Floor Statements

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 3 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 11, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the privilege to address you this evening on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. And I also appreciate the dialogue that takes place here on the floor. This is the most deliberative body anywhere in the world. And we have a privilege to be part of it. And as we engage in this debate, it is the circumstance that across this country, Madam Speaker, people listen in. And they're reading the newspapers and following the blogs and watching their cable news networks and also some regular TV. And as this conversation goes on here, Madam Speaker, it echoes out across the entire land. And as this conversation echoes across the entire land, it also becomes part of the national dialogue, this national dialogue that takes place in our schools, in our churches, at the workplace, in the coffee shop, in the break room, across the backyard fence, on the snowmobile and outside doing chores.

Over and over again, Americans interact with each other. And while that is going on, they talk about a lot of things that matter to them such as the aftermath of the Super Bowl, but also current events. And America is, at this point, transfixed on the current event of the--I think not aptly named--``stimulus plan'' that is being debated over in the Rotunda of the United States Senate, Madam Speaker.

And so as this American conversation takes place, they are moving towards a consensus. And sometimes we don't achieve that consensus, Madam Speaker. But the more dialogue we have, the more facts that are brought to play, and in fact many Members in this body know that if they can bring the emotional anecdote to play, it also moves people's opinions.

The things that move people's opinions bring us towards a consensus. When we arrive at a consensus, that consensus, if America's consensus doesn't match up with the Congressional census you will see many Members, Madam Speaker, in this Chamber will shift their position to realign themselves with their constituents.

Now, there are two ways to do this job. One way is to stand up and lay out the framework of the principles that we believe in as individual Members, and then hang on to that framework, attach to it the components of public policy that are compatible with the fundamental belief framework. That's what I believe I've done. And I very much like the input that I received from my constituents the people from my State and across the country, that adds to my knowledge base so that I can make a reasoned, informed decision. That's the approach I think the founders had in mind when they wrote this Constitution and established this constitutional republic, was that there would be representatives in this constitutional republic that would come here. We owe our constituents, all of them, our best effort. And more importantly, Madam Speaker, we owe them our best judgment. That's one way of doing this job here in the United States Congress.

The other is, Madam Speaker, to take a position that you're going to get in front of your constituents, see where they are going, check the wind speed, the barometer, so to speak, and then put up a vote and take a position that reflects the position of your constituents. That goes on in this Congress too often, Madam Speaker, and it troubles me. It troubles me because we are elected for our effort and our judgment, and we owe our constituents our best judgment. But if our judgment is just simply to check the wind, put our finger in the air, then we're not offering to the system we have here the things that we should have to contribute.

And I would bring a little anecdote of Robespierre to mind. He was pretty well established within the French revolution. He was an advocate for the effective and ruthless utilization of the guillotine to get rid of his political enemies and get rid of the aristocracy that he believed had drug the French down and brought about this revolution. But as the people marched in the streets Robespierre went to the window and looked out and saw the mobs marching through the streets in France. This would be about 1789. And he said, I'd better get in front of them and see where they are going for I am their leader.

Now, that's no kind of leader that just simply tries to lead the mob wherever it is that they happen to be going. And some months later Robespierre was one of about 16,000 Frenchmen and women that found themselves a head shorter. But that kind of leadership didn't work very well for Robespierre, and it doesn't work very well for the United States of America.

It's our task to have a vision for the future. We need to articulate that vision. We need to articulate the principles that we believe in and build policies around those tried and true principles that have created this great American Nation. It isn't going to be a giant mosaic of 435 Members that stick their finger in the wind and decide what position they're going to take that will extend their tenure here in the United States Congress, Madam Speaker. It's going to be the people who look into the future with a vision that they can sell to the American people and say, maybe you're not here yet. Maybe you're not ready to move where we need to go. But this Nation is too important to be a reactionary Member of Congress. We've got to be leadership Members of Congress. We're each elected for our leadership as well.

So let me submit, Madam Speaker, that I look back on last year's vote, that vote before the election. There

was a $700 billion bailout, without a prediction on the prospects of it's success, it simply was an emphatic request from then Secretary of the Treasury Paulson that he needed to have a checking account with $700 billion in it, all borrowed money, I might add, so that he could spend it at his discretion to pick up the toxic debt, as he described it. And that's how we ended up with the TARP fund.

And so we let the first half of that out, the $350 billion. And the second half was contingent upon the successful deployment of the first half. And I've seen not the signs of success of that first half. In fact, our stock market has continued to tank. Our economic indicators are going in the wrong direction. There's $350 billion that went into his hand that much of it did get expended, with the other $350 billion, and now this Congress has approved that it go there. It only took the approval of one body to do that. And the Senate did that. That's a start on this economic stimulus component.

But I did not hear a clearly articulated argument back then, back that started here on September 19 when Secretary Paulson came to this Congress and culminated in a vote that was in early October. I didn't hear clearly articulated principles that they would adhere to on how America was going to get back on track.

And so I look on this continuum of mistakes that have been made, and I take us back to a year, and it's my recollection, it's not confirmed date, but about 1978 when the Community Reinvestment Act was passed and became law. That's a component of the flaws that we have. It was legislation that I think was inspired for the right reasons. I think it was well-intentioned, but it turned out to be a large mistake. And it was because there were lenders that would redline certain inner city neighborhoods that they decided that the value of the real estate wasn't going to be sustained in those neighborhoods and sometimes the residents didn't have a very good credit rating. So, with the combination of those two things they just said these whole neighborhoods we're not going to loan money in. People there couldn't buy a house. They can't buy a house. That sent the real estate value spiraling downward. And a blanket decision like that, by drawing a red line around the map was the wrong thing to do, Madam Speaker. But the roots of problem were created out of the good intentions of trying to provide for loans for residences within those neighborhoods that had been redlined, and the Community Reinvestment Act was born. And it was refreshed again in the early '90s, I believe it was 1993, brought up to a little more modern language. But in it all, it held lenders accountable if they wanted to expand their lending operations, set up a branch operation somewhere, they had to meet the scrutiny of the regulators who would look at the Community Reinvestment Act and say, what are you doing to expand your loans into these neighborhoods? And if the answer was nothing, they were denied an opportunity to expand their operations, set up a branch or consolidate. They were essentially stuck in place unless they could comply with this regulation of really making bad loans in neighborhoods that the real estate value couldn't be sustained.

Once you lay down a foundation and a parameter like that, then you encourage the lenders to give bad loans. And when the lenders were giving bad loans in order to be positioned so that their portfolios were a certain percentage of those bad loans, doing so so they had the ability to expand, and we had an economy that was expanding, although, going to the '80s it was not. We had our farm crisis, our real estate crisis and our energy crisis all together in the '80s and we lost 3,000 banks in the United States. And I remember clearly the load and the difficulties that we had. My neighborhood and myself included, aged very quickly during those years of the '80s. So the Community Reinvestment Act from 1978 didn't turn out to manifest itself in its negative composition because we had an economic crisis in the '80s that was taking banks down and requiring the FDIC to come in and take over the banks and make some moves to prop back up our financial world. And they did some moves then in the '80s that we haven't done here in this particular era.

But in any case, by the time we got into the early '90s, the Community Reinvestment Act was re-established and refreshed; and at that point, things started to move. When we got into the late 1990s and the early 2000s, then we saw unnatural interest rates. We saw the money supply such that the interest rate was driven down. Part of the reason for that was to create an economy that would create a housing boom. So if you have a housing boom that's driven by low interest rates, people would look at that and conclude that they could build a new home or they could buy a high quality used home that allowed someone in that used home to build a new home. And the housing boom began. And it set up a market that exceeded the demand. And we reached the point where we had the highest home ownership of any time in our Nation's history. I remember President Bush announcing that we'd reached 68 percent of the people in America lived in their own homes. And I think that number got marginally higher after he had made that statement.

But in any case, as this came together we had a lot of those were bad loans. We had bad loans that were made into these neighborhoods under the incentive of the Community Reinvestment Act and facilitated in a very large way, by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who had been set up as a quasi-government entities, later privatized, and then moved towards the quasi-government agencies again, and here on the floor of this Congress, when the problems began to arise and we saw that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't capitalized consistent with the other lending institutions, their competitors, and they weren't regulated in the same fashion as their competitor lending institutions, that gave an unfair advantage to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac institutions who were the secondary loan market. And they nearly cornered the secondary loan market, the mortgage market in the United States.

And we came to the floor in this Congress once in 2001, plus or minus a year on that one if you might, Madam Speaker. But again, and made the debate that we should regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac more like other lending institutions because it was too high a risk for the taxpayers to take. Well, that amendment and that effort failed in those earlier years in this millennium, Madam Speaker.

And then, I remember the date, it was here on this floor and it took place from that microphone there and that microphone over there. It was an amendment that was brought to the floor October 26, 2005, by Congressman Jim Leach of Iowa, who was and remains very well respected among the banking community and the lending institutions. He brought an amendment that would have brought Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the similar capital requirements of the banks, and the similar regulatory requirements of the banks.

I think he stopped one step short with that amendment. I think he should have moved them towards the clear free market side of this. But in any case, as that amendment was debated, twice in this millennia, twice in this last decade at least we've had an opportunity to get Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac right.

They were, again, Madam Speaker, playing off and capitalizing on the language in the Community Reinvestment Act that said make bad loans in these neighborhoods that don't have a very good value of their real estate. But twice we turned away from shoring up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, tightening them up, putting them back into the competitive marketplace. And so we found ourselves in a situation, when AIG was ready to go under and the $85 billion got poured in there about in that era, that's a little bit before that, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became very unstable and we had to step in as the Federal Government and nationalize the balance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now the taxpayers own Fannie and Freddie. And now Fannie and Freddie don't have any new regulation that requires them to meet those capital and regulatory requirements. But we missed an opportunity to privatize them and regulate them according to the other lending institutions.

The compound effect of the Community Reinvestment Act, mark-to-market accounting, the credit default swaps that were taking place, the lack of regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the defense that came from the now chairman of the Financial Services Committee, from Massachusetts, who stood at that microphone and debated Mr. Leach, who was at this microphone, and at a certain point the political center of gravity on that debate went towards the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I think the lobbying effect had an effect on the result as well, Madam Speaker.

But in any case, the Leach amendment went down. That was our last opportunity that I know on this floor to get Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac right.

So we had large financial indicators that were going in the wrong direction. And as this started to tumble it started to snowball down hill it took us to this point on September 19, when Secretary Paulson came to the Capitol and insisted that he have the $700 billion checking account to spend as he saw fit, and within those narrow parameters. Well, not so very narrow parameters, within a broad definition, a huge authorization/appropriation, and maybe the largest that had ever passed out of this Congress. And I'm not certain about that. But it was huge.

So it brought us to this point where there was a $700 billion bill on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, and that bill passed off the floor with, I think, too many Republican votes, and I would have been pleased if it had had none, but there were an awful lot of Democratic votes as well, Madam Speaker. That was the time that this Congress passed the Rubicon. It was the time we had a chance to draw back.

If cooler heads had prevailed and if we had gone back and had actually gotten a do-over on that, I do not believe the $700 billion bailout bill would have passed, because the American people have now seen what has unfolded. They expected to see the markets increase and stability come into our marketplace and to see capital that had been chased to the sidelines come back into the marketplace again. It has not done that. In fact, it looks like more capital has gone to the sidelines because money is smart, and smart money finds its way into the best investment at the time. Right now, that money has been scared out of the marketplace.

I listened to the gentleman from Minnesota, who left the floor a moment ago, Madam Speaker, and he talked about the surplus that we had in the year 2000. That happens to be the last year of the Clinton administration. It is true that we had a surplus during several of those years, and the gentleman from Minnesota, I will say, recognized that he was in the process of misspeaking and backed up to say that the budget surplus was an accomplishment of the administration at the time. At least that was the implication of his words. It was not a quote. I don't want it to be characterized as that, Madam Speaker. Then they go on and argue that this deficit is a deficit that comes out of the Bush administration, and so here we are.

We have a Member of Congress here who will argue and who has argued that the Clinton administration deserves the credit for the surplus that was in our budget in the year 2000 and that the Bush administration deserves the blame for the deficit that we have today. Well, all right. On the surface, maybe you can make that connection, and I would be happy to have this dialogue with the gentleman from Minnesota. Should he arrive on this floor, I would be happy to yield and have that dialogue.

The first point I would make is that all of this spending starts here in the House of Representatives. There is no President who can initiate spending. There is no Senator who can initiate spending. According to the Constitution, all appropriations bills start here in the House of Representatives. We start them here, and they cannot be authorized and they cannot be spent until the majority of the House of Representatives approves them. Sure, we start them here. We send them to the Senate. The Senate passes them. They come back to a conference. We conference, both vote and pass them. If they pass, then they go to the President for his signature. Yet the House, if determined and organized and unwilling to cave in to the Senate or in to the White House, controls every penny of spending that comes through this United States Government--every penny of appropriations. We do it here. It is ordered by the Constitution.

So it does not do for any Member of Congress or for the rest of the world to say, Madam Speaker, that the responsibility was in the hands of the President. Although, we recognize that the Presidents do exert significant influence on the judgment of Members of Congress and that they do present a budget to this floor and that they do negotiate those budgets, because they sit back with the veto power that gives an appropriate tension that helps bring out a negotiated solution most of the time.

Madam Speaker, Congress has the responsibility, and the President cannot initiate spending, and so I will submit this: this $700 billion bailout plan that passed last year was on our watch. It was on my watch, and it was on the watch of the gentleman from Minnesota. I voted ``no.'' He can speak to how he voted. I believe I recall that was a ``yes.'' The $700 billion, as big a mistake as I believe it was, was also a mistake that was made not just by the gentleman from Minnesota but by the current President of the United States, who voted for the $700 billion plan as a Senator of the United States, and that is attached to him as his responsibility. He needs to answer for the $700 billion bailout plan that gets attached to this huge stimulus package that he is partly the author of and the advocate of.

So, even though the stimulus plan passed out of the House with not a single Republican vote, when it came time to vote for this stimulus plan, so to speak, the ``yes'' votes by the Republicans were a big goose egg up on the scoreboard. Not one Republican thought it was a good idea to roll out this $819 billion in spending in the stimulus plan from the House, which was accompanied by $347 billion in interest liability that goes with it.

You have to pay interest on your debt. We are probably going to end up borrowing money to pay interest on the debt, and I can tell you that spirals downward pretty fast.

When added to the roughly $100 billion in the Senate, the $819 billion takes it up to about $900 billion. The interest rate that is out of the House side, $347 billion, is the low number. The lowest estimated number I can come up with, with the interest and with the Senate dollars in there, is $1.25 trillion in stimulus money. That number is $1.247 trillion. That gets coupled to the $700 billion that was the bailout plan from last year, the $700 billion that President Obama and the gentleman from Minnesota voted for. Now the $1.25 trillion that is being debated in the United States Senate is all his. The President owns that. When you add that together, it rounds pretty handily to $2 trillion.

Now we have a $2 trillion bailout/stimulus plan and a stock market that continues to tank and a financial world out there that lacks confidence that government has been doing the right thing since the election and, in fact, since before the election. We have watched our economy spiral downward. We have watched our market indicators spiral downward. We have watched our unemployment rates go up. Those indicators do not indicate confidence in the leadership that we have in the financial world.

So the financial world, the investment world, the people who are putting capital in that is used to expand the productivity and the distribution and the market share of our companies, are pulling their capital out. They are increasingly holding it. They are buying bonds. I am sure that some of it is sewn up in the mattress by now, that some of it is invested in gold, that some of it is invested in foreign currency as well. Although, I am a bit surprised that our dollar has held up as strongly as it has, and that is more an indicator of the weakness of foreign currency rather than a reason to consider there to be strength in this U.S. dollar today. In any case, the supply of U.S. dollars has gone up, and as it has, the instability goes with it.

So we have a $2 trillion stimulus plan that is 100 percent lock, stock and barrel owned by President Obama, who

said to us that it is one leg of a multi-legged stool that has to be built in order to get this economy back on track again.

Now let me submit that there are two ways to look at this economic situation. One of them is the Keynesian approach, which is, if government can pour enough money into the economy and get enough money into the hands of enough people who will take that money and spend enough of it, that it will stimulate the economy. So, if more people go out and buy a loaf of bread or buy a car or maybe go to the theater or to the ball game or maybe buy a ball glove themselves, that increased spending will stimulate a demand that will cause more manufacturing and more goods to be brought into our economy. That is the Keynesian approach.

The problem with it is that, looking back in history and at the times when we have done such things, the actual economic numbers do not support the idea that pouring money willy-nilly into the economy in an indiscriminate fashion results in the stimulation of our economy.

I will not argue, Madam Speaker, that there aren't some places where government can invest money that does stimulate the economy. One of those places would be investing in transportation links that open up development in new areas and that help goods and services move back and forth in a more efficient fashion. That does create economic development. Transportation has been the number one best tool to use to grow economic development throughout the history of all of humanity.

So I do not take it all off the table, but there is much that is on the table that I would take off. I would not put a dollar into the National Endowment for the Arts and call it economic development or stimulus.

Here is another piece that I was just looking at. Of the infrastructure funding within the stimulus package, there is language in there that bans that money from going into facilities that allow religious worship in them. To me, it looks like that is a first amendment violation in that we would discriminate against facilities that allow people to pray and to have religious worship. Maybe they've got a different definition of ``religious worship'' than I have, but I don't know of a single school where there isn't prayer that takes place, not just by students who are sitting there, taking a test, but by faculty/administration where prayer is also a part of their daily lives.

I can think of the public school where my kids graduated. On the Friday after September 11, the superintendent invited in all of the pastors in the community and brought together all of the students in the school, K through 12. They had a prayer service there for the victims of September 11 and for this Nation, which was in great peril at the time. It was an open, full-blown prayer session in the gymnasium of the public school. That is worship, Madam Speaker.

If none of those dollars could go to a public school like that because people prayed inside that building, I have to tell you I think there are folks writing this legislation who are praying on the constitutional rights of the American people. I would reject that thought process. I would find the person who put that language in there--I suspect it was a staff person more than a Member, but the Member must have facilitated it--and I would pull them out root and branch. We don't need those kinds of people in this Congress who are going to put America's religious faith as a target and write it into legislation and exclude facilities from public finance that allow worship in them. It is an outrageous thing. It is the most outrageous.

Among the other outrageous things that are in this bill or where there have been precedents set and parameters set: $400 million for education and for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. Economic stimulus plan. I wonder what economic guru and I wonder what department of economics would be sitting around to come up with an idea like that.

I know that President Obama has said that he is familiar with the College of Economics at the University of Chicago, where he taught constitutional law. I don't know that that would be the kind of a policy that would emerge from a think tank at the University of Chicago. I suspect not.

As for the places I have been and as for the people whom I have met, if I took them seriously, it would not come out of their economics departments either. I can't imagine the mindset of people, who have the public trust, drafting into legislation legislation that now is in the $900 billion zone, plus the more than $347 million in interest. I can't imagine what kind of a think tank would produce an idea that got past the first sentence where we would stimulate the economy by investing $400 million in sexually transmitted diseases. It may be a good program, but I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that the return on that investment with regard to a stimulus plan would no way in the world be measured in our economy by investing $400 million in sexually transmitted disease prevention. So that is one of those bizarre ideas. If that is a stimulus plan, that is not it, not for me, not for the taxpayers of America, and it ought to be out of there.

I will just read from this: ``In order to control and prevent sexually transmitted diseases, the Centers for Disease Control used its budget for the following purposes:'' This is within the existing budget of the Centers for Disease Control. ``A transgender beauty pageant in San Francisco that advertised available HIV testing.'' There would be an economic stimulus plan within the budget of the CDC, I presume. I would reject that as well. The Centers for Disease Control funded an event also put on by the Stop AIDS Project called ``Got Love: Flirt, Date, Score'' that taught participants how to flirt with greater finesse. This our Federal tax dollars.

It embarrasses me to read that for two reasons. One is this dialogue in this public sphere makes me a little uneasy. The other is that we have people who are entrusted, Madam Speaker, with the American people's tax dollars who would, with a straight face and maybe even under the light of day, take that money and divert it to these kinds of projects.

I have a list here. I cannot bring myself to read the rest of it because I think that it goes downhill from there. In fact, clearly, it does.

So a $700 billion bailout plan, coupled with a $1.25 trillion stimulus package. It is a $2 trillion approach here that is designed to supposedly stimulate and fix this economy. The President has said that he inherited a $1 trillion deficit. I do not know that it is $1 trillion--it may be--but he also owns a $2 trillion bailout/stimulus plan. It is his plan. He voted for the $700 billion.

He's advocated the 1\1/4\ trillion, even though I think that the President's approach to this is slightly more reasonable than that of the Speaker of the House, Madam Speaker, in that there's at least been lip service paid to the idea that there should be a little more stimulus in it, a little more for small business, and there should be less in this wish list. But when I look at the wish list, it comes to me this way. It appears to be the huge wish list that's been produced by the activist liberals in this Congress, Madam Speaker, and they can't seem to restrain themselves from jumping on this and putting in everything under the sun that they couldn't get passed when they were held more accountable.

One of the former Members of the Congress who has been an effective leader on the other side of the aisle, from where I stand, said never let a crisis go to waste. Well, I have to tip my hat to that philosophy, however much I disagree with it. The Speaker, the leadership, the Chairs of the committees, both Appropriations, Financial Services and a number of others, have not allowed this crisis to go to waste. They've jumped on it with every opportunity to expand government, to grow government, to raise the baseline, to pour hundreds of billions of dollars and, in fact, cumulatively $2 trillion into this President Obama-owned $2 trillion bailout/stimulus plan that has no record of working.

And there's a belief over on this side of the aisle--and I'd love to do this debate on the floor of Congress one day, maybe even today, maybe even tonight. There's a belief that Franklin Delano Roosevelt somehow saved America from the Great Depression.

Well, I looked at that. I was taught that. I sat in the classrooms from probably eighth grade on where it was the mantra that FDR saved us from the Great Depression and won World War II. In fact, I didn't hear my parents rebut that either. It didn't come from the home when I began to look at it differently.

I will say FDR was very, very useful in fighting and winning World War II. He was great for the spirit of America. He held our will together, and it was a hard thing to do, and he provided a high level of confidence in American military and our Commander in Chief that was, I will say, essential in winning World War II in the way that we did, but that doesn't equate into giving him a pass into what went on in the 1930s.

And I'm not here either, Madam Speaker, to advocate that my Iowa President, Herbert Hoover, got everything right. He got almost everything right up to and until the time--in his entire life, he was a magnificent individual, an utterly brilliant man that sometimes the things he touched literally turned to gold, speaking of the gold mining industry in Australia. His life and his history was just a never-ending string of success, which gave him a sense, I think, of false confidence that he could manage an economy, support Smoot-Hawley, and use the government to get us out of an economic problem.

That set the stage for FDR to be elected in 1932, who came into this and began to kick off the New Deal, the New Deal that had within it a multitude of projects. Ones that come to mind are WPA, the CCC. There were a number of others. And as I watched that unfold, I went through the history of the New Deal, having been taught continually that the New Deal was what bailed us out of the Great Depression.

And so when I was a junior in high school, I was assigned the task of writing a term paper, and I don't recall clearly, but I believe I had to select from a list of possible topics, and I think we might have been able to offer our own. But in any case, I chose the New Deal and the Great Depression and FDR because I had been convinced by the educators that FDR got us through the depression, and it was his creativity and innovativeness that saved us from that economic crisis.

And so I began to do the homework to write that term paper, and I took it very seriously. It was a project for me and it was personal. It was personalized and it was internalized. And the big part of it for me was to go into the public library, the public library, the Carnegie library in Denison, Iowa, where I went to high school. I sat down in there and I began to pull the newspapers. The newspaper was a county seat newspaper, remains today, same newspaper, county seat of about 6,500 people today, and they published twice a week.

I began getting those old newspapers out, and I started when the stock market crashed in October of 1929, and I read that newspaper thoroughly, took my notes. There were no copy machines in those days, so I was preparing the footnotes for the term paper that I was writing. And then I went through newspaper by newspaper, turning the pages, reading the relevant articles that had to do with the financial situations, any layoffs that we had, any notices, advertisement by banks, interest rates, things of that nature.

I actually remember the cigarette commercials stood out to me as being far different than they were even at that time, and as I read through those newspapers and tracked the beginning, the discussion, the dialogue, the acts of Congress and the implementation of the components of the New Deal, I read it all the way through twice a week, newspapers from October 1929 all the way up until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. At that point, all the news became war, and it was impossible to track the economics in any kind of a relevant fashion.

But it was a good study period to look at. October 29 to December 1941, every newspaper, took notes, wrote footnotes, wrote a term paper which I wish I had it today, and I actually looked for it and can't find it. But in any case, when I completed that study and was ready to put the term paper together, I remember sitting in the room, the newspaper room in the library, looking up at the ceiling and thinking, this is far different than I thought it would be.

I really didn't see evidence there that the New Deal had stimulated the economy. I didn't see evidence it had saved us from the depths of the Great Depression. I couldn't follow that huge vast government programs, government taking over entity after entity and managing an economy, I couldn't see the evidence that it had significantly reduced unemployment. I couldn't see the evidence that capital had come into the investment markets, and if you tracked the Dow Jones Industrial Average, that Dow stayed down and way down throughout the 1930s, and unemployment that was about 25 percent going into FDR's first term hung in there pretty tough all the way through. And I believe the lowest unemployment we had throughout that entire decade was 14 percent.

Now, those things that I saw, that I read, when I come into something with a conclusion that I'm seeking to ratify with evidence and walk away from that having turned 180 degrees, realizing that FDR's New Deal plan wasn't a plan that bailed us out of the Great Depression but at best, at best, it can only be critiqued and analyzed to have perhaps diminished the depths to which we fell in the Great Depression, at the great cost of delaying the recovery, all of that borrowed money and the tax money that came away from the private sector and was poured into growing government, that money that went in was money that scared other capital out of the investment business and kept private industry from growing. And so government investment made private capital hesitant, that that was left that wasn't taxed away, and Madam Speaker, it delayed the recovery from the Great Depression.

So even if FDR's New Deal diminished the depths to which we might have fallen if he would have done a hands-off, if he would have been a cool Ike, not a Hoover, if he had done that, I think we would have recovered quickly. I think we would have bounced back quickly, but that wasn't what happened.

Government spending brought about indecision and scared capital way from the marketplace, and it hired government workers, many, many government workers. The CCC camps would be among them, and I know what it's like to try to hire labor when government competes against you for that labor. Government will always pay when you're talking about blue collar jobs. Government will pay the highest wages. They'll pay the highest benefits. They'll give the most job security.

So if you're out there and you have a family to raise and you're unemployed, you're looking for a job, and you go out into the job market and you put out your applications and you stand in line and you begin to market yourself and you have a choice between going to work for Uncle Sam and going to work for the new entrepreneur down the road that just put together enough capital on a wing and a prayer to start up an entrepreneurial business that might grow into something magnificent, when government outbids the private sector for labor, they also, Madam Speaker, delay the recovery of a depression, of recession, or they diminish the growth during our bull markets in our good times as well.

And that is what happened during the Great Depression. The Federal Government competed with the private sector for capital, by nationalizing, by competing for labor. When that happened, it diminished the inspirations of the entrepreneurs. They hired workers away that might have been entrepreneurs themselves but took them out of the labor force and the private sector. Government grew, the private sector shrunk, the stock market sunk and stayed flat.

In fact, from that time in October of 1929, the Dow Jones Industrial Average did not recover to that level, not at all through the 1930s, not at all through the 1940s. Not until 1954 did the Dow Jones Industrial Average get back to the place where it was in October of 1929.

So one might even argue--in fact, Madam Speaker, I will argue--that not only did not the New Deal get us out of the depression, it might have helped bridge us marginally to get to the Second World War, but I'll argue the Second World War didn't take us out of it

either because we didn't get recovered. But what did happen was the Second World War destroyed the rest of the world's industry, and it left the U.S., having been on a huge growth boom in our manufacturing and industry here to meet the war effort for the world and for our 16,000, mostly men but also women, that served in uniform during that period of time.

So we found ourselves in a world that needed to be rebuilt, that was hungry for the products of industry, and with the only major industrial country in the world that hadn't been destroyed in the Second World War, and as our industry cranked out product after product, and as we exported overseas and as the greenback became the currency of the world, when all that happened, we were recovering economically. And that's why it took until 1954.

So the Second World War was a big stimulus plan. We spent a lot of big government money, but the private sector, as we emerged from the Second World War, is what put the real meat on the bones and brought us out of that and took us through the recovery that reached that level in 1954. And then that's the part of the economy that now that I remember in my life's experience, Madam Speaker.

But we should not fool ourselves into believing that the New Deal was a good deal. We should instead go back and replay history, reset that clock and play it out. What if Coolidge had remained President? What if we would have set a policy from this very floor of this Congress that we were going to have fiscal discipline and tax relief and get as much money into the hands of the productive sector of the economy as we possibly could? That would be a very interesting exercise to reset that clock and game-play that out.

I believe that we may have dropped deeper, but I also believe that we would have recovered much more quickly, and I believe we would be a stronger, more robust economy today if we had made those decisions then.

So this brings us now fast forward into 2009, this day today. We're here watching a stock market that has tanked, that hasn't quite lost half of its value, but it's juggling underneath and falling below the 8,000 floor. We have indicators that show that there are 10.5, 11 million people, maybe more, that are unemployed and looking for work; although, the real unemployment numbers are marginally a little more than half of that number.

We have economic indicators that mean capital is scarce and unemployment numbers going up. Investment capital is diminishing. Smart money is going to the sidelines. Demand for loans has shrunk substantially. It hasn't disappeared entirely. The marketing of these homes that were the toxic debt that Secretary Paulson talked about, actually there was a little bump in the transfer of those, but until we work our way through this, this economy is not going to be back on a solid foundation.

We have to get it on a solid foundation by having solid economic theory here on the floor of this Congress, not the idea that a new New Deal is going to somehow be better than the old New Deal. And I would challenge, Mr. Speaker, our President to lay out some data, show me where the New Deal actually worked. And I understand his position that FDR didn't spend enough money, that if he had just spent more money, if he hadn't lost his nerve, if he hadn't been worried about fiscal responsibility, there would have been a lot bigger old New Deal that would have brought us out of the depression before the Second World War. I understand the President believes that because FDR lost his nerve on spending that it brought about a recession within a depression. That's something I had never heard before. I understand that's a belief. And I understand that the President of the United States believes that we have to construct a multilegged stool of New Deal-like programs in order to, in a Keynesian way, stimulate this economy, that we have a real political problem on our hands that is an economic problem on our hands that lays down a parameter here that will set a precedent if we go forward with this stimulus plan for the United States of America that we can never go back and fix again. Once you cross that line, once you write that mammoth check, once you obligate our children and our grandchildren to pay the interest on this debt-- and Lord knows if they could ever pay the principal--once you buy into this huge, humongous, Keynesian, multitrillion-dollar bailout/stimulus plan which says that government is the solution and the only answer and that, yes, private sector can tag along but they aren't big enough to make a difference. Even though some of these companies are, quote, too big to fail, or, more accurately, too big to be allowed to fail. If the private sector can be too big to be allowed to fail, how can they not be big enough to work us out of this calamity? How can we draw a conclusion that we can create jobs out there from the government side of this argument when the very fact that those jobs haven't been created in the private sector says there wasn't a demand for them, they weren't economically sound or smart capital would have found a way to create those jobs in the first place. But what we have is a self- confident, overconfident, in fact, arrogant government that believes that they are the solution and that they can lead the private sector. And when I hear the statement come out that the CEOs of these corporations that receive bailout money will be limited to no more than $500,000 a year in compensation, it sounds like enough money to me, also, Mr. Speaker. But I will tell you that it's wrongheaded policy and it's what happens when you have the Federal Government engaging in providing capital into the private sector, they also begin to micromanage the private sector. When they micromanage the private sector, you get things like wage reductions for CEOs and boards of directors. And you get things like perhaps one day you'll see, well, a wage increase for the workers. Now when I hear that and I think the President of the United States wants to tell a company how much they can pay their CEOs and their board of directors, is there any principle there that remains that would keep, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States or this Congress from telling these companies what they will pay their workers? If the President has enough influence in this Congress and holds the checkbook through the Secretary of the Treasury, and I'm pretty uneasy about him having our checkbook actually with his tax problems, but in any case, if he holds the checkbook and the directive of the President is that the blue collar workers on the line aren't making enough money per hour, if you're going to see a stream of capital come into the company, the lending institution, for example, then you're going to comply with the demands of the President. They don't have to be the law of the land. They don't have to be something that is legislation that is debated and voted up or down on the floor of this Congress. They only have to be the intimidation effect of we will make your life miserable, Mr. CEO and Board of Directors, if you don't comply with this verbal comment that was made by the President of the United States, or the chairman of a committee. That's how government gets in the business of managing corporations. That's how European socialism emerges in our private sector, a little piece at a time, sometimes in a veiled way and it seems to all be justified as it comes along and it sounds good to us because we don't want to be bailing out companies whose CEOs and boards of directors are taking out hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses. I agree with that, that sentiment. I think I saw that the Wall Street executives only bonused themselves, in the aggregate, $20 billion last year. $20 billion? While we saw our stock market tank, while we saw all of our indicators go down and meanwhile while they're taking checks from the Federal Government. But it's very dangerous to be in the business, the Federal Government, of managing the private sector. So the alternative is we have to let some of them fail. There has to be a deterrent there to allow some of them to fail. And if we're not willing to do that, then European-style socialism at best here we come, faster than you can believe, fast enough that an historian will get whiplash watching what happens in this Congress.

And as I looked at the poster that was put up on the floor, Mr. Speaker, the poster that says Congressional Progressives, I was about ready to go to that Web site, cpc.grijalva.house.gov, and I will go there within the next few hours, Mr. Speaker, because I have

taken a look at these Web sites and it helps me understand what's going on in the minds of the folks that are voting on that side of the aisle of the United States Congress. So my little visit over last weekend to the Democratic Socialists of America Web site, and I would point out that is the Socialist Party of America, that little visit to that Web site tells me a few things. First, they make the argument that they're not Communists. You can get into the nuances of that, Mr. Speaker, and I would encourage you to look at that definitional difference. I think it's a nuance, the difference between their definition of socialism and communism, but it comes to this. They don't believe everything should be owned by the government. They think that there are small businesses that need to be run by entrepreneurs, supply and demand, barber shops and convenience stores, presumably, not the chains, just the individuals, maybe the doughnut shop down the road, some of those things need to be run by individuals, but by and large their statement very clearly is, large companies need to be run by the people affected by them. That is a dramatic departure from one of the huge foundations of what's made this country great, our free market economy.

So we would actually see a position taken on a Web site of the Democratic Socialists of America that the government should make sure that we run these corporations for the benefits of, well, let's just say the people affected by them. That would mean, then, that the telephone customers would be the ones who would call the shots. They would say, here's how it benefits me, and you would make those decisions according to my wishes, not according to me paying by bills willingly. Let's just say that you had a sports bar chain. Well, then you'd run that for the benefit of the people that are using it. So I guess the drinkers would make the call there, Mr. Speaker. That's the philosophy that they define as different than communism, and I think it's a nuance. But when I look at that philosophy and I see within that page that they call for the nationalization of the oil industry, the nationalization of the refineries and I'm watching out of this Congress come a call for the nationalization of our auto manufacturers and imposing regulations on them so that they do not have the latitude to clearly and freely make a profit without the government telling them what to do, then I read through the Democratic Socialists of America and they say we are an active political party but we do not advance candidates on our ticket because our legislative wing is the Progressive Caucus in the United States Congress. I'll say it again. Our legislative wing is the Progressive Caucus in the United States Congress. That's right off the Democratic Socialists of America Web site. So go there. I think that's the Congressional Progressives that was the poster that was here and that's what I want to check. But I know that on that list there are 72 Members of Congress, one Member of the United States Senate, a self-professed socialist, 72 Members in this Congress who constantly are advocating for the policies that I read on the socialist Web site. The link is there. They claim the link. The Progressive Caucus has the Web site and it names the people and the Members, and today they hold gavels and they're Chairs of committees, full committees, Chairs of subcommittees. These are the people that are advocating the policies that scared the living daylights out of the American people in the aftermath of World War II. And we quit saying words that are considered to be pejorative about folks who want to collectivize our American economy and assets.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that you, all Members of this Congress and the American people go visit those Web sites, do a little research, dig into it themselves and then listen to the debate. Because once you understand the source of the ideas, then it's easier to understand where this is going. And we can see piece by piece, component by component, how this is being linked together, how Americans are losing their freedom piece by piece, how we're trading our freedom off for dependency one government policy at a time. A perfect example would be the SCHIP legislation that passed off the floor of this house today on its way to the President's desk. It may have been signed by now. I saw the giddy glee with which some people were applauding when that passed. I will tell you, it makes me sick at heart, Mr. Speaker. The SCHIP program, I describe it as Socialized Clinton-style Healthcare for Illegals and their Parents. And it is. It lays a foundation stone for socialized medicine in America. It was passed out of this Congress first in 1997. And I supported it as a State Senator. We took it up to 200 percent of poverty. I didn't have the understanding of how the machinery of politics churns us through year by year, decade by decade and generation by generation and brings us inevitably to a point where SCHIP at 200 percent of poverty, designed to help needy children and needy families that couldn't pay for the health insurance and made enough money that they didn't qualify for Medicaid, all under the right kind of motives, both sides, Republicans and Democrats, was brought first out of the floor of this Congress a little over a year ago, not at 200 percent of poverty but a family of four, all families that is a standard, at 400 percent of poverty, brought to this floor, passed off this floor with a straight face over to the Senate. 400 percent of poverty. That in my State would have paid a subsidy for health insurance premiums in families of four that made $106,000 a year, while we're charging people alternative minimum tax because that's taxing people that are too rich, and 70,000 families in America would qualify to pay the rich man's tax, the alternative minimum tax, 70,000 families, and at the same time qualify to have the health insurance for their children subsidized by the taxpayer. We've crossed the line, gone across that line over into a huge foundation stone for socialized medicine.

Well, it came back to this Congress, we shot it down, the President of the United States, President Bush, vetoed the SCHIP bill. Now it came back to us today, the conference report, that set simply a 300 percent of poverty to avoid the criticism. There are waivers in there that allow States like New Jersey and New York to go to 400 percent of poverty, or more, and the restraints are not there so that they can write more waivers and essentially it is health insurance for children and children of millionaires do qualify for this bill that passed the floor today. Children of millionaires will have their health insurance paid for by middle-income and low-income and upper-income taxpayers when it can't be justified. This bill that passed off of here today takes at least 2.4 million children off of private sector insurance and puts them over onto the public dole. And when you get to that point, you have reached a foundation stone for socialism, Mr. Speaker, and that's the essence of my discussion today.

I thank the Speaker for his indulgence, and I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 26, 111th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 29 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until Monday, February 9, 2009, at 2 p.m.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding time, and I appreciate the privilege to address this issue of SCHIP. This has been a significant frustration to me to grow up in a society where we have respect for the rule of law and fiscal responsibility, or we identify the pillars of American exceptionalism and our charter is to go out and refurbish them. And what we have instead is a bill before us that apparently is a bill that is endorsed by the White House, Madam Speaker, that doesn't reflect these values at all.

And I start down through the issue that is my charge here more than any other in this Congress, and that is what this SCHIP does to undermine the integrity of the restraint that is shutting off, keeping the magnet shut off that attracts illegals into the United States. And it's clear. It's not a number that comes from my side. And it's not a number that comes from an activist group. These are numbers that come from the Congressional Budget Office. The requirement to verify the citizenship of Medicaid applicants by using a verified Social Security number has been taken out of this bill. And that amounts to a cost, according to the CBO, of $5.1 billion federally. It will bring an extra cost on to the States, according to CBO, of $3.85 billion. So just that component, lowering the standard to open the door for anybody that wants to walk in the door and say, well, here is a Social Security number for you, and they will sit there and say, well, we have a government program for you, even though your residence might well be in another state and you may have come across the border illegally, that number of illegals applying for and qualifying under this open rule comes to $8.95 billion between the State and the Federal portion of this.

And then another egregious affront to the standards that we have had since the beginning of immigration law in America was, when you come here, you're to be self-sustained. And Ellis Island, where they processed my grandmother, they sent about 2 percent back because either they weren't physically able to sustain themselves or they didn't have a sponsor. And we had passed a law back in several previous Congresses that sets the 5-year bar where you will have a sponsor and they will be accountable that you will not go on the government dole for 5 years if you are a lawful permanent resident here in the United States. That is gone. That is gone if this bill passes. That is $6.5 billion, Madam Speaker. So those two pieces of this altogether are $15.45 billion in costs that either increase the magnet for legal immigration to come on welfare, open the door and says on the first day you come here, you will qualify for welfare legally. If you come here illegally, you can do the same thing for Medicaid by simply attesting to a Social Security number. It is no longer required to sign a form even that the information is right. That has been waived as well.

If you add these costs all up, there is another huge cost to this, and that is this tax increase. Now, I remember, and I will go verbatim through the quote that came from then-candidate and now our President ``No matter what John McCain may claim, here are the facts. If you make under $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime, not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, no taxes, because the last thing we should do in this economy is raise taxes on the middle class. And we have been saying that throughout this campaign.''

Now here is this policy that may well land on the President's desk. That is his quote. This is a tax increase on the middle class. It's a tax increase. Ninety-nine percent of this tax increase of the $72 billion that comes goes on the middle class, those people making, by his definition, under $250,000 a year, Madam Speaker. So this is a huge tax increase on the middle class.

And the final piece of this bill, and I think it is actually the biggest one, is that opening up the door beyond 200 percent of poverty and allowing waivers for States to go beyond 400 percent of poverty, in fact, Medicaid for millionaires, sets the stage. This is a foundation stone for socialized medicine in the United States. And I oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and am privileged to address you, Mr. Speaker, and to rise in support of H.R. 549, the National Bombing Prevention Act.

This is something that certainly arises out of 9/11, when we watched in horror as the twin towers burned, the Pentagon was attacked, and the plane was crashed in Pennsylvania. It's changed the focus of this Nation. It's changed the priorities that we have.

One would think that government would simply look at this and make sure that all the gaps are filled, that we were able to analyze capabilities and maintain a database, identify those gaps. The list of the things in this bill goes on.

I'm looking at the risk to America and the energy that brings this bill to the floor, Mr. Speaker, and I think about this country in the broad terms. What do we need to do to take America to the next level of our destiny? How do we nurture the things that protect us? And how do we enhance the components that improve us?

And I can't help but reflect, Mr. Speaker, as I stand here that we are unanimous in our support in protecting the American people. We disagree sometimes on the tactics--and I don't think we much disagree on these tactics--but I think that there are greater risks out there to America that cry out for an urgent approach rather than H.R. 549, the National Bombing Prevention Act.

Some of those greater risks come from overseas. They come on our American military that are today in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, the whole backdrop of that. We have

poured a significant amount of resources in, and we've seen great success in Iraq in particular. We have a tough battle to fight in Afghanistan. That's the habitat that breeds the people that would like to penetrate through our shield.

That's something we cannot always see but it's a tangible enemy because we have seen the results of that tangible enemy.

Mr. Speaker, I can't watch this bill move through debate without raising the issue of the intangible enemy that we have, the enemy that we have from within, the enemy that creeps up on us and sneaks up on us, and the one that causes us to revert to security and trying to find a safer future. Whenever we see a bump along in our economy, when we see the stock market take a dip, when we see some unemployment numbers that go up, the first thing that happens is those who have been lying in wait for an economic disaster pounce upon that as an argument that the free markets are not the solution, that a managed economy is the solution.

And we're in the middle of a pivotal debate in America today, Mr. Speaker, and that pivotal debate rests not so much on the physical security of the American people, as it does the economic opportunity of the American people.

And in the name of economic security, we are watching trillions of dollars being invested in programs that have not shown any pattern of being successful. There was a $150 billion stimulus plan not quite a year ago and then a $700 billion stimulus plan that came out before the election, the bailout plan as it's commonly known, and now we're looking at perhaps a $900 billion stimulus that has with it at least $347 billion in interest attached to it over the next 10 years which takes us to $1.3 trillion.

Just add the $700 billion on from the bailout from last fall, and we're at $2 trillion, $2 trillion in debt and burden which is just one leg of a multi-legged stool as we know from President Obama that has to be constructed by that approach.

And I will submit that as much as we'd like to provide for the safety and the security of the American people--and I will continue to support and work together hand-in-hand across the aisle on those issues--I do oppose the idea that government can spend money better than people can, and I oppose the idea that creating new government programs and spending trillions of dollars. And this one-leg of a multi-legged stool is a $2 trillion leg, Mr. Speaker.

How many more trillion dollars before we get all the legs built on this stool that may look like a centipede and our debt may look like it's insurmountable into the future?

We've got to revert to the things that made this Nation great, the foundations of the American exceptionalism. And those foundations have been--and if we're to have a future will be--the free markets, the markets, the free enterprise system, and our faith in those markets. And at some point, we have to look back at history and understand that no matter how deep we can dig into the old ``New Deal'' of the 1930s, that the best that can be said for it was it may have slowed and diminished the depths to which we sunk during the Great Depression, but the tradeoff was that it delayed the recovery.

And now we are looking at a new, uber, new, new deal that's coming, that is multitrillions of dollars, that may or may not diminish the depths, but it will certainly delay the recovery.

So that is my greatest fear for America, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your attention.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Missouri for taking the lead on this and giving me the privilege to join with you here on the floor to say a few words.

I would take that $825 billion, and I would add to that the number, which I believe is $347 billion, which are interest costs as we calculate here over the next 10 years; and it takes this cost to $1.1 trillion plus another more than $1.1 trillion. And as I look at this-- and I heard some of the gentleman's remarks--I would just submit this question that I can only come to one conclusion when I ask it, and that is, what is the most colossal mistake the United States Congress has made in the history of America? And how would we measure that?

Have they passed a policy that sends us down a path that we couldn't get back from? Have we declared an unjust war? Have we spent so much money or created so many government programs that there is no way to ever set up the politics to repeal them again, nor is there a way for a free-market economy to ever fund them? And has it done so much as diminish the independent spirit of the American people that they slow down or cease to produce?

And I can come to only one answer on that. The most colossal mistake in the history of Congress that I can come up with in a quick inspection of my recollection of history is this mistake made today, this very idea that we can spend money, and we can spend our children's and grandchildren's money and, for all we know, our great-and great- great-great grandchildren's money. There is no prospect of ever getting out of this debt. And the proponents of this, as it is described, ``stimulus plan,'' neither will they predict a result that will come if they follow through on the spending that is designed.

We know that a minimal amount of this money will be spent in this fiscal year or this calendar year. I think the number is 12 percent. As it happens it's a coincidental number. I remember it because there were some of FDR's programs that of the millions that were invested there during the New Deal, only 12 percent made their way actually to the ground into projects, and the balance of that, the balance of the 88 percent was just sucked up and drained out for the cost of government administration and inefficiencies to come.

One of the theories that I think has some validity to it, and I subscribe to it almost totally, and that is that if the private sector doesn't do it, chances are it is not a viable economic model. So how can government come along and take an unviable economic model and prop it up with the fruits of someone's productive labor--because that is what taxes are, they are the fruits of someone's productive labor--and drain them off and take them away from the producer and put them into government programs that have already been demonstrated not to work?

And they can't describe for me an historic model of this Keynesian approach of being able to stimulate economy by massive government spending and show me the results. And the most obvious one is the Great Depression.

And as an engineer, you understand this analytically. If the gentleman from Missouri were a trained economist, you might just understand it esoterically. For me, I understand it from the perspective of one who has started a business with no capital, a negative net worth. For 28 years, I ground my way through establishing a business in a free-market economy. And I made my living off of low bids in the construction business. We know what it's like to compete, but government doesn't seem to understand this.

Look back at the track record of the New Deal in the 1930s. And I represent the State from which Herbert Hoover originated. He was a brilliant man. And I will defend him on a lot of fronts.

But his success, I think, at some point gave him a level of overconfidence where he started us down a path of Smoot-Hawley, trade protection, tax increases, and the barriers to free market that set the stage for FDR to be elected in almost the same scenario as President Obama was elected in an economic crisis situation.

And then, we see almost the same scenario with President Obama as we have seen with FDR, create and grow huge government programs under the belief that there's going to be a solution there. And I would challenge this administration--now, maybe in the thirties FDR didn't have the model, he couldn't look back on the Great Depression and see where somebody else really went wrong. But I would challenge this administration to point to this Great Depression and show me where the New Deal actually did anything to help our economy recover. I'll say that can't be proven, even by the Keynesian economist, even by those people that voted for this classic boondoggle today.

I yield back.

If the gentleman would yield. In the last visit I made to take a look at the economics in Ireland, they informed me that there were 560 American companies that were domiciled to do business in Ireland. Many of them were attracted there by a 10-year suspension of corporate income tax which the EU found to be a little bit too difficult to compete against, and so they used leverage and took it up to--I believe the number is 13.5 percent. But still, many foreign companies took their business and set their operations up in Ireland for the favorable tax scenario.

Is the gentleman yielding?

That the policy in Ireland some years ago, as I recall it, was that they would suspend income tax on a company that would move to Ireland for a period of 10 years, get them established and in order to track them. And it worked very well. And it turned something around that Ireland's greatest export 25 years ago were young, well-educated people. They would raise their children, send them off to school and college--many of them with graduate degrees--then they would go across the rest of the world to apply their trade because the economy in Ireland was a shrinking economy.

And business and labor understood that you have to have profitable corporations or otherwise there won't be jobs for the skilled employees or the blue collars. So they came together in agreement, both the unions and business, to propose this policy which then was leveraged into--I'll call it a flat corporate tax by the EU's leverage that they used.

I yield back.

If the gentleman would yield.

I thank the gentleman.

And looking at the poster there of September 11, 2003, second anniversary of the attack on the United States, and then 2 years later and a few days, October 26, 2005, Congressman Jim Leach offered an amendment on the floor on a Financial Services bill that would have required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to undergo the same kind of capitalization requirements of other lending institutions and the same kind of regulatory requirements of other lending institutions. And the same individual, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee here today, came to the floor and right over here challenged that amendment and argued that no one was saying that Fannie and Freddie were in trouble, that they needed to be regulated, that there was a problem with their liquidity, that this was simply an attack on Fannie and Freddie, and he was successful in his debate. That amendment failed. And so you know that there have been several efforts in this Congress to try to bring Fannie and Freddie under a regulatory guideline by Republicans, fought off consistently by Democrats in this House of Representatives. And I yield back.

I thank the gentleman from Texas, one of the stellar judges that come from Texas and the only State I know that delivers judges into this body, but I am glad to have you all as my allies. As I listened to his presentation, I know that it's delivered from the voice of experience, in having dealt with those kinds of inequities, and I just think that the language in this bill is so clean and so pure that it's important, Mr. Speaker, that the public actually hear it with this level of clarity.

Any individual who is a citizen of the United States--and it's important that citizens are the ones that take advantage of this--and who writes ``Rangel rule'' on top of the first page of the return of tax imposed by chapter one for any taxable year, shall be exempt from any requirement to pay any interest and from any penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount with respect to such return.

Very simple. Our Founding Fathers could have written something like this, and everybody can read it and understand it. It arises from the situations that have been discussed in that there seems to be one set of laws for one set of people and a set of exemptions for other folks that are very well and highly collected. And the list of things that have been raised from an ethical standpoint question in this House is getting longer and longer.

I remember the effort in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 that this was going to become, under the new majority, which now is more than 2 years old, the most ethical Congress in history, the most open, the most democratic Congress in history. That would be the current Speaker of the House, Mr. Assigned Speaker.

I don't know that that has emerged, but I can tell you what has emerged: a dysfunctional Ethics Committee that doesn't take up anything, won't address anything. And by lack of virtue of such lack of action, we end up with

a body that's continuing to pick up more and more cases that the public needs to hear about because the Ethics Committee is not, or at least they are not dealing with it.

A question that comes to me as I listen to this presentation from Judge Carter from Texas is that, should this bill become law--and I am a cosponsor of this bill; I certainly support it, I support the concept behind it. Should this bill become law, would it be, then, something that the Secretary of the Treasury could take advantage of when he finds that he wasn't thorough enough when he examined his taxes on TurboTax.

I appreciate that perspective and the accuracy from that. It seems as though our Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Geithner, was able to establish a negotiated settlement on his back taxes, too.

His negotiated settlement was that if he would pay--under the course of the audit, if he would pay the back taxes and the interest, then there was a waiver of the penalty. And I am hearing that if you haven't had a lot of experience with the waiver or the penalty when it comes to dealing with the IRS--and I know that they can come along and be a Monday morning quarterback about at any time, and they can make some subjective decisions about what you should or should not have claimed for your income or expenses; and then if you are not able to lay out the payment in a timely fashion, they can do a lot of things.

Your house is not preserved for that kind of protection, they can assign a new title to your car and sell it and apply it to your tax liability.

But in the case of our Treasurer, he was able to apparently negotiate a waiver of the penalty and just pay the principal and the interest and, indeed, having been, in advance, reimbursed for the taxes that he knew he had liability. So as he signed the form and agreed that he would pay the taxes--and there were several notices; I believe the notices came out quarterly--that he would be liable for his own payroll taxes, but if he applied for their reimbursement, he would receive a check for reimbursement for his payroll taxes, took the check for the reimbursement for the payroll taxes, cashed the money and didn't pay the taxes on the payroll taxes.

There isn't any deniable argument that can be made--you had to be thoroughly aware of that--and yet he got a pass from the IRS; and my recollection on the years is, that audit was for 2003 and 2004. The statute of limitations didn't go back to 2001 and 2002, but the vetting process did go back to 2001 and 2002, and even only then did he go back to pay those taxes and interest, not penalty.

And we have the situation now where we have a Secretary of the Treasury who has been--what's the nicest word--``resistant'' towards paying taxes that he has actually been paid in advance to pay. And we have a chairman of the Ways and Means Committee that has a whole stream of tax situations that are unanswered, unaddressed; and we are going to ask the American people to pay more taxes and off the floor of this House today, $1.1 trillion and maybe the largest, the most colossal, mistake made by the United States Congress.

We have got to go back, I have got to ask my constituents, you have to write a check to pay your income taxes, but that isn't something that the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee feels the obligation to do, or the Secretary of the Treasury who runs the IRS feels the obligation to do; and neither is there anybody there to grant a pardon to the folks from my district who are locked up in Federal penitentiaries today for failure to do similar things and not complying to the letter of the IRS law.

So I have a significant amount of frustration that builds, and I appreciate the judge's approach to this in that we are all equal under the law, and if we don't have a law that addresses each of us equally with a reasonable prospect of that enforcement on any one of us, that any American has the same excuse. That's why the Rangel rule is a good proposal that treats us all the same.

I thank the gentleman from Texas. I just thought I would call up that specific quote from Speaker Pelosi and make sure that we had this down in the Record precisely the way it was delivered. This is a quote that was from her own press release dated November 16, 2006, Speaker Pelosi, and I quote, ``This leadership team will create the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.''

I don't think there's been a delivery on that promise. In fact, I will look back at the circumstances of the Ethics Committee that we have and, Mr. Speaker, I point out that the former chairman of the Ethics Committee has stepped down, and stepped down under a cloud of an FBI investigation, and was subsequently appointed by the Speaker to become the chairman of Justice Appropriations, where he today holds the gavel and the purse strings to control the agency that is reportedly in the news, and not denied by him, to be investigating him.

Now if that isn't something that is an ethical challenge. We talk about conflicts of interest, talk about appearance of impropriety. Isn't there an appearance of impropriety if you happen to be the chairman of the committee that appropriates the funds to the agency that is investigating you?

To point out something that is beyond hypothetical, thoroughly reported in the news and reported as the reason for the step-down from the Ethics Committee and a sideways promotion to take over the people investigating. That is not the most open, most ethical Congress, Mr. Speaker. That is a sign of the exact opposite.

I expect that we are going to see more and more of this balled up in the Ethics Committee, that will not move because of a number of reasons, one of them being it's a committee that is balanced with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. But to throw yourselves on the mercy of the Ethics Committee is a shield, it's not a solution.

The scrutiny that needs to come from the media and from the public-- the American people need to understand what is going on here. We have got to eliminate the appearance of impropriety, eliminate the impropriety, and the people who find themselves crossways with the law, it isn't enough to say, I'm sorry. It isn't good enough to say, I will pay the tax liability, maybe even some interest on that.

In the case of Tim Geithner, the numbers that I saw were $34,000 versus $43,000. I took that to mean that his tax liability was $34,000 and the interest was an additional $9,000 dollars. That came to $43,000.

Now, wouldn't you notice if they wrote you a check for $34,000, admittedly over a period of roughly 4 years, and you cash that check. Wouldn't you wonder where it came from? Any time I get that money, I'm certainly going to know where it came from, especially if I'm signing documents that I will pay my taxes and especially if I wanted to be the head of the IRS and especially if I was presented as a financial guru, especially at a time when we need stability in the Secretary of the Treasury's Office, when the previous Secretary of the Treasury has demonstrated--I will say there has been an erosion in confidence in his judgment, as the previous Secretary came to this Capitol September 19, and it wasn't chicken little, but he did say the sky is falling. Since that time, the sky has begun to fall. The economic sky has begun to fall.

I'd also point out that on September 19, Mr. Speaker, one who maybe will accept that coincidences can happen from time to time, there was another issue that arose that changed the result of the elections in 2006 that arose here on September 19, 2006. I'm very curious as to what might come to visit us on September 19, 2010, Mr. Speaker.

But this needs to be cleaned up. The American people must demand it. There's got to be open sunlight on all that we do. We have got to provide the most open, ethical, and honest Congress in history.

I'd yield back.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I agree with the presentation here, of course; and as a cosponsor of the bill, I agree with the policy.

It occurs to me to expand this discussion just a little bit, and that is that as the public sits out there and watches what goes on here, Mr. Speaker, on the floor of Congress. They are frustrated. They are rightfully frustrated. Some of them are angry. More will need to get angry before anything is going to change, because as George Will probably more than once said, democracy functions under the lash of necessity. Many Members of Congress understand that necessity to be what it takes for them to maintain their seat in this Congress.

I believe this: that we should be the most honest, the most open, the most ethical Congress in history, as Nancy Pelosi said. And we should follow through on that by allowing full access to our finances, for example.

We have a situation today where we file our financial disclosure forms under the guise of giving the public access so they can see if there is any conflict of interest, any ethical violation, any one of us that is taking advantage of our position and rolling in some equity out of any other sources that might come. But it is a flawed process, and one of the reasons that it is flawed is because it allows Members to put down their assets within a range of dollars in a category.

Now, for me, I am in the narrower category. Say, for example, I might have some assets there, real estate, between, let's say, a quarter of a million and a half million dollars or less, or other categories between $100,000 and $250,000. But when you get into the

larger amounts of the assets, you can have assets there listed between, you just say, it fits my townhouse investment across the river in Virginia--not mine, but a hypothetical Member's--is valued between $5 million and $25 million, and you put that down.

And then this other real estate that might be an island in North Carolina is valued at between $5 million and $25 million. And I have some liabilities against them that could be between $5 million and $25 million. Pretty soon, you add this all up, and the only way you can figure out what is going on here, you say, well, the assets will be the aggregate total at a minimum of, and you add the small amount. Or, they could be in the aggregate total of the maximum amount. You add the large amount.

And the same with the liabilities. And when you are done and look at this, there is no way in the world to determine what has happened with the net worth of a Member, and they can game this system.

And then we have a Member who has filed at least 261 false statements on his finances, and after it was brought to his attention, then he filed an amendment to these statements, without any repercussions--a different set of laws for him, at least as far as I know.

What I have is a bill that I introduced in the last Congress, and I don't believe I have actually dropped it in this one. I don't expect it is going to get past this gatekeeper of the most honest, open, ethical Congress in history. But this bill is this: The Sunlight Act, and it just puts sunlight on all things that we do. On our finances, it requires us to file the exact dollar amount of our assets and our liabilities in every category, and to file them in a searchable, sortable, down-loadable database and make them available online so that anybody that can go to the public library and access a computer can go in and take a look.

Now, if we are going to be honest and open and ethical, let's give 300 million Americans the opportunity to examine our finances, examine our transactions; and they can be out there and they can raise the issue. And I think that, in itself, will keep us a little more honest because the restraint will be there. Kind of like random drug testing: There is somebody out there watching you, so don't take the risk.

That is one piece that we could take, and those with a lot of assets and a lot of liabilities are in a position to not necessarily provide the most full information. The lower your assets are and the lower your liabilities, the more specific they will be.

That is something we can do. And I think all of our records that we have here, when an amendment is filed, it should be available on the Internet. You post that thing immediately, stick it up there, and let the public follow it.

It is a shame that the public can come into the Gallery here and not know what is being debated on the floor of the House of Representatives and not be able to find out or figure it out. A Member can have that happen, walk across, and in 2 minutes in the tunnel have the subject change, come out on the floor. And there is no light up on the ends that says, we are debating bill X and amendment Y. It is simply something you have to pick up by knowing whom to ask here on the floor.

We haven't moved into the modern world is my point. And I think all that should be electronically posted on the wall, the subject matter of the debate and the amendment, if we have one, so that the people in the Gallery and those folks, Mr. Speaker, that are watching on C-SPAN can look and instantly know the discussion here on the floor.

I think when an amendment is filed, if it is in an open rule down here, it should be scanned and immediately posted on the Internet. And when amendments are filed before the Rules Committee, they should be available for everybody in America to see, so they can understand how this is not an open process, how many of those amendments never see the light of day because they are balled up in the Rules Committee, and when we are looking for those recorded votes, so we can find out why was an amendment denied.

Or a bill like SCHIP that can come to the floor; and I believe the number is bigger, but at least a $40 billion bill on SCHIP came to floor in the 111th Congress without a single hearing in this Congress, without a subcommittee markup, without a full committee markup, without any amendments being allowed all along the way, and without any amendments being allowed on the floor--not an open, honest, ethical approach, but a Draconian, top-down, cram-down approach to legislation.

The public, if they had sunlight on all of our operations, then they can understand that there really is a high degree of ethics on the part of almost everybody in this Congress. And, on both sides of the aisle there are dedicated public servants that watch their finances and would not trade a vote for anything, that follow their convictions and listen to their constituents and follow the rules. That goes on in most cases. But we only see the egregious ones when they come up after they have gotten to the point where something has to be done.

We have talked about some of those tonight, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to see the sunlight every day so that as soon as somebody bounces off of a guard rail, they can be reminded: Get back on track here. Because we do need to create the most open, honest, and ethical Congress in history.

I yield back.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding, and the phrase that I hear ring true from you is that everyone deserves equal protection under the law.

As reflecting upon a State of the Union Address that was delivered to this Congress by Thomas Jefferson in his early years as President, he said, ``The minority possesses their equal rights which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.'' That is Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural March 4, 1801. I happened to have run across it because it was included in Speaker Pelosi's document titled ``A New Direction for America.''

I think that is quite instructive for tonight's discussion. The most open, honest, ethical Congress in history, quoting Thomas Jefferson's inaugural address in the case of requiring equal protection under the law and the rights of the minority, feeling a little trampled here in the 111th Congress.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona. It is an honor to stand here. And I reflect upon the time that Bob Hope and Sammy Davis, Jr., and others were on Johnny Carson's program. George Gobel was sitting there, and he looked around at the famous folks that were on either side of him, and he had this look of discomfort on his face. And finally he uttered: Did you ever think that the whole world was a tuxedo and you were a pair of brown shoes?

Well, I am the brown shoes here on this floor today. As I listened to Mr. Franks and Mr. Pence, Mike Pence who inspired me through the lens of the C-SPAN camera well before I came to this Congress, and Trent Franks who has continued to inspire me on a daily basis since I did arrive in this Congress with him in January of 2003.

We are here today, and it is a great privilege, Mr. Speaker, to address you and continue with the subject, and that is, let me say, the capping of some of the contemporary dialogue on the history of the Presidency of George W. Bush and the things that he has done and contributed.

Now some have said and called for a long period of honeymoon in this new administration because that's what we do in a free country. Well, it is what we should do in a free country, respect for the office, reverence, the sense of a new beginning. However, that is not something that George W. Bush ever experienced, was not one minute of a honeymoon.

From the moment that the polls closed on election night, the churning began. And in the morning it carried on for 37 days while we sorted out, through a recount process and a Supreme Court, both the Florida Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court came forth with rulings from all of those days that unfolded, 37 days, President Bush has been under attack from the left, that developed a visceral hatred for him that I could never connect with any rational thought process. I just couldn't track the logic. So that has been an anchor that he has had to drag and deal with. That was, I think, the hyenas that were referenced by Mr. Franks, how this lion walked among them.

I am here to say thank you to President Bush for the things that he has done when he has had his steady hand on the till of leadership, and especially with our national defense.

I wasn't here in this town on September 11, 2001. I came the next Congress, not that one. I was here for the beginnings of the liberations of Iraq. I was here for more completion of the buildup in Afghanistan. I have made six trips to Iraq and two to Afghanistan. I have engaged myself in our foreign policy as much as I can possibly do so. I have looked at the 50 million people between Iraq and Afghanistan that breathe free today that had not breathed free before and would unlikely have ever breathed free if it had not been for the solid, bold, courageous leadership on the part of President Bush, our Commander in Chief, who said our enemies will hear from us soon, and they did.

I know there were Iowa guard troops on the ground in Afghanistan, as well as many others, who guarded the polling places and guarded the pathways to the polling places in a land on real estate that had never seen an election before. Today, they have a government that is elected of, by, and for the people, controlled by the people. It is a long pathway to see Afghanistan where we would like to see it. But, Mr. Speaker, it is positioned today in such a fashion that we can see some light at the end of that tunnel and we can define the people in Afghanistan as free and in control of their own destiny, however precarious it might be with the enemies from without who are infiltrating within.

We need to continue to face those enemies with the vigor and the courage and the patriotism and the nobility that our military from Commander in Chief on down have done so each and every day since the beginning of the operations in Afghanistan.

In Iraq, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to make this statement. This statement is a general thank you to our Commander in Chief who issued the order to liberate Iraq and sent troops in March 19, 2003, and that is, Mr. President, I have looked at the metrics in Iraq and I have examined the statistics that come from there.

I have evaluated the benchmarks that were imposed upon the President, Mr. Speaker--and with regard to the President, whom I hope catches this message--that the 18 benchmarks that were imposed upon the President-- and he had to essentially sign the bill in order to maintain the funding to continue the operations--those 18 benchmarks, Mr. Speaker, 16 of them are all completely or substantially achieved.

The 17th benchmark is provincial elections, which are scheduled for-- and we have no reason to believe they won't come off like the two previous elections in Iraq and the ratification of the constitution in Iraq--that date is January 31, just a few days from now. When that date is achieved, we will be able to say, analytically and objectively, 17 of the 18 benchmarks set by this Congress have been all completely or substantially achieved. The remaining benchmark is one that couldn't be possibly achieved in the time frame that we have had, and that is the one that sets up the Iraqi Security Forces to be completely independent from U.S. coalition support. That means no communications, no intel, no logistics, and no munition support coming from the United States other than that that they would write a check for and buy from us on the marketplace or the world. That's not something that you can do in a day or week or month or a year, Mr. Speaker; it's something that takes years to stand up a military that has that capability.

There are 609,000 Iraqis today in uniform stood up defending the security in that country, and they've done so in such a fashion that sectarian deaths in Iraq that were so serious that they numbered on a monthly basis more than 2,000 in a single month--and I take you back to about December of 2006, I believe that number was about 2,300 sectarian deaths--and as the surge began and unfolded, those sectarian deaths wound down to the point where there was a point last May where they actually were so low that they were statistically insignificant. Today, the sectarian deaths have been reduced by at least 90 percent.

Mr. Speaker, American deaths in Iraq. If you have a son or a daughter that is serving in Iraq today or are concerned about their safety--and this gives no solace to the people who have lost family members there, that solace we offer to them in our prayers--but statistically, as we have troops that are deployed to Iraq, they have been, since the first day of July of last year, at greater danger of being killed in an accident than by the enemy. That has held up from the first day of July on, it stands today, and I pray it will stand for a long time. And I would like to see those numbers of course get to zero. But whenever you have men and women and machines moving, there are accidents. We lose an average of 510 Americans a year on-duty deaths, 510. That's in greater numbers now than the incidents of death in Iraq due to the enemy.

So we have made a lot of progress in the country. The Iraqis are governing much of their own country. The provinces that they have taken over the security have been significant. And additionally, we have handed over the security of the Green Zone to the Iraqis on the first day of January, and it hardly made the news.

Mr. Speaker, we have won the war in Iraq. George Bush's courage did that, the decision he made did that. When he got advice from his Joint Chiefs of Staff, the advice, which was, ``we can achieve this victory, Mr. President; the advice that we have is let's redeploy from there.'' And the political advice was, ``declare victory and retreat from Iraq.'' That was the echo of the incessant advice that came from the political advisors. And the military advisors didn't say ``declare victory,'' they just simply said, ``let's deploy out of there, we can't win this war.''

President Bush looked for a way. And I sat in the Oval Office when he pointed at the picture of Abraham Lincoln and he said, Abraham Lincoln went through seven generals before he found his general. I've not been there yet, I think I've found my general, General Petraeus. The leadership that it took to have the courage to declare for victory in the face of all the advice for defeat echoes in me on this day with the leadership that it took for Abraham Lincoln, when every member of his cabinet, when called together to ask for their advice on whether to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, every member of the Cabinet said, Mr. President, no. Don't sign it because you don't rule over the slaves. You can't free the slaves because we don't occupy the south. They do. They will decide whether or not the slaves are free and they're not going to be released.

Mr. President, the next Cabinet member said, we have people fighting for the Union that don't care about slavery. You're sending a message that they won't like. So don't sign the Emancipation Proclamation. I could go on with a series of reasons or excuses, but in the end, after every Cabinet member said to Abraham Lincoln, don't sign the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln said, ``Well, gentlemen, the I has it,'' and he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. And today, we give great honor to the liberation of the people who were created in God's image, all of them, those born and those not yet born, because Abraham Lincoln understood the sanctity of human life.

President Bush made a similar decision when he said we are going to declare for victory in Iraq and we are going to go forth with a surge. It took that same kind of courage in the face of advice to the contrary, and today we see Iraqis milling the streets in relative freedom, building their country together. And it is a country that I couldn't even go to a place like Ramadi or Fallujah a year and a half ago because it was too dangerous, even with security. But I've been back to those places and walked the streets of each of those towns and heard the Mayor of Fallujah declare, ``We are a city of peace.''

There is a victory achieved in Iraq, and it's a victory that George W. Bush deserves credit for. And this is also a man with a profound moral understanding of when his life began, at the instant of conception. And he has faced this issue with a number of big decisions in the Oval Office, decisions that had to do with the executive order that supports the Mexico City policy that forbids U.S. taxpayer dollars from being extorted from our pro-life citizens--of which I am one--to fund abortion services in foreign countries. That's an executive order that's balanced precariously perhaps on the desk of President Obama today. This man who called out for unity may not be doing so if he signs that executive order.

President Bush supports the Mexico City policy. It has protected millions of lives around the world and has protected the conscience of American taxpayers. President Bush burned many hours examining the embryonic stem cell research and finally decided the existing lines would be allowed to be utilized, but there would be no new lines that would interrupt innocent human lives with U.S. taxpayer dollars. It was a difficult and careful decision that he made. It has protected the lives of many little embryos. And I have held some of those snowflake babies in my arms--yes, they are people, they're warm, they're bubbly, they giggle, they laugh, they love just like the rest of us, having been frozen for 9 years as an embryo. President Bush understood that. There is a real humanity in this man. This is a pro-life President.

And right now, I can tell you that he's our last pro-life President so far, the most recent pro-life President. This is the man who appointed Justices Roberts and Alito, which resulted in justices that understand the text and the original understanding of the Constitution, who ruled to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion which has saved lives in America, and it is one legislative victory that we have here.

And this is the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. It is a profound time. So I want to say, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want the message to be echoed to President Bush, thank you for the people in Iraq and Afghanistan, that they can go to the polls and vote and breathe free air and direct their national destiny and become our allies in this quest for freedom, the right of every man and every woman and every person to be free, the right to life that every man and every person has. And I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the President also be thanked for his stance for life and freedom.

I yield back to the gentleman from Arizona and thank him for his indulgence.

And I am happy to come here and present my version of my proposal for a solution. I would pick up on the gentleman from Ohio's statement of the deficit though in November being a minus $164 billion. I just punched the calculator and you annualize that, that is times 12, that is $1.968 trillion, almost $2 trillion in annual deficit at the rate of last November. And we are dealing with that, and we are dealing with handing a check over to the incoming President in excess of $1 trillion.

Now, all of this Keynesian that you talked about----

In fact, the only Federal expenditure that compares with this bailout is if you compare it in real dollars to World War II. This is a bailout that exceeds everything, including the interstate system in the United States. World War II is the only thing that cost more money, and that was, of course, national survival. This Nation was in peril.

So we can go down the path of the Keynesian, which you have discussed, and I reject that. There is no Keynesian proposal if you look back in history that can be supported.

I go to the other side, to the supply side of this. I look at the tax cuts throughout different presidencies we have had. It is clear when John F. Kennedy was instrumental in signing the legislation that cut taxes, we increased the revenue and grew the economy. Another two decades later when Ronald Reagan came in, we cut taxes, increased the revenue to the Federal Government and grew the economy.

When George Bush looked at the bursting of the dot.com bubble, which happened just before his watch, something needed to be done, and he offered the 2001 tax cuts. Those said we are on a little bit of a sugar high in this economy, it was a short bridge, they recognized it, and on May 28, 2003, the real Bush tax cuts took place. They are sunsetted eventually, but they also bridged this economy.

Those are some of the things that we need to do. But the free enterprise economy is this: Our job should be about increasing the average annual productivity of Americans, and at the same time that increases our opportunity to improve our quality of life. So if you want to provide the stimuli for people to produce more, the thing you do is to suspend the taxes on their production. Ronald Reagan said that what we tax, we get less of.

So the Federal Government has the first lien, taxes, on everything that is on the production side of this economy. They tax all of our productivity, our earnings, our savings, our investment. When you punch the time clock at 8 o'clock on Monday morning, you can hear a ka-ching, and Uncle Sam is standing there figuratively and his hand goes out, and you pay the taxes from the first minute you work until he gets the amount that he wants. That goes into Uncle Sam's pocket. And then you can start working for the Governor and the other people out there. That is true with earnings, savings and investment. So when we tax productivity, we get less productivity by Reagan's axiom and the one I agree with.

I propose that we take the tax off of our productivity, all taxes off of American earnings, savings and investment, and put it over on consumption, where it provides an incentive for a little savings, a little investment, and it lets a person choose when they pay their taxes when they consume. A national sales tax changes the dynamics of this. I don't want to go down into the depths of the details, but the philosophy I do.

If the gentleman would briefly yield, I suspect that line is May 28 of 2003. I happen to remember that's the day that President Bush signed the 2003 tax cuts, and really the only reason I remember that is because it's my birthday. It was a great present.

Briefly, the gentleman from Missouri, thank you.

I'd point out here that we are sociologists in the end in this country, and these are definitive.

We are definitive on the economic analysis that you have laid out. It is stark, it's clear, the lines vertical there on each one of those charts that you've showed. But what it really reflects is the sociology of human nature.

When human nature concludes that if they work and earn and someone else gets the proceeds of that, if someone else gets the benefit of the labor, then the reward for the labor is diminished; that means there's less labor that gets done. And as people figure that out, as the tax rates go up, the conclusion is I'll risk less capital and I'll put less effort in, and I'll spend more time with my family or my golf clubs or my fishing pole. That equation is demonstrated there in the red and in the green vertical bars that you have. And in the end, our effort again is back to get the maximum increase and get the maximum annual average productivity out of every American at the same time quality of life.

Free enterprise does work. And I yield to the gentleman again.

Well, I have some sense of that, and I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also have a reflection on a couple of things.

One is that I appreciate the gentleman from Louisiana's presentation on the repatriation of $300 billion of foreign capital.

One of the analyses out there is that there is, all together, about $13 trillion in U.S. capital that is stranded overseas because there is a capital gains that would be levied against it if it's brought back into the United States economy.

One of the things that I did after the September 19 debacle of the beginning of the downward spiral when Secretary Paulson came to this Capitol and asked for the $700 billion in bailout was to introduce legislation called the Rescue Act. One of the components of it was to suspend capital gains on all U.S. capital that's overseas in order to bring as much of it as possible back in. Now, I never expected that it would be $13 trillion, the whole package, but I did think it would be $300 billion, maybe $1 trillion, maybe even more than that, maybe even two or more trillion dollars injected into this economy. That's U.S. capital that's sitting there that we are never going to see as long as we penalize that capital for coming back into the United States.

So, instead, we look across the pond, and we see $13 trillion sitting there, invested in economies and in other parts of the world, and we go to Joe the plumber, to Joe six pack and also to

some of the people who are making a better income in this country, and we say, Now, we're not going to tax you. We're going to give you a tax cut. We're going to give 95 percent of the working people in America, including the people who aren't paying taxes, a refundable tax cut. While that's going on, then we're going to tax your children and your grandchildren to roll one or two or more trillion dollars into this economy because the Keynesian theory of dumping capital into the economy stimulates the economy.

Well, if that were the idea, why wouldn't we then use U.S. capital that is helping other economies by suspending capital gains? We have a choice. We can suspend capital gains or we can pass the debt along to our children and probably in inflated dollars. That equation is so simple to me that it's infuriating.

I want to take this back to President-elect Obama's conclusions that he, obviously, has drawn from that Great Depression, and I agree with the gentleman from Missouri. Here is my analysis of that:

When I was a junior in high school, I was assigned to write a term paper. I had been educated throughout all of those years that Franklin Delano Roosevelt saved us from the Great Depression, and they gave us these programs--the CCC, the WPA. The list of those programs goes on and on and on.

Because you could market those to local officials, and they could get a photo op in the paper, and then they would build an edifice that was a monument to their spending, and it was popular.

In the end, what really happened is that I read every newspaper in our local town. Our newspaper was published twice a week. I went through that for the financial news from the crash of the stock market in 1929 October on up until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Now, people who were lined up for jobs, who were in soup lines, the advertisings and the stories told me things.

By the time I got to December 7, 1941 and I had prepared to write this paper in support of FDR, I sat back and looked at the ceiling. I can still remember all of those wooden rods with the papers hanging on them, and I said, ``Huh. You know, FDR did something.'' He established the principle that the Federal Government had a responsibility for the standard of living of its citizens. That crossed the line from free enterprise and free market, and it raced us down this path toward a socialized economy.

The lesson I saw was don't do that because it broadened and, perhaps, deepened the trough that the Great Depression was in. Barack Obama sees that as the salvation to a calamity, and now he's delivering to us the new New Deal. The old deal was a bad deal. The new New Deal is a far worse deal, and that comes from simple economics, from starting and operating a business for 28 years, from watching people, from reading history, and from wondering where in the world they got a lesson that would support the proposal that's out here in front of this Congress-- in the House and in the Senate.

I yield back to the gentleman from Missouri.

I thank the gentleman from Missouri. I'm watching the clock closely.

I wanted to put a quote into the Record here that I had not seen before just a couple of days ago. It's from Dr. Adrian Rogers, who said, ``You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.''

I yield back.

I thank the gentleman from New York for organizing this Special Order. Even though I have 60 minutes subsequent to this, I appreciate the yield because I would like to say a few words into the Record as part of this Special Order.

This support of Israel goes back deep with me. The 1967 war was the year I graduated from high school. I came of age as Israel defended its freedom that they had achieved in 1948. My life has almost transcended, I am going to go through the sequential order--I was born in 1949, Israel was born in 1948.

As I have watched this, as I have watched the courageous defense against enemies that surrounded Israel for all of these years, and I have watched the policies a little bit within Israel itself, it occurs to me that I have trouble finding a historical example where land was traded successfully for peace. I honor the effort that they have made, and I certainly honor and support and will continue to support Israel's effort to defend themselves.

As you have illustrated, rockets firing in from a few miles away, New Jersey into New York, for example, we would not tolerate that. We wouldn't tolerate the second rocket. We wouldn't tolerate the first one. This is thousands of rockets.

So without belaboring the point, I support and endorse the statements that were made in this hour, and I support the resolution, obviously. I will continue to do so and will stand in solidarity across the aisle to stand for freedom. I would submit also that the only place I can see on that map where an Arab can go to get a fair trial would be Israel.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I again thank the gentleman from New York for yielding a moment of his time to me.

I change the subject at this point, Mr. Speaker. I asked for this time before this great deliberative body and this honor and privilege to address you on this subject matter, speaking to you, Mr. Speaker, and understanding that there are eyes and ears across this country, particularly in the White House tonight, who are in the business of cleaning out their desks, going through their files, packaging up many in the archives, some going I presume into the trash or the shredder, and making room for a new administration that comes in.

During this period of time, every 4 years, we will see the President of the United States, the commander-in-chief, the conductor of our foreign policy and the chief law enforcement officer of the United States among other things, all wrapped up into the package of President George W. Bush, following in the footsteps of his predecessors before him and contemplating the right and the power and the authority that he has to pardon those who have been convicted of a crime or to commute their sentences, those who have been convicted of a crime.

If we look back through history, there have been some long lists of people who were pardoned or had their sentences commuted, and sometimes it has been controversial. I won't dredge up some of those controversial pardons, but I will raise the issue that a President has this authority. Sometimes he exercises the authority of the pardon or the commutation out of compassion. Sometimes it is out of a sense of misapplied justice. Sometimes it is just out of a sense of mercy that is coupled with compassion.

But the case that I raise tonight, Mr. Speaker, is the case of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who are Border Patrol officers, I should say at this point former Border Patrol officers, who were involved in an incident down near the Mexican border that had to do with the interdiction of a drug smuggler from Mexico.

This drug smuggler was an individual by the last name of Aldrete- Davila who was intercepted by agents Ramos and Compean. This was on February 17, 2005, near Fabens, Texas, where they interdicted Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, who was suspected of smuggling drugs into the United States. It was later found that the van that they chased that Aldrete- Davila abandoned and ran across the countryside contained 743 pounds of marijuana worth approximately $1 million.

Well, this incident as it unfolded showed that one of the agents chased the drug smuggler, Aldrete-Davila, and the other agent cut across to try to cut him off, presumably to cut him off before he could get into across the border into Mexico. It was Ramos who chased him. Ramos chased him and Compean attempted to interdict him.

In any case, there was an altercation that took place. Both agents discharged their weapons. The discharge from Agent Ramos' weapon was stipulated to be the bullet that hit the drug smuggler. And, as the situation unfolded, there was a confrontation with Aldrete-Davila and Agent Compean that ended in multiple discharges of Agent Compean's weapon. None of those rounds hit the drug smuggler. He disengaged himself from Compean and ran. As he turned and looked back, Ramos came onto the scene, Agent Ramos came onto the scene and discharged his weapon, as I recall, once.

There was no sign by either agent, any observation that any of those shots actually hit the drug smuggler. That wasn't known until some time later. A family connection, a relation of another agent with the relation of the drug smuggler, passed that information along, in which case there was an investigation that began.

Agents Ramos and Compean admitted that they didn't deliver the complete, full written report for the incident that took place. Recognizing that, the crime that they were charged with originally was a lesser crime than the crime that was brought against them.

But, in any case, after this situation unfolded and Ramos and Compean were arrested and charged, then as agents of the Border Patrol arrested and charged for the incident, around the incident were failure to file a complete, honest and truthful report. There were other agents and supervisors that were purportedly on the scene. It wasn't that the incident was necessarily covered up, but it wasn't appropriately reported.

After the original charges, the lesser charges were filed, the government drastically increased the charges by securing a superseding indictment pursuant to 18 USC 924, which is a statute that outlaws the discharge of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence. This charge, 18 USC 924, carries with it a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence.

So they were subsequently convicted of discharge of a firearm in the commission of a crime, a statute that was never envisioned to apply to a law enforcement officer who is lawfully carrying a weapon, in fact required to carry a weapon, and who perhaps discharged that weapon in a lawful fashion in carrying out their duty. That is a question that I think the court probably answered in the negative.

But, in any case, this statute, 18 USC 924, the discharge of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, was the Federal charge that was brought as a superseding indictment, and it was a heavy charge that was laid on Agents Ramos and Compean, and the conviction that followed from that resulted in the mandatory sentencing that came about which turned out to be 11 years and 1 day for Agent Ramos and 12 years for Agent Compean.

Now, Mr. Speaker, and I implore your attention to this and I pray that the attention of the President is focused on this argument, and that is not that Agents Ramos and Compean are innocent of the charges that have been brought against them by the active

U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton; not that there shouldn't be some charges brought to provide a deterrent and perhaps a restraint, although I have some reservations about that within me. I am not making that argument, Mr. Speaker.

I will make the argument that these officers have been incarcerated almost continually since this investigation began, and the sentences that have been brought forth on Agents Ramos and Compean are unreasonable. They are outrageous. It is out of balance with the crime itself. It serves no public purpose to keep these agents in a Federal penitentiary any longer. They have spent significant time in solitary confinement because they need to be protected from the other inmates within the Federal prisons they are in.

I looked into that, to ask the question could we make the case that it is cruel and unusual punishment for someone to go into solitary confinement and have to face potentially more than a decade in a Federal penitentiary in solitary confinement. I couldn't make that constitutional argument, Mr. Speaker. As much as I would like to make the argument in the case of Ramos and Compean, I can't make that constitutional argument.

I could make the argument that we could move legislation in this Congress to grant them a new trial in perhaps a different district that might give them a better opportunity for justice that is more appropriate to the acts that they are charged with and convicted of.

Mr. Speaker, I will now constrain my arguments to this: The prosecution has gone forward in a hyper-aggressive fashion and concluded with convictions and sentences that reflect the aggressiveness of the prosecution on this case. I believe that these officers have served an appropriate punishment.

I think that we have passed Thanksgiving, Mr. Speaker. In reference to the President's consideration, we have passed Thanksgiving. I recall watching on television as the Thanksgiving turkey was put up on the chopping block. And like happens every year right before Thanksgiving, the President of the United States comes down, looks over that nice, tasty-looking turkey and passes a sentence over the turkey which is a pardon for that turkey. He doesn't end up on anybody's Thanksgiving table, at least not real soon. I don't have any idea where they put these retired turkeys.

But as I watched that, I thought about Agents Ramos and Compean. What about the comparable merit? What did the turkey do to deserve the pardon, Mr. Speaker? So that question began to roll around in my mind about the dichotomy of pardoning the turkey, but leaving Agents Ramos and Compean in Federal penitentiaries. One of them I understand is still in solitary confinement.

So, Mr. Speaker, I began to look and reflect across what is the practice and what are some of the crimes that have been pardoned. One could look at previous Presidents, but I believe in this case it is appropriate to look at the pardons and commutations of President Bush, who is marking his last days in a long career here, and I have great respect for his service to America and personal affection for the President of the United States.

I looked at the list of the pardons and the commutations, Mr. Speaker, and to date, and this is as of the 14th of January, President George W. Bush has granted a total, by this record at least, of 171 pardons and eight commutations.

Mr. Speaker, what is the nature of these pardons and commutations? What moved the heart of the President of the United States? What raised the issues up to a level high enough that his Pardons Counsel would make a recommendation to the President to pardon these individuals, 171? Now, I probably I don't think that the President had a 2-hour meeting analyzing each one of these cases. I suspect that his staff is doing the analysis and making recommendations to the President.

I know what an echo chamber is, Mr. Speaker. I have a little sense of what happens when you have a circle of people around you and they take a position and their ego is tied to their policy and their position, so if something comes along that threatens to change the policy, it also is a threat to their ego. They tend to get their backs up and then they filter out the information that might reverse their position because their ego can't fall with their position.

That is a big mistake that is made often in public life. I see it made by Members of Congress, and I am not immune from it myself. But getting one's ego wrapped up with the issue is something that happens with staff as well.

So if that information is not getting through to the President, Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity for it to matriculate into the conscience of a President who ran for office the first time in the year 2000 as, about the first statement was, a ``compassionate conservative.'' This is the President who immortalized the phrase ``compassionate conservative.''

I look at this list of pardons and commutations, and it is clear that the compassion is there. There is also conservatism there. It is about half of the pardons that have been issued by the previous Presidents going back from President Clinton and President Reagan. If you compare the previous two-term Presidents, it is about half of the number. But it is still a respectable number, 171 pardons. I am not saying that I would have more or less mercy. But as I look through this list, what types of people and what kinds of crimes are pardoned? It is an interesting review, Mr. Speaker. I have highlighted a few.

Food stamp fraud. Food stamp fraud, not of great consequence in the grand scheme of things. Not a violent crime, perhaps didn't shoot anyone.

Bootlegging. It is interesting that bootleggers would be pardoned. The President's compassion found a bootlegger and pulled him out of the Federal prison and released him into society, pardoned, ready to start life fresh again and renewed again. Redeemed, Mr. Speaker, to use a Christian term.

Here is one, and I will not use the names. It serves no purpose to do so. They deserve their peace in their pardon. But here is a pardon that took place for drunken disorderly, for communicating a threat, disrespect to a superior commissioned officer, assault, damage to government property, resisting apprehension and failure to obey an order. All of that wrapped up in one individual, Mr. Speaker, who received a pardon.

I will go through that again. Failure to obey an order, drunken disorderly, communicating a threat, and that means threatening someone, disrespect to a superior commissioned officer, assault, a violent crime, assault, damage to government property and resisting apprehension and arrest.

All of those things, wrapped up, and all of those pardoned. Life begins anew. This individual is redeemed by the President's pardon.

Violent acts, a long list of egregious violent acts willfully, whether it was under the influence of alcohol or not, it says drunk and disorderly, but we're still responsible for our actions.

I'm not objecting to the pardon, Mr. Speaker. I'm pointing out that here are some crimes that would fit within a category that I think would qualify Agents Ramos and Compean for a pardon.

And I move on down the line. Another individual, pardoned for arson, burning down a structure of some type. And I look through a series of these, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, conspiracy to deliver LSD.

Here's one, an interesting pardon, property damage by use of explosive and destruction of an energy facility. In plain English, that means blowing up some utility, presumably, so using explosive to destroy an energy facility. I don't know if that was a coal-fired generation plant, a nuclear plant, or maybe an ethanol plant in Iowa, Mr. Speaker. But that's violent, when you set up explosives and blow up a utility. Pardoned.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I'm not arguing that this individual that perpetrated this crime and was convicted and sentenced to a Federal penitentiary isn't deserving of the pardon. They may well be.

The President's compassion and conservatism reached out to the arsonist, reached out to the drug smugglers, reached out to the violent drunk and disorderly soldier that was sentenced for a whole series of acts and crimes. Drugs, drug smuggling.

Here's a pardon, bank robbery by use of a dangerous weapon. So would that

be armed robbery of a bank? I'd say so. Pardoned. Pardoned, Mr. Speaker. The compassionate conservative reached out and pardoned the armed bank robber hasn't yet found the compassion to pardon Ramos and Compean. Pardoned the turkey, but not Ramos and Compean.

Possession of cocaine, narcotics enterprise, methamphetamines. You notice the drugs coming back over and over again. Cocaine. Here's one, unlawful transfer of a firearm. Pardoned. Possessing an unregistered still, probably an associate of the bootlegger, pardoned. In fact, we register our stills in Iowa, then we denature the alcohol that we make. That is ethanol. So those folks are in compliance with the first gallon, I know.

Here's another pardon for conspiracy to possess and distribute ephedrine hydrochloride, illegal drug, marijuana, marijuana, cocaine, marijuana, cocaine, the list of drugs goes on, and the exception comes down.

Here's just one that jumps to my mind. Conspiracy to import marijuana. Well, Mr. Speaker, that happens to be exactly what drug smuggling Aldrete-Davila was doing when Agents Ramos and Compean encountered him near the Mexican border on that fateful day of February 17, 2005 with 743 pounds of marijuana. Conspiracy to import marijuana, drug smuggler, pardoned, many drug smugglers pardoned on this list of 171 pardons and 8 commutations. In fact, 27 are pardoned from drugs out of this list.

Aldrete-Davila, smuggling drugs, conspiracy to import marijuana, in fact, importing marijuana. And, in fact, he has been convicted subsequent to the trial of Ramos and Compean, where he received a grant of immunity in order to cooperate in the prosecution of Ramos and Compean. And the activities of the drug smuggler, Aldrete-Davila, were not divulged to the jury by agreement between the U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton and the judge.

Again, I'm not taking an issue with the decision made by the judge or the recommendation made by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton; simply that the veracity of the star witness against Agents Ramos and Compean could not have been appropriately evaluated. The government had information about the activities of this drug smuggler that would have affected, I believe, the judgment of the truthfulness of the star witness for the government who was using his grant of immunity in order to get a pass to smuggle more drugs into the United States even while the trial was taking place. And after the trial, after the convictions, after the incarcerations of Ramos and Compean, after that, on one of the following loads of illegal drugs, that then, the drug smuggler, Aldrete-Davila, was interdicted by other agents and brought to trial and brought to justice and sentenced to 9\1/2\ years in a Federal penitentiary. It just happens to be less time than either Agents Ramos and Compean, even though he's a serial drug smuggler.

And I could give you anecdotal evidence about his propensity for carrying a firearm. That's not a legal argument. It's anecdotal. But I would point out that Agents Ramos and Compean each testified in slightly different language, that one said that he thought he saw a gun; the other one said he saw something shiny. In any case, when you're in an altercation, when dust is flying into your eyes, when things are hot and heavy, when you've been in a chase of a van, and that van is abandoned, and the drug smuggler is running across the countryside and he turns and you see something shiny, or think you see something shiny or you see a gun or you think you see a gun, when your life's on the line, these agents are trained officers. I hope they're not trained to hold their fire when somebody points a gun at them. But we have officers now that are second-guessing these decisions.

We had an officer in the Southwest, I think it was California a little over a year ago who was laying out a strip to stop a vehicle to puncture the tires of a vehicle and was run over by an illegal that they were trying to interdict. And I have to wonder, would he have turned and used his firearm if it hadn't been for Ramos and Compean being in a Federal penitentiary? Did that slow down his reaction time? Did it change his judgment? Does it change the training?

Do agents that are out in the field, the hard chargers, those that are up there on foot in the mountains, doing their job to defend our border, are they so intimidated by this type of hyper-aggressive prosecution that they make decisions to put their life at risk, rather than to pull their service weapon and defend themselves? How could that not be the case, Mr. Speaker? Human nature is that way.

So we miss opportunities to recruit good agents, and good agents that are there aren't as good as they might be because of the intimidation effect of hyperaggressive prosecution.

And I know, Mr. Speaker, that U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton would like to have an opportunity to rebut some of the things that I have said. But I'll point out that U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton has had a lot of opportunities to preempt some of the things that I have said. And without regard to his sense of justice of the conviction itself, I can read, Mr. Speaker, for you into the record some quotes from the U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton on what he has to say about the punishment of Ramos, Agents Ramos and Compean.

This is on Glen Beck's program, May 18, 2007. ``It becomes a debate about punishment'' is a quote of Johnny Sutton. Continue to quote. ``I have a lot of sympathy for those who say, look, punishment is too high. You know, 10 years. I agree, punishment in this case is extremely high.'' Johnny Sutton, May 18, 2007.

A couple of months later, July 17, 2007, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton said, and I quote, ``But I've conceded that the punishment in this case, that's a lot of time. Some say it's just too much. And I have some sympathy for that.'' That's the Congressional Record, testimony under oath, before the Senate Judiciary Committee July 17, 2007.

And on the same day, July 17, 2007, on Lou Dobbs' program. Now I recognize that we have a U.S. Attorney that has a lot of national media exposure here. There is a reason for it, because the Nation's turned their focus on this case of Agents Ramos and Compean and the injustice of the mandatory sentence that they are serving. And on Lou Dobbs' program on that day, I'll quote again, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. ``The only issue really is punishment. That's what sticks in people's craw. It's lot of time, and I've said that. I've said that often.'' That's on Lou Dobbs.

And it's clear that he's said that at least a couple of times that I've read to you here. He's said it probably many times which he's testified to.

I'd move along. Still July 17, 2007. It must have been a big media day. Johnny Sutton, on Hannity & Colmes program, quote. ``I agree with,'' and the reference is to Senator Feinstein. ``I agree with that it is a harsh sentence.'' Johnny Sutton.

Moving on then to October 12, 2007, and this is a quote that's in the Midland Reporter Telegram, Midland, Texas, I presume. Addressing the annual Court Day Observance Luncheon of the Permian Basin Legal Secretaries Association. I've never been invited to that, Mr. Speaker. Quote, Johnny Sutton there. Quote. Well, this is a reference to him.

Sutton said he disagreed with the 11- and 12-year terms the Border Agents received. And that's reported, that's a quote and reported out of the paper, but not a direct quote from Johnny Sutton.

And one more quote from Johnny Sutton. ``The only question I think a legitimate question is is the punishment too harsh. I have always said the punishment in this case was harsh.'' November 14, 2008.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'll submit that, without regard to guilt or innocence, without regard to the sentence that's before them today, except to the extent that it is an over-application of a statute that was never intended for this purpose, we recognize, I think, as a Nation, a Nation with a conscience, a compassionate Nation, maybe not perhaps such as conservative a Nation as I would like to see, but a compassionate Nation, Mr. Speaker, we recognize that this crime that has been alleged, indicted, prosecuted and sentenced, even if all of those steps along the line are true, the sentence itself is unjust. It's disproportionate to the crime that their conviction has resulted as a result of.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that we, as a body, recognize this, call upon the President of the United States to pardon Agents Ramos and Compean. Do so with the compassion of a compassionate conservative that is demonstrated, I think, clearly in these 8 years in leading this Nation safely through the very dangerous waters that we have been in.

And to recognize that drug smuggler Aldrete-Davila was sentenced to 9\1/2\ years. That's less time than either Agents Ramos and Compean received. And to give some comparisons to the sentencing that takes place, to get a sense of what would be an appropriate sentence or one that society accepts as punishment for a crime such as this, there are a list of things that I point out. In cases of sexual abuse, the average sentence was 8\1/3\ years. Not too much in my view, Mr. Speaker.

For manslaughter, that's killing someone, that's resulting in the death of an individual, not a bullet through the buttocks of a drug smuggler who may have been aiming a weapon at these agents, but killing someone, guilty of manslaughter, they serve an average of just less than 4 years, Mr. Speaker.

For assault, it's less than 3 years. The President pardoned at least one who had committed assault.

And for cases involving firearms, the average sentence was 3 years.

So let's just, Mr. Speaker, look at this and suggest that no one was killed, no one was sexually abused. But if there was an assault there, because of the discharge of the firearm, that took place in the heat of the battle, I might add, but if it had been even without that, if it was an assault, that'd be less than 3 years. If it included a firearm it would still, the cases involving firearms, the average sentence was still 3 years.

These agents have been drug through this now since February 17, 2005. It's moving up on 3 years, and it's time, I believe, to commute the sentences of Ramos and Compean.

These cases are profoundly disproportionate. Their families have suffered. Their lives have been ripped asunder. One of the families at least is living off of the charity of one of the churches in the area. I commend the church, and I give honor and prayer for the families that they might be able to emerge through this, perhaps, with grace and stronger than ever before.

I would submit also that, of the sentences that were commuted by the Commander in Chief, there have been eight of those, and of those eight sentences that have been commuted, looking down through them from 2004 until 2008, seven of eight of these cases were drug associated cases. They were commuted sentences. There were 27 cases of pardons for drug smugglers.

It occurs to me rather ironically, Mr. Speaker, that had Agents Ramos and Compean been drug smugglers rather than Border Patrol officers, they would have been more likely to receive pardons or commutations than they are under this 18 U.S.C. 924. The legislative intent I did not address, and I would go back to the legislative intent of 18 U.S.C. 924. It is the discharge of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence.

Let's go to the statements made by the chief sponsor of this legislation, who was Representative Richard Poff. This was passed in 1968. He said the legislation was intended to ``persuade the man who is tempted to commit a Federal felony to leave his gun at home.'' He is the chief sponsor of the legislation, Mr. Speaker, Representative Richard Poff.

Then there are other lawmakers. One would be Representative Thomas Meskill. He echoed the chief sponsor's statement, Richard Poff's statement, when he said, ``We are concerned with having the criminal leave his gun at home.''

So I would submit, with 18 U.S.C. 924, the discharge of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, that the congressional intent was to encourage potential criminals, those who contemplated committing a crime, to be deterred from carrying a weapon and from using that weapon or from having it in their possession while they committed a crime. That doesn't work very well with law enforcement officers, Mr. Speaker. They are required to carry their weapons. They are required to train with their weapons. They are required to test out and to make sure that they can handle them confidently and efficiently. They are good shots in short order, Mr. Speaker.

By the way, it is lawful for them to discharge their firearms, under appropriate circumstances, while they are on or off duty. I didn't raise the issue of whether these circumstances were appropriate or not. I simply raised the issue that it was in the heat of the battle.

Mr. Speaker, compassionate conservatism must include compassion for those who are defending America's national security--those who are in uniform, those who put their lives on the line every day. It must not just understand only the fates of Agents Ramos and Compean. It must not only understand the effect it has had on their families or how it has turned them into destitute families. It must understand the effect of hyperprosecution upon the acts of the other agents all across the board--the thousands of Border Patrol agents whom we have, the law enforcement officers whom we have, the Federal officers whom we have who are, today, being restrained from aggressive utilization of the weapons that they are required to carry or who are being restrained from even the prudent utilization of the weapons they are required to carry and to test out on and to show proficiency with.

They are always going to wonder: Will they be the next Agent Ramos? Will they be the next Compean? Could their families be living off the charity of others while they sit in solitary confinement while the President pardons the turkey--171 perpetrators of various crimes, from drugs, to arson, to assault, to armed bank robbery?

There are eight cases that have been commuted. Of those eight cases, seven of them are drug smugglers, and one realizes that a drug smuggler has a better chance, at least statistically, of a pardon, or of a commutation more correctly, than does an officer who puts his life on the line for the safety and for the security of the United States of America.

I would add that it's really not a wonder that it's hard to identify a sense of mission on our border control that we have. One of the reasons is that those who are carrying out this mission get a mixed message: Whose side is the government on? Do they really have the U.S. Attorney there to prosecute the drug smugglers?

I was down on the border about 3 years ago. We were on the site when a drug smuggler was interdicted. He had somewhere over 200 pounds of marijuana under a false bed, under a false floor, in the pickup truck that he was driving. Well, that wasn't a prosecutable offense because they have too many of those who are hauling up to 250 pounds of marijuana.

Because of the limitations of having enough judges and prosecutors who are able to adjudicate, the standard in that particular sector of the Border Patrol is, if it's less than 250 pounds of marijuana, you confiscate the marijuana, and you turn the guy loose and send him back to Mexico. That's the practice. That was the practice then. So, after that, they changed the level to 500 pounds because, again, the load on our courts and on our prosecution was too great.

So I grew up in an environment with great respect and reverence for the rule of law, Mr. Speaker, where I couldn't envision someone with a half an ounce of marijuana avoiding a prosecution, because it was a violation of the law.

We're dealing with a judicial system that doesn't have the resources to prosecute someone who smuggles in 250 pounds of marijuana and sets the standard there and then raises it to 500 pounds of marijuana so that someone with 499 pounds gets turned loose; although, they lose their drugs. They send them off on decoys while a full truckload of several thousand pounds goes past when our people are distracted with a smaller load.

In an environment like that, there is the interdiction of a drug smuggler with 743 pounds of marijuana in a van. There is a struggle, an altercation. In the heat of the battle, weapons are discharged. One round does go through the buttocks of the drug smuggler. These agents did not have any way of knowing that the bullet actually struck the drug smuggler, not until well after the fact.

That, I believe, Mr. Speaker, colored the way that they failed to completely report the entire incident that happened in that location. I believe that honorable people will see it differently if they believe someone has been shot in the altercation. I do not believe that Ramos and Compean believed that anyone had been shot, that the drug smuggler had received a bullet. I don't believe that at all. I suspect that they would have filed a complete report had they believed or even, I'll say, deeply suspected that they had hit the drug smuggler.

There was no sign of which I know that there was any blood at the scene. The drug smuggler ran back to Mexico. All of his muscles seemed to work. He healed up. Apparently, they found the bullet, and matched it up to the gun of Agent Ramos'. Those are the facts as we know them.

I'm not alone in calling for the pardon of Agents Ramos and Compean. There are many of us in Congress on both sides of the aisle who have stood with these officers and who have pointed out that the punishment is too severe and that they have paid their debt to society. Whatever was due is surely paid, Mr. Speaker.

The compassion that I ask for out of the White House in these last days is the compassion that recognizes that the President has the power. The agents have served the time.

When U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton made the statement that, when asked, would he make a recommendation to the White House for a pardon, he said this: ``With regard to a pardon or a clemency, at some point, the Department of Justice will probably ask for my recommendation, and when that comes, we'll make one.'' That was May 18, 2007 on CNN.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that I read to you at least six quotes from U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. Each of those referenced the harshness of the sentence, and the word ``harsh'' he uses himself several times over. The punishment was too high. It was too much. I have sympathy for that. I've said it often. It's a harsh sentence.

Johnny Sutton said he disagreed with the 11- to 12-year terms the border agents received. He said again, ``I've always said the punishment in this case was harsh.''

Well, I'll follow that up with this response again:

``With regard to a pardon or a clemency, at some point, the Department of Justice will probably ask for my recommendation, and when that comes, we'll make one.''

I'll submit that U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton has made his recommendation. He has made it many times over the national media. I've quoted him six times. There are many other quotes that reference the same thing. The punishment was too harsh. The man who led the prosecution, who succeeded in his job of seeking a conviction, has also many times over announced that it's too harsh.

We're not arguing. Those of us in this Congress and across this country are not arguing guilt or innocence, Mr. Speaker. We're arguing about a sentence that's too harsh. We're arguing that, for officers who have put their lives on the line and for officers who have no blemishes, that I know of, on their records that would be further strikes against them, this anomaly in their careers should not ruin their careers, their lives, their families. I believe that they are deserving of a pardon. There are those here who are asking now for a commutation of a sentence.

Mr. Speaker, I don't ask for the commutation. I believe that their records should be swept clean. I believe that they have served a time and that leaving it on their records does not serve a purpose. I believe they are deserving and that a just President would look in the last days and find a way to provide justice for the highest profile cases that we have in America that cry out for the sympathy of the entire Nation and of the world and for the action on the part of our compassionate, conservative President.

I have covered this territory. I would point out there are 171 pardons by President Bush. There are eight commutations of sentences by President Bush. There are several days left in the Presidency. There likely will be other pardons and commutations and, perhaps, a whole rush of them that are queued up to go.

Mr. Speaker, I pray that the pardon for Ramos and Compean is in that work stack that will be presented to the President for his signature between now and January 20 and that the counsel who is advising the President and the Department of Justice who have defended their prosecution so aggressively can understand clearly:

They've made their point. They're successful in their prosecution and in their conviction and in their sentencing. So now the point needs to be made--the point made by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton that the sentences are too harsh. Eleven and twelve years is too long.

In these last days, I ask only one thing of our Honorable Commander in Chief, and that is to find the compassion in his heart to pardon Agents Ramos and Compean.

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate your indulgence and the honor to address you on the floor of the House of Representatives tonight.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 28 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, January 15, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, I wish to make the following disclosure in accordance with the new Republican Earmark Transparency Standards requiring Members to place a statement in the Congressional Record for a bill that includes earmarks they have requested, describing how the funds will be spent and justifying the use of Federal taxpayer funds.

Requesting Member: Congressman Steve King

Bill Number: H.R. 2638, The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009.

Account: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army.

Project Name: Battlefield Plastic Biodiesel.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Renewable Energy Group and General Atomics.

Address of Requesting Entity: West Central, 406 First Street, Ralston, IA 51459. General Atomics, 3550 General Atomics Ct., San Diego, CA 92121.

Description of Request: $1.6 million is provided in the bill to continue a 3-year partnership with the U.S. Army to develop a technology providing a cost effective way to recycle military plastic waste into a useable biodiesel fuel with enhanced energy yield, for use in field power generation and other applications. This technology has the potential to save taxpayers millions per month in military waste disposal costs, and enhance the viability of increased use of biodiesel by both the military and civilian sectors to achieve greater energy independence. The $1.6 million FY09 appropriation is needed to complete the development phase of this multi-year project and demonstrate the technology.

Madam Speaker, I wish to make the following disclosure in accordance with the new Republican Earmark Transparency Standards requiring Members to place a statement in the Congressional Record for a bill that includes earmarks they have requested, describing how the funds will be spent and justifying the use of federal taxpayer funds.

Requesting Member: Congressman Steve King.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638, The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assitance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009.

Account: Rdte, DW; 75 Cbdp 0603884Bp, Chemical And Biological Defense Program.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Hematech, Inc.

Address of Requesting Entity: 4401 South Technology Drive, Sioux Falls, SD 57106.

Description of Request: U.S. warfighters and civilians may potentially face numerous biological threats, including anthrax, requiring development of broad-based therapeutics with adequate long- term storage options. The military needs U.S. companies to produce large quantities of therapeutics as countermeasures for many different biological agents, such as bacteria, viruses and biotoxins. Accordingly, the $1.6 million allocated for Biological Threat Antibody Research will be used by the grantee, Hematech, Inc. of Sioux Falls, SD and its partner, Trans Ova Genetics, LLC of Sioux Center, Iowa for a project involving preclinical evaluation of a novel human anti-anthrax polyclonal therapeutic. Hematech has developed a novel system for production of high potency human polyclonal antibodies which can be used to develop therapeutics to address many biological threats including bacteria, viruses, toxins and, importantly, combinations of agents. The companies believe that this polyclonal production system could be broadly applicable for protecting soldiers and civilians against biological weapons. I am advised that various federal agencies have shown interest in Hematech's novel system and have provided ongoing partial support, technical assistance and expert guidance. I am further advised that their collaborations with agencies in both the DOD and HHS have been extraordinarily successful and the company is now prepared to move to the next level of product development. The funds will help the companies perform preclinical studies during Fiscal Year 2009, evaluating whether the human polyclonal production platform is functioning effectively and setting the stage for submissions to governmental authorities such as the Food and Drug Administration. The companies have already contributed several million dollars of their own resources to get this promising technology to this point and the requested DOD funds will permit the advanced development process to begin.

Requesting Member: Congressman Steve King.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638, The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assitance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009.

Account: Op, A--Other Procurement, Army; 027--Navstar Global Positioning System (Space)

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Rockwell Collins, Inc

Address of Requesting Entity: 400 Collins Rd, NE, Cedar Rapids, IA 52498

Description of Request: The Defense Advanced GPS Receiver (DAGR) is the most sophisticated and capable GPS receiver of its class in the world. Most importantly, in addition to enhanced anti jam capabilities, the DAGR also has a new Maps feature allowing the Warfighter to download and display Maps for improved battlefield situation awareness. There is an urgent need to deploy these totally new capabilities within Army to enhance the war fighter's support of the global war on terrorism. The DAGR's capability allows the user to display relative position (blue force versus red force) on the battlefield with other DAGR networked receivers. The basic need is for the U.S. war fighter to fully participate in military operations where orders, intelligence, and other combat information are distributed in digital form. In addition, a situational awareness capability will make the dismounted soldier a more lethal and survivable entity on the battlefield, and will make the entire force more proactive. Integrating all of these capabilities provides the below battalion level soldier with unprecedented tactical awareness and makes the war-fighter extremely proactive. Now that the DAGR is currently being fielded, there is no need for the DoD to purchase jamming susceptible commercial GPS receivers. In addition, the DAGR is fully backwards-compatible with the PLGR and is fully functional with existing vehicle or other platform Army critical interfaces. Also, the enhanced mapping feature functionality has been fully developed to interface with both DoD and commercial map databases including images viewing from satellites or other such images. In addition, to date over 180,000 DAGR units have been successfully delivered to the U.S. Army. However, additionally funding is needed to improve and develop a existing DAGR radio communication link software toward a situation awareness point solution for the war-fighter.

It is recognized that there is a need for more DAGRs to supplement the ones that our war fighters have in the field and also the need for situational awareness capability for the individual soldier in order to harness battlefield information and operate the radios and position/ navigation system (DAGR), thereby enabling the soldier to be more efficient and effective in combat. The funding I requested added an additional $2 Million to the FY 09 budget request for this line, NAVSTAR GPS, for the procurement of an additional 1,200 DAGRs. With these funds, which provide for the additional number of fielded DAGRs, the war-fighter will get an unprecedented low-cost situational awareness solution that's greater than the sum of its parts at battalionand-below levels.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be passed over without prejudice.