Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I support House Resolution 129, which recognizes the historical significance of the Merced Assembly Center to the memory of the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Following the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed his Executive Order 9066, which authorized the internment of Japanese Americans. President Roosevelt took this action even though, as chief historian for the Army Stetson Conn said, ``The only responsible commander in the military who backed the War Department's mass evacuation plan was the President himself, the Commander in Chief.'' Even Attorney General Frances Biddle and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover advised against this policy.

In 1942, President Roosevelt authorized the Army to evacuate more than 100,000 Japanese Americans from the Pacific coast States including Washington, Oregon, California and Arizona.

Interestingly, Mr. Speaker, many Japanese Americans loyally served in the United States military during World War II while their families were interned. This overbroad and unnecessary approach to maintaining America's security serves as a continuing reminder that the civil rights of American citizens should never be lost even in the mist of the chaos of war. Also, Mr. Speaker, this policy did not apply to German-Americans. Approximately 20 percent of the United States military during World War II were made up of Americans with German heritage. But German-Americans were not interned as Japanese Americans were.

Congress eventually enacted the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 in which it apologized on behalf of the Nation for the fundamental violations of the basic civil liberties and constitutional rights of these individuals of Japanese descent. President Ronald Reagan signed that act into law on August 10, 1988, proclaiming it ``a great day for America.''

Over 20 years later, we stand here today to renew our Nation's commitment to remember the past and shepherd its lessons into the future. Part of remembering those lessons is remembering some of the tragic details. One site in particular, the Merced Assembly Center, located in Merced, California, was the reporting site for almost 5,000 Japanese Americans during the war. As a young child, it has already been said, our colleague Mike Honda and his family were held at the Merced Assembly Center prior to being interned in Colorado. Since then, he has championed the cause of preventing this type of injustice from ever happening again.

The Merced Assembly Center serves as a symbol of America's stumbling. But our country has regained footing and has appropriately apologized for the tragic mistake of President Roosevelt and his Executive Order 9066. And it is reaffirming its commitment, through this resolution before us today, to never forget its mistakes lest they be repeated to the detriment of our children and our children's children.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my fellow Texan, Mr. Barton.

I have one other speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

We have two additional speakers.

May I inquire of the Speaker how much time I have left?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

(Mr. Rogers of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I give the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

I'm prepared to close. We have no other speakers.

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Cardoza from California for bringing this bill to the House floor, and I agree with my friend from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) that we need to refocus on the legislation presently before the House of Representatives. This bill brings a close to a long memory, a bad memory in the United States of the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. We need to show all Americans, and in this case, Japanese Americans, the due respect that they are entitled to, as being American citizens. And that's why this resolution is very important to establish the Merced Center in California.

I yield back the balance of my time, and urge the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about the economy, as we should, but I would like to focus on the cost of all of this money that the government says it needs to spend. The front page of today's USA Today is headlined, ``Trillions Aimed At Financial Recovery,'' and here we see a photograph of the Treasury Secretary, Mr. Geithner, scratching his head as he is talking to Members of Congress when he testified yesterday.

Now we hear about the billions spent for this program and the trillions spent for this program all in the name of helping the economy. I would like to focus on the cost of all of this. If you add up all of the bailout packages from last year, the so-called stimulus packages, and the bills yet to be passed but promised to be passed this year, plus the debt that it will cost Americans yet to be born, it is $9,700,000,000,000.

Now that is the biggest number I have ever seen in my life. And $9 billion, it is hard to relate to what 9 billion or $9,700,000,000,000 is. Well, let's try to focus on how much that really is in terms maybe we can understand. If you add up all of the major wars that the United States has been involved in since we were a country, and you put 2009 dollars to those figures, this amount of money still would not cover the cost of the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the War Between the States, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Iraqi wars and the Afghanistan wars. We would still have enough money left over in 2009 dollars to pay for the Louisiana Purchase in 2009 dollars, the Gadsden Purchase in 2009 dollars, and Alaska in 2009 dollars with money still left over. Now that is a lot of money.

It has been estimated also that this amount of money would pay for 90 percent of all of the home mortgages in the whole United States. Now we're talking about real money. Or looking at it another way, if you divided this money up with all the people on the face of the Earth, each one of them would get about $1,500. That is a lot of money. And yet, this is the amount of money we are going to try to spend all in the name of saving the economy and saving the country.

I question, first of all, whether or not it will work. But more importantly, where are we going to get the money? We don't have the money. So we are going to have to borrow the money. And probably we will borrow the money from our good friends over in China. Oh, they're ready to lend us money and let Americans pay interest on it.

The Congressional Budget Office has done some work, it hasn't been publicized much, about the new stimulus bill, the $835 billion bill that just passed the Senate that is coming back to the House in a conference bill maybe tomorrow, Friday or whatever. And they said even if you spend that money, that is not going to help the economy. So now we've got two problems. One, we don't have the money. And the stimulus bill may not even help the economy.

This country has done the stimulus bill thing before. This is not the first stimulus bill. It was tried right after World War II. In fact, we now have a total of eight stimulus bills that one Congress or another has passed all in the name of trying to stimulate the economy.

And history has shown, basically, they just didn't work. They weren't as effective as they were expected to be. So, although we have philosophical differences between this side and the other side about how to help the economy, I would submit maybe we need to step back and rather than say government's the answer in spending money that we don't have, taking money from taxpayers who are paying their taxes and working, taking it and giving it to the government and letting the government dole it out to different special interest groups throughout the country in the effort to stimulate the economy, rather than follow that philosophy, why don't we let Americans just keep more of their own money? Do something really remarkable, tell the American public, everybody that pays taxes is going to get a tax deduction. Everybody, including corporations and small businesses.

Then, when Americans have more of their own money, they will be able to stimulate the economy by spending it the way they decide, rather than the way we decide how to spend that money. And that will give small businesses, when they have more capital, the ability to hire people to come work for them. You see, businesses, especially small businesses, are where jobs are created. They're not created by the Federal Government; they're created by the private sector. I submit we ought to try the tax cut approach.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, we are being told by the administration that unless America plays this stimulus package game, ``the country may never recover.'' Once again the politics of fear and intimidation are on Capitol Hill.

If we open up this $835 billion package and look inside, we see all types of goodies for special interest groups that is nothing more than government waste.

There are millions in the package for grant money for neighborhood electrical vehicles that go to government workers. Here's one of these $7,500 vehicles right here. It looks like a golf cart to me. Why should the taxpayer be forced to buy these contraptions?

Does anyone really think this will help the economy?

Well, the taxpayers are yelling ``fore'' while being left out in the rough, and Congress keeps adding strokes to the scorecard.

This bill is supposed to get the economy back on the fairway, but it's just one bogey after another.

Want to stimulate the economy? Let Americans keep more of their own money.

No golf carts for government workers. The government is millions of strokes over par by playing this stimulus game.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, it's been said: ``a billion dollars here, a billion dollars there, eventually we're going to be talking about real money.'' Well, we're talking about real money in this stimulus package. Madam Speaker, let's make it clear. Spending money doesn't automatically stimulate the economy. That is a myth.

Now, this package is, oh, 800, $900 billion. How much is that? Well, that means different things to different folks. Down in Australia, that is the entire cost of the Australian economy. Or looking at it another way, $900 billion, if you take every junior and senior in high school in every high school in the United States, this money could give them a 4-year college education at a private university--now we're talking about real money--and still have $150 billion left over.

Or looking at it another way, you could pay off 90 percent of the home mortgages in the United States.

This is serious business, Madam Speaker, and this bill does not stimulate the economy; it just spends a lot of taxpayer money.

What we should do is let Americans keep more of their own money. Cut taxes for those that pay taxes. Then they have their own money, they can spend it the way they want to, and they can stimulate our economy.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my good friend and fellow judge from Texas (Mr. Green) for introducing this legislation, an individual I've known for now over 30 years and have been through a lot together back in the State of Texas and proud to see that he has introduced this legislation.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support House Resolution 71 which acknowledges the lifelong service of Griffin Bell to the State of Georgia and, of course, to the United States.

Griffin Bell was the son of a cotton farmer, and he rose to become one of the most respected legal counselors in the whole United States. He was appointed by President Kennedy to serve as a judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. He left the court after 14 years of service on that bench to rejoin the law firm of King and Spalding.

In 1986, President Jimmy Carter nominated him to become the Attorney General of the United States. In that role, Judge Bell operated in a remarkably open manner that has not been duplicated since.

Every day, he would publicly post his contacts with third parties, including meetings and calls from the White House, Members of Congress, and others outside the Justice Department. His efforts to strengthen transparency of his office did much to rebuild confidence in the Justice Department after the Watergate scandal.

As Attorney General, Judge Bell led the effort to pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. At the time, he gave testimony to Congress in which he made clear that the legislation ``does not take away the power of the President under the Constitution.''

Judge Bell also led negotiations that resulted in dividing his former appellate courts into two circuits: the Fifth Circuit, based in New Orleans, and the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta.

Judge Bell was known for his love of rooster pepper sausage and for his wide and bold-colored ties. He was a figure full of personality as he was wise, and greatly respected by Members of both sides of the political aisle.

Judge Bell passed away earlier this year on January 5, 2009. He and his sage advice and his opinions will be missed.

As a former judge and prosecutor, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution to honor the life of Judge Bell, a man committed to justice because, Mr. Speaker, justice is what we do in America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this H. Res, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I'm pleased to support H.R. 908, the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program Reauthorization of 2009.

Roughly 5 million Americans suffer from Alzheimer's disease or dementia. Of these, 60 percent will become lost from their families or their caretakers. If they're not found within 24 hours, up to half of them become seriously ill or even die.

H.R. 908 increases the chance of locating missing persons suffering from these diseases within the critical first 24 hours. Specifically, the bill provides grants to nonprofit organizations to help create and maintain programs to assist in locating missing patients and family members with Alzheimer's.

We passed similar legislation in the last session of Congress, sent it to the Senate, and the Senate made a few changes and sent it back to us for our approval here in the House, but we did not have enough to consider the bill before Congress adjourned at the end of last year. H.R. 908 contains compromise language from the Senate version of the last session of Congress.

These programs and organizations this legislation aims to help are often significantly useful to local law enforcement when a person suffering from these mind-altering diseases goes missing. Because these patients are often disoriented and confused, tips and information from family, friends, and doctors are very critical.

H.R. 908 provides support to these organizations, indirect assistance to local law enforcement, protection to patients, and some peace of mind to the families and loved ones.

I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 448, the Elder Abuse Victims Act of 2009. As founder and co-Chair of the Congressional Victims Rights Caucus, I

believe it's important to advocate on behalf of all victims, especially our seniors. This is why I am a cosponsor of this important piece of legislation to protect our elders.

Elder abuse is a serious issue facing the country, and whether abuse is happening in homes or senior care facilities, we must do what we can as a Nation to protect these seniors. I believe that because seniors are often unable to defend themselves from mistreatment and abuse, that we must work together to prevent violence from occurring in the first place.

Currently, people over the age of 50 make up 12 percent of the Nation's murder victims and 7 percent of other serious and violent crime. Our eldest seniors, 80 years of age and over, are abused and neglected at three times the rate of all other senior citizens.

H.R. 448, the Elder Abuse Victims Act, sponsored by Representative Sestak, helps protect our older Americans from this type of abuse. Specifically, the bill authorizes the Department of Justice to provide grants to State and local law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and courts, to assist in the investigation and prosecution of elder victimization.

In addition to physical abuse, these grants also include identity theft, mail fraud, and telemarketing fraud as types of elder abuse. H.R. 448 authorizes the Department of Justice to also award grant funding to local law enforcement agencies and first responders that assist in locating the elderly that are missing. These grants will support programs that monitor older Americans in an effort to prevent them from facing future harm.

In addition, the bill instructs the Justice Department to carry out a study of State laws and procedures regarding elder abuse and neglect and exploitation. The study will give us a better idea of where we stand and what more we can do as a Nation to address this serious problem.

H.R. 448 also directs the Department to create a long-term plan on how to better prevent and detect elder abuse. The plan is also to focus on the treatment of victims, as well as to evaluate current elder abuse programs.

Mr. Speaker, everyone has a grandmother, and the thought of our grandmothers being neglected and abused is outrageous. Nothing made my blood boil more as a judge to see a case where some elderly person has been assaulted and their case was on trial.

Older Americans, whether they are our parents, our grandparents, or our neighbors, hold an important place in our society. They have lived long lives and given much to their communities and their families. The acts of abuse against them are intolerable, and they deserve the protection that we can give them under H.R. 448.

We passed a similar bill under suspension in the last Congress, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

As a Nation, we are not judged by the way we treat the rich, the famous, the powerful, the important folks that live among us; but we as a community in this Nation are judged by the way we treat the most vulnerable among us, the weak, the innocent, the children, and the elderly. That is how we will be judged as a Nation. It is important that we then pass this legislation to help protect those innocent among us, and in this bill it happens to be the elderly. I urge adoption of this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 632, the National Silver Alert Act of 2009, to help protect the elderly, particularly those suffering from Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. This legislation is the work of three bills sponsored by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the gentleman

from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), and the gentlelady from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick). Last year, the House passed similar legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support.

By creating a structure similar to the Amber Alert system used to locate missing children, H.R. 632, the National Silver Alert Act, will help assist States in their efforts to protect our elderly. The Amber Alert system was created by the Dallas Police in 1996, after the kidnapping and murder of a 9-year-old girl from Arlington, Texas.

In 2003, Congress created the national Amber Alert program. As co- chair of the Victims Rights Caucus, I have seen firsthand the huge success of the Amber Alert program in locating missing children. Just as the Amber Alert program, which is currently now used in all 50 States, was designed to notify the public when a child was missing, the Silver Alert will also notify the public when an elderly adult is missing.

Mr. Speaker, we have all seen the big freeway signs that have Amber Alert, give the name of the child and the license number of the car that the child was taken in, and now we will see that also occur with the elderly in our community. Citizens can now offer any information they have on the missing person which will aid law enforcement officials in their search. Currently, the Silver Alert is used in 13 of our States. These States have reported nominal costs associated with operating the system, since they are able to utilize existing Amber Alert infrastructure to issue Silver Alerts.

H.R. 632 establishes a nationwide communication structure to coordinate State and local search efforts, and expand the system to those States not participating and authorizes a grant to support State Silver Alert systems and communication networks. The bill directs the Attorney General to assign an officer of the Department of Justice to act as the national director of the Silver Alert program. The director will develop voluntary guidelines that States can use in implementing the alert system and provide training and other resources to State law enforcement agencies.

The Amber Alert system has proven successful in locating missing children throughout the country; so too has the Silver Alert system in States currently using it. By establishing the Silver Alert system nationwide, H.R. 632 will help coordinate State efforts in protecting older Americans the same way the Amber Alert system has for missing children. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the cosponsor of this bill, Mr. Bilirakis from Florida.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I yield 3 minutes to the cosponsor of this bill, the gentlelady from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. I urge adoption of this resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to talk about the spendulous bill that is coming before the House once again.

If you add up all of the money it's going to cost us in this spendulous bill, it's going to total $9.7 trillion. Now, I had to put it on two poster boards here, Mr. Speaker, so we could see how long a number that is. That includes, of course, the big bailout bills that were passed, and, of course, the debt on the spendulous bill and future debt that we're going to require because of agreements to provide aid in this new bill.

Now, just to give you--I mean, nobody understands what $9.7 trillion means. So let me try to explain it in terms maybe we can understand.

If you take all the home mortgages in the United States, every one of them, this will pay off 90 percent of them by this bill that we're getting ready to pass. It's also enough to give every person on the face of the earth $1,500, every one of them, no matter where they are. That's how much $9.7 trillion is. That means everybody could get some money from the United States on this bill.

Putting it another way, if you add up the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, this is 13 times that amount. And it's been figured that if you add up in current 2009 dollars the cost of all the wars that the United States has fought in, the Revolutionary War, the War Between the States, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Iraqi wars and the Afghanistan wars, it still is less than $9.7 trillion. If you add up the wars and if you then figure out how much it cost us in 2009 dollars for the Louisiana Purchase, the Gadsden Purchase, and the whole State of Alaska, that's still less than $9.7 trillion.

So we're talking about real money here, Mr. Speaker, on this so- called ``spendulous'' bill that the House will get to vote on again at the end of this week.

This House stimulus bill, as it is properly called, is bigger than 168 of 180 national economies that are measured by the World Bank. Let me say that again. If you take 180 countries and their national economy, this bill is bigger than 168 of them.

So we're talking about money that, first of all, probably will not even work to stimulate the economy. We've been told that spending equals stimulus. That is just not true. Government spending on government programs doesn't mean that the economy is going to be better. All it means is the government, our government, is going to get bigger.

Many economists argue that there's no historical precedent for a stimulus spending driven economy, and they base that on history. You see, we've done this stimulus package before. Since 1948, there have been eight stimulus packages that have come to the House of Representatives, that have passed, and history has shown none of those really stimulated the economy at all. They had no effect on the economy, but we don't pay any attention to history. We just think we can make it happen by spending a lot of government money.

And of course, we're not convinced, those of us who don't want to spend this kind of money, that it will stimulate the economy, and besides all that, we don't have the money, Mr. Speaker. We're just flat broke. We've got to borrow the money. We've got to borrow it from somebody else in the world like China and pay interest to China, of all countries, so that we can take this money from Americans yet to be born and give it to different interest groups in the United States, all under the pretext of we're going to stimulate the economy. It doesn't make much sense to me to be spending this kind of money, which is real money, on this so-called fake stimulus package.

Maybe we should not spend any money at all. Maybe we should think about letting Americans, who pay taxes, and do report their taxes to the IRS, let them keep more of their money, an across-the-board tax cut for everybody that pays taxes. They would have more of their own money to begin with. Government wouldn't be taking it from them and deciding what to do with it. Let them keep their own money, and they can spend it how they

see fit. And maybe they will stimulate the economy by the way they choose to spend it rather than wasteful spending by the Federal Government, the government growing bigger, the government getting more involved in everything from the banking industry to the how-to-make-a- Federal car, and all of these other programs where we're getting the nationalization of this.

It's not the answer, Mr. Speaker, and that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, as Americans worry about the economy, Washington is using the politics of fear to promote a so- called stimulus package. This $800 billion bill will cost every man, woman, child and illegal in the United States about $2,700. However, we're told unless we pass this big spending bill, we're, in essence, all going to die.

The intimidating tactics used by the proponents give money to special interest groups like museums, including, believe it or not, the Mob Museum. That's right. The Mayor of Las Vegas correctly claims the bill allows for millions of dollars to go to funding the Las Vegas show piece, the Mob Museum.

I wonder how the money for a high dollar edifice to glorify organized crime will help out our economy. Obviously, the government should not strong-arm the taking of the people's money only to give it to this or to other special interest groups.

Let the people keep more of their own money. Cut taxes for all those that pay taxes. Then with more of their own money, the people will decide how to stimulate the economy. After all, it is their money. And I doubt they will be buying tickets to a museum dedicated to organized crime.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, not only are taxpayers bailing out Wall Street, but the robber barons are repaying the American people by giving away jobs to foreign workers.

That's right. Forget stimulating the economy by offering jobs to the taxpayers. It is reported by the Associated Press that the banks that received the largest amount of bailout money, more than $150 billion, requested over 20,000 visas for foreign workers over the last few years.

As economic times have gotten worse, they requested even more visas. Last year, the same bleak economic period in which the ``Big Banking Boys Gang'' begged for a government handout, their foreign visa requests increased more than a third over the previous year.

And just to be clear, these jobs were not for the so-called jobs Americans won't do. Quite the opposite. They were for corporate lawyers, senior vice presidents, and analysts. The average annual salary for these American jobs given to foreigners was over $90,000.

Mr. Speaker, the American taxpayers are being played as fools. First, The Wall Street fat cats took the people's money, and now they're taking their jobs.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot about stimulating the economy. We've passed legislation to stimulate the economy. The Senate is doing the same thing. It's all in the effort to get us out of this economic slump that we are going to supposedly pass legislation of $800 billion to move America forward to stimulate the economy, to have pro-growth.

But if you look at this massive bill a little closer, I would like to ask this question: There are some programs in

this bill--just a few that I've picked out; there are a lot more--that I question whether or not these will stimulate the economy. By Congress taking taxpayer money and giving it to certain entities, does it stimulate the economy or is it just more pork? Is it just more favoritism to certain entities?

In the new Stimulation Economy Act, there's $4 billion that goes to neighborhood stabilization activities. What is that? That's the community groups like ACORN. You know ACORN. That's the one being investigated for voter fraud in several States, yet to be prosecuted, of course, but money to give to these organizations. How does that stimulate the economy? I don't know.

Three billion dollars goes to wellness programs; how we can take care of ourselves better. Does that stimulate the economy? Maybe not.

One billion dollars for census follow-up. What that means is after the census is taken, then a billion dollars is given to follow up on that.

Eight hundred million dollars goes to Amtrak. You know, Amtrak loses money every year. We have to give them money of the taxpayers to fund this subsidy.

Four hundred million dollars for climate change research. Now, I'm sure we all think we ought to study the climate and global warming and that sort of thing, but does that stimulate the economy to give $400 million to certain special interest groups to study climate change?

Six billion dollars to colleges. No question about it. Universities and colleges need money. But shouldn't a bill that appropriates money to the universities go in an appropriations bill rather than a bill that stimulates the economy?

Six hundred million dollars is going for new cars for government workers--not the average taxpayer but just government workers.

Fifty million dollars goes to the National Endowment of the Arts. Don't see how that's going to stimulate our economy.

I like this one a lot: $250 million for tax breaks for Hollywood movie producers so they can buy more film. Now, I don't know that those people in Hollywood need taxpayer money, but they're going to get it. And how that stimulates the economy, we'll let the taxpayers decide.

The Coast Guard is getting a new ice breaker, $88 million. Stimulate the economy? Maybe not.

Homeland Security is getting new furniture in the amount of $250 million taxpayer expense.

Seventy-five million dollars for stop-smoking programs. I'm not sure that will stimulate the economy.

And the one I like the most is $25 million for tribal, alcohol, and substance abuse reduction.

Now, this is taxpayer money. This doesn't belong to the Congress, it belongs to the people. And we have the obligation to take the people's money and use it wisely; in this case, to make the economy better. I doubt if these programs that I mentioned--and many, many others that are in this massive pork bill--will stimulate the economy. It's just another way of giving taxpayer money out to different groups.

What can we do to stimulate the economy? We ought to do the simple things. There are two things that I would suggest. One of those is a bill that Mr. Gohmert has sponsored, my cohort from Texas. It's no taxes for 2 months. Everybody in the United States that works, no W-2 taken out of their income for 2 months. When we have our own money-- that's the taxpayers--we will spend the money how we see fit, not how the government sees fit. Don't you think that might stimulate the economy in the short term?

And in the long term, rather than spend money that we do not have, that we have to go in debt for, that we have to borrow from the Chinese of all people, and saddle that debt to our kids and our grandkids and our great-grandkids, why don't we have a tax break for everybody that pays taxes? Straight across-the-board income tax reduction. People keep their own money. They will decide how to spend it. They will decide better than government how to spend the money.

These suggestions won't cost the government anything. Won't cost the people anything. It's an approach that I think that it's worth that we have a lively debate about on the House floor.

It's important that we get out of this economic decline, but the way to do it is not to spend more money and make government bigger. And the stimulus package is a big spending bill for government. More government control, more government involvement in our lives, and it doesn't help the economy a bit.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, this week, Madam Speaker, the very last American doughboy, Mr. Frank Buckles, turned 108 years old.

Of the 4.7 million Americans that were mobilized during the First World War, Frank Buckles is the very last of his generation.

His remarkable life began in Bethany, Missouri where he was born in 1901, during the administration of the 25th President of the United States, President McKinley. At the tender age of 16, Mr. Buckles fibbed his way into the Army when he enlisted to fight in the First World War. He was rejected by several recruiters, but he was not deterred until he finally found a recruiter that would take him. He joined the United States Army, and he drove an ambulance in Europe during World War I.

Throughout his life, Mr. Buckles served in the First World War and was held as a prisoner of war by the Japanese for three years during World War Two.

At the incredible age of 108, Mr. Buckles has lived through 46 percent of our nation's history.

Today he resides on the family farm he purchased near Charles Town, West Virginia after the war.

Mr. Buckles is one of the forgotten veterans of a forgotten war. He is the lone survivor.

During WWI nearly 116,000 U.S. warriors gave their lives for this country. The service and sacrifice of those men and women changed the tide of that stalemate war and ensured victory for the Allies. But when they returned to the United States there were no parades or major memorials established to honor them.

Despite the fact that WWI was the first war to be fought on three continents and was the first industrialized conflict, it remains a largely forgotten war.

Today we have three memorials to the major wars in modern U.S. history on the National Mall: the Vietnam Memorial, the Korean Memorial, and the World War II Memorial, but no national memorial for

Madam Speaker, more fallout continues from the bailout. Congress gave the people's money to AIG last year in the amount of $152 billion. AIG has decided to spend $400 million on bonuses for 400 executives. That sounds like about $1 million per executive to me.

But they aren't alone. The Wall Street fat cats demanded and received $350 billion in bailout money, and gave $18 billion to their big-shot executives. Do you know that those are the same executives that helped get us in this current economic mess? It looks like they are being rewarded for bad conduct.

But the real problem is the bonus money doesn't belong to AIG or the ``Wall Street Banking Boys Gang.'' It's one thing for a free market, private company to spend their money any way they choose. That's capitalism. But the free enterprise system was altered when those companies started demanding and taking taxpayers' money. Most normal citizens who are scraping to make ends meet, like the Joe Sixpacks in America, don't like the way the bailout bandits are spending and wasting their taxpayer money.

Madam Speaker, when Big Business gets in bed with Big Government, in the morning, the government mistress will tell Big Business how to spend the money.

And that's just the way it is.