Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Poe of Texas

Amendment No. 28: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Poe of Texas

Amendment No. 29: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, we've heard the song:

``This land is your land;

``This land is my land;

``From California to the New York Island;

``This land was made for you and me.''

But we need to understand that, in America, the greatest, largest landholder is Uncle Sam--Uncle Sam, the great landowner. He owns 27 percent of all the land in America.

This poster here shows the holdings of Uncle Sam. All of the red in the United States, including the red in Alaska, is owned by Uncle Sam. Over 50 percent of the land in the West is owned by Uncle Sam.

Now, if we were to transfer all of these acres to the east coast, that's about the size of all of the land east of the Mississippi that is owned by Uncle Sam. Looking at it another way, let's go across the seas, to Europe. If you were to take all of the land that Uncle Sam owns and superimpose it on Europe, it would include the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Switzerland, Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Germany, and Poland. That would be how much land Uncle Sam would own if he owned that portion of Europe.

So the great landholder is none other than the Federal Government. The Federal Government owns about 27 percent of all the land in America--623 million acres.

We are now talking about how to increase the revenue for this country.

Maybe we should do something that was thought of years ago. Ronald Reagan may not have been the first, but he did mention in the 1980s that the Federal Government ought to sell some of that land to Americans to help--get this--pay down the debt. This has even been talked about in the White House. President Obama, a couple of weeks ago, discussed selling just one little 300-portion acre in Los Angeles that was worth approximately $2 billion.

Maybe we should sell some of that.

So I introduced the American Land Act, which will do this:

It will require that the Bureau of Land Management and the Forestry Service sell a portion of their land for the next 5 years, and that will be a 26 percent decrease in total land in the United States owned by Uncle Sam. Now, bear in mind--I'm going to make this clear--this does not include the national parks; this does not include the Fish and Wildlife Service, the marshes, the coastal plains, the environmentally sensitive areas. The Federal Government would make the decision as to what would be sold. In 2005, the landholdings of the United States, according to OMB, was worth about $1.1 trillion. So I think, if we sold a portion of this land, it would raise revenue for the United States, approximately $200 billion or less.

Plus, it would do other things.

It would put the land in the hands of Americans. Americans would own the land, and they would pay taxes. They could pay taxes not only to local and State governments, but when they build a business or make a business, they would bring in more Federal income tax. It will save the Federal Government the cost of maintaining ownership, and it will raise revenue and pay down the debt.

Real property in the hands of real Americans.

What a thought.

It will create productivity.

Sell American land to Americans. Let Americans own more of America.

Uncle Sam shouldn't prevent Americans from having a stake, or a share, in America. The United States owns most of the grand estate of our great country, and it's time to let more Americans own it--because this land was made for you and me.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

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

Mr. Speaker, under the ATF's Operation Fast and Furious, straw purchasers bought and sold guns to Mexican drug cartels while the ATF watched. It is hard to understand why the ATF is complicit in the drug smuggling business. Maybe the government hoped it would lead to more gun control, but unfortunately, it led to murder.

Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and ICE agent Jaime Zapata were killed by guns that were trafficked into Mexico under this operation. Rather than investigate this ill-conceived and dangerous operation, the Federal Government is doing what it does best, creating gun control regulations to solve a problem it created. The President's new discriminatory Executive order requires border States to report purchases of two or more rifles to the ATF, the very agency that purposely and incompetently let over 2,000 guns go to Mexico, 1,400 of which are still missing. This administration ignores the obvious. It's not the gun; it's the shooter. And in this case, it's the Federal Government's recklessness and stupidity that led to at least two murders. It's time to control the ATF, not guns.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, almost a year ago to the day, on July 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered the U.S. State Department to go back and re-evaluate the ``terrorist'' designation of the MEK. Since then, the State Department has stalled. At hearings and in letter after letter, Congress has asked for updates but the State Department just plays the same tape over and over ``we're working on it.''

What exactly is taking so long? We haven't seen any new evidence. All the old evidence, classified and unclassified, does not describe a terrorist group, but a bunch of people that want to be free. They have given up their weapons, forsworn terrorism, and only ask that they can live in peace without being massacred by Iraqi troops or Iranian agents. Enough with the stalling. The State Department needs to get its act together and make a decision. If there is evidence of terrorism, show us. But if there is not, then take this group off the list today.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, we are worse off now than we were in 2008. The country is suffering through an economic recession with more long-term unemployment than during the Great Depression.

The economy was in bad shape, but this administration has made it worse. The unconstitutional government takeover of health care created a cloud of uncertainty for small business owners, stalling job growth. Our health care system was in trouble before, but this administration has made it worse.

Our country is spiraling toward a domestic energy crisis thanks to the administration's insistence on punishing U.S. oil companies. The price of energy was high before, but this administration makes it worse. Americans are becoming used to living with the word ``crisis.'' Under Obamaism, crisis has become the new status quo.

The President admits we're on a bumpy road. But, Mr. President, this road is full of potholes. The national debt is expected to equal 101 percent of the economy in 10 years. Unemployment is around 9.2 percent. Home sales have declined. The number of food stamp recipients has skyrocketed.

Over the past 3 years, we have witnessed an administration set on entitling people and paying them not to work as opposed to helping businesses hire people to work. We are worse off now than we were before the President stepped foot on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

We are stuck in this hole because White House policies have been toxic to this country's job creators. Businesses do not operate like the government does. They don't function under short-term budgets. They don't plan for the next 6 days or 6 months, like our government does. Business owners want a plan. They want to know what will happen next.

Under this cloud of uncertainty, businesses face ObamaCare's employer mandate and an onslaught of costly government relations. This leaves them with few choices: hold tight and wait it out, comply with government oppression and suffer, or shut down and move overseas.

Coming up on this bumpy road is a domestic energy shortage. The White House seeks to punish the energy of today and tomorrow in favor of potential energy after our lifetimes. An energy agenda that is synonymous with stall, obstruct, discourage, and penalize will only devastate the economy further and force more businesses and jobs to go away.

We've seen the administration slow-walk the approval process for offshore drilling permits despite lifting the moratorium. The delays have been costly, so costly that rigs have left the Gulf of Mexico never to return, and those jobs will not return either.

The coming domestic energy shortage will be partly due to the White House's desire to help foreign nations with their domestic energy instead of maximizing our own God-given natural resources. When the President told Brazil that America would help expand its offshore drilling operations and be one of its best customers, he sent a clear message: He doesn't support U.S. oil, U.S. companies, or U.S. workers. Each day that passes without a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, a pipeline that will transport oil shale from our stable neighbor to the north right down to my congressional district in Texas, is another day that the White House pivots on U.S. energy jobs. Meanwhile, China is eager and ready to be Canada's customer if we snub Canada on the pipeline.

The White House has a none-from-below mentality. We need an all-of- the-above strategy that encourages use of our natural resources and puts Americans back to work. The administration has mastered the art of turning a crisis into an opportunity to shove unpopular policies through.

Over a year after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the administration has come as close as it can to shutting down operations in the Gulf. The impact, 12,000 jobs have been lost.

Are we better off today than we were in 2008? No. Our economy is still in a crisis of uncertainty.

The answers under Obamaism are to increase government control over our

lives and raise taxes on people who pay taxes. This plan is an attack on freedom. More government spending and control is the problem, not the solution. As Senator Rubio has said, instead of raising taxes, we should have more taxpayers. More new taxpayers under the concept of developing more businesses, more jobs also yield more taxpayers. This will create revenue.

The White House has operated under crisis management. The doctrine of Obamaism with its expansion of the government has made America worse. It is time for new hope, new change, and a new American day.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend John Wesley Nero got into an argument with his mother and his grandmother. So, being a scoundrel, he beat them both up and then fled into the darkness of the night.

Local Beaumont, Texas, police officers confronted the outlaw to talk to him, but he fled away in his truck, and a high-speed chase occurred.

Meanwhile Officer Bryan Hebert--right here is a photograph of him-- had positioned his vehicle ahead of the chase. He attempted to retrieve road spikes out of the trunk to stop Nero's vehicle. According to witnesses, when Nero spotted Hebert's car, Nero intentionally crashed into Hebert's patrol car, shoving the vehicle over Officer Hebert and killing him.

Officer Bryan Hebert, 36, was a 10-year veteran of the Beaumont, Texas, Police Department. John Wesley Nero is charged with capital murder.

Officer Hebert and police officers like him protect the rest of us from killers like Nero. They are the wall between the law and the lawless, the barrier between us and evildoers.

So today the badges of peace officers in southeast Texas are covered with the black cloth of sacrifice in honor of Officer Hebert, a lawman who sacrificed life to uphold the law.

And that's just the way it is.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, energy efficiency is a good idea. Mandated by the Federal Government under this legislation that we're currently serving under, it is preventing competition. The Federal Government is creating a monopoly.

The Model T Ford is not outlawed. You can still buy one if you can find one. But the Federal Government hadn't banned it just because it's inefficient. Iceboxes--some of us actually know what an icebox looks like--are not banned by the Federal Government. You can still find one and use one if you want to because it's competition, even though they are inefficient. But the issue is should the Federal Government come in and mandate a monopoly? And that is what has occurred.

Second, these new light bulbs, these CFL light bulbs, are dangerous to our health. Dr. Burgess has already pointed out they contain mercury. I thought for years we were trying to get rid of the mercury in our environment, but it is in these light bulbs. Plus, now French scientists have discovered that these new CFL light bulbs may cause blindness in children. German scientists have found out it's reported that these light bulbs may cause cancer. Now, isn't that lovely? The Federal Government is mandating something that is hazardous to our health because you have no choice.

And the whole issue is about choice, Madam Speaker, that we can let the consumer decide. What's wrong with letting the consumer decide? Why are you opposed to the consumer making this choice? You want the Federal Government to mandate it. Now the Federal Government is in the business of forcing us to do something that is harmful.

And, finally, the EPA even warns in their 1,000-word, three-page, single-spaced document about these CFL light bulbs how dangerous they are, and they tell us how to dispose of one of these light bulbs.

I will insert into the Record this three-page, single-spaced report by the EPA on how to dispose of one of these light bulbs.

So we are, after the passage of this legislation years ago, finding out that these aren't the greatest things in the world, and we have found and shed a little light on this new CFL light bulb. The CFL light bulb is not a brighter idea. It is too expensive, it is unhealthy for Americans, and it doesn't allow for competition. So if we don't pass this bill, we might as well turn out the lights; the party is over for the traditional incandescent light bulb.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the very notion of freedom of expression was recently on trial in the Netherlands. The popular Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders was charged with discrimination and incitement of hatred after he made a movie depicting Islamic clerics who incite violence in the name of religion. He was prosecuted not for his actions, but for his words. That is a scary thought.

There was only one proper resolution here, and, thankfully, the court did the right thing. Wilders was acquitted of all charges. The court ruled that his statements might be offensive to Muslims, but fell within the bounds of political free debate.

Freedom of speech is a God-given right to which every person and every nation is entitled. It is no coincidence that our country's Founding Fathers deemed it so important they listed it first in the Bill of Rights. A country that refuses one's freedom of speech is doomed to grow stagnant. How can it develop as a society when it stifles or tries to punish opinion? As Wilders himself said, ``Every public debate holds the prospect of enlightenment.'' He certainly is correct.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, two of our most important, fundamental principles that this Nation was founded upon, have recently become under attack by none other than this Federal Government. The authoritarian behavior and attack on the First Amendment rights is an attack now on the veterans that have served our Nation.

Last week, while in Houston, Texas, I met with members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. They shared with me very descriptive and disturbing stories about the aggressive and hostile censorship of religion and speech that is occurring at none other than the veterans cemetery in Houston, the second largest cemetery for our veterans in the United States, next to Arlington, which is right down the street across from the Potomac River.

The director of the Houston National Cemetery, Arleen Ocasio, is accused of attacking the constitutional rights of our military who have fought and died for this country. The very rights that they fought and died for are being under attack by none other than this director. The thought that someone would have the audacity to censor religion and speech anywhere is despicable, but censoring the funeral services of the veterans who spent their lives protecting the First Amendment is malicious and it's not forgivable.

Director Ocasio is an unelected bureaucrat, a nonveteran who is clearly out of touch with our veterans and the Constitution. And it's unbelievable that she would be put in charge of the sacred burial ground in Houston, Texas.

Here's what the accusations against her are, according to the Veterans of Foreign Wars who I met with. And these are the men who go to those funeral services and are the honor guard for America's war dead that are buried. And here's what they say that she has done. The chapel that is on the premises has been closed. The Bible has been removed. The cross has been taken out of the chapel. We don't know what the chapel's being used for. Some stay a storage place. Some say a meeting place. Some say it's not being used at all. This is what she is accused of doing.

She censors the prayers that are being given at the burial services of our veterans. She's banned the word ``God,'' the words ``Jesus Christ'' from these funeral services. And it is the very utterance of the word ``God'' that's put this director in a tizzy, so much so that she wants to approve all the prayers that are given at these private veterans funerals that take place on these sacred grounds.

There are 60 burials a week of our veterans at Houston National Cemetery. And this action has got to cease, this unconstitutional action by the director. It's not the business of the Federal Government to be engaged in anti-religious activity, especially at what some consider to be a religious ceremony, the burial of our veterans. The philosophy behind such politics is anti-Christian, anti-religious, and anti-American.

Mr. Speaker, the First Amendment is first because it's the most important. It protects the freedom of speech, the freedom of press, the freedom of free exercise of religion, and the freedom to peaceably assemble. And that is under attack at this cemetery because the director wants to be in charge and make sure that none of these burials are a religious ceremony. And that's got to stop.

This cemetery, Mr. Speaker, does not belong to Director Ocasio. In fact, I don't think it belongs to the Federal Government. It belongs to the veterans who have served this Nation all over the world in all wars. It belongs to them, and it belongs to their families who bury them. And religious censorship has got to cease at this cemetery. Americans are irate about this government attack on religion. I have heard from numerous veterans and loved ones all over the country who are shocked that this government, our government, would allow such a thing to occur.

One man in particular stood out who called my office and he was in tears, Mr. Speaker, because his father, a World War II veteran, was days away from being buried in Houston National Cemetery. And his father had heard about the censorship of religion and speech, and he doesn't want to be buried in that cemetery with other veterans any longer.

So no wonder that so many people are shocked by the actions of this director. After all, it reminds me of the old Soviet Union, the way they used to censor speech and prevent the free exercise of religion.

The First Amendment is sacred. Funerals are sacred; and when our veterans are buried, that soil becomes sacred. And this action has to stop, and if these actions are true, the director needs to be terminated.

The government's attack on the very freedoms that these people have lived and died for is a violation of the freedom of speech and the freedom to freely exercise religion promised to all Americans in the Constitution, and that must be upheld.

And that's just the way it is.

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

Mr. Chairman, the President says we have gone to war in the name of humanity. In other words, the President's little war in Libya is so that we can preserve humanity in Libya.

In the history of peoples, as the gentleman from California has pointed out, and the histories of countries, it has always been the king, the dictator, the tyrant, the chief, the leader that has sent that particular country to war.

So when our ancestors got together and they formed a new and perfect Union, they decided it would not be the leader, which we call the President, it would be the people that would decide if we went to war. They gave that power to the Congress of the United States and only Congress can declare war, not the President.

But this is the President's war; and the President, in my opinion, is in violation of the Constitution. He has led America to our third war. Whether or not the war powers resolution is constitutional or not, we can debate that. But he is in violation of it, too, because we're still engaged in war, whether you call it hostilities or not. Some say it's not hostile. Well, you be one of the recipients of one of those cruise missiles on the ground somewhere in Libya, and you might think that's a hostile environment towards you. But this country is spending money on a third war, and it is unconstitutional.

Our ancestors had comments about the leader, the king, leading us into war. The writer of the Constitution wrote a letter. James Madison said that ``the Constitution supposes what the history of all governments has always demonstrated, that it is the executive branch most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the

question in this country of war in the legislative body.''

The first Commander in Chief, the first President of the United States, George Washington, said that ``the Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject and Congress has authorized such a measure.''

It is our history, it is our heritage, it is our Constitution, and it is our principle that Congress must declare war, Congress must be the one to engage in war. And in my opinion, the President has violated that Constitution. He has violated the law of the land and the war powers resolution; and it's Congress' duty now, it is our turn and it is our responsibility to weigh in on this war and stop money from going to this war.

Where the President got the $700-plus million that has already been spent on this war, we don't know. We just want to make sure no more money is spent on this unconstitutional action.

Muammar Qadhafi is a tyrant. He's an outlaw. There are a lot of bad guys in the world, Mr. Chairman, and is it now the policy of the President to pick out the ones he does not like and start blowing up that country in the name of humanity? We don't know.

So Congress must resume, regain, its rightful authority and role and make sure that we do not fund the President's little war, or any other future wars, without congressional approval.

Mr. Chairman, instead of spending money blowing up Libya, we ought to spend that American taxpayer money in the United States building the United States and rebuilding America and not destroying somebody else's country and being involved in somebody else's civil war.

And that's just the way it is.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, 16-year-old Adria Sauceda was abducted, raped, and strangled in 1994. Her skull was crushed with a rock and her nude body was left with a stick protruding from it on a dirt road in San Antonio, Texas.

Fifteen years ago, Humberto Leal, a Mexican national, was convicted of the grisly murder and sentenced to death by a Texas jury. Tomorrow, he is to be executed in Texas.

But the Mexican government and the administration say that Texas violated an international treaty and should

have allowed Leal to see a Mexican consulate when he was arrested. So the administration has asked the Supreme Court to stop the execution.

However, the Supreme Court has already ruled that States are not bound by such international treaties unless Congress intervenes. Our Federal Government ought to have as much concern and compassion for murder victims as it does for their foreign killers or Mexico's feelings about the death penalty.

Justice should not be denied for Adria Sauceda.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with the money that we give Pakistan. It specifically deals with the reimbursement account that the United States pays for the war on terror to reimburse Pakistan for the spending that they do and the money that they request back from the United States, specifically takes $1 billion out of the reimbursement account and applies it to the reimbursement or, excuse me, the Spending Reduction Act.

Since May 2, when Osama bin Laden was taken out and we learned more about the role that Pakistan is playing--or, shall I say, not playing-- in the war on terror, they have become more and more an unfaithful ally. President Bush said, when the war on terror began, to the countries throughout the world, either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

Pakistan has yet to prove which side they are really on, so much so that when Osama bin Laden was taken out by the American military, we did not trust Pakistan enough to even tell them that we were going to come into their country. Our distrust against that country has been proven over and over again since that date.

On May 16, the Wall Street Journal reported that over 40 percent of the money that Pakistan requests for reimbursement for military aid is denied by the Federal Government because those claims are unfounded by the Federal Government. In one case last year, the United States paid millions of dollars to refurbish four helicopters to help Pakistan's Army transport troops into battle against the Taliban, but it turned out that Pakistan diverted three of those aircraft to peacekeeping duties in Sudan operations for which Pakistan receives compensation from the United Nations.

Other claims include a $26 million charge for barbed wire and pickets and $70 million for radar maintenance, although there is no enemy air threat related to the war on terror.

And on May 22, 15 to 20 militants stormed three hangars at the naval aviation base in Karachi. It took the Pakistan military over 15 hours to end that siege.

Two U.S. P-3Cs were destroyed. The P-3C is an anti-submarine and marine surveillance aircraft. Some reports now indicate it was an inside job, as the terrorists had military uniforms and knew exactly where the planes were located.

Then on June 14, reports confirmed that Pakistan now has arrested CIA informants that helped us locate Osama bin Laden, where he had been living under the eyes of the Pakistan military for years.

As reported in The New York Times on June 14, ISI arrested 30 Pakistani informants who helped the United States capture bin Laden. One was a Pakistani Army major who officials said copied the license plates of cars visiting bin Laden's compound at Abbottabad.

Then further, in June, when CIA Director Leon Panetta went to Pakistan to inform them that there was a factory that was making bombs or IEDs that could be used against Americans, by the time the Pakistani troops showed up, the militants had disappeared.

Not to be outdone, we told them again about a second place where IEDs were being made, more bomb-making facilities only days later, and once again the terrorists picked up and disappeared. Sounds like they had inside information.

And lastly, on June 29, Pakistan asked the United States to shut down a drone base that it had in Islamabad and ended U.S. operations at the Shamsi Air Base. Although the United States denies that occurred, Pakistan's defense minister said that it has ended those operations. And, of course, drones carry out strikes against the Taliban and al Qaeda militants on Pakistan's border with Afghanistan.

And lastly, Transparency International has rated 178 countries on corruption, and Pakistan, our so-called ally, is rated the 143rd most corrupt, beating out, of course, Bangladesh and Nigeria, who have less corruption in their governments.

So we are dealing with a corrupt government. We don't know where our money is going. It may end up in the hands of people who hate us. It's being wasted. The Pakistan military, the Pakistan Government is trying to play at least two sides: our side, their side. They may be on a third side, who knows. But a billion dollars that we send them for so- called reimbursement of the war on terror, we can stop that. They are an unfaithful ally.

Only 17 percent of the Pakistani citizens say they even like the United States. That puts 83 percent that do not like the United States. We don't need to pay the Pakistan people to hate us. They will do it on their own.

So we no longer need to fund them. We need to take a billion dollars out of this account and put it into the deficit reduction spending account.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief.

I had my argument on the other $1 billion that I asked to be deducted from the reimbursement account to be sent to the spending reduction account.

This is a separate fund that also gives money to Pakistan, over a billion dollars. I'm asking that a billion dollars of that fund that goes into counterinsurgency also be sent to the spending reduction account.

There are several reasons for that, but the main one is the Pakistan Government is correct: we don't know where the money is going. We found out that after we took out Osama bin Laden, in that compound we found documents that revealed discussions of promises of no al Qaeda attacks in Pakistan in exchange for sheltering Osama bin Laden.

That's the type of things that we wonder about whether Pakistan is on our side or on the side of our enemies. We don't know whose side they're on. So I'd ask the adoption of our amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Poe of Texas

Amendment No. 72: Page 137, line 4, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $1,000,000,000)''.

Page 161, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $1,000,000,000)''.