Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, at a time when businesses in this country are navigating

through waves of distress, the administration wants to deliver a tsunami in the form of tax increases. Taxing, taxing, taxing is about the only solution that it can come up with. But what it doesn't seem to realize is how it's failed all of us. It's shrinking the economy even more and is shrinking paychecks too. If the administration lets the Bush era tax cuts expire, 700,000 jobs will be destroyed. And out of those jobs, 56,800 will be in Texas.

The administration has had its chances to restore financial stability in this country without creating tax hikes. These tax increases not only target the wealthy. These taxes will actually take hard strikes at small businesses and the middle class. Contrary to what the administration believes, this is not fair.

Ernst & Young's latest study breaks it down just right. It examined the long-term impacts of increasing top tax rates. And let me tell you, they're not good. The long-run economic consequences are severe. Here it goes.

The administration proposes a one-year extension of the current tax rates for households making $250,000 or less. Then, those making $250,000 or more, including a lot of small businesses that file under the individual rate, will pay the tax rates prior to the Bush era. That means the top rate will go from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. Tax rates for the other top income tax bracket will go from 33 percent to 36 percent.

But this isn't all of them. The administration continues to tax. Medicare tax will go from 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent. A new 3.8 percent tax will be implemented on investment income. And last but not least, higher taxes on capital gains and dividends.

So, what does this total and how does it all play out? The combination of all these taxes will take the top individual income tax rate from 35 percent to 44.7 percent next year. And beware; this doesn't include all of the Obamacare taxes that will empty your wallet in 2013.

What does this do? Approximately 2 million businesses will be affected by these tax hikes. This will take capital out of the hands of business owners and reduced labor supply and the United States will lose $200 billion in economic output. And extending the rates for families earning less than $250,000 will cost us $175 billion dollars next year. As bad as this sounds already, the tax hikes will likely force American employers to trim their workers' pay by 1.8 percent.

What will happen? Business firms will be hit hard. We will see patterns of less hiring, less investment in businesses, and retarded growth of these businesses in their sector. Sixty million Americans are small business employees. About two out of three jobs was created by a small business. And the administration is trying to take this away from us.

We've had enough of their fun with taxes. As someone who claims his focus to be ``rebuilding the economy,'' he is doing quite the opposite. Our lives now revolve around taxes and this is all thanks to our nation's leader who thinks he can tax our way into economic prosperity. It doesn't take a math genius to figure out that these tax numbers are not the solution to a damaged economy. His idea that taxing the wealthy won't hurt this economy is false. If his job is to stifle job creation, create class warfare, and even further damage our market, then he's really done it well.

We can't afford to let this happen.

We can't afford to lose more than 700,000 jobs.

We can't afford to give more control to our government.

And that's just the way it is.

There's a new small business in my district in southeast Texas: Cool Blast Lemonade Stand, run by the Sutton sisters of Cypress, Texas. Clara is 7 and Eliza is 4. Their newest employee is little brother Eirik, who recently was hired to join the team. They even have their own Facebook page with 867 followers.

On their Facebook page, they say this about their business:

We are entrepreneurs who started a lemonade stand for

Lemonade Day. We are going to continue working to earn money

to spend on things we would like, save and also to share with

our two chosen charities, Meals on Wheels and Paws of Texas

Rescue.

Mr. Speaker, they learned all of these lessons without any interference from the Federal Government.

Their father, Andrew, said this:

They did it all on their own. Nobody helped them except us.

My wife and I both run our own businesses, so running a

lemonade stand with them was showing them what they could do.

They were curious how we got money for things.

Mr. Speaker, the girls stood out in 100-degree Texas humid heat serving customers instead of being like many other kids going to the local swimming pool. Each day they are open for business, the girls learn valuable lessons--lessons about budgets, lessons about capitalism, and lessons about life.

Clara says:

You learn how to make change. We learned about customer

service--that we should always be nice to customers. We

learned how to advertise. We donate some of the money to

charity to help other people out. We might buy a gift for our

brother since he's our new employee.

After one Lemonade Day in Houston, the girls said that they made enough money to ``pay their investors back in full.'' Mr. Speaker, when was the last time you heard of a 7-year-old using those business terms?

These kids are getting on-the-job business training that no government--especially the Federal Government--gave them. They are practicing Americanism. In the America I know, we teach our kids the value of hard work and entrepreneurship. We teach our kids from a young age that success does not come without sacrifice. Perseverance and responsibility pay off.

These are the lessons that our children need to learn, not the lessons of trying to depend on government. You see, these kids made it without government doing anything except getting out of their way.

So, Mr. Speaker, the next time you see the President, tell him that successful businesses in America come from businessowners--even kids-- and not the Federal Government.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, recently I heard from Jacqueline, a small business owner in southeast Texas, and here's what she said:

Business owners who want to succeed put their heart and

soul into their business. They are the ones who get there at

the crack of dawn and leave after everyone else is long

settled in for the night. I've been a small business owner,

and I know a great many others like me, and nobody did

anything for us, we did it for ourselves, and the only thing

that the government did for us was tax us.

Apparently, this President disagrees with Jacqueline's statement. According to the administration: ``If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.'' So the President is inferring, I suspect, that government should get the credit for the success of entrepreneurs. He is wrong, Madam Speaker.

People are the reason for American success--not government. Americans have the vision, creativity, and audacity to pursue a dream--not the government. Americans risk their life savings, not knowing what profit they will get back in return for their labor. Government doesn't risk anything. Americans spend long days, sleepless nights, and working on weekends away from their family in order to keep their company afloat and pay their employees. Americans battle through discouragement and criticism in the hope for better days ahead. It is Americans who give up their home in order to pay for a store. And it's Americans who pay all those taxes and expensive government regulations that they're forced to pay.

Government isn't there when a decision is made to get a business started, to take a leap of faith, make a hire, sell first goods, or tally bills. People pursue their own American Dream without government holding their hand.

Those believers in Big Government say that Americans can only be successful if government controls their lives. Madam Speaker, government isn't the answer; government's the problem. America is not great because of government programs. It's great because of Americans, individuals with the spirit and desire to make their lives and this country better. Government doesn't assume the risk in business, individuals do.

Starting a business is not easy. Business is driven by American ingenuity, creativity and, yes, hard work. Those who have been successful didn't wait around for someone else to help them with a government handout. The reality is that government actually makes it harder to do business now, not easier.

When I ask Texas businesses what Washington can do for them, their answer is always the same: get out of the way. Businesses cannot afford to hire others and give them jobs because of the costly, unnecessary regulations imposed by government.

According to the World Bank's 2012 ``Doing Business in a More Transparent World'' report, the U.S. now ranks 13th in the world in places to start a business. We trail countries like Belarus, Macedonia, and Rwanda. Now, isn't that lovely?

America should not be a place where people wait for a government handout check. Instead, they should get a paycheck for working.

Individual achievement used to be celebrated in this country, but the administration seems to punish success. And what does the government do when individuals are successful? The government punishes them with taxes.

According to the collectivists, business wealth was created by government, and so it belongs to everybody. Sounds a lot like statism to me, Madam Speaker, the idea that citizens should be beholden to the government for everything and government is worshipped as the savior of us all. That is not the American philosophy, I know.

So the policy is, under the statists, tax people to death. Madam Speaker, you've heard that statement. If something moves, regulate it. If it keeps moving, tax it. And then if it stops moving, subsidize it. Government is doing all of the above to businesses in this country. And government is also overtaxing those small businesses, keeping 23 million Americans from finding jobs.

Madam Speaker, small businesses create most of the jobs in this country. You see, when a small business is successful it can expand by hiring people. Government doesn't create jobs; people and businesses do.

So what next? Are the good days of American exceptionalism behind us? No. Americans are as exceptional as ever before, and it's the government that is our problem.

Where I come from, we teach our kids that, in this country, no matter who you are or where you came from, hard work and personal responsibility will pay off. In the America I know, people earn their paycheck and don't sit around waiting for a free government check.

Small business owner Jacqueline is correct. Individuals, American ingenuity, and free enterprise create success, not Washington. That is the American Dream, Madam Speaker. And when you see the President, tell him he's wrong.

And that's just the way it is.

I have an amendment at the desk.

As stated in the report language of the bill, my amendment cuts $1.3 billion that is going specifically to Pakistan.

Pakistan seems to be the Benedict Arnold nation in the list of countries that we call allies. They have proven to be deceptive and deceitful and a danger to the United States. Here is some of the evidence:

For the last 7 months, Pakistan closed down the southern supply route. The route transported about 40 percent of all NATO supplies into the country and to Afghanistan;

Pakistan still refuses to go after the terrorist sanctuaries in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Terrorist groups like the LET, the Pakistani Taliban, and al Qaeda frequently cross over into Afghanistan, kill our troops and then run back into Pakistan and hide where our troops cannot follow them;

On May 23, 2012, Pakistan sentenced the doctor who helped us get Osama bin Laden to 33 years in prison. I thought getting the world's No. 1 terrorist--the terrorist who killed thousands of Americans--was a good thing, but apparently, Pakistan prosecuted him;

In February 2012, a NATO report confirmed our suspicions: the ISI is aiding the Taliban and other extremist groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan by providing resources, sanctuary, and training;

In June 2011, Pakistan tipped off terrorists making IEDs--not once, but twice--after we told them where the bomb-making factories were and asked Pakistan to go after them;

In 2011, Pakistan tried to cheat the United States by filling out bogus reimbursement claims for allegedly going after militants when they weren't doing that at all.

There is more.

On September 22, 2011, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee: ``With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted that truck bomb attack as well as the assault on our Embassy.'' The truck bombing he mentions here wounded more than 70 U.S. and NATO allies and troops. Admiral Mullen went on to say: ``The Haqqani Network acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency.''

What more do we need to hear? Pakistan doesn't deserve American money. By the end of fiscal year 2011, Pakistan had had a total of $21.5 billion of American money since FY 2002. Mr. Chairman, I ask: Has America received its money's worth? The answer is no.

I want to address a couple of arguments I've heard from the other side:

First, some say that the money in this bill for Pakistan is only to reimburse them for going after terrorists. They say we shouldn't take away that carrot. But, since 2002, Congress has already appropriated over $8 billion to the Coalition Support Fund specifically for Pakistan. Where I come from, if you try something and it doesn't work, you don't continue to do it. We've been doing the same thing for over 10 years. It's time for a new strategy with Pakistan. More money is not going to solve the problem.

Second, they say Pakistan just reopened the southern supply route.

Pakistan closed the southern supply route from November 2011 to this month. Pakistan was a bad ally before it closed the supply route. The fact that they messed us around and closed it for 7 months only adds to the long list of evidence that shows they are no friend of ours. It also shows that we don't need them to win the war in Afghanistan. We were able to pursue our mission in Afghanistan without them. What really endangers our troops is not access to the southern supply route, but the failure to get access to Pakistan's tribal areas where Pakistan gives terrorists a safe haven.

Pakistan is playing America. The only thing Pakistan's military rulers understand is dollars, and as long as we keep the money flowing, they have no incentive to change their evil ways.

Our message should be this: Pakistan has a raging insurgency in their country with al Qaeda, the Pakistan Taliban, and the Haqqani Network. Pakistan can either receive assistance and go after these terrorists with us or don't take any of our money, and we will find our own way to take these terrorists out.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in telling Pakistan they will no longer get American money. We don't need to pay Pakistan to betray us. They will do it for free.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

My understanding is, in the report language, to specify a certain country would not be ruled in order; therefore, I used the $1.3 billion with the floor statement that applies only to Pakistan and none of our coalition countries that you have mentioned.

I am open to an amendment that would be ruled in order, and I would be glad to work with the chairman on that amendment.

Yes, I would certainly be willing to do that.

I will withdraw my amendment.

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

I thank the Chair.

I thank the chairman, and his staff especially, for working with me on this amendment, which I would like to associate my previous remarks in a previous amendment on Pakistan to this amendment. Basically the intent is to cut half of the money that goes to Pakistan under title IX in this legislation.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Poe of Texas

Amendment No. 3: Page 125, lines 17 and 19, after each

dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by $1,300,000,000)''.

Page 153, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $1,300,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a leader in the victims' rights movement, former Michigan State Senator Bill van Regenmorter.

It was fitting that flags in Michigan were flown at half-mast following Bill's death. Many news reports in Michigan detailed his significant contributions to the people of his beloved state and, most especially, his long advocacy and legislative accomplishments on behalf of crime victims and survivors. I feel it is fitting to equally recognize that Bill's contributions go far beyond the borders of Michigan. As one of the earliest state legislators to draft and enact crime victims' rights legislation, Bill was extraordinarily generous in sharing his experiences, insights and innovations with those of us in other states dedicated to the same cause. His hand can indeed be seen in similar laws in dozens of other states. Bill's tireless efforts were recognized in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Justice, when he received the Ronald Wilson Reagan Public Policy Award from the Office for Victims of Crime.

There is no question that without Bill van Regenmorter, we could not have made as much progress as we have in securing crime victims' rights throughout our entire nation. As a Texas judge, I can attest that we tapped Bill's wisdom and expertise in the late 1980s to develop our own ``Victims' Bill of Rights''--an important law that, to this day, provides a strong foundation for the fair treatment of crime victims in my state.

In Bill's own words, ``victim empowerment has brought integrity to the system that wasn't there before.'' Bill's legacy can be found in his pioneering efforts that empowered countless crime victims and those who serve them to stand up for victims' rights, and his inspiration for anyone concerned about individual and community safety to, as he did throughout his entire life, get involved and make a positive difference.

The U.S. Congressional Victims' Rights Caucus sends its condolences to Bill's wife Cheryl and his family, and his ``extended family'' of crime victims, survivors and victim advocates who benefit today and in the future from his pioneering efforts.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, when I am back in southeast Texas, I hear from individuals and businesses who are concerned about how ObamaCare will affect them. Ava, a senior from Houston, tells me this:

I am a senior who is very concerned that I will lose the

great health care that I am presently receiving under

Medicare. I am pleased with my doctors and with my health

care plan. At the present, I can afford it, and I am

concerned I will not be able to in the future if ObamaCare

goes completely through and that I might not get the care I

need for the health issues I already have.

Seniors cannot afford ObamaCare, nor do they want it.

Living on limited income today is hard enough without this

new health care plan wanting more of my money. Seniors seem

to be taking it on the chin tremendously on this issue.

Madam Speaker, Ava is right: ObamaCare is not good for seniors on Medicare. They will pay more for less care because of this expensive government takeover of America's health.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, Indiana prison inmate Ryan Greminger collected unemployment benefits during his 2-year sentence in the county jail for a drug crime. He collected $14,000 of taxpayer money. He was in jail, and the government continued to pay him anyway.

Only in America would we pay people in jail because they are unemployed. Greminger should not have obtained money from honest American taxpayers, but he did.

Government is becoming incompetent when it comes to paying unemployment benefits. According to CNN, the Federal Government overpaid $14 billion in unemployment benefits just last year. That means 11 percent of all jobless benefits paid out were not supposed to be paid to those individuals. Those overpayments that should have gone to people in need were sent by government to those who didn't deserve any money. You see, not all payments are to honest people who are looking for jobs and are out of work.

Inmate Greminger's case is bad, but there's more.

A convicted killer, murderer, in a California prison was receiving at least $30,000 in unemployment checks. The murderer made sure that his family and his friends cashed his checks while he was locked up. So each month, his family fraudulently cashed his $1,600 check, which they would then deposit in his jail bank account. Guess where it went next, Mr. Speaker? He shared the jail money with some of his low-life prison gang members while he was in the joint.

There's more.

The Federal Government reportedly sent a man $515,000 in payments over 37 years--37 years, Mr. Speaker--because he was supposedly unemployed. Thirty-seven years of unemployment benefits for anyone is nonsense to me, but who exactly were they sending that money to in this case? A dead person who died 40 years ago. No wonder he wasn't working, Mr. Speaker; he wasn't around.

We count on our government to spend our tax dollars wisely, but it is inefficiently sending money to those not qualified to obtain taxpayer support--prison inmates and dead people.

Fourteen billion dollars is a lot of money in anybody's book. In the private sector, if a business misappropriated $14 billion, the people in charge would be fired or go to jail, but not so with government agencies. These overpayments and wasteful incompetent spending really don't shock or surprise Americans anymore at all. There's so much waste of taxpayer money that we have become accustomed to it, and we actually expect government to waste money--too big, too wasteful, too incompetent, and too inefficient.

But the real problem is not waste, but the size and inefficiency of government. We're moving to a society that is just another European nanny state, where government is bigger, bloated, and controlling. The government says it will provide all our needs if we just turn over more power, authority, and money to government and government agencies.

Mr. Speaker, does anybody ever really get warm fuzzies when we hear about government programs like the post office, FEMA, the IRS, or TSA? I don't think so. Government doesn't do things better; it does things more expensively and wastefully. And government promotes a concept of more dependence on government, not independence.

We in Congress need to realize the obvious--that unlimited, out-of- control government is not the answer to our problems. But until we get a grip on government and move to a constitutional concept of limited government,

we should expect and demand more accountability from the people that are in charge of the people's money.

With hard economic times affecting the unemployed, we cannot tolerate wasteful spending by government bureaucracies. With 8.5 percent unemployment nationwide, 11 percent in the Hispanic community, 14 percent in the African American community, 14 percent for returning military from Iraq and Afghanistan, and 50 percent unemployment for recent college graduates, we should demand that when government helps those we as a society say it should help, government does so properly and efficiently and in a dignified way. Otherwise, more dead people will continue to receive taxpayer money that should go to people that are at least alive.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, late one summer night a few years ago, I boarded a red-eye flight back to Houston. I saw college students on the plane, and I expected the worst. I was wrong, however. As soon as the plane took off, these athletes broke out their books, and they studied for the rest of the flight. I was impressed by this group of considerate, smart, focused, and driven student athletes. No surprise, they were the Owls baseball team from Rice University.

Rice was named after Massachusetts-born businessman William Marsh Rice, a transplanted Yankee who was successful in Houston, Texas. He chartered the Rice Institute. Today, Rice University is the home of 5,000 students. Its achievements make Houston proud--artificial heart research, structural chemical analysis, and space science, just to name a few. And the Rice Owls baseball team gives Houston a baseball team we can be proud of. And just yesterday, Rice was named one of the top 100 universities in the world by the Center for World University Rankings.

I want to congratulate Rice president, Dr. Leebron, his wonderful educators, and his students for an amazing 100 years of excellence and education.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, Bangladesh national and illegal immigrant Shafiqul Islam was convicted in 2008 of promoting sexual performance of a child.

After he served his sentence in New York, an immigration judge ordered Islam to be deported back to where he came from, but Bangladesh wouldn't take back their criminal deviant. They did what many countries do, delayed, delayed, delayed, until, by law, he was released back onto the streets of America.

As other countries are well aware, U.S. law does not allow indefinite incarceration. Six weeks after his release, Islam struck again at another victim.

On a cool evening in November in New York, 73-year-old grandmother Lois Decker, a mother, a grandmother, retired school cook, a Sunday school teacher, was walking home from the grocery store. Islam stalked her and followed her into her home and murdered the defenseless grandmother.

But stealing her life just wasn't enough for him. After Islam left her to die, he stole her car and took off in the darkness of the night. The thief, however, wrecked her car. Two good Samaritans saw the crash and mistakenly stopped to help him. Then, being the worthless outlaw he is, he tried to steal their car as well. More witnesses intervened and prevented him from stealing that vehicle, but he still fled the scene in yet another stolen vehicle. In June, a judge in New York sentenced Islam to life, where he belongs.

Mr. Speaker, currently there are thousands of criminal illegals in our country, just like Islam, that have been sent to prison, ordered deported, but their native countries stall, delay, and eventually refuse to take back their outlaws. Many of those criminals are roaming around American streets looking for more crime and malicious mischief.

There is more.

Ashton Cline-McMurray was a 16-year-old with cerebral palsy when he came in contact with another ``do-bad.'' One evening he was walking home from a football game in Massachusetts when he was ambushed, beaten, stabbed, and murdered by Loeun Heng, an illegal from Cambodia. Heng was convicted of manslaughter, sent to prison, and then ordered deported. But Heng never went back to his native country of Cambodia because they wouldn't take him.

There is more.

Vietnamese citizen Binh Thai Luc was convicted of armed robbery of a Chinese restaurant in California in 1996. He was sent to prison for 10 years and then ordered deported back to Vietnam. But, once again, Vietnam would not take him back. So, in March of this year, Luc was running loose in San Francisco and murdered five people.

Mr. Speaker, these are tragic cases that occurred in our Nation. There should be consequences for countries like Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Cambodia who fail to take back their lawfully deported criminals.

The blood of Ms. Decker and these other victims are not only the fault of Islam and the other felons, but also the fault of those countries that refuse to take their outlaw citizens back. Some of the most offending countries are Cuba, Pakistan, Vietnam, Jamaica, and, yes, our ``good buddies'' the Chinese.

What should we do? We should do two things: One, U.S. law should allow civil suits against these offending countries for damages without any caps on compensation; and, two, freeze legal visas to nations that refuse to take back their criminals.

Mr. Speaker, did you know a similar law already exists in the U.S., but the State Department won't enforce the law for supposedly ``diplomatic reasons''? According to Secretary Napolitano, DHS and the State Department are working with these offending countries to resolve these matters, that being the folks that are getting murdered in the

Madam Speaker, at this moment, Attorney General Eric Holder is going to deliver a speech at a conference in Houston, Texas.

A media advisory issued by the Department of Justice said, ``NOTE: All media must present government-issued photo ID (such as a driver's license) as well as valid media credentials.''

In order to hear him speak, media must present a valid government photo ID. I assume this is to prevent unauthorized individuals from being able to enter the auditorium.

I suspect Mr. Holder will rant about Texas' having a voter ID law to vote, however. You see, Madam Speaker, the Justice Department is also in court today suing Texas, claiming that the Texas voter ID law disenfranchises people. It seems to me the law would only disenfranchise fraudulent voters.

Never mind the Supreme Court has already upheld voter ID laws. Madam Speaker, the DOJ just ignores Supreme Court decisions it doesn't like and continues its war against Texas.

Holder is inconsistent. He believes in security and photo IDs for people when he speaks, but rejects ballot security and IDs for people when they vote.

Security is important. Security prevents unauthorized individuals from entering an auditorium or voting who shouldn't enter the auditorium or shouldn't vote. But the DOJ doesn't care about being hypocritical.

The DOJ, Madam Speaker, is once again on the wrong side of justice.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, as a kid growing up in Spring Branch, I always looked forward to the long days of the hot Texas summers. Long days meant more time to play outside. I didn't know that summers in the other parts of the world were not steamy like here in Houston. (I now tell my friends in Washington that are from the north, that Houston has two seasons: Summer and August.) Like most kids in the neighborhood, my sister, Jayne, and I played outdoors a good portion of the day and didn't come in 'til dark. We knew that when the porch light came on, we had to be home within five minutes of seeing the ``beacon'' or there would be consequences. Occasionally, we got to take summer excursions with the family to the battlegrounds, the Monument and, of course, the Battleship Texas.

My fondness for the USS Texas began in those days and has stuck with me throughout my life and career. As kids, we thought it was ``cool'' that Texas had its own battleship. We would pretend to shoot the guns on the ship, run through the countless corridors, hide in the nooks and crannies, and generally live in the disappearing past of the history of the great battlewagon. My best friend, Pete Cliburn, and I would climb from top to bottom of the ``Mighty T,'' firing every gun and squeezing down every open hatch along the way. We explored the many decks and climbed the ladders of the upper decks as high as we could go. When you reached the top of the ladder of the highest point, you better remember that the metal deck you were about to lay your forearms on was as hot as a cast iron skillet! But, as kids we couldn't care less, we were fighting on the greatest battleship to have ever sailed.

As I got older I learned more about the amazing legacy of BB 35. The USS Texas is the last survivor of the great Dreadnought Battleships. She participated in the most important battles of the first half of the Twentieth

Century, including both World Wars. She was launched 100 years ago this year and commissioned on March 12, 1914. She was the most powerful warship that the world had seen, and she participated in the invasion of North Africa, Normandy, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Her most notable contributions came in WW II, firing at Nazi defenses during the D-Day invasion at Normandy. Called the ``smartest man o'war afloat,'' the Texas was an integral part of many US victories. As the flagship of the US fleet on D-Day, the Texas was the first of her kind to mount anti- aircraft guns and the first US battleship to launch an aircraft. At the end of the War, she made three trips, bringing American servicemen home.

On the anniversary of San Jacinto Day, April 21, 1948, the Texas was decommissioned. Her place in history took root right here in our backyard. School children across Texas saved their nickels to help pay to dry dock the Battleship at the site of the Battlegrounds on the San Jacinto River. As a kid, it was obvious to me why General Sam routed Santa Anna--we had a Battleship! After all she was retired on San Jacinto Day. It took me awhile to figure out that the Texas Revolution was in the 1800s, and the Battleship Texas was used in the 1900s. While that all made perfectly good sense to me back then, my love for Texas history in the years to come taught me that they were not the same war and General Sam's accomplishments became far more impressive.

During my tenure as a judge, the ``Mighty T'' found its way back into my life and into the lives of offenders that I ordered to be ``enlisted'' in the ``Texas Navy.'' I ordered probationers who were skilled welders, painters, plumbers and electricians to help in the restoration efforts of the Battleship. As one of many creative sentences, this became another effective tool that both served the public and the probationer--a few even went on to be hired by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. The probationers became a part of the history of the great ship. After being dry docked in Galveston in the 80's, many much needed repairs were made by different organizations and thousands of volunteers. The Battleship is now moored in its present location.

During my first term in Congress, I joined efforts with Congressman Gene Green in securing federal funding to permanently dry dock and display the USS Texas so that my grandchildren and generations to come could climb all over one of the world's finest fighting vessels. My DC staff visits the ship, usually in August, and I act as the Texas historian, along with help from the real experts, the Battleship staff from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Today, the Battleship Texas serves as a museum and a reminder of wars long past. In 1948, she was designated a National Historic Landmark. Today, the Texas has an onboard museum that details her efforts in our fight for freedom and a history of the sailors that called her their own.

But, all is not well with the Texas. What her enemies in battle could not do to her, nature has. She is old and is taking on water. She is covered with rubber patches and aluminum plates, and about one thousand gallons of water pour through her body every day. Last week, visitors were turned away from this National Historic Landmark. The grand lady of the seas is closed until further notice. Visitors have been told the ship is closed while workers battle her leaks. Her recovery could cost an estimated 50 million dollars. In a 2007 bond election, voters approved $25 million for her repair. This isn't enough. And, as much as it will help, the money won't be released until September. Texas is not just a National Historic Landmark, she is a state treasure to Texans and a monument to American sailors who first sailed her 100 years ago. The Texas needs volunteers and money to honor the ship and all who sailed her. Time is not on the side of the ship. Texans must save the ship now.

Otherwise, as we approach the sweltering heat of the ``season'' of August, we may see the beginning of the permanent demise of the USS Battleship Texas. Texans cannot allow the great Texas to sink from neglect and disappear beneath the water of history. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, thousands of dead people and citizens of other countries are reportedly registered to vote in the battleground State of Florida.

Texas, however, has passed a law that would require citizens to display a photo ID when they vote. But the Justice Department isn't interested in fixing voter integrity, even though the Supreme Court has said voter ID laws are constitutional.

The DOJ, ignoring the Supreme Court decision it doesn't like, sued Texas anyway, claiming the law discriminates. The DOJ, with its battery of high-dollar lawyers, apparently has yet to find any evidence to back their claim, so it brought in a hired gun to try to find some support for its allegation--a biased liberal data group called Catalist, a self-defined agent for progressive organizations. So much for the DOJ being objective.

Instead of attacking Texas for constitutionally enforcing the law, the DOJ should focus its resources on protecting the sanctity of the ballot box.

It seems the people who would be disenfranchised by voter ID laws would be unlawful voters or dead people.

The DOJ is on the wrong side of justice again.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, here's what the people of Texas think of the Supreme Court's ruling on ObamaCare.

Jason from Kingwood, Texas says this:

Now that the Supreme Court has deemed every action of Congress that it does is acceptable so long as it's considered a tax, you can kiss it all goodbye. Tax on gun ownership, boxes of ammunition, worship fees, mission trip tax, Bible fee.

But don't worry. They won't take away your right to vote directly. They'll just dilute it with multiple voting, illegal voting and fuzzy counting. But it won't be through taxation.

Stacie from Texas also wrote me and says this:

This ruling sets up so much more of nanny taxes and government telling us what we can do and cannot do. Don't buy the right car? It's a tax. Don't buy the right vegetables? Tax. Don't buy the right newspaper? Tax. Don't buy the right music? Another tax.

Mr. Speaker, the power to tax is the power to destroy. So what's the next tax from Big Government?

Congress and the Supreme Court have both had their chance to voice their opinion. Now it's time for the American people to voice theirs.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, Secretary Clinton is giving away $2 billion of taxpayer money for green energy development in third-world countries. This isn't money for vaccines. This isn't money for clean water. This isn't money to help child hunger. This is money for green energy.

Don't we need to make sure that people have electricity before we worry about what kind of light bulb they are using? People are starving, being ransacked by terrorists, taken away as child soldiers, and dying of preventible diseases like diarrhea. So our government decided the best use of taxpayer money was to put billions in those countries for green energy.

Our government wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on phony loans for green energy right here in the United States to companies like Solyndra. Congress didn't even approve this $2 billion giveaway.

With all the problems of debt in the United States and disease in other countries, government is providing subsidies for green energy. Who would have thought? The government is out of control. More taxpayer money thrown into the windmill of willful waste.

And that's just the way it is.