Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, Earl Campbell is known throughout the nation as one of the best running backs to ever play the game of football. He was an outstanding athlete and will be remembered as one of Texas's best. Born in Tyler, TX he grew up to become a star at The University of Texas. His presence on the field dwarfed most opponents and he rose to the occasion many times and became a standout. Recently, he was inducted into the voted into the UT Hall of Fame and was also voted the top UT football player of all time.

From 1974-77, Earl Campbell compiled 4,443 yards and forty touchdowns. In college, his games usually ended with his rushing total above 100 yards. In fact, he rushed for over 100 yards twenty-one times, and twice he rushed for over 200 yards in a single game. He finished his career with the Longhorns as a two-time All-American and winner of the 1977 Heisman Trophy.

Campbell is known as the ``Tyler Rose'' in reference to his hometown of Tyler, Texas which is known as the ``Rose Capital of America'' for its rose-growing industry. His legacy in Texas lived on after college because he was the first player drafted in the 1978 NFL Draft by the Houston Oilers.

As an Oiler, he became the Offensive Rookie of the Year and Most Valuable Player in his rookie season. The induction of Earl Campbell into the UT Hall of Fame is a testament to the hard work that he put in as a student athlete. We will forever remember ``Tyler Rose'' and what he did for the sport of football in the great state of Texas.

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to honor Veolia Environmental Services and their facility in Port Arthur, TX, for their successful destruction of 1.5 million gallons of what was once the deadly nerve agent VX. Working in conjunction with Tri-State Motor Transit (TSMT) and the U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency (CMA), they were able to complete the project safely and on time.

In the 1950s, the United States began to stockpile VX. Signed by the U.S. in 1993, The International Chemical Weapons Convention requires destruction of all chemical agents by participating nations by specified target dates. The U.S. had a stockpile of VX at the Newport Chemical Weapons Depot in Newport, Indiana where they could deactivate the chemical. They needed a facility to destroy hydrolysate, the caustic wastewater created by the agent's destruction.

The CMA discussed building a $300 million facility in Indiana to handle the process but the terrorist attack of 2001 forced them to reconsider. In 2007 they awarded Veolia with a $49 million contract to incinerate the corrosive wastewater. The wastewater would be put in specialized containers and hauled more that 1,000 miles through 8 states by TSMT to Veolia's Port Arthur facility where it would be destroyed.

This is not the type of project that a community greets with open arms. Two other sites denied the venture due to political and community concerns. Public protests and a federal lawsuit almost derailed the project once more, but Veolia made a promise to handle the job safely, in accordance with all regulations and without impact to the environment, 18 months and 428 shipments later, the process concluded without a single incident of any kind.

The project was successful on a number of levels. By utilizing the Port Arthur facility, taxpayers were saved close to $250 million. Veolia was able to assist the U.S. government in accomplishing its treaty obligations in an expeditious and safe manner. They also brought money and national attention to Southeast Texas.

I would like to commend Veolia Environmental Services and their employees for their hard work and dedication during this project.

Companies like Veolia that care about the community they serve make Southeast Texas such a special place.

Mr. Speaker, they say the truth will set you free. Well, maybe not. Now the truth may get you sued. Here is why.

The Staples Company fired an employee for lying on his expense account, and then sent a warning e-mail to all other employees on this action. The former employee sued, saying the company's actions were ``malicious and harmful.'' A Federal court in Massachusetts ruled with the employee, even though the statements were true.

Mr. Speaker, it has long been the law in this country that libel and slander only occur when the statement is false and malicious. But not anymore. So what is going to happen when the New York Times has a headline tomorrow morning saying ``Bernie Madoff, Worst Thief in American History, Goes to Jail?'' Even though that statement might be true, while old Bernie is in the big house, he may decide to sue, saying his reputation is ruined.

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution protects free speech and a free press. The Federal courts in Massachusetts were wrong to say that truthful speech is unlawful if it offends somebody or hurts their little feelings.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, somebody has to pay for this massive wasteful spending by the Federal Government.

So to obtain more revenue, the budget proposal is to cut deductions Americans now receive. The charitable giving deduction will be cut. Thus charities, not government entities, by the way, such as churches, the YMCA and groups such as that that feed the hungry and help in disasters, take care of crime victims, and help the homeless, will be struggling for funds. Now the government will get that money.

The removal of this deduction will discourage gifts by Americans. Americans are the most cheerful contributors in the world to charities, but that may now end.

The home mortgage deduction also is going to be reduced. The effect of reducing this deduction and the charitable-giving deduction will have the effect of a stealth tax increase on all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, it doesn't make any sense to raise taxes on anyone during a recession, especially homeowners and those that give to the needy.

And that's just the way it is.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I appreciate the support of Chairman Berman and Mr. Smith from New Jersey. Mr. Smith has a reputation for going and helping out his district. During the Russian incursion into the Republic of Georgia, while that was still going on, Mr. Smith went and rescued two young people and got them back to his district while the Russians were still invading. That tells all of us a lot

about your willingness to advocate on behalf of human rights.

It is reported that there are nearly 50 cases in which children who are residents of the United States have been wrongfully abducted to Brazil and have not been returned to the United States as required under the Hague Convention. Mr. Goldman and other United States citizens, specifically Marty Pate of Crosby, Texas, in my district, are allowed under international law to obtain quick return of their children from Brazil and other countries that have entered into obligations with the United States under the Hague Convention.

It seems to me that Brazil approves of government-sanctioned kidnapping of American children and ignoring agreements with the United States. Mr. Pate's story is very similar to the one already presented here on the House floor, although this is a story about a father and a daughter. Thanks to Fox 26 News in Houston, Texas, they have brought this story to light. And it is the Marty Pate story.

It seems that in May, 2006, Marty Pate's ex-wife, Monica, told him that she wanted to temporarily go back to her home country of Brazil and take their 7-year-old daughter, Nicole, with her. Marty Pate objected, but he allowed her to take the daughter for a short visit. Both agreed under a Harris County, Texas, court order as to what travel stipulations there would be, and both signed a notarized document on what those travel restrictions would be. One of those was there would be a maximum of 21 days that the child would be allowed to leave the United States. On August 5, 2006, Monica and her daughter, Nicole, left the United States and never returned. That was the last time that Marty Pate saw his daughter. There is an outstanding arrest warrant for Monica on failure to follow a court order in the State of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, this ought not to be. It seems as though Brazil is ignoring agreements that they have made under international law with the United States and continues to do so. As a side note, the United States gives foreign assistance to Brazil. Maybe the Foreign Affairs Committee needs to reevaluate whether we should give them assistance when they continue to kidnap or sanction kidnappings of American citizens. The United States should insist that countries like Brazil live up to their legal obligations to return to America, America's children.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I bring you news from the second front; that is, the border between the United States and Mexico.

This past weekend, I was the guest of two of our border sheriffs in Texas, Sheriff Oscar Carrillo from Culberson County, Texas, and Sheriff Arvin West from Hudspeth County, Texas. These two massive counties are the size of the States of Connecticut and Rhode Island put together. They are the two counties just east of El Paso County.

I was there to see the situation on the Texas-Mexico border firsthand by the people who help protect the border, and that is the border sheriffs, along with the Border Patrol. Smugglers that are coming across from Mexico, bringing in drugs, are relentless in their endeavor to bring narcotics into the United States.

The cross-border travelers that are captured in these two counties, most of the people in the county jails, are these foreign nationals bringing drugs or committing other crimes. Let me make this clear: Most of the people in these two county jails are foreigners that have committed felonies or misdemeanors in the United States. In fact, Arvin West told me that if he didn't have cross-border travelers in his county jail, he wouldn't need a jail, except one cell for one person. There are over 500 people in the county jails that are foreign nationals. So that's how bad the problem is continuing to be.

The drug cartel are smugglers, Mr. Speaker. They smuggle into the United States not only drugs, but people. It is all intertwined. And all because of money, they are bringing those individuals and those drugs into the country. But also, they smuggle back to Mexico two commodities, and the two commodities they smuggle are guns and money. They are in the smuggling business. They are very well organized.

Sara Carter, from the Washington Times, reports that the drug cartels have in their employment over 100,000 foot soldiers; that's just a little bit less than the entire Mexican Army. They have better vehicles, they have better weaponry, and they have a whole lot more money than our border protectors do on this side. They have gotten so sophisticated now that they don't let any drugs come into the United States unless they're tracked by GPS devices.

The drug runners are committed--it's almost a religion to them--to bring drugs into the United States. Let me give you an example of that.

I understand now, after being down on the border, the sheriffs were telling me that the drug runners pray to a narco saint--that's right-- Jesus Malverde. He was an individual that died in 1909. He was supposed to be a Mexican national that helped the poor, et cetera. But now there are shrines in different parts of Mexico where these drug runners in the drug cartels pray to this individual for safety in crossing the border into the United States so they can bring drugs. He's supposed to be the patron saint of travelers--I thought it was St. Christopher. But be that as it may, it shows how relentless these people are. Now, just to clarify, the Catholic Church says Jesus Malverde is not a saint, has never been, and never will be. But it shows you that it is a religion to these people to bring drugs and other people into the country.

But there is also good news from the border. The border county sheriffs, the 20 county sheriffs in Texas, have put up cameras along the border, and those cameras are tied to the Internet. And so a person can log on to a Web site called blueservo.net, and they can actually see these cameras and they can track people coming into the United States. They have had over 43,000 people log in just since this thing started a few weeks ago, and they are as far away as Australia. An Australian was watching it, and he sent an e-mail to the head of this association and said, hey mate, we've been watching your border from Australia and trying to help out you guys.

So, what is occurring is, if somebody sees traffic--drug smugglers, illegals, whatever--coming into the United States, they have a Web site, an e-mail, and they can e-mail the border sheriff in that county, and either the sheriffs or the Border Patrol goes out and arrests the bad guys coming into the country. Just as this has started, four major drug busts have occurred, and 30 incidents where illegal crossers were coming in were repelled and they went back across the border. Of course the cynics in the open-border crowd are against this; they're against anything that seems to work.

I want to commend the Border Sheriffs Coalition, the 20 of them, especially Oscar Carrillo, Arvin West and Sigi Gonzalez, because they are doing a job that is a thankless job, but it is important to protect the integrity of the United States.

And what we need to do is to help them by putting more people, more boots on the ground, more Border Patrol, more sheriff's deputies, and even the National Guard, if necessary, to help them.

I would like to insert into the Record the 20 border sheriffs in Texas that are protecting the border.

And that's just the way it is.

Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition

Brewster County--Ronny Dodson

Cameron County--Omar Lucio

Culberson County--Oscar Carrillo

Dimmit County--Joel Gonzales

El Paso County--Richard Wiles

Hidalgo County--Guadalupe Trevino

Hudspeth County--Arvin West

Jeff Davis County--Thomas Roberts

Kinney County--Leland Burgess

Maverick County--Thomas Herrera

Pecos County--Cliff Harris

Presidio County--Danny Dominguez

Starr County--Rene Fuentes

Terrell County--Clint McDonald

Val Verde County--Joe Martinez

Webb County--Martin Cuellar

Zapata County--Sigifredo Gonzalez

Zavala County--Eusevio Salinas

Willacy County--Larry Spence

Jim Hogg County--Erasmo Alarcon

Madam Speaker, someday we may be using alternative energy, and we must work to that end. But right now we need clean crude oil for energy.

We should drill safely off our own shores because that will make us energy independent. It will increase jobs. Some of those offshore jobs pay up to $100,000 a year. The leases that oil companies pay for are expensive, and that lease revenue comes to the U.S. Treasury.

Madam Speaker, we are also going to need crude oil in the future for other things, and here is why. Last week on one of the coldest days in D.C. during 8 inches of snow, the global warming folks were in town. They were all wearing green hard hats, and I asked one did she know what that hard hat was made out of, and she told me plastic. Well, I asked her where did the plastic come from, and she said, ``Well, it's plastic. It's made out of plastic.''

Madam Speaker, plastic is not an element or mineral. That plastic helmet and much of what we use daily is a derivative of crude oil. We are always going to need crude oil for the thousands of products that come from it.

We need to take care of America and drill safely off our shores and keep jobs and revenue in America instead of sending it to the Middle East.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, if you tax something, you get less of it. In other words, when the almighty Federal Government swoops in and taxes someone or something, it stifles growth, production, and the incentive to work.

The number one producer of jobs in America is not the government, not large corporations, but small business. Most are owned by individuals, real people who hire other real people.

The new income tax hike is aimed right at these individuals, and the effect will be bad for jobs and the economy. It's the administration's way of punishing success. Small business owners have told me they aren't going to expand because they do not want to get in the higher tax bracket. Some have told me they're going to downsize to pay the new tax increase. That means, in simple terms, lay people off.

Why work hard and expand? The more you work, the higher percent of taxes taken from you by the hungry beast of government. No one should have their taxes raised during a recession, but the new economic recovery plan is: If it moves, regulate it; if it keeps moving, tax it; and if it stops moving, subsidize it.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, I bring you news from the second front. I'm talking about the front on the southern border of the United States with Mexico.

This past weekend, I had the opportunity to spend some time with two of the sheriffs of the Sheriff's Border Coalition. There are 20 counties in Texas that the sheriffs are members of the Border Coalition. And I spent time with two of those sheriffs, Sheriff Arvin West from Hudspeth County and Sheriff Oscar Carrillo of Culberson County. These two counties are directly east of El Paso County.

The size of these two counties put together are the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island put together. They're massive counties and sparsely populated. The sheriff in each of these counties and his deputies know everybody that lives in the county, unlike the Border Patrol, who come and go from the community. They never really know the people or the culture, or what takes place in those counties. But the border sheriffs and their deputies, since most of them grew up there and were born there, they know the people who should be there and those people that are outside, as they call them, ``out-of-towners.''

This past weekend, the Mexican Government sent 5,000 troops to Juarez, Mexico. That's the town across from El Paso. The reason is because of the drug cartels and the violence. Drug cartels are doing war with not only the United States, but they're doing war physically with the Mexican military. And it's so dangerous down there that Fort Bliss, which is across the river from Juarez, those soldiers that have been in Afghanistan and Iraq, are not permitted to go to Juarez. The State Department has warned Americans not to go to Juarez because of the danger of kidnappings and the violence that has occurred there all because of the drug cartels.

But going back to the two counties of Culberson County and Hudspeth County, the question keeps being asked, ``Well, all that crime just stays there on the Mexican side, it never comes to the American side.'' Let me give you a statistic, Madam Speaker, how all the border sheriffs have to fight the drug epidemic and the crimes of violence and the property crimes in their county.

Sheriff Arvin West, Hudspeth County, has two jails; one has 125 prisoners, the other one has 545 prisoners. And on Saturday night, every person in both of those jails except one was illegally in the United States. There was one citizen. And these people are not charged with immigration violations. They hadn't just been picked up for illegally entering the country. They had been arrested for crimes against the Federal Government, felonies and misdemeanors against the State of Texas. He said if he didn't have to keep arresting folks illegally coming into the country and committing crimes in his county, he could close his jail down because there was only one citizen in the whole county or in the county jails. And he said seldom does he have any local folks put in that jail.

So, yes, the border crime has come to the United States and will only get worse. But to show you how innovative these sheriffs are, these are poor counties, these are low-income counties where you've got hardworking people--sparsely populated, however--and so the sheriff have no budget for vehicles. Unlike the drug cartels that have Humvees, they have SUVs, pickup trucks, all of the things that they want. Border sheriffs--this sheriff especially--has no budget in the county for vehicles, so he has to confiscate drug vehicles--when he captures the bad guys with drugs--and then he uses those vehicles after they have been seized for his deputies. He has 20 vehicles that he uses for his 17 deputies, and he has two or three of these 18-wheelers.

Yes, he's captured an 18-wheeler that's seized by the good guys against the bad guys, and on all of these vehicles, he puts this little notice down here on the bottom. It's on the bottom of this cab. It says semi-truck, $80,000. The drugs were worth $40,000. The bad guy got 10 years in the penitentiary, and the seizure of this vehicle is priceless. So that's how he runs his sheriff's department: with seized vehicles. I commend him for doing that.

It's important that we understand that the drug smugglers have more vehicles, better vehicles, more money, more men, and better equipment. They use GPS tracking devices to keep up with their drug loads. As I mentioned, they use Humvees. We have occurrences of the Mexican military helping move the drugs into these counties. Of course, Homeland Security denied that occurred. They said that didn't happen. But they didn't understand that Arvin West, Sheriff West, had the whole Mexican infiltration into his county on videotape, and once he videotaped it and showed it to Homeland Security, they said, well, maybe they are intruding and helping the drug cartels.

And these people don't make any money. The sheriff of Hudspeth County makes $39,000 a year. Sheriff Carrillo of Culberson County makes $32,000 a year, and their deputies make about $27,000 a year. And they are protecting us from the drug cartels moving into the country. A guy just bringing drugs into the United States is going to make up to $1,500 a load, making far more than our own border protectors.

There are four commodities being traded on the border. Two are going north and two are going south. The two going north are people and drugs, and they're being worked together. In other words, the coyotes work with the drug cartels to smuggle people. The two commodities going south: guns and money, and that's what's being traded on the border with Mexico.

It's important, Madam Speaker, that we provide our border protectors with the Humvees they need. We need to give them better equipment, and we need to put troops on the border because the purpose of government is to protect the people.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, today, March 6, is an important day in not only Texas's history but American history because this is the day that the Alamo fell with 187 volunteers from all States in the United States and numerous foreign countries. Even though all of the defenders of the Alamo were killed, ten times that number was killed on the enemy side, the invading Mexican army.

March 2, earlier this week, was the day that Texas declared independence from Mexico. And during that final successful battle at San Jacinto, Texas gained independence and was a free and independent nation for over 9 years.

There are many Texas heroes, remembering, of course, they came from all over the world, at the Alamo. We've heard about William Barret Travis, the commander; Davy Crockett; Jim Bowie. We later hear about Sam Houston at the battle of San Jacinto.

But we often don't remember a person by the name of James Butler Bonham. A 29-year-old, he was from the University of South Carolina, grew up in Red Bank, South Carolina. He was a boyhood friend of William Barret Travis. And it was his job, along with Juan Seguin, to try to seek out reinforcements to the Alamo. He would break through enemy lines numerous times to try to bring people to come in aid at the Alamo. He was successful in bringing 32 men from Gonzales. He breaks through the lines his final time, goes to Washington-on-the-Brazos to try to get more recruits. They refused to go because they were trying to build a government. And when he left that time on March 3, he made the report that ``I will report back to my friend William Barret Travis or die in the attempt that no one is coming.'' He broke through the enemy lines one last time, and 3 days later, he and the other 186 defenders of the Alamo gave the ultimate sacrifice for freedom.

Another example in American history of the character and integrity of people who have lived before us that believe some things are worth fighting for and one of those is freedom, liberty, and independence.

And that's just the way it is.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Appreciate his comments and Mr. Conaway's comments, especially with his background as a CPA, he understand numbers maybe a whole lot better than some of the others of us here.

In less than 2 months, the stock market has dropped over 2,000 points. It's below 7,000. Many folks throughout the country who have invested in the stock market have lost somewhere between 25 percent and 50 percent of their investment. My parents are examples of that. They're both 83, and they had hoped that at the end of their existence on this earth that they would be able to live off of their investments. And they, like many other folks, not just senior citizens, are finding that difficulty.

It's somewhat disturbing that the voice we hear from those in the administration, different people who work in the administration, take the position that it's almost irrelevant what the investor class thinks about what's going on. Well, it's not irrelevant. It's the investors who put their money into businesses to give those businesses capital so that those businesses can be a going concern. If investors don't invest in business, then that business may not have the capital. And so it is relevant what investors think.

And the investor class is not just the rich and famous. It's just the average Americans; some of whom have just a few shares of stock in different businesses in this country. So it's very relevant. And to dismiss their input as irrelevant, I think, is very disturbing because the stock market has plummeted, really, at a record amount in just 4\1/ 2\, 6 weeks.

It's interesting times we live in, Mr. Gohmert, that we are seeing right before our eyes the entire change in philosophy about America. America was founded upon the principles of individual liberty, capitalism. You know, that's a bad word, nowadays. It was not founded on the principle of government control of our lives, the government solving every problem that exists for everyone of us or every business.

But yet, we have moved, in just a few short weeks, to government. Government is the solution, so sayeth some. And the way that the government has gotten involved with first, controlling the banking industry, the financial markets, the automobile industry, and of course, none of those entities are any better off today than they were before the government got involved. So the answer for government is, more control of those entities, more money to those entities, those failing entities.

And now we hear about the fact that we want the government to provide universal health care for everybody. That sounds good. People should have health care, have a way to take care of themselves when they are medically disabled or when they need to go to the doctor. But the answer for universal health care is to have the government run this program. We don't use the word socialism anymore because that's a bad word. We just call it government control.

And I have seen, as many people have, as you have in other countries, how government-controlled health care, first of all, does not provide better health care for the citizens. History proves that. You can look at Canada; you can look at France.

I was in the former Soviet Union when it was the Soviet Union, and I went to a doctor's office to see how people got their universal health care in the Soviet Union. Well, first of all, there's a line down the street waiting to see the doctor. And the line starts early in the morning, but at 4:00 in the afternoon, the doctor goes home. People in the line, they've got to come back the next day and get in line again. That is what universal health care meant in the Soviet Union. It's never worked. It hasn't worked anywhere. History shows that.

If we like universal health care, or socialized medicine--as I call it--like they have in France, it will have the efficiency of the post office and the confidence of FEMA and the compassion of the IRS and of other government-run programs. So, when we think about government programs, most of those really aren't as successful as the government claims them to be.

I don't see how, when we're out of money, we can spend money we don't have and then prosper. That has not worked, Mr. Gohmert. The more we spend, the worse off it seems the country is--the government control of our lives, its the citizens, the government control of our money and the government control of our businesses.

What has taken place is that the government makes decisions that this program or this special interest group will receive government funding for whatever reason. Then what the government does is it takes money from other people, from American citizens, because we're not smart enough to decide how to spend our own money, so the government decides and then gives it to these different special interest groups throughout the country with the idea that, well, it will help the economy, that it will help get us out of this recession. Well, that theory, so far, has not worked since the first bailout.

The Congressional Budget Office, which is a group of people who are certainly not partisan, but they do numbers--all they do are numbers kind of like Mr. Conaway did numbers in his CPA business before he came to Congress. They say all of this spending is not going to help the economy. We haven't heard much about that because they're not giving a favorable report about the stimulus package, but that's what they say. We don't have the money. We're going to have to borrow it from people who, you know, preferably we shouldn't be borrowing it from.

I was as embarrassed as you were, Judge, when our Secretary of State seemingly begged the Chinese to loan us more money. I don't think that's a position that the United States should ever be in, especially borrowing money from China of all places.

We hear that we're going to tax folks who make over $250,000. The rich, you know, don't need all that money. They need to share it with everybody else, you know, sort of like redistributing wealth in this country. Well, of course, the people making over $250,000 pay most of the taxes, and 40 something percent of Americans don't pay any income tax, but the practical matter is we're not so sure those people are going to keep working.

I have people in my district who are small business owners, who run a little shop of some kind, who employ seven or eight people, but they have a sole proprietorship of that business; therefore, they file an income tax. If they make more than $250,000, they're going to be hit by this. Small businesses are the core of this country in making new jobs, especially historically, and there are only a couple of ways they can pay those taxes.

Since they're going to be in a higher tax bracket, they're going to have to have somebody laid off when they're in the higher tax bracket or they're going to have to take in less money. Either way, it doesn't help the business or it doesn't help the economy. They can do something else. I've gotten a few calls--we do have a few people who make over $250,000 in Humboldt, Texas--and they said they're going to cut back. They're just going to get themselves in the position where they're below $250,000. They don't think they should be working, when they're in that higher tax bracket, to pay for programs for other people. When they cut back, they cut back employees, but it also cuts back revenue into the Federal Treasury. So I don't know how many people are going to take the downsizing approach, because of the tax structure, but I can understand why people feel that way.

As far as taxes go, I feel like we shouldn't be raising taxes during a recession. I don't know that economic theory that says that it works to raise taxes during a recession. History shows, if you raise taxes, you get less productivity because people have to turn more money over to the government.

The stimulus bill, as my friend Mr. Conaway has talked about, and some of

these programs that are in the stimulus bill are an effort to move the economy forward and get us out of this recession. Well, it has programs in there, and there are too many to mention. We would be here until next Monday talking about all of the different programs that have nothing to do with stimulating the economy.

One of mine that comes to mind is that we're going to require Americans to give $30 million to the government so the government can give that $30 million to San Francisco to set up a wetland to save the salt marsh mouse in the San Francisco Bay. Now, I didn't know that San Francisco had a salt marsh mouse, but they have it, and they want to keep him, so we're giving them $30 million. Now, how is that going to stimulate the economy? I'm not so sure that the taxpayers would really want to spend their money to save a rat or--excuse me--a mouse in San Francisco. We prefer not to keep those where we're from in Texas, but anyway--and the stimulus bill is filled with programs like that. In my opinion, it's very disturbing.

So maybe we should cut spending. One thing that we haven't talked about is cutting the spending that we give to foreign countries. You know, every year, we roll out the U.S. currency and give it to countries all over the world, many of whom, as you have pointed out in previous speeches, Mr. Gohmert, have voted against us in the United Nations. They hate us; they vilify us, but they take our money. Sometimes, of course, the money doesn't even get to the people; it's given to the dictators. So maybe we ought to start there. Let's go through the foreign countries that we give money to and decide whether or not we're going to give them any American money this year. We need to cut back instead of spend more money.

There's another thing I'd like to mention in closing. I represent southeast Texas where there's a lot of blue-collar folks, a lot of rice farmers, and it includes part of suburban Houston. One of my friends there is a guy by the name of Sammy Mahan. I, like you all, talk to regular folks as much as I can to find out what they think. He runs a wrecker service in Baytown, Texas. He has five drivers and five wreckers that he uses. He and I were talking about the stimulus package, and he asked me:

He said, ``Well, how are we going to pay for it?''

``Well, Sammy, we really don't have the money. We're probably going to have to borrow the money from the Chinese and maybe have a tax increase down the road.''

Then he said, ``Well, how much is it going to cost?''

``$790 billion,'' I said.

He said, ``No. No, Ted. How much is it going to cost me?''

``Well, the budget office has figured out it's about $10,000 per family in the United States.''

Then he said, ``Well, just opt me out.''

``Well, what do you mean, `opt you out,' Sammy?''

``Give me a form,'' he said. ``I want to sign my name. I want to opt out of that deal.''

``Sammy,'' I said, ``I can't do that.''

``You're my Congressman,'' he said. ``You can do that. Take care of that. Send me the form. You deduct $10,000 from the $790 billion. That's my portion. I don't want to pay for it,'' and he hung up on me.

So I think many Americans, if they had a choice on these stimulus bills, on this wasteful spending that doesn't help the economy, would want to opt out. Maybe we should give them that choice. We might bring that stimulus spending down a little bit.

I appreciate the time. I think maybe we ought to go back and look at some basics that have worked and where history in this country has proven that, when you tax something, you get less of it, and you get less productivity. So maybe we ought to cut taxes for all Americans who pay income tax. Then they can have more of their own, and they can spend it the way they want to rather than having us, as the government, deciding how to spend it.

I appreciate that. I yield back the rest of my time. Thank you.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

You know, when we talk about money up here in Washington, whether it is a million, billion, trillion--you know, what's the statement? ``Billion here, billion there; eventually we'll be talking about some real money.'' And, of course, it's hard for me to conceive what a billion is anyway. A million is difficult.

But a trillion, you know--I had to look up how much a trillion was. Unlike my friend Mr. Conaway, who's a CPA, you know, my background's a lawyer. And so I don't deal in numbers too much--except when I was a judge, I had some numbers that I would deal with.

But it's hard to conceive how much that is. These two charts right here have the number $9.7 trillion. Now that's the biggest number I have ever seen that supposedly meant something. And I'm glad there's not another digit because I'd have to have a third poster board to get it on there.

But $9.7 trillion. Now, what does this mean? This is how much money we're going to spend and have spent this year, plus the indebtedness that Mr. Conaway talked about. That's just this year.

Now, I don't know where we can write a check for that. I don't think there is enough Americans, if we took all of their money away from them, that they could pay for that. And it's unfortunate to me that we're borrowing money that we don't have and spending on programs that really don't work to stimulate the economy.

Mr. Gohmert, you mentioned about putting our kids in debt. We're putting people in debt that have yet to be born in this country--not just our grandkids but our great grandkids; people that have yet to be born. They're going to have to pay this off eventually.

I mean, the chickens come home to roost, eventually, and this has got to be paid, and we don't have the money. It's very unfortunate that we continue to spend money we don't have and borrow from people that don't like us and then make the American public pay for the rest of it.

But that's the position that they find themselves in, and they don't have a choice about that.

So I just wanted to let you see this number, Mr. Gohmert.

I certainly will.

Would the gentleman yield?

How much a second?

I haven't divided that into $9.7 trillion, but you're the CPA. You should be able to figure that out in your head.

Interesting.

I will yield back my time to Mr. Gohmert.

Thank you.

Would the gentleman yield?

A little follow-up on the home mortgage industry, it was either in the Washington Times or the Washington Post this morning that the problem with mortgages centered on 36 counties in the whole United States, it spread to a few more.

But most Americans pay their mortgages, and most of them pay mortgages on time. We're talking about 95 percent of Americans who are buying their own home pay their mortgages and pay them on time. So we're dealing with 5 percent who have not. And that 5 percent found themselves in a situation where banks would loan them money with very little money down, telling them that if you buy this $200,000 house, no money down, you pay your monthly payments, in 5 years this $200,000 house is going to be worth $300,000, and then you can pay off the rest of the loan to us, the bank. So with little down, people who in that situation probably shouldn't have been buying a house to begin with because they didn't have the income, they make payments, the housing market drops--it doesn't just drop below $200,000, it goes much lower than that--and people walk away from the homes and the banks are left holding this house. Now, that was a contract between the lender and the borrower.

Contracts are important in this country. That's like us in Texas, you know--out in west Texas, especially, where you're from--big land deals are made on a hand shake, your word is important. But now we're going to let the government lawyers and judges--and I used to be a judge, just like Mr. Gohmert--they're going to decide to break the word and the contract, and they're going to decide how to do it. They're going to restructure the loan, they're going to tell the bank, you can't get all that money back, we're going to cut it down, the principal. And that destroys confidence in our legal system, when you have the ability to have a judge go in, break the contract, and design it the way the judge wants it designed, to the benefit of the borrower or the lender? I don't know. It's going to be based upon whatever that judge thinks at the time. So this is a bad precedent to set, I think, in this country when we are diminishing the value of a contract.

Certainly we should encourage banks to work with the borrowers and all of that, but most Americans that I have talked to, they've got a problem with paying off somebody else's mortgage who got themselves in a situation when they may not have come into that situation with clean hands, and the same with the lender.

I just wanted to make that comment. I yield back to Mr. Gohmert.

Mr. Speaker, under the new tax proposal, those that make over $250,000 are going to have a massive tax increase so the government can redistribute that money to special groups. Those in this high tax group already pay most of the taxes and create most of the new jobs in small busines.

But we have got a problem. These same folks are considering cutting back their work productivity so they make less than $250,000. According to ABC News, some individuals who own business also are going to downsize because of the tax increase.

A lawyer in Louisiana says, ``Why kill yourself working if it is given

away to people who aren't working as hard?''

A dentist in Colorado said she is going to work fewer days, see fewer patients and eliminate employees so she can be underneath the tax increase. She says, ``If I am going to be working just to give it back to the government, it is demoralizing.''

Mr. Speaker, this cannot be. What are we to do if all these small business owners start following this downsizing plan, lay off employees and don't send more money to Washington? Don't they know they can't do that? Don't they know that they need to pay more taxes to take care of the rest of us?

Mr. Speaker, all citizens pay enough income tax already. It is absurd to raise taxes on anybody during this recession.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, 163 years ago this night, on March the 5th, 1836, would be the last night for a group of individuals who came from all over the United States. They were from most of the States. They were from numerous foreign countries. They were odd sorts of individuals. They were frontiersmen, landowners, lawyers, unemployed. They were of all races--black, white and brown--but they were all volunteers, and most of them knew that this would be their last night after spending 12 days defending an old, beat-up Spanish fort that had already been over 100 years old. It was now a mission but also a fortress, what we call the Alamo.

You see, this odd bunch of individuals ended up there because all of them had ended up and had come to Texas from different parts of the country--from Mexico, from Europe--to seek a new life.

Backing up in history a little bit, the country of Spain had claimed most of Central America and Mexico, which included Texas at the time. Mexico decided to revolt against Spain. That revolution was successful, and in 1824, the country of Mexico adopted a constitution drafted very similarly to ours, which gave civil liberties to all people in Mexico, which included Texas.

But Mexico had a problem with a dictator. His name was Santa Anna, and when he became dictator of Mexico, he abolished the Constitution of 1824. He eliminated civil rights. He abolished the right to be tried by a jury, and he imposed dictator powers on Mexico. That offended people who lived in what is now Texas. It offended people of all races. So, in 1835, a revolution started in Texas.

Then on March the 6th, 1836, which would be tomorrow morning, 13 days after defending the Alamo, these individuals were sieged by a force of military Mexican soldiers several times the size of the 187 defenders. Most of them knew that that would be their last night on Earth and that tomorrow they would see their fate because they were outnumbered.

You have heard all of their names throughout history. Probably the most famous are a Tennessee Congressman by the name of Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie, famous from Louisiana, but there were others--Juan Sequin from Mexico, who was a scout, or William Barret Travis, the commander of the Alamo. Jim Bonham was a scout who was also a boyhood friend of William Barret Travis. In all, there were 187. William Barret Travis was a 27-year-old lawyer from South Carolina, then Alabama, and then he came to what is now Texas.

All of these individuals called themselves, not Texans, but Texians. Even Hispanic defenders of the Alamo referred to themselves as Tehanos, or Texians.

No one came to the help of the individuals who were at the Alamo, even though Travis had sent out numerous requests for aid, except for 32 men from the small town of Gonzales. They marched their way into the Alamo walls, and when they arrived, Travis made the comment, ``These men came to die.''

We all have heard about his famous letter that he has written, that is now in history, about how he had asked for aid and about how he was determined to sustain himself for as long as possible, which he did.

Some historians say and tradition says that, before the last day took place on March the 5th, in the evening, William Barret Travis drew a line in the sand with his sword, and he told those individuals who wanted to fight, and yet die for the Republic of Texas, to cross the line.

Historians say the first person to cross the line was a 26-year-old kid from Ohio. All walked over except an individual by the name of Moses Rose. Moses Rose was an individual from France, and he decided not to stay at the Alamo, and left over the Alamo wall. He later became one of the biggest sources for what took place at the Alamo.

That next morning, Santa Anna assaulted the troops, assaulted the fort, and after several hours of fighting, the fort was taken. What few defenders were captured after they surrendered were summarily executed, and the bodies were burned. William Barret Travis made the comment that victory would be more costly to the enemy than defeat. He was right. Ten times the number of Santa Anna's military and army were defeated and killed at that battle.

Mr. Speaker, it's important that we remember the men of the Alamo who fought for victory in the Republic of Texas. It's important that we always remember anybody anywhere in the world who fights for liberty, and we honor those people tonight.

And that's just the way it is.

Defenders of the Alamo That Died March 6, 1836, by Mary Ann Noonon

Guerra, historian

Abamillo, Juan, San Antonio (Mexico); Allen, Robert,

Virginia; Andross, Miles Deforest, 21, Vermont; Autry,

Micajah, 42, North Carolina; Badillo, Juan Antonio, San

Antonio (Mexico); Bailey, Peter James III, Kentucky; Baker,

Isaac G., 22, Arkansas; Baker, William Charles M., Missouri;

Ballentine, John J., Pennsylvania; Ballentine, Richard W.,

22, Scotland; Baugh, John J., 33, Virginia; Bayliss, Joseph,

28, Tennessee; Blair, John, Tennessee; Blair, Samuel C., 33,

Tennessee; Blazeby, William, 41, England; Bonham, James

Butler, 29, South Carolina; Bourne, Daniel, 26, England;

Bowie, James, 40, Kentucky; Bowman, Jesse B., 51, Tennessee;

Brown, George, 35, England; Brown, James Murry, 36,

Pennsylvania; Brown, Robert, 18, Unknown; Buchanan, James,

23, Alabama; Burns, Samuel E., 26, Ireland; Butler, George

D., 23, Missouri; Cain (Cane), John, 34, Pennsylvania;

Campbell, James (Robert), 26, Tennessee; Carey, William R.,

30, Virginia; Clark, Charles Henry, Missouri; Clark, M.B.,

Mississippi; Cloud, Daniel William, 24, Kentucky; Cochran,

Robert E., 26, New Hampshire; Cottle, George Washington, 27,

Missouri; Courtman, Henry, 28, Germany; Crawford, Lemuel, 22,

South Carolina; Crockett, David, 50, Tennessee; Crossman,

Robert, 26, Pennsylvania; Cummings, David P., 29,

Pennsylvania; Cunningham, Robert W., 34, New York; Darst,

Jacob C., Kentucky; Davis, John, Kentucky; Day, Freeman H.K.,

Unknown; Day, Jerry C., Missouri; Daymon, Squire, Tennessee;

Dearduff, William, Tennessee; Dennison, Stephen (or Ireland),

England; Despallier, Charles, Louisiana; Dickerson

(Dickinson), Almeron, 36, Tennessee; Dimpkins, James R.,

England; Duvalt, Andrew, Ireland; Espalier, Carlos, San

Antonio (Mexico); Esparza, Gregorio (Jose Maria), San Antonio

(Mexico); Evans, Robert, Ireland; Evans, Samuel B., New York;

Ewing, James L., Tennessee; Fishbaugh, William, Alabama;

Flanders, John, Massachusetts; Floyd, Dolphin Ward, North

Carolina; Forsyth, John Hubbard, 39, New York; Fuentes,

Antonio, San Antonio (Mexico); Fuqua, Galba, Alabama;

Garnett, William, Virginia; Garrand, James W., Louisiana;

Garrett, James Girard, Tennessee; Garvin, John E., Unknown;

Gaston, John E., 17, Kentucky; George, James, Unknown;

Goodrich, John Camp, Virginia; Grimes, Albert (Alfred)

Calvin, Georgia; Gwynne, James C., England; Hannum, James,

Pennsylvania; Harris, John, Kentucky; Harrison, Andrew

Jackson, Tennessee; Harrison, William B., Ohio; Haskell,

Charles M., Tennessee; Hawkins, Joseph M., Ireland; Hays,

John M., Tennessee; Herndon, Patrick Henry, Virginia; Hersee,

William Daniel, England; Holland, Tapely, 26, Ohio; Holloway,

Samuel, Pennsylvania; Howell, William D., Massachusetts;

Jackson, Thomas, Ireland; Jackson, William Daniel, Kentucky;

Jameson, Green B., Kentucky; Jennings, Gordon C.,

Connecticut; Jimenez, Damacio, San Antonio (Mexico);

Johnson, Lewis, Wales; Jones, John, New York; Kellogg, John

Benjamin, Kentucky; Kenny, James, Virginia; Kent, Andrew,

Kentucky; Kerr, Joseph, Louisiana; Kimble (Kimbell), George

C., Pennsylvania; King, William Phillip, 15, San Antonio

(Mexico); Lewis, William Irvine, San Antonio (Mexico);

Lightfoot, William J., San Antonio (Mexico); Lindley,

Jonathan L., Illinois; Linn, William, Massachusetts; Losoya,

Jose Toribio, San Antonio (Mexico); Main, George Washington,

Virginia; Malone, William T., Virginia; Marshall, William,

Tennessee; Martin, Albert, Rhode Island; McCafferty, Edward,

Unknown; McCoy, Jesse, Tennessee; McDowell, William,

Pennsylvania; McGee, James, Ireland; McGregor, John,

Scotland;

McKinney, Robert, Tennessee; Melton, Elice (Eliel), 38,

Georgia; Miller, Thomas R., Tennessee; Millsaps, Isaac, 41,

Mississippi; Mills, William, Tennessee; Mitchasson, Edward

F., Virginia; Mitchell, Napoleon B., Unknown; Moore, Robert

B., Virginia; Moore, Willis A., Mississippi; Musselman,

Robert, 31, Ohio; Nava, Andres, San Antonio (Mexico); Neggan,

George, South Carolina; Nelson, Andrew M., Tennessee; Nelson,

Edward, South Carolina; Nelson, George, South Carolina;

Northcross, James, Virginia; Nowlan, James, England, Pagan,

George, Mississippi; Parker, Christopher Adams, Mississippi;

Parks, William, North Carolina; Perry, Richardson, San

Antonio (Mexico); Pollard, Amos, 33, Massachusetts;

Reynolds, John Purdy, Pennsylvania; Robertson, James

Waters, Tennessee; Roberts, Thomas H., Unknown; Robinson,

Isaac, Scotland; Rose, James M., Ohio; Rusk, Jackson J.,

Ireland; Rutherford, Joseph, Kentucky; Ryan, Isaac,

Louisiana; Scurlock, Mial; North Carolina; Sewell, Marcus L.,

England; Shied, Manson, Georgia; Simmons, Cleveland Kinloch,

21, South Carolina; Smith, Andrew H., Tennessee; Smith,

Charles S., Maryland; Smith, Joshua G., North Carolina;

Smith, William H., Unknown; Starr, Richard, England; Stewart

James E., England; Stockton, Richard Lucius, New Jersey;

Summerlin, A. Spain, Tennessee; Summers, William E.,

Tennessee; Sutherland, William Depriest, 18, Alabama;

Taylor, Edward, Tennessee; Taylor, George, Tennessee;

Taylor, James, Tennessee; Taylor, William, Tennessee; Thomas,

B. Archer M., Kentucky; Thomas, Henry, Germany; Thompson,

Jesse G., Arkansas; Thomson, John W., North Carolina;

Thurston, John M., Pennsylvania; Trammel Burke, Ireland;

Travis, William Barret, 27, South Carolina; Tumlinson, George

W., Missouri; Tylee, James, New York; Walker, Asa, Tennessee;

Walker, Jacob, 37, Tennessee; Ward, William B., 30, Ireland;

Warnell, Henry, 24, Arkansas; Washington, Joseph G.,

Kentucky; Waters, Thomas, England; Wells, William, Georgia;

White, Isaac, Alabama; White, Robert, Unknown;

Williamson, Hiram James, Pennsylvania; Wills, William,

Georgia; Wilson, David L., Scotland; Wilson, John, 32,

Pennsylvania; Wolfe, Anthony (Avram), England; Wright,

Claiborne, North Carolina; Zanco, Charles, Denmark; and John

(last name unknown), Unknown.

Mr. Speaker, history shows that if you tax something, you get less of it; if you subsidize something, you're going to get more of it.

This budget raises taxes. We shouldn't raise taxes during a recession on anyone that pays taxes. Tax increase will do several things. Small businesses that pay most of the taxes, they will have a tax increase. So to pay for these new taxes, they're going to have to cut jobs to pay for those taxes. It raises the utility rates on people that use energy. Now, that hurts those folks, the working poor, who have a fixed income, in essence, a tax increase on the poor. It cuts deductions for home mortgages and charitable contributions; that, in essence, hurts people who try to live in a home and contribute to charities. And the budget redistributes wealth.

Abraham Lincoln said, ``You don't make the poor rich by making the rich poor and you don't make the weak strong by making the strong weak.''

The budget is flawed with more government spending, more government control, and it raises taxes. Taxes will create less prosperity, not more prosperity.

And that's just the way it is.

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

I rise in strong support of this resolution, House Resolution 45. The goal of this resolution is to raise awareness and promote education of our criminal justice system by establishing March 2009 as National Criminal Justice Month.

It's important to educate Americans about our criminal justice system and encourage discussion on how to prevent and respond to criminal conduct. That's why this legislation has been introduced.

As a former prosecutor and judge, I've been involved in the criminal justice system for a long time, 8 years as a prosecutor and 22 years as a criminal court judge in Houston, Texas. And this resolution will encourage communities to discuss the causes, consequences and long-term effects of criminal conduct in our country.

It is important for us to talk about why guilty defendants should receive appropriate punishment for their acts, but we should also do everything in our power to make sure victims receive the assistance that they need. After all, long after the crime is committed, a victim still has to face devastating consequences. Sometimes victims are sentenced to a life of misery because of the crime that was committed against them.

We have the responsibility to protect the lives of the innocent, and to advocate on behalf of crime victims. That is why I've established the bipartisan Victims' Rights Caucus, along with my friend, Jim Costa from California. The mission of the Caucus is to ensure that victims and law enforcement have a voice in Congress.

Every year, millions of Americans become victims of crime. Those crimes range from robbery to homicide. Unfortunately, these people don't choose to become victims of crime, but they are picked by someone else in our community as prey. And suddenly they are thrust into the criminal justice system without having a say.

Victims of crime have no high-dollar lobbyist in Washington, D.C. They look to Members of Congress to advocate on their behalf. And the purpose of the system is to provide justice for victims and defendants, because the same Constitution that protects defendants of crime protects crime victims as well. People who commit crimes against the rule of law, which is our society's rule of law, should be held accountable for their actions.

In addition, by establishing March 2009 as National Criminal Justice Month, this resolution will also recognize and applaud the efforts of law enforcement officials, judges, court staff, and the many probation officers throughout the country who work with offenders to help them reintegrate into our community.

Throughout my years of service, I've been impressed with the professionalism and dedication of the public servants who work in the criminal justice system. These brave and dedicated Americans work every day to make our communities a better and safer community, and they work with defendants to help them turn their lives around.

I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, according to the Bureau of Justice statistics, 35 percent of Americans have little or no confidence in our criminal justice system. It is unfortunate that one-third of the people in this country feel that way. And we shouldn't be surprised because that's all that they hear when they turn on their local news at night is crime and violence. It's mostly bad news about crimes being committed in their communities and across the Nation.

But the reality is that crime rates have dropped dramatically since the 1990s. However, because of what people hear and see on the news, most Americans believe the crime rate is actually increasing. It is important to recognize the gains we have made in combating crime across the country, and Americans should have more confidence in this criminal justice system.

Mr. Speaker, I've traveled to multiple countries and observed the way their criminal justice system operates. I've been in China, and back in the 1980s I was in the former Soviet Union. I would say that neither one of those countries has a justice system. They just have a system. And our criminal justice system is the best in the world. Not only is it unmatched in its ability to determine the guilt of an individual, but also in the way it assures the rights of defendants and victims in a court of law.

This resolution will encourage people across America to talk about the ways to prevent and respond to criminal conduct. And in doing that, it will help restore people's faith in the best justice system in the world, and that's the one that we have in this country because, Mr. Speaker, justice is what we do in this country.

And that's just the way it is.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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