Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, some of the most important people in America are the people that protect our southern border between the United States and Mexico. They lay their lives on the line to stop drug pushers and potential terrorists. They do this on a daily basis.

Well, one of those agents, Jesus Diaz, Jr., in November of 2009, stopped a fellow coming across the border with 150 pounds of marijuana in his backpack. He arrested him. He put handcuffs on him, and he supposedly lifted his arms a little too high, and he did not subscribe to taking care of this man's constitutional rights.

As a result, Agent Jesus Diaz, Jr., who has been cleared--he's been

cleared by Homeland Security's Office of the Inspector General and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Office of Professional Responsibility. He was cleared by both of those of any wrongdoing; yet he got a 2-year jail sentence just in the last couple of days because he supposedly mistreated a drug dealer coming across the border carrying 150 pounds of drugs.

This is just not right. This is just wrong.

[From the Washington Times, Oct. 25, 2011]

(By Jerry Seper)

A U.S. Border Patrol agent has been sentenced to two years

in prison for improperly lifting the arms of a 15-year-old

drug smuggling suspect while handcuffed--in what the Justice

Department called a deprivation of the teenager's

constitutional right to be free from the use of unreasonable

force.

Agent Jesus E. Diaz Jr. was named in a November 2009

federal grand jury indictment with deprivation of rights

under color of law during an October 2008 arrest near the Rio

Grande in Eagle Pass, Texas, in response to a report that

illegal immigrants had crossed the river with bundles of

drugs.

In a prosecution sought by the Mexican government and

obtained after the suspected smuggler was given immunity to

testify against the agent, Diaz was sentenced last week by

U.S. District Judge Alia Moses Ludlum in San Antonio. The

Mexican consulate in Eagle Pass had filed a formal written

complaint just hours after the arrest, alleging that the

teenager had been beaten.

Defense attorneys argued that there were no injuries or

bruises on the suspected smuggler's lower arms where the

handcuffs had been placed nor any bruising resulting from an

alleged knee on his back. Photos showed the only marks on his

body came from the straps of the pack he carried containing

the suspected drugs, they said. Border Patrol agents found

more than 150 pounds of marijuana at the arrest site.

The defense claimed that the smuggling suspect was

handcuffed because he was uncooperative and resisted arrest,

and that the agent had lifted his arms to force him to the

ground--a near-universal police technique--while the other

agents looked for the drugs.

The allegations against Diaz, 31, a seven-year veteran of

the Border Patrol, initially were investigated by Homeland

Security's Office of Inspector General and Immigration and

Customs Enforcement's Office of Professional Responsibility,

which cleared the agent of any wrongdoing.

But the Internal Affairs Division at U.S. Customs and

Border Protection ruled differently nearly a year later and,

ultimately, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western

District of Texas brought charges.

The Law Enforcement Officers Advocates Council said the

government's case was ``based on false testimony that is

contradicted by the facts.''

In a statement, the council said that because the arrest

took place at about 2 a.m., darkness would have made it

impossible for the government's witnesses to have seen

whether any mistreatment took place. It said Marcos Ramos,

the Border Patrol agent who stood next to Diaz, testified

that he did not see any mistreatment of the smuggling

suspect.

The council said other witnesses made contradictory claims

and some later admitted to having perjured themselves. Such

admissions, the council said, were ignored by the court and

the government. It also said that probationary agents who

claimed to have witnessed the assault raised no objections

during the incident and failed to notify an on-duty

supervisor until hours later.

``Instead, they went off-duty to a local `Whataburger'

restaurant, got their stories straight and reported it hours

later to an off-duty supervisor at his home,'' the council

said. ``Then the `witnesses' went back to the station and

reported their allegations.''

The council also noted that the teenager claimed no

injuries in court other than sore shoulders, which the

council attributed to ``the weight of the drug load,

approximately 75 pounds, he carried across the border.''

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of

Texas, which brought the charges, is the same office that in

February 2006--under U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton--prosecuted

Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean after

they shot a drug-smuggling suspect, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila,

in the buttocks as he tried to flee back into Mexico after

abandoning a van filled with 800 pounds of marijuana.

Aldrete-Davila also was given immunity in the case and

testified against the agents.

Agents Ramos and Compean were convicted and sentenced to 11

and 12 years in prison, respectively. President George W.

Bush commuted the sentences in 2009 after they had served two

years.

The same prosecutors also charged Edwards County Deputy

Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez in 2005 with violating the civil

rights of a Mexican criminal alien after he shot out the

tires of a van filled with illegals as it tried to run him

over. One of the illegal immigrants in the van was hit with

bullet fragments.

Mr. Speaker, as a co-chair of the Congressional Global Road Safety Caucus I rise today to congratulate the men and women who took part in the recent World Bicycle Relief charity bike ride. The ride is the brainchild of DC resident Miriam Schwedt, who was inspired to take her love of bicycling and share it with the world. Miriam, upon learning to ride a bike--about a year and a half ago--felt like she had discovered a whole new world. She started biking everywhere--to work, to play, to run errands--not only was it fun, but she got to work faster and cheaper, and was able to explore places she'd never been before. Miriam realized that if biking had changed her life in these ways, what might bikes mean for people who face far bigger transportation challenges? That's when Miriam discovered a charity called World Bicycle Relief. World Bicycle Relief not only funds bicycles in communities around the world, but also fosters local expertise and supply chains for local assembly and repair of bikes, creating important related jobs and skills.

In conjunction with World Bicycle Relief, Miriam decided to join forces with her friend Katie Heller to start what would become an annual charity bike ride and fundraiser in Washington called `The Peloton of Awesome'. For those of you that don't know, a `peloton' is a group of bikers. Miriam and Katie enticed their friends to join the peloton because they wanted to bring the opportunities and fun of biking to communities where faster, easier transportation can create access to markets, schools, health care, and other opportunities. These women also took the initiative to partner with local businesses to help the cause. Bike and Roll donated bikes for the ride to enable people to participate who don't own a bike, and a local restaurant hosted a post- ride celebration with a percentage of the profits donated to World Bicycle Relief. In addition, they added a raffle for items donated by local cycling stores, including a brand-new bike. Through generous support, last year the team raised almost $10,000, with all of the funds going to World Bicycle relief to purchase nearly an entire school's worth of bicycles in Zambia. More than 150 bicycle activists came together for the inaugural event. Given the success last year, the Peloton came together once again earlier this month. The second annual `Peloton of Awesome' took place on Saturday, October 1st, and by all accounts it proved to be just as big a success, despite some inclement weather.

I helped form the Congressional Global Road Safety Caucus because I believe that safe and effective transportation is a key component of global economic development. World Bicycle Relief is just one of many organizations nationally and internationally who are helping to make the dream of safe roads and effective transportation for everyone possible. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing the work of Miriam Schwedt, Katie Heller, all the staff and volunteers of World Bicycle Relief for their hard work and I look forward to hearing about the future successes of the Peloton, as I am sure this ride won't be the last.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of all three free trade agreements that we passed this week. I have been a strong supporter of these agreements for as long as we have been waiting for them to be submitted to Congress. This is a real jobs bill that will certainly help our economy and help people get back to work without spending a dime of the taxpayer's money.

As the Administration has sat on these agreements, the United States has been left in the wake of our international partners who have been able to finalize and benefit from agreements that didn't include us. If the United States does not lead in the Global Economy, it will be forced to follow and the FTAs represent our most definitive step towards leveling the playing field for our workers, farmers, and consumers. To continue to thrive as the greatest economy in the world, we have to put ourselves into a position to compete.

These agreements will enable the private sector to create thousands of jobs both in my home state of Indiana and in the United States at large. In Indiana, Hoosiers should particularly benefit, given that we have seen a 138 percent increase in exports over the past thirteen years. These free trade agreements will cause this number to skyrocket as tariffs and penalties are removed for U.S. companies making capital available to create more jobs. This is further demonstrated by the fact that 42 percent of all U.S. jobs are connected to international trade and 15,752 jobs in my home district are directly supported by exports. By increasing the market share for U.S. companies and eliminating barriers and high tariffs, these companies will increase their profits and use that money to hire new employees. Every $1 billion in increased exports generates an estimated 25,000 new jobs in all sectors of the economy. It is no longer enough for us to simply buy American, to compete in this harsh environment globally we are going to have to sell American as well.

These free trade agreements are an obvious solution to the problem of slow economic growth. This is a package that will actually stimulate, unlike others that have been passed before. I commend the passage of these agreements. Let's continue to enable America to get back to work.

Madam Speaker, this year we are going to go $1.6 trillion in debt. Most people can't comprehend $1.6 trillion. It's a lot of money. The national debt, we just found out recently, is going up to $15.1 trillion.

The reason I bring that up today, Madam Speaker, is because we've got terrible problems that we're facing here at home, and there are terrible problems that are being faced in Europe. As a matter of fact, I was in Greece last week, and they're cutting salaries in Greece by 40 percent. They're cutting retirement benefits by 40 percent. They're cutting health benefits by a large amount, and they're raising taxes because that country is a socialistic country and it's about to go completely bankrupt. In addition to that, Italy has the same kind of problems, Spain has the same kinds of problems, Portugal has the same kinds of problems, and Ireland is suffering from similar problems.

Now, the reason I bring that up is because the United States is part of what they call the International Monetary Fund. Most Americans don't know, Madam Speaker, that we put 18 percent of the money in the International Monetary Fund, into that fund to deal with world financial problems.

Now, the International Monetary Fund, according to their European Department Director Antonio Borges, stated that ``the IMF would definitely participate in a second bailout package for Greece.'' Now, that could be up to 200 billion euros, 200 billion euros; and when you talk about American dollars, that's about $280 billion.

The United States would be responsible for 36 billion of those dollars. That's American taxpayers' dollars that would be going to Europe to deal with the problems that Italy, Spain, Greece, and those other countries face.

But in addition to that, there was a recent announcement by the IMF that it was expanding its ``bailout firepower'' to $1.3 trillion, and there is a potential that the International Monetary Fund could create what they call a ``special purpose vehicle'' to buy the embattled bonds of failing European countries like Greece, Spain, and Italy. When you boil all that down, it means the United States could buy a great deal of the $1.3 trillion in bonds that would be purchased to keep those countries afloat.

Now, the IMF is not the primary vehicle of the Greek bailout. If they can't use that, they can use the Federal Reserve Board, the Fed, which has the authority to provide foreign central banks with an unlimited amount of dollars for an equivalent amount of currency.

On September 11 of this year, September 11, 2011, this year, the Fed did just this. It swapped American dollars for euros in order to provide the European Central Bank with liquidity to calm capital markets. Now, I don't think I need to go into a great deal more detail other than to say the United States is about to be involved in bailing out Europe.

We do not have the money.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we're going to be $1.6 trillion short this year. We've got a $15.1 trillion national debt, and it's going up very rapidly.

If the Fed, our Treasury Department, and the White House decide it's going to try to bail out Europe, these countries that are about to go belly up, it's going to cause even more economic problems in America. We have 9.1 percent unemployment right now, and can you imagine, Madam Speaker, what would happen if we started trying to bail out Europe as well? We cannot and we must not do that.

If I were talking to the President tonight, Madam Speaker, I would say, Mr. President, let's deal with the problems we have here at home. Let's don't take on more responsibilities that are not of our doing. We should not try to prop up governments that have been socialistic for a long, long time to the point where they have to cut salaries by 40 percent in order to try to keep their country afloat.

That's a problem they created. We have enough problems here at home, and we shouldn't be using American taxpayers' dollars to try to bail out European countries that have gone down the wrong path.

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

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 19 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, October 7, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, the United States is familiar with its own stories of brave men and women who fought to break the bonds of tyranny and form a new democracy. The walls of this chamber and the surrounding Capitol complex remind us daily of our proud history. But I want to share with you today the story of another like minded group of individuals on the other side of the world who also dared to demand freedom for their people. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the centennial anniversary of Republic of China in Taiwan.

One hundred years ago, on October 10th, 1911, under the inspiration of Dr. Sun Yat-Sen, the Republic of China began by throwing off the bonds of the Wuchang dynasty in order to create the first Republic in Asia. This year the Republic of China (Taiwan) celebrates the centennial of its National Independence Day, also known as ``Double Ten Day''.

The United States and Taiwan not only share a similar story of self- determination but we continue to maintain a strong and vital friendship. The people of Taiwan have made clear through the years, their appreciation and gratitude for the support the United States has provided Taiwan through the decades. This friendship has been evidenced through investment and economic development, through cultural and social exchanges, and even through the military support shared between our two peoples. Taiwan has stood with the United States to combat global terrorism; and the people of Taiwan have always given generously in our greatest times of need. Throughout the past ten decades we have become not just allies, but great friends.

As the Republic of China (Taiwan) enters into her second century of democracy, it is just as important that the United States stand with her 23 million citizens to face the challenges of the next hundred years. Surely there will be struggles, political and economic, at home and abroad. As we continue to engage other nations around the globe, we must remember that in our Taiwanese friends we have a nation ready to stand with us in the effort to promote freedom, tolerance, and democracy.

On this very special day, the United States joins with the Taiwanese people to recognize the sacrifice of those who made Double Ten Day possible so many years ago, and we reaffirm that our friendship remains steadfast. I ask my colleagues to please join me in extending to President Ma Ying-jeou the good wishes of the United States House of Representatives on this centennial anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of one of my younger constituents--Jake Denhart, who at only 16 years old has exuded a true entrepreneurial spirit. For years, Jake has been working around his neighborhood, shoveling snow and mowing lawns for small fees. He even decided to give his business a name, calling it ``Innovative Solutions.'' From what I understand, Jake has managed to put away almost $20K in savings earned from the work he has done over the years. Through his hard work, he has also earned a high level of trust with his neighbors.

Jake's hard work was also reflected on the academic front when one of his teachers at Noblesville High School, Joe Toms, nominated him to participate in the Purdue Research Park Entrepreneurship Academy, established by Purdue University. Jake was among the 50 students from the state of Indiana who was chosen to participate, based on an essay, in the week-long academy. The purpose is to provide innovative math, science, and technology-based business and life skills by having the students work in teams on a business case. Throughout the week, they have the opportunity to interact with industry leaders and successful entrepreneurs. The competing teams spend the week developing a business plan to make an ``investor pitch'' to a panel of judges. These students truly exude creativity, initiative, overall academic strength, and an interest in concepts and concerns that are relevant to entrepreneurship, which will carry them far as they embark on their future careers.

I am proud to represent such a young constituent who not only understands the value of money, but also knows how to save it. Jake's success is a measure of his strong work ethic, for which I commend him. I believe it is important to remember stories like these in such trying economic times, which keep our spirits alive--not only in Indiana, but throughout the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I wish to call the attention of my colleagues to the most recent developments in India- controlled Kashmir. In late August, the Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission stated that it had found evidence of 2,156 unidentified bodies buried in approximately 40 mass graves, officially recognized for the first time, that pock mark the landscape of this long troubled region. This disturbing revelation, while horrific in scale and heartbreaking in scope, has the potential to serve as a catalyst to propel Kashmir forward, away from its violent past. For the first time, everyone in Kashmir, as well as the rest of the world, will be forced to acknowledge the wanton violence and unrest that have torn their communities apart.

History has taught us that in conflicts like the one propagated on Kashmir and its people, the first casualty is always the truth. The findings in this inquiry have now irrefutably confirmed the very worst fears people like myself who have been concerned about this issue since 1989. It is my sincerest hope that when finally faced with the sum of their actions to this point, those responsible for these crimes will see the error of their ways and summarily be brought to justice; I also hope that all of the well intentioned people of the region, whether they are Kashmiri, Pakistani, or Indian, can use this tragic circumstance to begin to work towards reconciliation, and finally move towards a peaceful resolution for everyone living in Kashmir. I am submitting an article from the August 23, 2011 edition of the New York Times and strongly urge my colleagues to read it.

Mass Graves Hold Thousands, Kashmir Inquiry Finds

(By Lydia Polgreen)

New Delhi.--Thousands of bullet-riddled bodies are buried

in dozens of unmarked graves across Kashmir, a state human

rights commission inquiry has concluded, many of them likely

to be those of civilians who disappeared more than a decade

ago in a brutal insurgency.

The inquiry, the result of three years of investigative

work by senior police officers working for the Jammu and

Kashmir State Human Rights Commission, brings the first

official acknowledgment that civilians might have been buried

in mass graves in Kashmir, a region claimed by both India and

Pakistan where insurgents waged a bloody battle for

independence in the early 1990s. The report sheds new light

on a grim chapter in the history of the troubled region and

confirms a 2008 report by a Kashmiri human rights

organization that found hundreds of bodies buried in the

Kashmir Valley.

Tens of thousands of people died in the insurgency, which

began in 1989 and was partly fueled by weapons, cash and

training from Pakistan.

According to the report, the bodies of hundreds of men

described as unidentified militants were buried in unmarked

graves. But of the more than 2,000 bodies, 574 were

identified as local residents.

``There is every probability that these unidentified dead

bodies buried in various unmarked graves at 38 places of

North Kashmir may contain the dead bodies of enforced

disappearances,'' the report said.

The report catalogs 2,156 bodies found in graves in four

districts of Kashmir that had been at the heart of the

insurgency. It called for a thorough inquiry and a collection

of DNA evidence to identify the dead, and, for the future,

proper identification of anyone killed by security forces in

Kashmir to avoid abuse of special laws shielding the military

from prosecution there. Thousands of people, mostly young

men, have disappeared in Kashmir. Some went to be trained as

militants in the Pakistan-controlled portion of Kashmir and

were killed in the fighting. Many others were detained by

Indian security forces. The wives they left behind are known

as half-widows, because the fates of their husbands are

unknown. Parents keep vigil for sons who were arrested two

decades ago.

Parveena Ahanger's son Javed was taken away by the police

on Aug. 18, 1990, and never seen again. An investigation

found that he had been killed by security forces, but they

have not been prosecuted, she said.

``I never got any response from the government,'' she said.

``I never got his dead body.''

After years of fighting in the courts to find out what

happened to Javed, Ms. Ahanger was skeptical that the human

rights report would get her son's body back, or bring her

justice.

``If the high court doesn't give any justice on this issue,

what will the state human rights commission do?'' she said.

Zahoor Wani, an activist who works with the families of

people who disappeared during the insurgency, said that the

report was a welcome first step but that the government must

identify the dead and allow families to bury their relatives.

``It is a very good thing that they acknowledge it,'' Mr.

Wani said. ``These families have been living in a hope to see

these people again.

``They are neither dead nor alive,'' he said. ``We need to

move them to one pole or the other.''

Hari Kumar contributed reporting.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of times people ask me why do you have a Special Order when the Chamber is not in session and it doesn't appear anybody's paying any attention. We all have monitors back in our offices, and many of our Members who are not in attendance get a chance to hear what other Members have to say during Special Orders. It also allows us, if people across the country happen to be paying attention to what's going on in Washington, it gives them a chance to see and hear some of the issues that we're talking about.

One of the things that really concerns me that I hope everybody's concerned about is the terrible spending problem we have here in Washington, and that spending problem, and what that spending problem causes. When you spend more money and you print more money and it gets into circulation, that's called inflating the money supply. When you inflate the money supply, ultimately that means that everything that money buys goes up in cost.

The trucks that transport our goods and services across the country have to pay for more diesel fuel, more for licenses, more for anything else; and all those costs are passed on to the people whose products they carry, and those people who make those products have to make a profit, so they have to raise the price of those products to the people who buy those products, whether it's a supermarket or a clothing store or whatever it is. Then when the consumer goes to buy those products that are transported, they have to pay more for them; and that's what we call inflation.

Now, we have, in the last couple of years, during the Obama administration, and the last part of the Bush administration, passed a bailout bill and a stimulus bill that have cost, collectively, close to $2 trillion. That does not cover the other programs that have been increased, thus costing more money to the government and the taxpayer.

Then just recently, because we had these terrible crises on Wall Street and the banking crisis that we've had, we had the bailout, which cost well over $1 trillion when you talk about the interest that's added to it; and because the economy continues to founder and we have unemployment that's above 9 percent, the Fed decided to have what they call QE1, quantitative easing, which increased the money supply again by several hundred billion dollars. And then we had quantitative easing, or QE2, which has raised the amount of money in circulation and exacerbated the problem that we're all facing today.

So I'd like to talk just a little bit about how this affects the average person. Mr. Bernanke, who's the head of the Federal Reserve Board, said that we don't have to worry about inflation. He said that, long term, the inflation rate is not going to get above 1.7 to 2 percent.

But let's just look at what the average person has to pay when they go to the store or the gas station to buy products. Milk--and everybody drinks milk, especially if you have kids--has gone up 38 percent since last year. That means if you buy milk, for every dollar you're spending it costs $1.38, as opposed to last year. That's inflation.

The price of sugar--and sugar's used in cookies and cakes and all the things that we use on a daily basis, chewing gum, everything--has gone up 20 percent since last year. That's inflation.

The price of corn, which is used in feed for our animals, it's used in gasoline now, it's used on a daily basis by people across this country, corn has gone up 62 percent in the last year. So for each dollar that you spent for corn a year ago, now it costs $1.62.

And as of August, the cost of beef, hamburger, steaks, whatever you buy, went up 13 percent over last year, and that amounts to about 52 cents a pound. So when you go buy a pound of hamburger, it's going to cost about 52 cents more than it did a year ago. That's killing the American people.

They tell us we do not have inflation, and anybody that goes to buy groceries or any commodity that's transported across this country is paying a heck of a lot more than they did last year. So when the administration and the Fed and the Treasury Department say we don't have an inflationary problem, talk to your wife, husband, talk to your wife. Wife, talk to your husband when he goes to buy gasoline.

And everybody knows that the amount of money they're making is not keeping up with inflation. That's why we have to get control of spending here in Washington. We have to get control of the entitlements. We have to get control of every government agency, and we have to get rid of a lot of government agencies that are not doing anything to really help our economy or our country.

Take, for instance, the Department of Education. Everybody says, well, we need to have a Department of Education. Why? Education is supposed to be conducted at the State and local level, controlled by the State and local governments. But we have an Education Department, and what has the Education Department contributed to our society? The quality of education has gone down, down, down, to where we're one of the least educated, as far as the quality of education is concerned, least educated countries in the western world, in the industrial world. So the Department of Education really isn't contributing anything except gobbling up an awful lot of our taxpayers' dollars. There's a whole host of agencies like that that we need to get rid of because we don't have the money to pay for them.

And yet the President came up the other night and he spoke in this Chamber, and he said we're going to have to spend another $447 billion for a jobs bill. It's the same old story being written again and again by the administration. That's what we tried to do with the bailout and the stimulus bill and these other things.

Remember the shovel-ready projects? The President said, well, we didn't have as many shovel-ready projects as we wanted to. As a result, we didn't see anything except more and more unemployment.

Throwing money at the problem does not solve the problem. All it does is cost the taxpayers more money, either in taxes or in a hidden tax that they pay when they go to buy food, clothes, groceries, or gasoline to get to and from work; and that's the problem that we have right now.

The President has a socialistic European approach to government. He believes that government ought to control health care. He believes that government ought to control the energy sector. And if we pass what was called cap-and-trade, which would deal with energy and the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere, it would raise the cost of electricity and everything else that we use dramatically. In fact, he said himself during his campaign, or even before that, that cap-and- trade would essentially cause the prices to skyrocket for energy, just another thing that the American people have to pay for.

We don't have the money in our pockets. People's salaries aren't going up. We've got a huge number of people unemployed. We're paying unemployment to them on a weekly basis so that they can survive. They don't have the money.

But the government keeps spending and spending and spending, and we can no longer afford it because it's going to hit us with higher taxes. That's what he talked about right here last week: more taxes that we don't have, more spending that we can't afford, which leads to more inflation that people are feeling right now.

And if people don't believe me who may be paying attention to this, and I'm talking to my colleagues back in their offices, talk to your wife or your husband when they buy gasoline or go to the store. The average inflation rate right now I would guess is somewhere around 13 percent, and that is something we cannot afford. It's going to kill this economy and kill this country as the country that we've known all of our lives, and what we're passing on to our children is a lower standard of living than we've had, and we cannot afford that any longer.

What we need to do is streamline government, go back into our entitlements--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--and figure out better ways, not eliminate them, but better ways to solve that problem. This House has sent a plan over to the Senate that would do that in an efficient and economic way and not bankrupt the country and solve that problem.

We need to go through every agency of government, and if they're not doing their job or if they're not necessary, get rid of them, cut them out, reduce the size of government, cut government spending.

Then, in addition to that, we ought to do like Ronald Reagan did when he came into office and we had double-digit inflation; double-digit unemployment, and double-digit interest rates. It was actually as bad or worse than it is right now. And he came in and he said instead of raising taxes, as they said he had to do, because they said that would bring revenue into the Treasury, he said, no, we're going to cut taxes.

And the reason he did that was because if you raise taxes, you take money out of business, you take money out of people's pockets, and that's money they can't spend. If they don't spend, they can't buy. If they can't buy, we don't produce. And if you don't produce, more and more people who do the producing are laid off and are going to the unemployment lines.

Conversely, if you cut taxes, you give business and industry more money to invest. You give individuals more money to spend. They can buy more and invest more, and we produce more because people can buy it, and that creates jobs. And when we create jobs, we create more taxpayers. And we went from $500 billion in tax revenue under Reagan to $1.3 trillion--almost triple--because we cut taxes and stimulated economic growth.

This administration believes in more government control over our entire economy and our society, and that's the reason we're in the mess we're in today, because government cannot create something unless it takes something away. We can't give jobs that the government creates unless we take it from you, the taxpayer, and that means either raise taxes or spend money we don't have and print it, and that creates inflation, which is a hidden tax on everybody in this country.

The bottom line is this country is in a very difficult situation. I serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia. I'm going to be going to Greece in a couple of weeks. Greece has a socialistic economy. They're going down the tubes right now, and they're trying to find some way to bail themselves out. They're raising taxes. They're raising taxes on everything, electricity, everything they can. They're cutting the benefits to the people that work there because the benefits have been too high and the government can't afford them. All of these things, the salaries are being cut.

And what's happening in Greece is it's going belly up. And the effect of it is on all of the other countries that have investments in Greece, the banking, the financial institutions, all of them are really in trouble, and they're talking about a potential domino effect because of the failure of Greece and because of the socialistic approach that they've taken.

Italy's in trouble, Portugal's in trouble, Spain's in trouble, even France is in trouble because they've invested a lot of money through the financial institutions into Greece. The whole European continent's in trouble because of the socialistic approach to government.

The thing that's kept America so strong all of our lives is free enterprise, the profit incentive for a businessman or a person to say, I want to make something of myself. And they open a gas station or a store and they work their tails off, and they have a chance to make their lives better. But when government starts taking over everything, it ruins it. That's what's happening in many countries in Europe, especially Greece.

So if any of my colleagues are paying attention on the Democrat side of the aisle or who are Independents or who are on the Republican side, I hope that you will realize the number one thing we have to do right now is get this government under control.

We need to cut regulations so business isn't strangled by the regulations that are costing them more and more money that they have to pass on to the consumer or they have to fire people because they can't afford them. We've got to cut taxes to stimulate economic growth, and that will bring more money into the Treasury, just like it did under President Reagan. And we've got to make sure that we eliminate unnecessary spending in these agencies of government like the Department of Education. Get rid of them because they're not doing anything except gobbling up our money.

If we do that, we're going to turn this country around, and we will remain the greatest country in the history of mankind. If we don't, if we continue down the road that this administration is taking us down, moving us towards socialism, toward government control over health care, energy, everything, then we'll see the quality of life that

we've enjoyed go right down the tubes. It's up to the American people, and it's up to us in Congress to take the bull by the horns and deal with this.

So I say to my colleagues, please, pay attention to what I've said tonight. You may not agree with everything, but if you'll study the things that I've studied and look at what's going on in Europe, you'll understand very clearly that what I've said has merit, and we need to do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, said last week when he was giving his speech that we didn't really have to worry about inflation, that the long-term inflation problem would not get beyond 2 percent. So in case Mr. Bernanke or the administration is paying attention, I'd like to read a few facts to them.

The price of milk has gone up 38 percent since last year. The price of sugar is up 20 percent since last year. The price of corn is up 62 percent since last year. As of August, beef prices grew 13 percent, or 52 cents a pound, since last year--the largest increase in the last 7 years. Gasoline is up 35 percent from a year ago, 98 cents a gallon, and the projected inflation rate is much, much higher than the administration or the Fed says is going to occur.

So I hope that we will stop these Keynesian policies, these socialistic policies, these big-spending policies that are killing the American people.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when relations between the US and Pakistan seem tense, I would like to take a moment as a long time friend of Pakistan to remind my colleagues of the tremendous contribution that Americans of Pakistani origin have made in this country. Today, I wish to bring my colleagues attention to the story of two of these exemplary individuals, Drs. Fahim and Naeem Rahim of Pocatello, Idaho. Their unparalleled contributions were formally recognized this past July when they were both awarded the prestigious Ellis Island Medal of Honor. The award, presented by the National Ethnic Coalition, is given yearly to American citizens of diverse ethnic origins whose contributions to our society inspire and touch the lives of people everywhere. In their journey from Peshawar, Pakistan to Pocatello, Idaho, the Rahim brothers have come to exemplify the American Dream.

I was in pursuit of this dream that both brothers first arrived to the United States in the late 90's, completing their training in Nephrology and Internal Medicine at the New York Medical College in Valhalla, New York, finishing only one year apart. During this time, Fahim and Naeem would lay the foundation of what would become their legacy, driven by a relentless drive to fulfill the American dream while also building bridges between their native and adopted cultures.

Their relentless drive and hard work soon brought the two brothers to little Pocatello, Idaho, where they would establish the first Idaho Kidney Institute in 2005. What began as a single facility in Pocatello has, through the desire, hard work, and clinical expertise of Fahim and Naeem, now become the largest provider for patients suffering with kidney disease in Southeast Idaho, with a service area that covers a population of 250,000. The Idaho Kidney Institute facilities provide hundreds of patients with a medical home for treatment of their kidney disease, delivering state of the art care and saving hundreds of miles of travel for rural Idahoans.

In addition to their professional success as nephrologists, the Drs. Rahim are also members of the faculty at Idaho State University, giving their time to teaching tomorrow's medical residents, medical students, physician assistants in training, and nurses. Fahim and Naeem have also had commercial success creating their own consulting firm, Nephro Consultants, which aids new physicians in starting their own medical practices. Fahim was recently nominated (2008) by the local business community for the annual award, ``Overachiever Under 40.''

Their journey serves as an irrefutable example that the American dream is still alive and well. Drs. Fahim and Naeem's noble service to others, and the community that they now call home, make them two shining examples of our unique American tapestry.

Mr. Speaker, for several years, I have come to this Floor to urge my colleagues to support efforts to achieve a resolution to the dispute on Cyprus. Tragically, I find myself here once again as yet another year has gone by with no end to the conflict.

While the Cyprus dispute is most directly between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, it has larger implications for regional security and prosperity. Over the past few decades this dispute has involved not only the Cypriot communities, but also Turkey, Greece, the United Kingdom, the United States, the United Nations, and the European Union. Moreover, Turkey's membership to the European Union, which the United States enthusiastically supports, is unfortunately being impacted because of the impasse over Cyprus.

In 2003, it looked like we were on the cusp of a resolution when Cypriots voted on the United Nations backed Annan Plan which would have created the United Cyprus Republic, as a loose confederation of two component states--the Greek Cypriot State and the Turkish Cypriot State.

That plan provided a strong framework for a bi-zonal, bi-communal unified Cyprus; and the U.S. House of Representatives strongly endorsed the plan by unanimously approving a Sense of the House to that effect. Regrettably, the Annan Plan did not succeed when put to a referendum.

Since the collapse of the Annan Plan peace efforts have moved forward sporadically. The latest round of talks began on July 7th of this year when Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot leaders met in Geneva under the auspices of the UN Secretary General. I welcome these meetings. The status quo on Cyprus clearly benefits no one. It must end and the time is now.

Ultimately, the Cypriots themselves are the ones who must make the tough decisions that will ensure a peaceful future for their island. Nevertheless, I urge the administration to work with all stakeholders to ensure that a future unified Cyprus is a Cyprus that respects human rights and the fundamental freedoms for all Cypriots. Any unnatural or unnecessary artificial limitations imposed on either community are a recipe for future disaster.

Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that a lasting, fair and comprehensive solution to the conflict on Cyprus is possible. If we avoid inflammatory rhetoric and political statements and instead work in unison to bolster the efforts of the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots to work together in good faith for the future of all Cypriots; the future will be bright for Cyprus.

Mr. Speaker, the American people who may be paying attention to this whole debate may be a little confused; so let me just sum it up in one sentence: They want to spend more, they want to tax more, and we don't.

Mr. Speaker, today the Fed Chairman, Mr. Bernanke, is indicating they are going to increase the money supply again. They call it QE3. What the American people need to know, that means they are going to print more money. And when they print more money, that makes the value of your dollar and your currency worth less. That means milk is going to cost more, bread is going to cost more because the Federal Government's not living within its means and they're going to print more money that's going to make all of our currency worth less.

I want to tell you what's happened in other countries when they've done this. In Hungary in 1946, the price of everything doubled every 16 hours. In Yugoslavia in 1994, the prices doubled every 34 hours. In Germany in 1923, the price of everything doubled every 4 days. In Greece in 1944, it doubled every 4 days. In Zimbabwe in 2008, it doubled every 24 hours.

We need to stop this printing of money. We need to control spending in this body instead of letting the Fed print more money, which is a hidden tax on everybody in this country.

Madam Speaker, I have listened to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talking about the need for us to get our economic house in order.

The President down at the White House is saying that we have to raise taxes because we have a revenue problem and we need to bring in more money. The fact of the matter is that this last year we had a 7 percent increase in taxes coming in. We had a 7 percent increase in taxes coming in even though we have the unemployment problems that we have. The problem was we spent 11 percent more than we took in.

So the problem we have right now is that the White House is spending too much money. We have to cut spending. We're bringing in more money than we did last year, last fiscal year, but we're spending way more than that. So we have a spending problem, not a taxing problem.

Now, they also said that we ought to tax the rich more. The fact is that the top 20 percent of wage earners in this country pay over 85 percent of the taxes. Now, if they raise that tax up, you're taking more money out of the people's pockets who can invest in companies, in business and industry that will create jobs and products that we can export around the world.

I don't understand why we can't get that point across very clearly to the American people. If we want to cure the unemployment problem, which is now 9.2 percent, what we have to do is get the private sector in a position

where they can create more jobs. That means we need to lower taxes, not raise them, like Ronald Reagan did. We need to cut government regulations, so that the private sector won't be strangled by the regulations in this country, and then let the free enterprise system work. If we do that, unemployment will go down; there will be more people working. Therefore, there will be more taxpayers paying into the treasury. Therefore, the deficit will go down and we won't have the economic problems we have today.

But raising taxes right now on any part of our society will only exacerbate the problem. And if the President has his way and we end up raising taxes--and I'm not going to vote for it--then what's going to happen is we're going to see unemployment get worse and worse and worse.

We've got to do what's economically correct, fiscally responsible, and that is to cut spending and to not raise taxes, especially in this climate. And if we do that and free up the free enterprise system, this country will get back on track very quickly.