Floor Statements

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate what the gentleman says.

Would you please explain to me how this bill is going to stop the horrific accident that occurred in Connecticut? I don't see how this bill will do that, and I would appreciate it if you would explain how this is going to prevent animal bites.

Will the gentleman yield?

Surely you're not suggesting that owning a primate is equal to cockfighting or dog fighting. Surely the gentleman is not suggesting that. I don't think you can compare. We're comparing apples to oranges in that situation. I don't support dog fighting. I don't support cockfighting. I'm a physician and I have treated a lot of animal bites in my career. But in my opinion, I don't think this is going to prevent animal bites of any kind, even primate bites, and the only person who is going to get bitten in this is the American taxpayer. You may say $5 million is not a lot of money, but the thing is the American public is going to be bitten in the wallet and it's going to be a program that is going to continue for some period of time.

But do you compare this to dog fighting?

I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding, and I just wanted to make a comment.

I just respectfully disagree with my friend from out West and from Oregon about his very impassioned debate here, and I understand that my friend is very passionate about this. As a physician, I am very concerned about animal bites myself.

But I don't see where this bill is going to stop animal bites. I don't see where it's going to stop primate bites. If you want to outlaw primate ownership, then maybe that bill is one that you bring to the floor. I am not sure how we would vote on that, but I don't see how we can compare ownership of a

primate or even a lion or a tiger to dogfighting and cockfighting. They are totally separate entities and so totally separate issues.

This is going to cost money when we are in a situation where the American public is fixing to be asked to increase their taxes, and we passed just 2 weeks ago, week-and-a-half ago, a huge stimulus bill that I don't think is going to stimulate the economy.

But I do know this, increasing Federal spending and increasing Federal purview into people's lives, particularly States' lives, is not in the best interests of our taxpayers. It's not in the best interests of America, and, frankly, I carry a copy of the Constitution in my pocket all the time and I don't see anything in this document that allows us to continue to expand the size of the Federal Government like we are doing.

So I just wanted to make a comment that I very much appreciate your impassioned remarks. I understand the horrible accident that my friend from Utah was not trying to belittle in any way whatsoever, and I am sure he would tell you the same thing, and I know that he has a heart just like we all do.

This bill is not going to stop that type of activity, and I don't think it's in the best interests of America.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

I rise in support of this bill. And actually it's one of the very few truly constitutional things we've seen around here recently. This government has mistreated terribly the Native American population in this country, and I think it's fitting that we recognize and honor Chief Geronimo.

I live in northeast Georgia, and I represent an area where the Cherokee Nation was and still have a lot of Cherokee people in the northern part of my district in northeast Georgia in the mountains. I also live in an area where the Creek Indians resided. And this government has terribly mistreated the Native American population, not only in the past, but they continue to do so. We need to make changes, policy changes to bring the Native American people into this government, into this Nation as true, full citizens of this country. And we're not doing that. And I support honoring Geronimo.

Having said that, I also want to add that there are a lot of things that this Congress is doing that are deplorable besides the way we mistreat the Native American people. The way this budget bill that's going to be brought to the floor of this House this week I think is deplorable. Half trillion dollar omnibus bill. Most people don't understand that word ``omnibus,'' I don't think. It's hard for me, as a Georgian, to even pronounce it. So I don't expect a lot of people to understand what that means.

But what happened in the last Congress is the majority decided not to pass any budget bills and put it off until this Congress because they were hoping that they would have a President who was more favorable to the marked expansion of government that we've already seen proposed in this new budget.

Just before we went on this President's Day break, this House passed, the Senate passed, the President signed into law very quickly, without much debate or much discussion and, generally, without any ability of the American public to look at the bill, in spite of this House passing unanimously an instruction to our Members of the House not to bring it to this floor without the American public being able to view on-line, for 48 hours, the $1.1- or $1.2 trillion so-called stimulus bill. I call it a non-stimulus bill.

We're going to have a bill come this week. We're not going to be able to amend it. We'll have very little debate. It's not even been produced in totality yet. And frankly, as I look at this Constitution, a lot of the things that we do in this House and in the Senate and the President and even in the courts are not according to the intent of our Founding Fathers. Article I, Section 8 enumerates a list of functions of the Federal Government. There are only 18 things we're supposed to be passing bills about, only 18. The 10th amendment of the Constitution says, by golly, we mean it. The 10th amendment says, if a function is not specifically given to the Federal Government, by the Constitution, in other words, those 18 things in Article I, Section 8, if it's not prohibited from the States, things that are prohibited in the States, setting up interstate tariffs and things like that, those rights are reserved for the States and the people. We pass bill after bill in this House that are totally unconstitutional. The Federal court system rules over and over again about the constitutionality of State law and Federal law and rule unconstitutionally according to the original intent.

And we are spending our grandchildren's future. Our grandchildren are going to live at a lower standard of living than we do today because of these massive bills that we are passing in this Congress and we passed in the last Congress. It's totally objectionable, totally deplorable and totally unacceptable to me of how we're doing business in this Congress and how we did business in the last Congress. We've got to stop spending the future of America. We have to have a strong national defense and national security. Those things are constitutional. Those things should be the major function of the Federal Government.

And I just call upon my colleagues in this House and my colleagues over in the Senate to just take a step back and look at what we're doing. We're killing the American entrepreneurial system. We're killing the free markets. We're killing the future economic well-being of our children and our grandchildren because of these huge spending bills. We can't debate them. We can't amend them. We can't do anything except for vote on them. And it's being shoved down the throats of the American people. And that's totally unacceptable to me.

I ask my colleagues, liberal and conservative alike, to look at what we're doing. We've got to stop borrowing and spending America's future because it's not going to work. That's exactly what we're doing. We're robbing little Johnny and little Mary's piggy bank and their children's piggy bank to grow a bigger socialistic government. It has to stop. These huge spending bills are not going to solve the economic woes.

Americans are hurting. We have to do something. But what we do, or what we've been doing here is growing a bigger government. What we've been doing here is basically putting in place tax policy and Federal policy that's going to destroy freedom in America. We've got to stop it. We cannot continue down this road. We're going down a road of socialism. We had this non-stimulus bill that was shoved down the throats of the American public, shoved down our throats in this House and in the Senate, and it's going to strangle the American economy, and it's going to kill America's economic future. It has to stop. And we need to stop it this week. We cannot continue these big spending bills.

We don't even have regular order on all these bills that come to the floor of the House. We have bill after bill with tax increases, spending, that are brought under suspensions, passed by unanimous consent. I find that deplorable and unacceptable.

We need to call this--as Americans, we need to call this House and this Senate back to regular order. We need to stop this destruction of freedom and this rapid move to socialism in America.

I want to honor Geronimo. I want to honor the Apache people. They've done a fantastic job with their wildlife management. I wish I could afford to go out there and hunt sheep, elk or field deer. We have done a disservice to the Native American people and continue to do so. We did to Geronimo. And this bill will honor Geronimo.

But we cannot continue the disservice to the American taxpayers, to our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I stand here today because Americans face a fork in the road. One path leads to socialism, and the other path leads to freedom. This non-stimulus bill is the road to socialism. It will give us a journey that includes bureaucratic controls, high taxes, government intervention, Cuba-style medicine, and economic collapse of America.

This steamroller of socialism is being shoved down our throats, and it will strangle our economy. This porkulous bill has a few decent provisions in it, but it's mostly filled with mystery meat. Rancid meat. Like the millions for plug-in government cars and millions for mouse restoration that will ruin the entire meal. The captivating rhetoric about openness and transparency is providing cover for the rancid meat.

Another tainted bite includes a move towards socialized medicine. As a physician, I'm deeply concerned about the breach of privacy and the abuse of care that is hidden in this stimulus bill, especially for senior citizens. The vague language could potentially deny life-giving care to the elderly.

You see, $2 billion is allocated in this non-stimulus bill for the new National Coordinator of Health Information--or you can call him ``Dr. Doom.'' Dr. Doom, the government's own human health care calculator, will make his or her own calculations to determine if your needed care is cost efficient.

The vague nature of this language could lead to health care rationing for elderly people and handcuffing the development of life-saving drugs to fight infections all because Dr. Doom doesn't deem them to be cost efficient. When momma falls and breaks her hip, she will just lie in her bed in pain until she dies with pneumonia because her needed surgery is not cost efficient.

I'm a medical doctor, and I'm certain that the Federal Government can no more determine what type of case is the most cost-effective and appropriate for my patients than they can determine how best to educate our children or spend our hard-earned tax dollars.

This is what happens when Congress considers a bill that costs $1 trillion. Convenient little billions just slip on in. You'd think $1 trillion would at least buy time and public scrutiny. Not by this bill.

It's true that our economy needs a significant jolt that requires immediate attention, but there is another direction we can go.

Congress could come together promptly to create jobs, restore faith in markets, and again unleash America's entrepreneurial spirit. The American people have a choice. There's a better alternative that I've cosponsored to provide fast-acting tax relief for hardworking families and small businesses that will create twice the jobs at half the cost of this bill.

We must give small businesses the capital they need to employ workers and to buy inventory. Congress should suspend or eliminate the capital gains tax to provide an inflow of tax into our economy. Next, we must eliminate the death tax so that family businesses can continue to thrive and produce high-paying jobs. And ultimately, let's support tax relief for our hardworking families and save future generations from this 784-pound gorilla that's in this room.

Americans must choose in which direction we will go. It will be disastrous to let politicians make that decision for us. Are we going to have government run our families and our neighborhoods? Are we going to take care of ourselves and help our neighbors? Are we going to make decisions about our own lives, where our children go the school, make our own health care decisions, and how to spend our own hard-earned money; or is government going to do that for us?

Liberals need to stop pretending that the American people can't tell the difference between SPAM and filet mignon. Instead of the wasteful mystery pork that this bill gives us, let's give the American taxpayers and entrepreneurs the red meat that they need to stimulate the American economy: permanent tax relief and job creation incentives.

Madam Speaker, let me be clear. The people in Georgia are hurting. They want action, and they want it now. But nine out of ten of them oppose this bill. They want an alternative. We have alternatives that won't even be considered by leadership.

Normally, I implore my colleagues to vote a certain way, but today I urge the American people to call, write, and e-mail and tell your U.S. senator and congressman to vote ``no'' on this rancid meat and demand alternatives be considered.

Let's demand the road to freedom.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Speaker Pelosi, as well as President Obama, talked about wanting to have a new era of openness and transparency. And that is exactly what this motion to instruct is all about. It is to bring openness and transparency of this huge bill to the American public.

And I can't understand why my Democrat colleagues seem to be so bent on getting this bill to the floor and passed, because we don't even know what all is in there. I understand that the $600 million that were originally slated in the House bill to prepare America for socialized medicine has been expanded to $2 billion. And the American public has the possibility of having their health care decisions made by some health care czar and some bureaucracy here in the Federal Government, not by their doctor. And in fact, their doctor may be even chosen by this health care czar.

This is not right. This is not transparency. This is not fairness. The American people deserve better than this. So I encourage my Democratic colleagues to look at this motion to instruct and to support it so that the American people can see what is in this bill. We can come back next week or some time or even through the weekend. We can put it online today. And we can vote on it on Friday evening or Thursday evening if you will just do that. So I encourage my Democratic colleagues to support this motion to instruct so that we can have the transparency that the American public deserves.

Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Akin, I just appreciate your yielding time. I would like to clarify something you said here just for my own personal edification and I hope the edification of the people who are watching tonight. You said just a few moments ago that the President of the United States asked for more regulatory authority over Freddie and Fannie. Is that correct?

That is what I wanted to clarify, if you don't mind yielding back a second. But the thing is, the President of the United States, President Bush, who I have not always been in agreement with on many things, but he was asking to regulate these GSEs, government-sponsored enterprises, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And it was actually Freddie and Fannie, along with the Community Reinvestment Act, plus the low interest rates that were out there so that these subprime loans could be made. This is what created our housing bubble that just rose so quickly and then burst so rapidly that the housing prices went down. If I remember correctly, the Republicans in the House, we also, in fact, passed a bill. Is that not correct?

But it was not the free enterprise system. It was not deregulation. It was not anything except for the Democrats here in Congress that blocked regulation. And it was, actually, there were programs that were established by Congress. If I remember correctly, the Carter administration passed the Community Reinvestment Act initially. And under the Clinton administration it was markedly expanded to force banks to make these loans where people couldn't pay. Is that not correct?

I appreciate that. So, the Community Reinvestment Act, and that is where I was going, and I appreciate your mentioning that, and ACORN became a bunch of thugs using extortion. That is what I hear from my bankers at home in Georgia, that ACORN folks would come in and threaten them because they couldn't expand their services and they couldn't put in ATM machines unless they would make these bad loans. And that is what created this whole financial debacle. And the blame, though, lies right at the feet of the people who are pushing this stimulus package saying it was free enterprise.

Absolutely. If the gentleman will yield, I'm a physician, as the gentleman knows. And in medical practice we look at problems and we try to find solutions to those problems. In fact, it is quite different from what lawyers do. Lawyers generally just argue problems. We try to fix problems. We try to find solutions to those problems. And so we look at all the symptoms. We look at the causative factors that come to bear in any disease entity.

Now we've got a horrible disease problem of a poor economy. The American people are hurting, hurting terribly. And we're right now in a debate about a bill that the House passed last week, the Senate is taking it up now. But there is in my opinion a tremendous amount of blindness by our colleagues, particularly on the other side, about what are the causation factors of the housing burst that has really created this economic problem that we have in this Nation.

And I commend the gentleman for bringing this up because that statement that the New York Times put in place, I think, is very indicative of what's going on now. And I heard the same people who were arguing back in 2003 and earlier against regulating Fannie and Freddie, those same people, when we were talking about the TARP funds, the Wall Street bailout, kept making a case that we need to make more of these loans in the name of affordable housing, make those loans to people who cannot afford to pay them.

Well, I have to leave in a second.

I'd like to tell you and the American public a story if you yield just another minute or two.

Okay. Thank you. I've got a friend who's in the timber land business. He buys and sells timber land. And he was telling me a story during this whole period of time when real estate prices were going up. He had a piece of property in my district on the market for $1.3 million. A gentleman came in and said, I want to buy your land. My buddy said fine. Here's the contract. The buyer signed it. Went to closing.

My good friend, when he got to closing, of course, got his check for the $1.3 million. But he found out because of the problems with the banking industry making these sub prime low doc, no doc, low documentation, no documentation loans, that the buyer actually borrowed $1.7 million for a $1.3 million piece of property. So he put $400,000 cash money in his pocket.

Now, if the property went up to $2 million or 2.1 or $2 million then the bank would be happy. Both the buyer, and the seller in this deal would have been happy, and everybody would have been fine.

But my friend found out that the buyer had no job. He had no assets. He had no way to pay for this loan for $1.7 million.

Well, that's the point I was trying to make if the gentleman would yield.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make is that this whole banking industry debacle was crazy and it was set up by policy that Congress established, and Republicans tried to do something about it because we, as the Republican Party, people here in the House, members of the Banking Committee in the Senate, Financial Services over here on the House side, realized that this was a disaster in the making and they tried to do something about it. And every effort that we did was blocked by the Democrats, who, right now, today want to force down the throat of the American people this stimulus bill that, in reality, is nothing, nothing but a steam roller of socialism that's being shoved down the throat of the American public and it's going to strangle to death the American economy, as well as the American people.

I thank the gentlelady.

If I may inquire of the majority manager, I have a question regarding section 2 of the rule. This provision changes the date by which the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations must file explanatory materials related to the omnibus appropriations bill. It is my understanding that the date change in section 2 of the rule is necessary because the text of the omnibus is not available at this time.

May I confirm for the record that it is still the majority's intent to make this material available at the same time the omnibus bill is introduced?

I will yield to the gentleman for an answer.

So I want to confirm this. You will file it today.

I think it's a crying shame that the majority's not using regular order. We wouldn't have this if we were using regular order on this bill and many others. And I suggest that the majority start using regular order for all these bills.

Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

You know, Mr. Akin, as we dealt with this issue, I think there are a lot of Democrats around this country who want the same thing that we do, and that's jobs. But I think they've been sold a bill of goods by Speaker Pelosi and the liberal leadership in this House and in the Senate too, as well as what President Obama is promoting. Because, in my opinion, this bill is not going to create jobs.

It may create some government jobs, but, actually, as you said, what it actually does is take money out of the economy. It takes away from those who are producing and it gives to government. And what it does is it creates a bigger government that's not going to ever go away.

This is a huge leap towards socialism in our country. To give my picture of this, this is a steamroll of socialism. It's a steamroll of socialism that's being forced down the throats of the American people and down the throats of most Democrats and Republicans alike in this House.

If we were to engage in a colloquy, I would enjoy doing that if the gentleman will agree.

I use those words not unguardedly because I see this as a huge leap towards socialism as a Nation. It's creating new government programs. It's creating new government jobs that don't have any sunlight to those programs, to those jobs. It expands programs that are already there.

Some of the tax relief, I believe and hope the gentleman will agree with me, actually just furthers, through the refundable tax credits, a dependency upon government. My friend Star Parker wrote a book one time that she called ``Uncle Sam's Plantation.'' And what this does is it economically enslaves people, and that's what we see happening.

I agree that this is strong, but I believe that it is appropriate. I believe it is absolutely correct because I see this as a huge grab of power away from the private sector, away from small business, small business that creates jobs. I see this as a huge grab of dollars from the producers to bring it here to Washington and put it in the hands of government so that they can dole it out as they please.

I appreciate your leadership in bringing this to the floor tonight, but don't you think that the American people are wise enough that they can see really what's happening here? We all know that we have to do something about our economy.

This is the biggest grab of social spending, our biggest budget bill we have ever faced in the Congress, I believe. Do you know of any bigger?

I think you're exactly right, Mr. Akin. I think it is a bridge to bankruptcy. In fact, I believe in my heart, without question, that this is going to delay a recovery. I think it very potentially is going to force us into a deep depression in this Nation because of this so-called stimulus bill. I call it a nonstimulus bill because I don't think it's going to stimulate the economy.

Let me ask you a question. I know in my office, I'm not sure we had even one call supporting this bill, and I think most offices got a lot of calls in their office.

Judge Carter too, Judge.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to ask a question.

I know you introduced a bill that I was a cosponsor of that would give people a 2-month tax holiday that would actually put money back in the hands of people.

Did you get any positive response from the Speaker, from the Democratic majority to allow that to even go forward?

And Congressman Westmoreland is here also. He was here to join us also.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have a question for my Democratic colleagues: How would $50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts possibly stimulate our economy? It won't. And the thing is that this whole bill is actually a steamroller of socialism that is being forced down our throats, and the economy is going to choke to death on this steamroller of socialism that you all are bringing forward.

It is a nonstimulus bill. It is not going to stimulate the economy. It is going to create very few jobs, if any at all. For every dollar of tax relief, you all are going to spend $4 to put new grass on the Washington Mall. It is insane. It is absolutely insane the things that are in this bill.

I am going to vote ``no,'' and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I encourage the American people to stand up and say we are not going to tolerate this kind of stuff going on in this country.

We have got to slow down. We have got to look at alternatives that really will stimulate the economy, that is by reducing taxes and leaving dollars in the hands of the American public.

Congressman Smith, I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight.

Mr. Speaker, there is no greater moral issue in America than killing 4,000 babies every single day. We have killed 53 million unborn children since Roe versus Wade. God cannot and will not continue to bless America while we are killing these unborn children. He creates life. He is the only entity who has the right to take away innocent life.

I am a medical doctor. I have treated a lot of patients over many years of serving the public in that capacity as a physician, and I want to tell you that women suffer through abortion. When we look at a woman who is pregnant, we have two patients actually. That is truly a child.

We hear people, particularly the pro-abortion folks, talk about a woman should have the right to do with her body as she pleases. Well, I don't necessarily disagree with that statement. But what I do say to that person who is pro-abortion: She does not have the right to kill her unborn child. That unborn child should have constitutional protections, and there is no question about it, because it is a person. In fact, in the Roe versus Wade ruling, in the majority opinion it was stated: If any definition of the beginning of life was ever established legislatively, it would vacate Roe versus Wade.

But let me tell you, America, this is a person. It is a baby. It is a baby who has all of the genetic material that it needs to grow and be successful as a human being. It is totally different from its mother's genetic makeup. It is a separate human being. At the time of fertilization is the only time that we can say that we can draw lines scientifically and say that there is not life and that there is a separate life. That occurs at fertilization.

So we need to protect these children. It is absolutely critical as a Nation because, as I said, God cannot continue to bless America while we are killing 4,000 babies every day, and 1.2 million babies, it is estimated, on a yearly basis.

We have a President, a new President who has said that he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act. The Freedom of Choice Act would actually allow abortions throughout the pregnancy, for 9 months, all the way until the baby literally was born completely and started to breathe on its own. But this is a baby. It is a life prior to that birth. In fact, the D&X procedure, partial birth abortion, if you will, was developed solely, solely, folks, and I can tell you this as a physician; it was developed by the abortionists solely to guarantee a dead baby.

They were faced with a dilemma. During these late-term abortions they were delivering babies that were alive, breathing, struggling for life. These abortionists would throw these babies on a stainless steel counter or in the garbage can and allow them to die. It tears my heart out just to think about that, but that is literally what they were doing. They had to develop a procedure that would guarantee them a dead baby, and that is the reason the partial birth abortion procedure was developed.

There is absolutely no--let me repeat--absolutely no medical reason to do that procedure except but to guarantee the abortionist a dead baby. That is what it is all about.

For many years, we have had the Mexico City policy that was put in place years ago during the Reagan administration, and what it says is that taxpayers' funds would not be given to foreign entities that promote abortion for family planning. Here in this country we have Planned Parenthood. The last statistics that I have here before me tonight were put forward in 2006. Planned Parenthood admits to performing 289,650 abortions, killing that many unborn children. They have a profit that year of $112 million. Yet taxpayers' dollars went to that organization to the tune of $336 million that hardworking taxpayers sent to the Federal Government in your tax dollars. We have to stop funding this organization that is killing these children.

They say, well, it is not used for abortion. It is used for family planning. It is used for other things. Well, this is just a shell game. It is transferring funds from one place to another so they can continue this culture of death that they promote. And it is about money for them. It is about power. For the abortionist, it is about making a lot of money, and that is what it is all about. I don't see how they can stand themselves to look in the mirror every morning after they have killed all these children, because I know within my heart that they have to know that that is a child, that that is a living human being. We intuitively as physicians know that.

In fact, when I graduated from medical school, from the Medical College of Georgia, I did a pledge. It is called the Hippocratic oath. And in that oath there are two things that I pledged to do. One was to do no harm. Abortion does harm to that child, a separate human being. It is not the mother's body. It is that child's body, and we are doing harm.

Secondly, more importantly, I pledged not to do an abortion. Sadly, medical schools don't do the Hippocratic oath anymore. Why don't they do it? For the two reasons I just stated: Because the pledge in the Hippocratic oath says, I will do no harm, and I will not commit an abortion.

Doctors in medical schools today don't take that pledge any longer. But this is the most important issue we face morally as a Nation. We have to stop the killing of these kids. There is absolutely no question about it. We have to stop using taxpayers' dollars to fund Planned Parenthood. We have to stop funding abortions in military hospitals overseas and in other Federal facilities. We have to stop funding organizations around the world that use taxpayers' dollars to promote abortion for family planning and for other things.

As we look overseas at the Mexico City Policy that Barack Obama said he is going to overturn, those moms in those countries don't need an abortion. They need some help. They need a job. They need economic wellbeing. And abortion is not going to give it to them.

Madam Speaker, I just heard a story recently. It's a story about a married lady who had one child. She and her husband were struggling economically. And she had an unintended pregnancy. So she goes to her doctor and says, Doctor, I need to have an abortion. I cannot continue through with this pregnancy. I cannot afford a second child. The doctor said, okay, I will be

glad to do it. She was shocked at the cavalier attitude that the doctor had. He said, but I will tell you what. Why don't we kill your 2 year old? Why don't we kill your 2 year old? This is a child. You have another child in your uterus. Why don't we kill your 2 year old today, and then you will have the rest of your pregnancy to be able to save some money and get back on your feet and be able to put things in order. And you will still just have one child. Well, she was shocked, absolutely shocked. How could he suggest such a thing?

But that is exactly the point he was trying to make, that this is a child. It's a human being. It's a life that is totally separate. Just like her 2 year old, that baby in her uterus is a child. It's a baby. It's a person, a whole, new human being who should have the right that we all have, the constitutional right of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, as the Declaration of Independence says, that we are given those certain inalienable rights and that we are endowed by a Creator to have those rights.

We need to give those rights to these unborn children. We have to stop the culture of death in America. We have to stop this killing of these children, 50 million, 53 million, whatever it is. God cannot and will not continue to bless America if we do. And His judgment is going to fall upon this country if we continue this heinous practice of killing these unborn children.

Mr. Smith, Congressman Chris Smith, I greatly appreciate your doing these special orders tonight. It is such an important issue. It is the greatest issue we face morally as a Nation. We have to stop it. And I'm happy to work with you and other members of the pro-life caucus in fighting to preserve the life of these unborn children that desperately want to live and that our country needs to desperately protect. And I thank you so much for the time, sir.

Thank you, Congressman. And the thing is that as a physician, I know that is a life. There is no question. Scientifically, it is a life. It is a separate life. It is not the mom's life. It is not just a little glob of tissue that is amorphous-- that is a medical term, by the way--that doesn't have form. By the time the mom knows she is pregnant, there is a heartbeat there. The baby is developing. It is a person. It is developing feelings. It is developing a central nervous system. That is why ultrasound has been so important in protecting the lives, because these moms who are in crisis pregnancies, when they go to a crisis pregnancy center with an ultrasound--a 3D ultrasound is even better--they look at that baby and say this is a child. And they realize that that is a child. And the American public needs to understand that it's a child. It's a baby. The word ``fetus'' is a Latin term. You hear the pro-abortion folks say that it is just a fetus. That term ``fetus'' means ``baby.'' That is the definition of the word. It is a baby. And it truly is.

And I appreciate the long, hard fight that you have been doing for all these years to try to protect these children. And I'm glad to join you in that effort.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate my Democratic colleague for bringing this very important issue to the forefront, and I support your effort to do so, and I trust that we across the aisle can continue to support Israel.

In the Torah, in the Old Testament of the Bible, we read: Blessed is the Nation that blesses Israel, and cursed is the Nation that curses Israel. We as a Nation have been extremely blessed by our creator, by God, and I believe a big part of that, a huge part of that is because we have blessed Israel and supported Israel. These people are under attack by terrorists who consider Jewish people dogs, less than human, and we need to support Israel.

I highly congratulate my Democratic colleague for bringing this forward, and I encourage our colleagues to continue to support Israel, to continue to do what we can to make sure that the Israeli citizens remain safe against these heinous attacks by Hamas, by Hezbollah, by the Iranian people who are funding both organizations. So we need to absolutely continue to support Israel so that God will continue to support America, and I congratulate my colleague for bringing this forward, and I look forward to working with you to continue to support Israel.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is no greater moral issue that America faces that is more important than the killing of 4,000 babies every day through abortion. God cannot and will not continue to bless America while we're killing those innocent unborn children.

As we ring in the new year and begin the 111th Congress, the need to protect the unborn remains front and center in the national political debate. Each year, in keeping with my promise to my constituents and many around the country that the first bill that I will introduce provides constitutional protections to unborn children, today I'm honored to introduce the Sanctity of Human Life Act, H.R. 227, that defines life beginning at fertilization with the creation of a human zygote, a one-celled human being.

As a physician, I understand the medical and scientific truths that life begins at fertilization. I also understand that the entire abortion debate rests on the decision of when life begins. That's why my bill, among other things, says unequivocally that at the moment of fertilization, when this spermatozoa enters the cell wall of the oocyte and forms that one-celled human being, the zygote, that a human life begins and must be protected under law.

As James Madison wrote in Federalist 39, the form of our government must be ``reconcilable with the fundamental principles of the revolution,'' the American Revolution. First among those principles is the right to life. If a nation will not protect the most innocent of human beings, who will we protect? Concerned citizens and lawmakers must keep this fundamental principle in mind as we work fervently to protect the rights of unborn children.

When I was a full-time doctor prior to coming to Congress, I served on the board of directors for a crisis pregnancy center in inner-city Atlanta, Georgia. We were fighting to save babies of underprivileged moms, many black moms in Atlanta. From a statistical standpoint, more black babies are being killed proportionately through abortion than white babies, and we were working to save those children.

I'm using the tools that my constituents have blessed me with to protect life and give constitutional protections to the innocent unborn. My bill, the Sanctity of Human Life Act, gives Republicans and Democrats alike who cherish life an opportunity to protect and defend the innocent and most defenseless among us.

We need to pass the Sanctity of Human Life Act. I encourage my colleagues to get on this bill, support this bill, bring it to the floor for a vote, and stop killing these unborn children so God will continue to bless America.

Thank you, Mr. Gohmert, for introducing this very innovative legislation. I would like to ask a couple of questions if you don't mind, if that's all right with you, have a little colloquy with you.

If I remember correctly, John F. Kennedy, when he became President, lowered the tax rate, the top tax rates, which were extremely high at the time, but he lowered those. If I remember correctly, didn't that stimulate the economy, and didn't we have a stronger economy when President Kennedy, a Democrat, actually lowered taxes?

I kind of remember also that Ronald Reagan did the same thing, and we had one of the fastest growths of economy in the history of this Nation, is that not correct?

And I think also when President Bush proposed cutting capital gains taxes and the death taxes and other things, gave us an increase in child tax credits, I think that also stimulated the economy?

That's the thing about your bill that I see. This will lower the tax rate for everybody. It's time to bail out the taxpayer.

It's time to bail out small business, and we are not doing that. We have been bailing out the Wall Street bankers, the big insurance companies, now the Big Three automakers, but the car dealers need a bailout. Small business needs a bailout. Working people need a bailout, and the best way to do that is pass your bill, in my opinion.

Actually, I think our mutual friend, John Shadegg, did introduce his bill this evening, is what I understand. He came up to me on the floor and did introduce the bill. I am honored to be a cosponsor of that bill, as well as yours. I applaud you for the idea, because you brought it up, and John Shadegg took that idea.

Mr. Gohmert, the thing I see about your bill that I see is that what it will do is it will put dollars in people's pockets.

And they will be able to go and help pay off their mortgages. They will be able to go and help buy a new automobile. So that will bail out the car dealers, which this bailout deal that we passed, that the House passed tonight, is not going to do.

In fact, there is nothing in this bill that guarantees the car dealers are going to have their warranties recognized. There is nothing in this bill tonight, from what I understand, that's going to give them their hold back that the car companies are keeping from the car dealers.

So, actually, the car dealers are working on a float--I mean, the car manufacturing companies are working on a float from the car dealers, which is totally unfair. It's something that your bill will actually give people dollars in their pocket. That's going to stimulate our economy, I believe, and I think you believe the same thing too.

It will stimulate our economy, because what we have to do to create jobs is for people to have money, to be able to invest it, whether they save it and put that money in the bank or in some financial institution, so the financial institution that then, in turn, can loan that money out to someone else, it will put money in the hands of small business, so that that will be stronger. That will create jobs, which creates a stronger economy every time we have seen a lowering of tax rates throughout this country, by Democratic as well as Republican Presidents, Democratic and Republican Congresses.

We have seen a growth of the economy of the United States. Everybody, everybody has benefited, from the lowest wage owners to the highest wage earners. It also creates jobs so that this brings people who are unemployed into the job market. We have seen a greater income to the Federal Government because of the increase in the economy.

I was asked today at your news conference, by one of the members of the press, is your bill one that's going to create a bigger deficit? Frankly, I told the young lady that asked me that that, no, I don't think it's going to create a deficit. If you scored by static scoring then maybe. But if you do dynamic scoring, which is real live scoring, then the Federal Government will get more money in because of greater economic activity in America.

We will see a greater growth of our economy. We will see jobs created. We will see people catching up on their mortgages. Are people going out and actually buying houses?

So we will see a tremendous economic growth throughout America. That's the reason I have cosponsored your bill. I applaud your efforts. I have also cosponsored John Shadegg's bill, which is actually your bill, and I congratulate you on that also.

We have to bail out the taxpayer. We have to bail out the working man and woman in this Nation. We have to build small businesses, because that's the engine that drives the economy of the United States. That's where most jobs are created in America.

It's absolutely critical for us to lower taxes, not raise taxes. It's absolutely critical for us to stop borrowing money from our grandchildren, not only our children, but our grandchildren, and that's what we are doing. We are creating greater Federal debt, greater deficits, and we are borrowing that money, actually, today, from China and foreign entities, and our grandchildren will have to pay for that. It's criminal, it's immoral, in my opinion, that we are doing that as a Congress.

So, Mr. Gohmert, I highly applaud what you have done in this bill. I highly applaud your very innovative thinking, your thinking outside the box, if you will, to use a trite phrase.

But what you have done is you have brought a piece of legislation that if the American public will just understand how important this is to them, how this will put dollars in their pocket, it will help them pay their bills. It will help them to catch up if they are behind.

It will help create new jobs. It will help create a stronger economy. Your bill and John Shadegg's bill is the kind of spark plug that we need to have a greater economy, and to stop these doldrums that we have today.

I deplore what Hank Paulson has done. I think it's just horrible that he has created this tremendous fear throughout our Nation, so people are holding on to their money, those that even have it. There are segments of our society that are doing fairly well economically. But there are many segments of our society that need some help, and your bill will help everybody at all levels, from the lowest-income people in this country to the highest.

It will help create a stronger economy. It will help create economic growth. It will help create new jobs. It will help do the things that we desperately need to do to put this country back on the right course from an economic standpoint.

So, Mr. Gohmert, I highly applaud what you have done, and I want the American taxpayers to be able to control their own money, not Mr. Paulson, or whoever the new finance czar might be. We have set up a finance czar in this country, and I think that is extremely dangerous.

As you said in your opening remarks, we are federalizing banks. We have created an environment where the

megabanks are buying up smaller banks, so we have less competition. The marketplace is the best way to control quality, quantity and cost of all goods and services.

So we need to defederalize the financial institutions, we need to put money back in the pockets of the taxpayers, the workers of America. We need to put money back in the pockets of small business owners so that they can create a stronger business and thus create more jobs, and your bill just does exactly those things.

So I highly applaud what you are doing with this bill, and I call upon the American taxpayers, the American public, to contact your Member of Congress and demand a vote on the Gohmert bill.

What is the number, Mr. Gohmert?

H.R. 7309; is that correct?

H.R. 7309, so I hope that the people watching tonight will contact their neighbors, their friends, their family members, contact everybody they know and say there is a bill in Congress, right now, today, that can be voted on, that will lower our tax rate by 16\1/2\ percent, right?

And it will put dollars back in people's pockets. It will help stimulate our economy, and it will help us to get back on the right track economically so that America can be economically secure.

So I applaud what you are doing. I highly recommend to other Members of Congress to get on your bill, and I highly recommend that the American public contact their Member of Congress in the House and the Senate and demand a vote on Mr. Gohmert's bill, H.R. 7309, which will lower your tax rate, put money in your pocket, and let you control your economic destiny.

Mr. Gohmert, I thank you so much, and I appreciate this time that you have yielded to me.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is probably the most important vote that Members of Congress are going to take this year and for many, many years. Unfortunately, this bill is not going to solve the problem. This bill is going to bail out foreign banks. It's going to bail out Wall Street. But it's not going to bail out banks, and it's going to hurt the taxpayer.

During the negotiations, we've had some changes to the Paulson bill, but this essentially is Mr. Paulson's bill to help his friends, and I can't buy it.

Frankly, Madam Speaker, I see this bill as just a stopgap that's going to push us a little further down the road. We're still going to have the economic collapse, we're still going to have the stock market crash, we're still going to have all of the problems that this is supposed to fix. We heard the same argument with the Fannie Mae bailout and Freddie Mac. We've heard it in the discussion about Bear Stearns and AIG. It's the same old story. We're just going further down the road. We're getting deeper and deeper. The cliff is getting steeper and steeper.

We need to slow this down. We need to stop this process. We need to vote against this bill and find something that really makes sense economically that's going to secure the bank situation.

We have a capital problem, not a liquidity problem in our banks, Madam

Speaker, and we've got to find a solution. And there are solutions. This is not the only one. This one is the only one to bail out Wall Street, but it's going to cost our taxpayers dearly.

Madam Speaker, this is a huge cow patty with a piece of marshmallow stuck in the middle of it, and I'm not going to eat that cow patty.

I would encourage all of the Members of my conference and your conference to vote against this bill so we can find something that makes sense.

Madam Speaker, this is a historic vote today. I'm sure that everyone who voted did so very thoughtfully, most of us very prayerfully. But, Madam Speaker, Chairman Cox, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, today could fix a lot of the problems here by, by a stroke of a pen, getting rid of mark-to-market accounting across the board. I call upon Mr. Cox to do so today. The markets will respond markedly, and I hope that he will listen and do so.