Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have come to the floor today to praise the more than 20,000 teens that will reunite in San Francisco this weekend to worship. Their movement called Battlecry has a home base in my district just outside Lindale, Texas.

Their message is a hopeful one: they reject the negative messages often portrayed in pop culture and, instead, they embrace a godly path. They strive to live a life of Christian values and reject premarital sex, drugs, alcohol, and destructive behavior.

One thing is very clear: there is nothing in Battlecry's message that is hateful. It is a message of love. However, last year, when these teens gathered in San Francisco, they were met by protests, and the board of supervisors passed a resolution condemning these young people of Battlecry and their message.

As we know, there are some in the San Francisco government who are not happy with these voices carrying a Christian message. These teens are congregating at AT&T Park where the Giants play, and they are going to worship and promote a positive path for young people. The entertainment commission in San Francisco issued a restrictive loud speaker permit to them to prevent their use before 10 a.m., and yet these delightful youth are taking the lemon-sour treatment and are going to turn it into lemonade by using the time in a positive, peaceful manner to reach out in prayer and grace to those in San Francisco and the surrounding area. These Christian young people uniting in Teenmania and Battlecry are filled with love and the teachings of Jesus and are fueled by their faith in God, along with hope for their generation.

They offer an alternative to the mysogynistic world. They offer alternatives to drugs, alcohol, sexually transmitted diseases.

Mr. Speaker, San Francisco apparently has some who are such religious bigots that they loathe and want to thwart these loving young people because of the grace and kindness these people bring in the name of the Lord. Time magazine has called Battlecry's event the ``Lollapalooza for the Lord,'' and I humbly submit this kind of event is a good thing to have.

Of course, we know the discrimination against wholesome, nurturing groups like the Boy Scouts of America in San Francisco by some intolerant fanatics. But this is an alternative to the kind of head- banging music that sometimes promotes drugs, alcohol, careless sexual activity, and at times even anarchy.

On the other hand, the young Christians believe that embracing God's love and grace can make the drugs, alcohol, and any hallucinogen completely unnecessary.

So I salute these wonderful young people from Battlecry and Teenmania and encourage them to continue promoting positive Christian-type values and the love of the Lord to any and all, including the bigots against them. And for the religiously intolerant who get angry just thinking about Christian young people spreading the love and teachings of Christ, the message needs to go out, far and wide, very clear: Jesus loves you, too.

I thank my friend, the gentleman from Iowa, the Honorable Mr. King. I have been hearing most of the hour you have been talking about the concepts that I know you and I hold so dear.

There was a group from my hometown, Mr. Speaker, Tyler, Texas, that had come to Washington. They are an inspirational group. They are from Grace Community School. I took them around the Capitol tonight. They know their history. It is great when you see education work.

You see the very things you have been talking about, the free market, at work, and that free enterprise works and that really get backs to our very founding, the Judeo-owe Christian values that were so often espoused as the Declaration of Independence was written.

I have had people say the Constitution itself, there is nothing at all like it. By the way, you cannot send out a letter with the letters addressed or dated as you date them because it says like for today, March whatever day, all my letters, whatever day, ``in the year of our Lord,'' now this year 2007. I was originally told by the franking people, we do not believe you can send that out with ``in the year of our Lord'' on there; that may be inappropriate. My comment was, if you are saying it is unconstitutional to date a letter the same way the Constitution is dated, then we have got a real problem here. He did not realize the Constitution is dated in that manner, ``in the year of our Lord, 1787.''

But anyway, there are groups there are schools where they still learn that kind of history, the very thing my friend Mr. King has been talking about.

I just wanted to pay tribute to the speaker of this group. I know the rules are that we are not to recognize people in the gallery. So I will not violate the rules, but it is a wonderful group that understands the values, the very values the gentleman from Iowa has been discussing, and it just makes me proud to be an American to hear you talk about the values I grew up on, the values that I know are being instilled in the young people still today.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), my good friend, and I would encourage you to keep up the good job.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 50 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona for his kindness and sensitivity in this issue, as well as the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to properly commemorate and memorialize one of this Nation's most heroic, yet heartbreaking, tragedies. The disintegration of the Space Shuttle Columbia as it re-entered Earth's atmosphere in the spring of 2003 deserves such a memorialization.

This legislation will serve to begin the process of appropriately honoring the gallantry and sacrifice, not only of the seven brave souls of their crew and their families, but also the vast number of citizens who worked tirelessly in the recovery effort following the catastrophe. This bill will start that process that will ultimately result in appropriate memorialization of all the selfless and heroic efforts.

Tragically, parts of the shuttle were strewn over hundreds of miles of east Texas in my district, and the commitment of east Texans in the effort to recover as much of the wreckage as possible was pivotal in determining the cause of the incident in order to save future lives.

The ultimate sacrifice was made by Commander Rick Husband, Pilot William McCool, Payload Commander Michael Anderson, Mission Specialist David Brown, Mission Specialist Kalpana Chalwa, Payload Commander Ilan Ramon, and Mission Specialist and Medical Doctor Laurel Blair Salton Clark who was the wife of my Texas A&M classmate John Clark, who himself is also a patriot as a captain in the United States Navy. John and Laura also have a wonderful son. All of these American heroes deserve a memorial befitting their devotion to their fellow man, their spirit of exploration and discovery, as well as their courage.

In the days and weeks following the tragedy, countless east Texans volunteered to help and support the tireless Federal workers who were charged with locating the shuttle debris.

Volunteers gave selflessly of their time and their resources by participating in searches, opening their homes, preparing food and serving the many people taking part in the recovery effort in towns such as San Augustine, Nacogdoches, Lufkin, Hemphill, as well as most of east Texas itself. San Augustine City Manager Duke Lyons said at the time the volunteers provided 3,000 to 4,000 meals per day in his area alone and did all that they could to provide shelter and anything else that was needed.

The legendary hospitality of east Texas was on display as business owners donated supplies, building space and other assets to support the Forest Service, FEMA, National Guard, and other governmental entities taking part in the recovery. All told, east Texans spent countless weeks supporting the 10,000 people searching for the shuttle remains.

The efforts of these constituents are best summed up by three fellow east Texans.

Texas Ranger Pete Maskunas said, ``We got to see a small portion of east Texas pull together in a big way. The people here don't have much, but we gave everything that we had. We showed the Nation that, here in east Texas, we have got a big heart, and we are here to make things a lot better for people we don't even know.''

San Augustine County Judge Wayne Holt said, ``From the smallest child to the oldest man, if you needed somebody, they were there.''

Nacogdoches County Judge Sue Kennedy said, ``The generosity and unselfish, tireless efforts by the wonderful people of east Texas were so compelling and moving that even in 2007 we are being asked to teach seminars on how to mobilize an entire area in a sudden emergency.''

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 807, the Columbia Space Shuttle Memorial Study Act, because those involved deserve it. Thank you again to the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona, and the ranking member.

Madam Chairman, we have heard people on the floor today say basically that eliminating the secret ballot will not affect the ordinary worker's rights.

Madam Chairman, some of us grew up in schools that were public schools, being taught by teachers who were members of the Democratic Party. I loved those teachers and they were very honest people, and they said and they taught and they drilled into us the secret ballot was one of the most important developments in democracy. It separated the United States from other totalitarian and dictatorial governments.

Now I have people coming here on the floor that I don't know as well as my beloved teachers saying those teachers were mistaken or lying, they don't know what they are talking about. And what I am getting to believe is, this isn't up for the ordinary workers, this is playing to the officers of hard-working American union members.

I would submit when we have people say in letters and on the record that the secret ballot is important to avoid intimidation, when they would come to my courtroom they used to ask, are you lying then or are you lying now. I won't ask.

Madam Speaker, point of order.

The gentleman is violating the rules by not speaking to the Speaker. We would ask that the rules be enforced.

Madam Speaker, you know, over the last 12 years, the Democrats have been in the minority, Republicans have been in the majority. The economy boomed in the late '90s. We had this tragic event on 9/11; it should have sent this country into a terrible depression, but this Congress, Republican majority, pushed through tax cuts that have allowed the economy to rebound and be robust and provide jobs and better standard of living. And in 2 months of talking about raising taxes and more regulation and one committee chairman talking about

how he is going to undermine the President's national security policy, in just 2 months we have this terrible damage to the stock market, to the economy. Unbelievable. They were saying last night on the news that this is the biggest drop since 9/11. In 2 months of talking about all these new plans, we are going to cost people jobs.

I would just encourage my friends across the aisle, be careful. We have built a great economy. Don't blow it quite so quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Indiana. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, like many others here, previously I typed up different potential remarks for this debate. But as I have listened to the debate over the last couple of days, I kept hearing some things being said over and over

again, and I started making notes of some of the things I just really need to address.

As the old saying goes, we are all entitled to our own opinion, but we are not entitled to our own set of facts. Facts are facts.

One of the things I have heard over and over the last couple of days, well, it goes without saying. Normally in reference to we support our troops, it goes without saying. If there is anything I have noticed since I left the bench and came to Congress is that nothing goes without saying in this House . Everything gets said and seems like gets said over and over again. Nothing goes without being said.

But let us talk about that. It goes without saying we support our troops. That has stirred up a great deal of debate and animosity at one point, and led usually into things about the lies the President told before this war, lies the President told before this war. Well, look, some of us believe in forgiveness.

I think there is still potential disagreement. Obviously we know that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He killed thousands of Kurds, gassed thousands of people. Certainly he was killing with mass destruction, but if you happen to believe really, honestly, truthfully that the President lied, then it is time to forgive President Clinton for all those lies. Forgive Madeleine Albright for all those lies. All the time, Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton told us over and over again that there were weapons of mass destruction, and if President Bush happened to have believed President Clinton and Madeleine Albright and those people that were saying there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, well, I guess they just should not have believed the Clinton administration.

But there were things that the Clinton administration could base that on, but we have got to get past that. It just seems to engender so much hatred.

I have heard people say over and over this is a historic debate because the Republicans never allowed this debate when they were in the majority. I remember having discussions like this twice in the last Congress. We voted on a couple of resolutions, and people would say one thing and then end up voting another on the resolution.

Now, I did hear one of my friends across the aisle say something I do agree with. He said he did not believe it was appropriate to tell troops they were coming home on a certain date and then change that. I agree, and a number of us have been pointing that out to those in the military and to the White House. That needs to stop. When you tell somebody who is in harm's way you are coming home on a certain date, they need to come home. We can agree on that.

But then I heard another say, we need to avoid a constitutional crisis by shocking this President into a new course of action. You shocked him into a new course of action. He said we are going to send 21,000 troops over there, 21,500. In fact, people like Harry Reid down in the Senate have been calling for that last fall, maybe even as recently as December, but oh, wait, as soon as the President calls for it, then it is a terrible thing; we cannot believe that he is doing this.

So the President has proposed something new. His commanders in the field have said we need this, and so it is being done. We have got troops already arriving and more arriving all the time.

I heard another one make reference to Vietnam, and one in indignation said, have we not learned anything from Vietnam? I would submit, I believe, Mr. Speaker, apparently not, because some people want to rewrite history; but the fact is, if you go back, the people were saying get out of Vietnam, get out of Vietnam are the same people saying this now in Iraq, and so President Nixon tried to get folks out. For all his faults, and he did have plenty, and you will not hear me say I think he was a great President because he lied, but one of the things he did try to do, he saw the polls and started trying to get people out of Vietnam.

When we started the Paris peace talks, things broke down. It was not going well. He decided to bomb North Vietnam. He went on the attack. He was carpet-bombing Hanoi, and as Sam Johnson and those who were in the Hanoi Hilton said, they were worried they might be hit by the bombs, but they were so glad, finally the United States was reacting and responding, and as Sam says, when he left, to get the chronology correct, the bombing went on. They came back to the peace talks, and we reached terms, and the POWs, most of them were coming home. Sam said one of the leaders at the prison said, you know, if you guys had just kept bombing a little longer, we would have had to surrender completely.

That was a winnable war, but people were not doing what it took to win so that we could have a good reputation. If you go look at our enemies and al Qaeda's, the rhetoric now in Iraq, Afghanistan, around the Middle East, they are saying look at what they did in Vietnam. They promised their allies they were going to stick with them.

Gerald Ford has been quoted recently. What a fine man. I hear people on both sides of the aisle at his funeral and after his death. He begged this Congress and this House please do not cut off the funding; we promised them funding even after we pulled our troops out. But this Congress said, no, we are cutting the funding, and we have been harmed ever since.

So in 1979, in Iran, they were bold enough to attack. An act of war, that is what attacking an embassy is, and I was at Fort Benning at that time. Nobody was dying to go to Iran, but everybody I knew was willing to go and die because we had been attacked, and that was the first act of war in this war involving terror, and we did not respond.

We did not respond in 1983 when our barracks were attacked and our marines were killed. We withdrew 1991, on through the 1990s. We have not responded, but I want to touch on one other thing.

I saw the majority leader come down. I saw it replayed in the wee hours this morning. I did not realize it went on, and he came down and challenged what Heather Wilson, who had left the floor, said, and ultimately said basically, that anybody that would come and say, as she did, that there might be a problem with Democrats being willing to support and fund the troops as needed, and he said to come and say anything of that nature was just not honest. I think it comes close to violating the rules if it does not, but the fact is Heather Wilson had stood right here and she had asked her Democratic friends across the aisle, look, if you are really willing to say that, if you are saying that this resolution means we will always provide everything that is needed to our troops in harm's way, let us put it in the resolution. We will have a unanimous-consent amendment, we will both agree, and it was not agreed. The Democratic majority would not agree. The Rules Committee did not agree. The Democratic leadership did not want that in there.

So, to say it goes without saying ain't the way it should be. It ought to be in print. It ought to be here said in black and white because Heather Wilson was right: if you really believe that, put it in black and white where our troops can see, and I would just in conclusion leave you with this: this resolution for what it does and does not do, it is a stay the course, stiffen the enemy, start our collapse, and you look at our friend Mr. Murtha's comments to say, that is what this starts the process for doing.

Mr. Speaker, when people on the other side of the aisle wonder how we can ask, Do you really support the troops? How about this quote that was contributed to Mr. Murtha? ``They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment. They don't have the training. They won't be able to do the work.'' There is no question in my mind.

On his Web site that has now been taken down, it says, ``Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq, but undermining other aspects of the President's foreign and national security policy.''

He is the Commander in Chief. That is undermining the President.

Mr. Speaker, it was truly an honor to know Charlie Norwood; I admired and respected him. And shortly after I got here to this body I was told by another Member from Georgia, he was sitting by Charlie when I was up speaking and he said, Who is that guy? I like him. Well, the feeling was more than mutual.

Charlie Norwood, what was not to like? His dogged determination, some would say he was stubborn as a mule. But I think Charlie might more elegantly say he was persistent until it almost ceased to be a virtue. But with Charlie, it was a virtue.

Now, some gave him bad press, along with some others of us that worked together on the Voting Rights Act. Some falsely claimed that Charlie and others of us were trying to restrict the usage of the Voting Rights Act when a clear indication, everything Charlie did, everything we worked on, everything we talked about behind the scenes was, by golly, the Voting Rights Act has done good for the places it has been applied. It needs to be applied in every district in America until racial disparity has disappeared.

And although we lost on the floor temporarily, I do believe there is Scripture to support people in heaven to know what is going on here on Earth. They rejoice over one soul's salvation, they know that it isn't over yet. As a matter of equal protection, I think we eventually will get it extended to every district where there is racial disparity.

To Gloria, to the Norwood family, all we can say through the Speaker is, thank you for sharing this wonderful gift with us. And to God on high, thank you for sharing this gift with this House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The Speaker has indicated that he will allocate the remaining time 20 minutes a side, but the time will expire at midnight. I would ask if it would make sense, since 20 minutes gets us to 11:35, why not just take 65 minutes, or actually you have got 3\1/4\ and you have got 2, so it would be an hour, and give each side 30 minutes a side, and then we don't have to keep playing this game and redo this and waste 10 minutes trying to reallocate the time. That is my inquiry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, apparently we are going to start today on debate of a resolution, the meat of which simply indicates, Resolved by the House of Representatives that Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January

10, 2007 to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the record has been clear. The new commander for Iraq, General Petraeus, has had hearings and has now been confirmed unanimously by the Senate. The outgoing commander of Iraq, General Casey, has had hearings and has now been confirmed as the new chief of the United States Army unanimously. Both commanders and their subordinate commanders have indicated that these additional troops are needed.

We hear talk that we are supporting our troops, but basically the message to the troops is, Yes, with our lips we say we support you but with all of our actions we say, We don't believe a word you say. We don't think you know what you're talking about. We don't want to give you what you say is necessary to protect yourselves and to win the day in Iraq.

There are no proposed solutions in the resolution that we will debate this week, no proposed fixes, nothing proposed to help anybody. It just says, We disapprove, we don't agree with the generals, the commanders, those who are in the theater, those that have come from the theater who are on active duty.

Now, you will always have some retired generals and commanders who are not happy that they are retired and who will take their pot shots, but here again there are no new solutions, no new efforts in Iraq. The Democratic Party does not propose to change anything. So this resolution, I guess, could be more properly categorized as stay the course, stiffen the enemy, start our collapse, because when you say to the world and to all of our enemies, We don't believe our commanders, we don't believe they know what they're talking about, we don't believe they know what they need, we're not going to have any new solutions, what you are doing to the enemy, you are stiffening their resolve. Materials that have been found in Iraq have indicated just that, that the Americans don't have the stomach, they ran from Vietnam, they didn't keep their commitments to the people of South Vietnam. Even after the Paris Accord, they did not keep their commitment. The new larger Democratic Congress in 1975 even cut off all the funds and millions of people in Southeast Asia lost their lives. In 1979 while I was stationed at Fort Benning, we were attacked. It was an act of war. And we did nothing. We begged to have our hostages returned. We did nothing. And those are the kind of things that the enemy goes back to in saying, we don't have the stomach to do this. In 1983 when our barracks was bombed in Beirut, we withdrew. In 1993 when the World Trade Center was attacked, we did virtually nothing on the international front. Then throughout the nineties, the attack of the USS Cole, Mozambique, Somalia, Africa, time and again, time and again we showed we didn't have the resolve. This must be the time we stand firm, tell our enemy, We will defeat you, we have nothing but solutions. This resolution, the stay the course, stiffen the enemy, start our collapse resolution, is not the way to go. I hope our fellow Members of this House will do the right thing. We will try something new. We will try to help the troops. We will give them what they ask. The Democratic stay the course, stiffen the enemy and start our collapse resolution is not a solution.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

It is always interesting hearing from my friend from New York.

You know, we are about solutions, we try to be about solutions; that is what this body ought to be about. And I would humbly submit that if we were to set up windmills surrounding the Capitol, I believe there is enough hot air that comes out of this place that we could offset all the losses of energy from an extravagant plane that flies from here to California with lots of passengers and a gym or whatever all it has got on there; but I would actually like to talk about the bill that the amendment is addressing and come back to the amendment for a moment.

But I come from a district there in east Texas that is blessed with an abundance of natural resources. And not only do we have oil and gas, we have got coal, and we have some something that is so often overlooked called biomass. Some folks don't know what that is, but it can take all kinds of forms, and one of those forms is the pine tree. You cut down the pine tree, you take the center of it, use it for paper, pulp, plywood, all of these other things. And then there is all this waste that can generate energy.

But the use of biomass is a source of energy, it is necessary for domestic industry purposes and actually is being used in our timber and paper industries to defray rapidly increasing overhead costs.

Presently, the uncertainty of energy supplies and prices make it impossible for domestic industry to efficiently forecast operating costs or make credible plans for future capital expenditures. For example, the forest products industry is partially self-sufficient because they use some of the biomass to provide energy to produce what they do. The biomass fuels can include bark, scrap wood, wood residuals, wood extractives from the pulping process.

So necessary to maintain a manufacturing base in this country that will sustain a driving economy is the energy produced by biomass, and I think that can play a vital role.

It is not enough simply to have a source of energy. It is also necessary to have a means to deliver it. So we have also got to improve our ability to deliver a wide array of energy resources to consumers by addressing the infrastructures. This bill doesn't really address any of those. It is kind of a feel-good bill. Anything can help a little bit.

But in conclusion, I just submit, look, if we all pitch in a little bit, districts like mine that have energy, if you allow us to use CO2, maybe pump it in the ground, get the last bit of oil up, use biomass, convert it into energy, if we keep doing those sorts of things using alternative energy, I think eventually we can pay for all the waste and extravagance that we are already seeing coming from the Speaker's request.

Madam Speaker, growing up, high school, college, even in the Army, law school, people were always coming up with these brain twister questions they want you to think about.

And as I sat here today thinking through the debates going back and forth, I had a question that I thought might be good to ask. If a luxury jet liner is flying, taking off from Washington, D.C., and flying nonstop to San Francisco with one passenger and 16 crew members, and they land in San Francisco with the one passenger, the Speaker, and then, instead of stopping, they refuel and take off nonstop for American Samoa, at what point, if any, during the flight do any of the crew members fall under the minimum wage requirements of the Federal Government?

Interesting question.

Well, I certainly appreciate my good friend, Mr. Burton, yielding, even though I rise to say how much I agree with the gentleman from Illinois about the greatness of Lovie Smith.

Chicago Bears' head coach Lovie Smith is a Super Bowl-bound gentleman. He was born May 8, 1958 in the wonderful town of Gladewater, Texas in my home district in the middle of east Texas. He grew up in Big Sandy, Texas, was voted the boy most likely to succeed in the class of 1976 in Big Sandy High School. He was also part of

three State football championships there in Big Sandy, Texas, where they do know good football.

After playing college ball at Tulsa, where he earned two-time All- America and three-time All-Missouri Valley Conference honors, he began his coaching career at his hometown high school in Big Sandy, Texas.

Now, 2 years later, Lovie Smith began coaching collegiately at Tulsa, Wisconsin, Arizona State, Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio State. After coaching the linebackers for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and then helping the St. Louis Rams return to the Super Bowl, Lovie Smith eventually found himself in Chicago as the defensive coordinator for the Bears. The team allowed the fewest points in the NFL in 2005 and ranked second in overall defense. He was named the 13th head coach in Chicago Bears history on January 15, 2004. Coach Smith was named the Associated Press NFL Coach of the Year for 2005.

Lovie Smith and his wife, Maryann, have three sons, Matthew, Michael and Miles, as well as twin grandsons, Malachi and Noah.

Now, Big Sandy City Hall tells us today that they have 1,275 residents; and within that delightfully proud town, there is a street in which Lovie Smith's childhood home was, where he grew up. It burned down a couple of years after they moved, but that street is now marked with a sign that bears the name of Lovie Smith. Coach Smith responded to that naming: ``Where else would I want it to be? Those are my roots; that is where I grew up. Most of who I am today came from that street. There is no other place I would want a sign with my name on it. I am proud of where I came from.''

Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, we are certainly proud of Coach Lovie Smith in east Texas.

Madam Speaker, I just want to take this 1-minute opportunity to address comments through the Speaker to my friends in the Democratic Party.

We are being asked to vote on a continuing resolution tomorrow, $463 billion.

Now, as I understand it, the Democrats didn't have any input. Basically, just the very top had input on how this would be spent.

I would implore every Democrat of conscience, Madam Speaker, to talk to your leadership. This isn't right. You talked about being open and fair, sunlight. This isn't it. Good government means at least you should have some input, even though we are not having any. Talk to your leadership. Let's get some openness, some sunlight into the process for the good of the American people.

I implore every Member of conscience to speak up.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa, my good friend (Mr. King), for yielding.

As may be known, I was a history major in college. I have studied a great deal of government history, different countries; and I would ask if the gentleman from Iowa might engage me in a colloquy to answer one question, if you are aware of the difference between the process that the former Soviet Union arrived at in order to appropriate money and the process that has been used to appropriate $463 billion tomorrow.

Well, obviously, none of us have seen it. It got posted and we have got people trying to make sense of the 140-or-so pages. But the main difference that I can tell, and this is just my opinion, but the main difference that I can tell is that the Soviets never promised to have an open, fair, transparent democratic process to appropriate money. That is the big difference I can see. Because that is what we have here.