and I mean that. Jack Kemp served in this body, and I had the pleasure of knowing him for a long, long time.

He started out his career, as far as I can remember, as a football player. He was at San Diego where he played. As I understand it, the football team out there really didn't think he had what it took to become a starting quarterback, and they sold him to the Buffalo Bills for $500, I believe. He always laughed about that. And for $500, the Buffalo Bills got an all-star quarterback. They won several conference titles in the AFC, and he was an All Pro. Jack Kemp was all pro his whole life. When he ran for Congress and came to this Chamber, everyone who knew him and met him knew immediately he would become one of our leaders. He became our conference chairman and a leader in so many ways. Ronald Reagan tapped him to work with him on cutting taxes, which stimulated the longest period of economic growth in our country's history. Jack Kemp, along with Mr. Roth in the Senate, wrote the Kemp- Roth bill, which was the catalyst for the economic recovery under the Reagan administration.

Jack Kemp was a lot of fun to be with. He wasn't just a stuffy guy. He was the kind of guy that you liked to be around, an all-American person as well as an all-American football player and all-American political leader.

He ran for Vice President with Bob Dole, and I truly believe he would have been an outstanding Vice President had he been elected. I also campaigned for him up in New Hampshire when he was running for President. I will never forget the Styrofoam footballs with his name that he threw to us on the plane. I think it was in January, and it was so cold. The thing I remember the most was Jack put me on a plane. He had three planeloads of congressmen, and the only one that didn't have heat was the one I was on. But he was worth it. He was worth campaigning door to door, store to store in New Hampshire because he would have been an outstanding President.

I came down tonight to pay homage to a good friend whom we will all miss, a man who was a great American, a great father and husband, and he is somebody who will be missed by not only the people in this Chamber and the other Chamber and the White House, but he will be missed by everybody in America who knew him. He was a great, great man.

I just want to say to Joanne and his four children, You have our deepest sympathy. Everybody in this body sends their best regards to you and their sympathy to you for this very trying time you are going through.

If anyone gets to heaven, Jack will be up there, and he probably has a football in his hands. I can't wait to see him again.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague over there who is a great golfer for introducing this resolution and my colleague from Pennsylvania.

One of the things I will just say at the outset is I envy you because you had a chance to play golf with him. Tom Ridge, our former colleague, promised me when he became governor, he was going to arrange for me to play with Arnold Palmer, and he never did it. So when you see Governor Ridge, would you tell him I am still disappointed about that. Would you do that for me? Thank you. Be sure to tell him.

There's been a lot said about Arnold Palmer today, and I am not going to be redundant and go over the things that have been said. But I will tell you this: that I have been an avid golfer and have followed golf all of my life as soon as I was 12 years old, and there's nobody that I know that brought golf from a minor sport into the major arena like Arnold Palmer did.

Years ago, he won the Los Angeles Open, and on the front page of the Indianapolis Star newspaper they had a picture of him with a check for $5,000, and he was holding it up like, ``My gosh. Isn't this a tremendous amount of money?''

When Arnold Palmer came on the scene and started making the great comebacks that he did in the Masters and U.S. Open and the PGA and British Open, he brought a new attitude to golf, a new sensation to golf. You talked about Arnie's Army, and people across the country who didn't play golf, who weren't really interested in the sport, became interested because here was a guy you see on television coming down to the 16th or 17th hole, two shots behind, and you knew he was going to be there at the end. He was a lot like Tiger Woods is today. He would knock in a putt at the 16th or 17th hole and everybody would go crazy, and he would win the tournament on the last one. We've seen Tiger Woods do that. Arnold Palmer was the Tiger Woods of his day. He made golf a tremendous sport, a spectator sport, and he made it into something that every American is now interested in.

He did a lot of humanitarian things. I know you mentioned his involvement with children and the March of Dimes and prostate cancer. He did all of those things. But none of that wouldn't have occurred if he didn't have the personality and charisma that he showed on the golf course all those years. We had great players like Nicklaus, Player and Trevino and a whole host of them that played with him, but Palmer was the man. He was the guy that we all watched on Sunday afternoon and couldn't wait to get to the TV set to cheer on.

I am tickled to death that you're moving this medal of honor for him, and I am very happy to add my two cents worth. I think it's a great honor for him, and I hope he does put it in a very important place with all of his other trophies.

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

(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, over 2 years after disappearing on Kish Island in Iran, Robert Levinson, who my colleague has just described as a U.S. citizen and a resident of Florida, remains missing. During that time, the regime in Iran has continually obstructed efforts by the United States Government to investigate Mr. Levinson's disappearance. As Senator Bill Nelson stated on January 13 of this year at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in Iran ``the door has been closed at every single turn.''

Mr. Levinson is a 28-year veteran of the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration. He and his family, including his wife and seven children, deserve our every effort to determine his status and hopefully to secure his freedom and safe return home. Therefore, I strongly support House Concurrent Resolution 36, which urges the Iranian Government to intensify its cooperation on Mr. Levinson's case, with the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, and to share the results of its investigation with the FBI.

This legislation also urges the President and U.S. allies to raise Mr. Levinson's case in all appropriate multilateral and bilateral forums and expresses our sympathy to Mr. Levinson's family during this very difficult and trying time.

I thank my good friend and colleague Mr. Wexler, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, for introducing this resolution.

This is the kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, that everybody in the world ought to be concerned about. We have a young reporter who has disappeared over there and is unaccounted for. Mr. Levinson is unaccounted for. This Government of Iran should join the family of nations and start being like everybody else and admiring and living up to the human rights that we all respect and admire.

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

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

I want to thank my colleague from Georgia, David Scott, for cosponsoring this resolution.

I think everybody in this body is very concerned about the tragedies that befall human beings here and around the world.

As my colleague said, this past January two significant natural disasters wreaked havoc on the Central American nations of Costa Rica and Guatemala and took a terrible and destructive toll on people in these communities.

In Guatemala, as coffee workers were returning from long days of work in the Alta Verapaz region, thousands of

tons of mud and rock fell in a landslide. As a result of this catastrophe, the nation mourned the deaths of as many as 36 while over 60 are still missing.

Only 4 days later, a 6.1 magnitude earthquake shook the capital region of Costa Rica, resulting in the destruction of over 500 homes and the deaths of at least 20.

I join my colleagues today to express my sincere sympathy and our sincere sympathy and support to our Latin American friends who have suffered as a result of these disasters. I would like to commend the courage and perseverance of the Costa Rican and Guatemalan Governments, along with the private citizens and relief organizations who worked tirelessly in the rescue effort. The prompt humanitarian response carried out in the aftermath of these disasters clearly contributed to the ability of these nations to overcome the damage wrought by these two tragedies.

As I said before, I would like to thank Mr. Scott for cosponsoring this, and I would like to thank our chairman, Mr. Berman, and our ranking member, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, for helping move this important resolution to the floor. And, again, we extend our heartfelt condolences to the Guatemalan and Costa Rican people and their families who suffered as a result of these horrible disasters.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have got a letter here I would like to read to my colleagues that lets you know exactly what we're doing to the American people.

This is a letter from some people in Carmel, Indiana. They start off:

``Dear Congressman Burton:

``As an 82-year-old retired secondary teacher and athletics coach, I am writing you this letter to let you know that I have never received a personal response from a legislative representative of local, State, or Nation.'' And he just got a letter from me.

Then he says, ``In my original letter I was not able to express totally the depth of my hurt from the current economic environment sweeping our beloved country. Beyond the economic pressures of the day, we are faced with the collapse of capitalism and the inroads of socialism into our government. My wife and I, celebrating our

60th wedding anniversary in 2009, have lived through the thirties depression and skimped and clawed our way from earning $2,900 annually to a magnificent dollar amount of $45,000 annually at retirement in 1990.

``It all started in the late fall of 2007. We had invested and saved a considerable amount of money for a satisfactory retirement. Since that date, our conservative living, and a very modest budget, has seen the national economy lose more than $250,000 of our retirement savings. Frankly, at this point in time, we're scared to death.

``You may, and we wish that you would, send copies of this letter to President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid. They have no idea what they are doing to we constituents.

``I am sorry to cry on your shoulders, but my wife and I in concurrence do thank you for your wonderful letter of response. You touched our hearts deeply.''

``They have no idea what they are doing to America and your constituents.''

This is a big problem. This is the largest budget in history, the largest tax increase in history. You really need to know what you are doing to the American people, and here is a perfect example. And the people's names are Mr. and Mrs. Shipley.

Mr. Speaker, these pictures I have here are to remind my colleagues of what's happened to the United States in the past by terrorist attacks.

This first one is the Pentagon of the United States. Several hundred people were killed. There's a memorial over at the Pentagon that shows that these people gave their lives on the plane and in the Pentagon for this country, a terrorist attack on 9/11.

This here is the World Trade Center. More people were killed in this attack than any attack in the history of the United States by an enemy. Even the attack on Pearl Harbor didn't even come close to this, although that was a terrible thing as well.

And this here, just to let you know that the worldwide threat of terrorism by al Qaeda is worldwide, this is what happened to a train where they set a bomb off in Spain by al Qaeda. That was in Madrid.

Now, the reason I bring this up is because the President of the United States, in just the last few days, said that the techniques that we have used to extract information from terrorists is something that we in the United States should not use. There are many of us in the body who believes that we should use any technique possible, as long as it is not completely inhumane, to extract information from these terrorists so that they don't do these things to American citizens.

Now, many of my colleagues, I understand they're humanitarians and they don't want to do things to people that shouldn't be done. But we're talking about killing Americans. Killing Americans. And these terrorists have no compunction whatsoever about killing Americans.

I have over here that I am not going to show tonight where they have cut the heads off of Americans and held them up, and where they've cut the heads off of Americans and hung them from an overpass so that everybody driving by could see them. And yet, the administration is saying, you know, that we shouldn't use tactics such as waterboarding in order to extract this information from terrorists.

Now, there is a man named Khalid Sheik Mohammed who was the mastermind of the September 11 attack on the United States of America. He was waterboarded several times. And he said that he didn't think the United States of America--and others that were waterboarded, there were three of them that I recall--they didn't think the United States and the citizens of this country had the intestinal fortitude, the guts, necessary to do what was necessary to stop terrorist attacks. And so we used waterboarding on them. That's where they put a board on them and pour water over you to give you the sensation that feels like you're drowning, and you keep doing it until they give up the information that they want. He finally gave up the information.

The information that he gave up was there was going to be another attack in Los Angeles, and it was going to be similar to the attack on the World Trade Center, and it was going to be the Library Tower in Los Angeles. And the only reason he gave up that information was because he was waterboarded.

Now, you know, nobody wants to be waterboarded. We had a newsman that was waterboarded to show what it was like. He said it was terrible, it was horrible, but he survived, and he was showing what it was all about. And every time they did waterboarding, they had a doctor right there to make sure the person would survive. It was done just to elicit information from them that would save American lives.

And the only time they did it, the only time they used these ``enhanced techniques of interrogation'' was when they thought it was going to be imminent that the United States was going to be attacked, and they only did it three times that I know of. And every time it was necessary, and every time it ended up with results that saved American lives.

And yet the President of the United States said, ``We're not going to do that any more because it is not something that we in America approve of.''

In my opinion, if we're going to save American lives, we ought to do whatever is necessary to save American lives. We went to war with Japan and Germany because Americans were being killed. And millions of people died in that war because of the attack on Pearl Harbor and because of what Nazi Germany did. And yet we can't use waterboarding, a technique to get information from terrorists, to stop things like this?

You know, I don't mind being good-hearted but not where the lives of good Americans are concerned.

And there are other times where they got information from the terrorist organizations here in the United States that were planning an attack.

Vice President Cheney--who is being vilified all the time anymore--he was on television the last two nights and he said that while they are stopping waterboarding and saying that anybody that used that technique is a horrible person, he said he had seen documents that showed that the waterboarding was effective in saving American lives and stopping attacks like the World Trade Center and the one that was going to take place in Los Angeles. He said he saw those documents. And yet the White House released documents that showed that there were these tactics used to get information but they didn't show--they didn't release the documents that showed that it was effective in stopping the attack in Los Angeles, California.

My time is up, folks. I'll be back tomorrow night.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The thing that bothers me is the kind of legacy that we are leaving for our kids and grandkids. The amount of money that we are spending right now, $3.69 trillion in the budget, $410 billion in the omnibus, $14 billion for the auto companies; $700 billion, which we spent last year on TARP, $787 billion on the stimulus package.

We are spending trillions and trillions of dollars that we don't have, as my colleague just said.

I would just conclude by saying that we are spending trillions of dollars that we don't have. Our kids and grandkids are going to be paying taxes that they shouldn't have to bear. In addition to that we are going to have an inflationary problem that is going to rival anything that we have seen in the past. In the 1970s and the early 1980s we had inflation that was 14 percent and we ended up raising interest rates to 21 percent to slow down the rate of inflation to get the economy back in shape, and we ended up with another major recession because of it.

We have got to control our spending. We can't spend 8 or $10 trillion like we are doing. And the thing that bothers me the most is the legacy we are leaving to our kids and grandkids.

I want to thank my colleague for taking these. He comes down here almost every night or every other night talking about these things. The American people owe you a debt of gratitude for doing this. I really appreciate it.

Yes, I would say to my colleague briefly, that my mother worked 18 years as a waitress, my stepfather worked in a foundry. And I think that he made, before he paid child support, $75 a week.

And they were very concerned about living within their budget, and they worked very hard to make sure that our family did well without having to depend on the government. And unfortunately today we have a different mindset, and that is that the government can handle everything for us from cradle to grave.

And this attitude that's prevalent in this society right now really bothers me because it has taken such a hold of us that we are now spending trillions of dollars that we don't have. And the things that you and I had as young people and our parents gave to us, even though we had rough times, it's going to be worse in my opinion, because of the inflation we are going to leave our kids and the high taxes that we are going to have to pay to keep pace with the spending that's going on.

Once again, thank you very much. I really appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, something happened last week that really bothered me a great deal. President Obama decided to release CIA documents that were top secret because they said that they showed that there may have been some violations of law regarding torture when we were getting information from terrorists. So I would like to talk a little bit about the whole story or as much of it as I could find.

On March 18, the Justice Department told CIA Director Leon Panetta that they were going to recommend to the White House that these memos be released almost completely uncensored. Now, bear in mind these are top secret documents, and when they are top secret like that and labeled that way, that means that there is a security threat, not only to the United States, but to the CIA and the people that did this work for the United States to protect us against terrorism.

Nevertheless, these top secret memos were going to be released. Panetta told Attorney General Eric Holder and officials in the White House that the administration needed to discuss the possibility that the release of the memos might expose CIA officers to lawsuits on allegations of torture and abuse.

Panetta also pushed for more censorship of the memos, officials said. The Justice Department also informed other CIA officials, seniors over there, of the decision to release the memos, and as a courtesy told former agency directors.

Senior CIA officials objected, arguing that the release would hurt the agency's ability to interrogate prisoners in the future. They also said the move would further tarnish CIA officers who had acted on the Bush officials' legal guidance, and they warned that the action would erode foreign intelligence services' trust, other countries' trust in the CIA's ability to protect their national secrets, current and former officials said.

Now, I hope my colleagues will bear in mind that these were top secret documents, that four former directors of the CIA said it would threaten national security, it would eliminate tactics that were used in the past to get information from terrorists that probably protected American citizens and maybe saved a lot of lives. Even Leon Panetta told them that there was a problem. And former Vice President Cheney last night said on the Hannity show, which I watch quite frequently, that he saw memos that proved that the tactics employed by CIA members on terrorists did protect Americans from a terrorist attack.

Now, if that is the case, and I believe Vice President Cheney when he said that, I believe those memos that show that there was a real help to the country in protecting us against terrorist attack and probably saved a lot of lives, I believe those memos should be released, and I hope that President, President Obama will take a hard look at this.

He looked at these documents and said they should be released, even though they were top secret, threatened a lot of CIA members and threatened our national security, in my opinion. So since he did that, I think the President ought to release the memos that show that the tactics used by the CIA did save lives and did protect America from attack by terrorists in this country.

If I were talking to the President tonight, Mr. Speaker, I would say that is only fair. If you are going to release the memos and threaten the CIA with lawsuits and everything else because of the tactics that were employed there, if you are going to threaten possibly former Justice Department officials who wrote opinions saying that these tactics could be employed to extract information from terrorists, that we certainly should see the memos that show that the things that they did did protect America and did save lives. I think that is only fair.

In addition, I would like to end by saying that I don't think those who did their best at the CIA or the Justice Department to protect America should be prosecuted for doing their job to protect this country.

Madam Speaker, this has been a historic day. We just passed a huge bill, cost the American taxpayers $3.5 trillion. It increased taxes at a time when we shouldn't be increasing taxes, and I won't restate everything that's been said here today because I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle expressed their positions very well.

But what I would like to say--and I'm not going to take the whole 5 minutes--is that in October we passed the TARP bill, October of last year, $700 billion. In January, we passed the State Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization, $73 billion. In February, on the 9th, we passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the stimulus bill, for $820 billion plus the interest it will incur, which is about $348 billion. That's $1.16 trillion. On February 9, we consolidated the appropriations for fiscal year 2009 in the omnibus bill, $410 billion plus $250 billion in interest. That's $625 billion in total. And then you add to that the budget which we passed today for $3.5 trillion.

We are in the process of bankrupting this country. We are printing so much money and incurring so much debt that our kids and grandkids, I don't know how they're going to be able to live with it.

I heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle applauding when we passed this budget today. Those of us on this side of the aisle who have been around here for a while, we were doing anything but applauding. We were thinking about what we've done to this country.

You know, China has about $700 billion of our debt. Japan has about $600 billion of our debt. And they don't want to buy any more of our debt. The only reason they're doing it I think is because this is the only game in town, but there is a limit to how much these other countries in the world will spend purchasing our debt.

And so what's going to happen? It's already happening. We're increasing the money supply. Up until just recently, we had increased the money supply by almost 300 percent. That means that we've increased the money supply three times in just recent years. And when that money gets into circulation, along with the money we're going to be printing because of all these expenditures I just enumerated, we're going to have a tremendous amount of dollars chasing fewer and fewer goods and services. More dollars, less production, and that means we're going to have inflation.

So I'd just like to say to my colleagues tonight, you may be celebrating this great budget that you passed, but it's going to end up costing our kids and our grandkids more in taxes and inflation, and they're going to look back on this day and on what we're doing and they're going to say, why in the world did you do this to us, why did you do it to us?

And I hope I and my colleagues are alive to look back and remember what happened today and what's been happening in recent days, weeks and months. It's a tragedy, and I'm very depressed over it. I hope that something will change the way things are going. I hope people will see the light and will start cutting taxes instead of increasing taxes and spending, but I doubt that's going to happen.

Madam Chairman, Thomas Jefferson said in 1821, ``There does not exist an engine so destructive of the government and so demoralizing of the Nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad.'' This was said in 1821.

One of my colleagues on the Democrat side a while ago said something about the hemorrhaging of the dollar. One of the reasons the dollar is hemorrhaging right now is we're inflating the money supply so rapidly that the dollar's going down the tubes. And if we keep on this trail, it's going to be worthless. We're spending money so fast it's unbelievable.

Mr. Geithner's got to put another 2 or $3 trillion into the financial system, and this budget, $3.5 trillion, is going to bankrupt this country. And my colleagues, like Mr. Ryan said a while ago, we're going to saddle our kids and our posterity with a debt that they'll never be able to repay. The inflation and the taxes they'll face will be unbelievable.

Let me just say, since we don't have a lot of time, there are parallels with what's happened in history. The same things we're doing today--if you don't believe this, read the book The Forgotten Man. The same things that we did during the Great Depression we're doing right now today, and it prolonged the Depression, and it lasted 10 or 11 years because of that.

And in the 1970s we had a similar situation. We had inflation that was 14 percent, unemployment that was 12 percent. And Ronald Reagan came in and, instead of raising spending like you're doing today, he cut taxes across the board and, as a result, we had the longest period of economic expansion that we've had in history.

Why don't we learn from history?

It seems to me my colleagues on the Democrat side think we can spend our way out of this. Tax and spend, tax and spend. It will not work. It hasn't worked in the past, it only makes things worse. We are heading toward a major, major depression if we don't cut this spending and start doing things that will stimulate economic growth like cutting taxes.

Well, I really appreciate you saying that, and I just hope everybody in my district in Indiana heard you say that because I want to make sure they appreciate me. So thank you very much for saying those nice things.

The thing that I wanted to mention is you're absolutely right. The amount of money that this is going to cost the average homeowner is just unbelievable, and it's going to be a tax increase that's going to be borne by every single person in this country.

But in addition to that, the inflationary pressure that's going to be created by all this printing of all this money is unbelievable. They're talking about something like over the next decade 7, 8, 9 trillion dollars in spending, and that's going to result in a tremendous amount of printing presses being run over at the Treasury Department. And when that money gets into

circulation, it's going to cause a tremendous amount of pressure as far as inflation is concerned.

As a matter of fact, I know my colleague knows this, but just in the last couple of weeks we found out that the money supply in this country has been almost tripled in the last couple of years. And because of that, we already have a built-in inflationary pressure that will be taking place I think in the next couple of years. So I think there's going to be a spike in inflation.

But I'd just like to add one more thing.

If the gentleman will yield, there's no question that the inflationary pressure is very real, and the taxation that people are going to face is very real, and it's not something that we're just making up for political purposes. It's going to happen, and it's going to happen very quickly on the tax issue, and the inflation issue is going to come in just the next couple of years, in my opinion.

But one of the things I wanted to mention--and I appreciate my colleague taking this time--and that is, that there's a book out called ``The Forgotten Man,'' and it's a book that I hope everybody who's interested in what happened during the Great Depression and how that correlates to what's happening today, if they're interested in that, they really ought to read it because there's tremendous parallels between what happened between 1929 and 1941 with what's going on here today. And that depression that we went through in this country lasted for over 10 years, and that's something that we don't want to see happen in the United States.

Well, I do read it on the airplane.

Yeah, but the thing about it that's important is we're making the same basic mistakes we've made in the past during the 1920s and the 1930s that led to the Great Depression and caused a tremendous amount of unemployment and heartache for the people of this country.

And the thing that really bothers me is that we went through a very large recession back in the late 1970s. When Ronald Reagan, your hero and my hero, came into office in 1980, he immediately moved to cut taxes across the board, and because of that, even though that economic problem we faced back then was worse than it is now, we came out of that and had the longest period of economic growth that we've had in my memory, and that's because he cut taxes. He didn't raise spending like this. He cut taxes so people and businesses had disposable income that they could use to invest and buy things. That's what we need to be doing today.

That's right. He did it, and Reagan did it. Reagan cut taxes for business, as well as for individuals, and today, if we cut the capital gains tax in half or cut it out all together for maybe a year and if we cut the income tax out for just two or three months, that would cost a great deal less than we're spending, and I have no doubt that it would stimulate a real rapid growth in the economy of this country.

So I'd just like to say to my colleague and my other colleague that just showed up on the floor, I want to thank you both for taking this Special Order. The American people really ought to appreciate what you're doing by explaining what in the Dickens is going on around this place, and I'm very happy that you're doing that.

There's just no question in my mind that the tremendous amount of spending that we're doing right now is going to be very bad, not only for us but for the future generations. The kids and the grandkids that we're going to be having are going to be bearing the burden of higher taxes and inflation, and it's not necessary if we did the right thing today by cutting taxes across the board.

And I see both my colleagues are here, and I really appreciate. And I'd just like to say one more thing before I yield the floor to my colleague, and that is, everybody ought to take a hard look at what happened in the Great Depression and what happened in the 1970s and the 1980s with Ronald Reagan. And you will see a real contrast between trying to spend our way out of a problem instead of cutting taxes and let the American people spend the money the way they want to spend it and the way business wants to spend it. Because if the American people have more money to spend and if business has more money to invest, then they're going to start doing the things that will stimulate economic growth and make the economy work; whereas, government trying to control everything and trying to spend our way out of these problems we're facing, it only leads to disaster.

It did in the 1920s. It did in the 1970s, and they will do it again right now if we don't get real and start cutting taxes instead of increasing spending across the board.

With that, let me yield to my colleague, and I really appreciate you taking the time tonight to do this.