Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to commend our Republican leadership in the House for taking a bold move to actually look at ways to get our financial house in order. It is time that we move forward, that we move forward as a government and look at these programs that we have been spending more and more and more on every year.

As a result of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, we have had to spend a lot of money in the gulf coast region; but we have to do as a government what families do across America, and that is looking at the family budget and saying where should I spend and not spend. That is what we are going to do as Republicans in the House. I am so proud we have Republican leadership that is willing to take on this courageous fight to cut spending and keep returning every taxpayer's dollar back to them as much as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy about the leadership we have in the House, and I am glad we have bold leadership.

Madam Speaker, tonight I think we need to speak about the partisanship that is not just encountered here in Washington, D.C., not from the people just here in this body, but the partisanship we have seen from a prosecutor down in Austin, Texas. It is part of a coordinated strategy that those on the other side in this House have. It is a coordinated strategy of character assassination.

A couple of months ago I spoke before the House, and I outlined a few simple things. I said the Democrat leadership has led their party on a campaign against Republicans, against the Republican majority of this House, through a conspiracy of character assassination and misleading attacks.

The U.S. News and World Report wrote back in April: ``Democratic strategists, confident that voters are increasingly fed up with the Republican establishment, are planning an all-out attack on what they call `the abuse of power' by the Republicans.''

I said at the time the liberal magazine, the New Republic, published an article entitled: ``How Democrats can Overthrow the House,'' this House, Madam Speaker, and I quote from that article: ``Democrats should consider fighting back by extra-parliamentary means, going beyond the standard parameters of legislative debate, and attacking Republicans not on issues, but on ethics, character. In other words, it may be time for Democrats to burn down the House in order to save it.''

Those are not my words, Madam Speaker. Those are the words of the liberal New Republic outlining the Democrat strategy to take the majority in this House. ``Burn down the House in order to save it,'' they say.

Well, at the time, a lot of people thought that what I was outlining was something that was far off; that maybe it would not happen; that maybe we would have some high-minded individuals on the other side that would say enough is enough. This is not the right strategy for America; it is not the right type of political discourse we should have in this country. But, no, no, no, we saw this just a week ago with a partisan prosecutor in Austin Texas named Ronnie Earle.

After impaneling seven grand juries, he was able to come up with one charge, conspiracy; conspiracy against our majority leader, our Republican leader in the House. Well, as it turns out, those charges, not only were they false but they also were based on a statute that was not in effect at the time that they claim these events happened.

What we saw was a partisan prosecutor that was so focused on scoring political points that it did not matter what the law said; and so on Monday, he came up with a new charge based on new evidence, he claims. After going through seven grand juries, Madam Speaker, after going through 2 years of investigating our Republican leader, intent on taking him down, they said in 2 days they came up with new information and came up with a new charge.

It is an amazing thing that has happened. The American people have heard it before by watching the TV. They know the details of this.

But I want to outline what a former U.S. Attorney from the Southern District of New York, Andrew McCarthy, outlined. He said, ``Ronnie Earle, district attorney of Travis County, Texas, has no business wielding the enormous power of prosecution. A matter of national gravity is being pursued with shocking ethical bankruptcy by the district attorney, by Ronnie Earle. If Congressman DeLay did something illegal, he, like anyone else, should be called into account. But he, like anyone else, is entitled to procedural fairness, including a prosecutor who not only is, but also appears to be, fair and impartial.''

Those are the words of a former U.S. Attorney. Madam Speaker, I will enter this into the Record.

Madam Speaker, also McCarthy adds, ``Ronnie Earle is a disgrace to his profession and has done grievous disservice to thousands of Federal, State and local government attorneys, prosecutors of all persuasions whose common bond is a good-faith commitment to the rules, but who will now bear the burden of suspicions fostered by Earle's excesses.''

Madam Speaker, you may say that is just a columnist talking. But what does the liberal Austin American Statesman say? It says: ``Ronnie Earle has created a circus-like investigation alleging Republican campaign funding illegalities, but he has not proven it.''

Madam Speaker, we see the Democrats' agenda is to burn down this House by attacking our leaders on baseless accusations, and they will stop at nothing until they bring down our majority.

Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the article by Andrew C. McCarthy:

Ronnie Earle Should Not Be a Prosecutor

(By Andrew C. McCarthy)

If there is one thing liberals and conservatives ought to

be able to agree on, it is this: Ronnie Earle, district

attorney of Travis County, Texas, has no business wielding

the enormous powers of prosecution.

I don't know Congressman Tom DeLay, the House Majority

Leader. I certainly don't know if he's done anything illegal,

let alone something so illegal as to warrant indictment. It

doesn't look like it--and at least one grand jury has already

refused to indict him (a fact Earle appears to have tried to

conceal from the public as he scrambled to find a new grand

jury that would). Yet experience shows it is foolhardy for

those who don't know all the facts to hazard a judgment about

such things.

One thing is sure, though, and it ought to make anyone who

cares about basic fairness angry. The investigation of DeLay,

a matter of national gravity is being pursued with shocking

ethical bankruptcy by the district attorney--by Ronnie Earle.

For nearly 20 years, I had the privilege of being a

prosecutor in the best law-enforcement office in the United

States, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District

of New York. Being a prosecutor is the world's greatest job

because it is honest work for the highest cause--service to

one's own community. And it is work that has precious little

to do with politics.

In their private lives, many of my fellow government

lawyers were political independents, either by design (i.e.,

out of a conscious rectitude holding that law enforcement

should be above politics) or because they were just

apolitical. Most, as one would expect in New York, were

Democrats. A large percentage, as, again, one would expect

from a group of mostly young people educated in top schools,

was proudly liberal. Over coffee or lunch, or dinner, they

and we few, hardy conservatives would have spirited debates

over all manner of issues.

In the four corners of a case, however, none of that

mattered a wit. Within those four corners, there were rules

and responsibilities. There was recognition that prosecutors

have breathtaking power over the lives of those they

investigate. Power inarguably vital to the rule of law. But

power which, if used recklessly or maliciously, can leave

lives in tatters. The lives not only of the innocent and the

guilty, but of the justice system itself.

This was especially so in investigations of political

corruption. We prosecuted Republicans and Democrats, in about

equal measure. The cases were hard, but checking your

politics at the door was never hard, for at least two

reasons.

First, there tends to be nothing ideological about the

crimes committed by politicians. They are a stew of

pettiness, greed and above-it-all arrogance over which

neither party has a monopoly, and the offensiveness of which

cuts across philosophical divides.

Second, some wrongs are simply not intended to be crimes.

Among them are political wrongs: sleazy abuses of power,

cronyism, most acts of nepotism, half-truths or outright lies

in campaigns, etc. In a free society, these get sorted out in

our bumptious political system. Usually, absent shades of

financial fraud, bribery, and extortion, prosecutors should

stay their hands. There are too many real crimes to waste

resources on that sort of thing. More significantly, the risk

of criminalizing politics would only discourage honest

citizens from participating in matters of public concern.

The code prosecutors live by is not a liberal or

conservative one. It is a code of ethics--of nonpartisan,

non-ideological honor. Of course many prosecutors are

ambitious. Of course prosecutors want to win. But even the

ambitious ones who care a bit too much about winning quickly

learn that success is intimately tied to doing things the

right way. And not least because that is the norm their

colleagues follow--as well as the standard by which the

defense bar and the judiciary (populated by no small

percentage of former prosecutors) scrutinize them. It is,

moreover, the standard the public demands they meet.

People want to see the guilty convicted, but they also want

to feel good about the way it is done. The prosecutor is the

public's lawyer, and his duty is not merely to get the job

done but to get it done right. The second part is just as

crucial as the first. They are equal parts of doing justice.

No one expects perfection, which is unattainable in any human

endeavor. But if the outcomes of the justice system are to be

regarded as legitimate, as befitting a decent society, people

have to be confident that if they stood accused, the

prosecutor would enforce their rights and make sure they got

a fair fight.

So there are certain things that are just flat-out

verboten. Most basic are these: to resist public comment

about non-public, investigative information; to abjure any

personal stake in the litigation that could suggest decisions

regarding the public interest are being made to suit the

prosecutor's private interests; and--if all that is not

Sesame Street simple enough--to remain above any financial or

political entanglement that could render one's objectivity

and judgment suspect.

In the profession, these things come under the hoary rubric

of ``avoiding the appearance of impropriety.'' In layman's

terms, they are about having an I.Q. high enough that you

know to put your socks on before your shoes. This is bedrock

stuff. It is central to the presumption of innocence, due

process, and equal protection under the law that prosecutors

owe even the most despicable offenders. It is foundational to

the integrity of the system on which rest our security, our

economy, and our freedoms.

And Ronnie Earle has flouted it in embarrassing, mind-

numbingly brazen ways.

As Byron York has been reporting on NRO (see here, here,

and here), Earle has partnered up with producers making a

movie, called The Big Buy, about his Ahab's pursuit of DeLay.

A movie about a real investigation? Giving filmmakers access

to investigative information while a secret grand-jury probe

is underway? Allowing them to know who is being investigated

and why? To view proposed indictments even before the grand

jury does? Allowing them into the sanctuary of the grand jury

room, and actually to film grand jurors themselves? Creating

a powerful incentive--in conflict with the duty of

evenhandedness--to bring charges on flimsy evidence? For a

prosecutor, these aren't just major lapses. They are firing

offenses. For prosecutors such as those I worked with over

the years, from across the political spectrum, I daresay

they'd be thought firing-squad offenses.

Attending partisan fundraisers in order to speak openly

about an ongoing grand jury investigation against an

uncharged public official. As a moneymaking vehicle.

Penning a nakedly partisan op-ed (in the New York Times on

November 23, 2004) about the political fallout of his grand-

jury investigation of Delay, then uncharged.

Settling cases by squeezing businesses to make hefty

financial contributions to pet personal causes in exchange

for exercising the public's power to dismiss charges.

Secretly shopping for new grand juries when, despite the

incalculable advantages the prosecution has in that forum,

the earlier grand jurors have found the case too weak to

indict.

Ignoring the commission by members of his own party of the

same conduct that he seeks to brand felonious when engaged in

by members of the other party.

Such actions and tactics are reprehensible. They constitute

inexcusably dishonorable behavior on the part of a public

servant, regardless of whether the persons and entities

investigated were in the wrong. They warrant universal

censure.

If Congressman DeLay did something illegal, he, like anyone

else, should be called to account. But he, like anyone else,

is entitled to procedural fairness, including a prosecutor

who not only is, but also appears to be, fair and impartial.

Ronnie Earle is not that prosecutor. He has disgraced his

profession, and done grievous disservice to thousands of

Federal, State, and local government attorneys. Prosecutors

of all persuasions whose common bond is a good faith

commitment to the rules--but who will now bear the burden of

suspicions fostered by Earle's excesses.

The burden, but not the cost. That will be borne by the

public.

Mr. Speaker, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has shown bold leadership. Prime Minister Sharon took a significant risk to both his political future and personal safety to organize the Israeli pullout of Gaza.

Thousands of Israelis were moved from their homes in Gaza to give peace a chance. With no guarantees from the Palestinians, the Israelis moved all that was important to them, moved their home, their goods, including the remains of their families and friends.

Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority must show leadership and root out radical terrorist groups like Hamas. Israel took the first step in the hope of developing a lasting peace with the Palestinians. Abbas must confront violence against Israelis, eliminate the terrorist infrastructure, disarm and arrest those involved in terrorist plots and institute democratic reforms in all Palestinian-controlled areas.

Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Sharon showed bold leadership and courage. Now the Palestinians must act.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall Nos. 385 and 386 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Hooley

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support H.R. 458, the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act, and specifically to highlight Title II of this very important legislation. Title II is designed to protect our brave soldiers as they fight to defend our freedoms, by regulating all lenders that qualify as military lenders--including payday advance businesses, small loan companies, finance companies, or other types of creditors.

I would like to thank Congressman Westmoreland, the sponsor of this bill, as well as Chairman Oxley and Chairman Bachus. We would not be able to eliminate unscrupulous lenders from offering these products without the leadership demonstrated by the House Financial Services Committee.

As a representative from North Carolina, I am particularly concerned with protecting our military. North Carolina is the most military friendly State in the Nation. With bases such as Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune, I am familiar with financial lenders that prey on our servicemen and women. These companies hurt our military by charging unjustifiable rates, using products with hidden fees, and refinancing loans to the detriment of military consumers. It often takes honest soldiers years to escape the financial hardships caused by these dishonest practices.

Our soldiers, like all American citizens, have a variety of financial service needs and value having a wide array of choices and alternatives to fulfill those needs. I applaud many of these alternative financial services outlets, including payday lenders, for striving to protect military personnel by conforming to the best practices recommended by the Community Financial Services Association, a panel of distinguished retired military members.

Rather than unnecessarily prohibiting lenders and limiting the options for our military, H.R. 458 cracks down on abusive practices while preserving access to credit. Title II mandates these necessary protections, such as disclosures and marketing and collection reforms, on a broad range of military lenders. Under Title II, all military lenders will be required to provide detailed disclosures on a variety of subjects. These mandatory disclosures include:

Not requiring service members to complete agreements merely because they signed an application or received a notice;

Advising military personnel, who are seeking short-term credit due to a family or other emergency, to consider applying through one of the Armed Forces' Relief Societies, the United Service Organizations or another base or military organization;

Acknowledging that any credit extension is not sponsored or endorsed by the Armed Forces, the Department of Defense, or any Federal entity;

That the lender may not contact the borrower's commanding officer or chain of command to collect the debt; and

That the service member and his/her dependents may have additional protections

which cannot be waived, even if suggested or required by the lender.

Again, my sincere thanks to the financial institutions that pushed for these reforms and to Congressman Westmoreland for his leadership. I look forward to working with my colleagues and our partners in the private sector to eliminate abusive practices and protect the financial health and access of our military.

Mr. Speaker, since President Bush took office in January 2001, America has seen a recession that began before the administration was really up and running, the worst terror attacks in the history of the world, scandals that rocked the Fortune 500 companies and our financial markets, a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq, and the highest energy prices in recent memory.

We have faced enormous economic challenges that should have devastated the United States; but, instead, we have seen 4 years of economic growth, the best housing market in American history, all more evidence that tax relief benefits the economy. And getting the government off the backs of the taxpayers actually helps our economic engine.

The 2001 tax cuts and the 2003 cuts on capital gains and dividends have been the linchpin to our economic rebound. Federal tax receipts are up this year. State tax receipts are up this year. The economy is turning around, and we have reduced the deficit by $100 billion this year alone, all the work of tax relief and tight budgets, what we as Republicans believe, what we are fighting for, and they work.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize a great American from my district who is here this morning. Dr. Ruffin Snow, who is the pastor of Tri-City Baptist Church in Conover, North Carolina, gave the morning prayer here on the House floor this morning.

Dr. Snow is one of the strongest men of faith that I have come to know in western North Carolina. For 7 years he has headed the Tri-City Baptist Church and has worked in ministry since 1963. He has both a Master's of Divinity and a Doctorate of Ministry. I have been to Pastor Snow's church. It truly embodies what he strives for his flock to be, and that is an Acts 1:8 church, telling people about Jesus in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the world, essentially taking the message of Jesus to the world, not just to the community, but to the whole world.

As part of that tradition, he is here today sharing his words with the Speaker and the Members of Congress.

Over 3,000 people come to worship every week at Tri-City Baptist, and the Holy Spirit is doing wonders there in that body of believers. I thank Pastor Snow and his family for being here today to be a part of this and for serving as our guest chaplain.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's leadership in the State of Colorado and here in Washington, D.C. on this issue, about fighting to protect our law enforcement officers.

There is a growing problem in this Nation where criminals will commit violent crimes, including murdering law enforcement officers, and flee to nations that refuse to extradite to the United States those criminals because of our tough sentencing laws, including mandatory minimum sentences.

This amendment is simple: it will not allow taxpayer funds to go to nations that refuse to stand with us against the vile act of murdering law enforcement officers.

Law enforcement officers across this country are bravely fighting crime, responding to emergencies, and protecting our rights. We have an opportunity to stand up for them with this amendment here today. When countries do not extradite their criminals, it actually creates a twisted incentive to be even more violent in their crimes. The more violent the crime, the tougher the sentence here in the United States; and the tougher the sentence, the less likely they are to be subject to extradition.

The Beauprez-McHenry amendment will apply the pressure that usually gets the best results, and that is withholding tax dollars to those countries. I, for one, think it is prudent and just that we require nations to extradite cop killers before receiving aid through this appropriations process.

Again, I applaud my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez). I certainly appreciate his representation of his constituents in Colorado, I thank him for his leadership and friendship, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the Beauprez-McHenry amendment when the time comes and protect our law enforcement officers across this Nation.

I shall, Mr. Speaker. I am Congressman Patrick McHenry, a new Member from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, based on the kindness of the majority leader allowing for new Members to be involved in this process, the majority party's governance of the House, I would seek to outline for fellow Members what the majority intends to do next week in terms of the agenda. Normally this is what the minority whip would ask at this point; however, I certainly see him leaving the floor.

Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Monday at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour debates. At 2 p.m. we will move to legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules. A final list of those bills will be sent to Members' offices by the end of the day. Any votes called on these measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday and the balance of the week, the House will consider several measures under the rule: The Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006; the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006; and H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank the majority leader for his hard work on keeping our agenda on track here in the House. I certainly thank him for his leadership, and I want to thank the majority leader also for providing more opportunities for new Members of the House. Unfortunately, it seems that the minority whip did not see that as a good opportunity to broaden the base and allow others to have a role in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debates.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. Speaker, Social Security is going broke and we need to fix it. The question is how. When the baby boomers begin to retire in 2008 and 2009, the only way to save Social Security is then to cut benefits by 30 percent or raise taxes by $600 billion a year.

The Democrats believe in tax hikes. In fact, the only Democrat proposal to reform Social Security is to raise your taxes. But the best way to reform Social Security is with personal accounts, to get a better return on our investments. And there are a lot of proposals out there. In fact, Ways and Means Committee leaders actually came up with a good plan yesterday that has personal accounts, that everyone paying into the system would get a personal retirement account by using the Social Security surplus that we have for the next few years. I like this idea because it means politicians cannot spend the money and it is a true lockbox for every citizen that pays taxes.

We need to have personal retirement accounts, Mr. Speaker, not tax hikes. We need to support Social Security reform.

Mr. Speaker, I may be new to Washington politics. I may be new to this partisan game played here. But it appears to me there is more politics masquerading in legalese and ethics today.

The coordinated attack strategy by the Democrat leadership against our Republican leadership has been shown for what it is, once again. It is a political side show with partisanship as its base that is attempting to assassinate our good leaders' on the Republican side rights.

Yesterday's National Review reports that Ronnie Earle, the Texas prosecutor who is the designated hit man for the Democrats, has been indicting several companies over alleged campaign finance violations. But he dropped those charges when they would pay and make contributions to his pet projects, his pet causes. An end for those charges, those contributions, have been made. Dollars for dismissal, Mr. Speaker. Pay off the left-wing prosecutor with big donations to pretty pink projects, and they might get off the hook.

It turns out that the prosecutor has also been on a witch hunt against our leadership, and he has, in fact, appeared at Democrat fundraisers to brag about. It is more Democrat side show politics, and that is what this is all about.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), my good friend and fellow freshman Republican colleague, who unfortunately could not be here this afternoon to offer this amendment. One of his predecessors in the 10th District of Texas died tragically just a few days ago, Congressman Pickle, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) did attend his funeral and could not be here today to vote nor could he be here today to offer this amendment. So I offer it in his stead.

As a good conservative and someone who minds the fiscal house of the United States Government, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) offered this amendment that would simply rein in the cost of printing, just much like the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) offered a few moments ago.

This would simply take $2 million out of the printing budget for our legislative branch and give that $2 million to security. It would take care of security equipment and weapons for Capitol Hill Police.

So at this time, I would simply like to recommend the House do accept this amendment that would rein in excessive spending. It is not that I am against printing or paper, or it is not that I am against ink either, but certainly I think we should restrain spending where it has gotten out of hand, and our printing budget is clearly out of hand. I think we and each individual Congressman's office can actually rein in that spending ourselves and actually print out the bills that we need.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for the eloquence and the simplicity of his statement, and as a new Member here, I certainly respect my senior Member's opinions on this matter, and I do concur.

With that, I would certainly appreciate the kindness of the House in voting for this amendment that would somewhat restrain our spending in the matter of printing here in Congress. And we are not going to eliminate jobs in this instance. I just think we need to fund security rather than paper and printing, and with that, I would urge the adoption of this amendment.

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