tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN November 15, 2010 5:00pm-8:00pm EST
i was glad that all party considerations aside i thought it was bad for any one party to all control of the house for four >> you saw what was happening in the house democratic caucus. there were practices taking hold and a sense of entitlement that was collecting. -- corrupting. but before this, it was not just the 1992 group that we thought was delusional, there was a moderate republican political scientist at wrote a book in 1991. >> it came out in 1994. >> right, and two friends of
mine wrote a book that was about the permit domination of republicans right before 2006, which makes me glad that i never get the urge to write a book like that. italy is not one that can be proven false in the next elections. it has been a great experience to see the swing back and forth. in 1995, the republicans overreached just as democrats are being accused of doing now. i think there was even a bitter argument about house republicans' overreaching in 1995 and that partly goes to what bob said about the difference between then verses now which is that you had house
republicans, including the chairman, who had no idea how to govern for be a majority. a lot of them -- i watched the house ways and means committee. the chair had just been voted and took himself out of any role of that committee. in january of 1995, i remember chasing after him after he had just made an announcement right after they took power that the ways and means committee would cut two hundred 35 million out of medicare. it quickly became obvious. the thing that newt gingrich could not do, because he had
never been involved in policy, it proved that they were wrong. i remember my colleague for the wall street journal, david rogers, who was the best and longest congressional reporter ever, he and i were always getting angry because we were indirectly hearing from the mother ship in new york that we just did not get it, that there was a revolution going on. david and i, we have been all around politics since 1984 and david since 1979, and we knew that you could never be sure how they would be able to do what they promised they could do.
i think it is a good thing that they are taking over at a time when memories are so recent as to how to be a month -- a majority. they seem to be taking the message. exit polls were full of mixed messages. there was -- there were four out of 10 voters that said they did not want any of the bush tax cuts to be extended.
i think that the other thing i am interested in watching is how these republicans deal -- i am used to watching congress that is in were driven. members have external pressures, but there are a lot of internalized and institutional factors that come into play because the public is not paying that much attention. i have never seen a situation or an environment where the majority party in congress is going to be sole watched over by a group, and that is the tea party. they have been very blond and saying -- very blunt in saying that if congress does not do
what they promised they will do, then there will be trouble. as a reporter, there is the extent to which you're in the minority, and in particular the house, and we, in the press, do not pay attention to them. especially when you have an agenda after an activist as the democrats have had. i will do you just one example -- the view just one example. -- give you just one example. if we have the time and if our editors have the interes we
would say that it was not quite right. this is of rhetoric. -- this is rhetoric. recently, i was going over a list of the proposed cuts to see where this promised cuts would come from. in one of the largest cuts is $25 billion from a particular welfare program. i looked at it and it turns out that this welfare program was part of the stimulus program. it was a to the year program -- he was a two-year program. democrats tried to extend it for a year or two because unemployment remains at 10% in
this particular welfare program that was aimed at long-term jobless families. they failed. republicans blocked a -- blot kit. -- block it -- blocked it. $100 billion is what they're talking about. what they did was take two $0.5 billion and multiplied by 10 and that is $25 billion. i called the republican leadership staffer and asked why he proposed this as saving that much money and he said that the
computer redistricting. the fact is that the combination of redistricting, which has segregated the wings of both parties and to so many districts except for two or three dozen, together with the political realignment since the civil rights era has made the prospect of these turnover alexian's in the house more common. -- elections in the house more common.
you get this situation where you have the wings of each party of the district, and then the activists are looking closely at what they did and they have high expectations. when the majority does not eat -- does not meet these they getions, the bi depressed. the activists for the majority stay home. conversely, the majority of voters get out. i think we are in very much the
opposite of what i 1st expected when i started my career when i would never see a republican majority. i am seeing a republican majority for the second time and i will see them in the minority again before my career is over. i would just close with one thing. when i first got to know bob, was really -- i was really thinking there should be more accommodation. i have come closer to where he is as a citizen. when i first part of my career,
there was not a dime's worth of distance between the artist. no one would say that now. i think it is good. i am going to go out on a limb to express an opinion. if there is one time that people should accommodate each other is in times of national crisis. i just want to give four examples where i think republicans did not accommodate, or at least try to.
think about the things that have been issues in this election. the stimulus bill, the first person that put on the map that we needed a stimulus was the chairman of walt reagan's economic devices. on halloween day, he wrote that we needed no tax cuts through that nobody in the democratic party have said anything approaching that. the economy was getting worse by the week. but the time the democrats came in it, they were looking at one trillion dollars but they made one-third of that tax cuts because barack obama made the
mistake of negotiating with himself, thinking that he would put them in his set of the republicans. -- instead of the republicans. then, the health care bill. people talk about government takeover. i covered the 1994 health care debate. the bill is so similar. republicans in the set -- in the you had mitch mcconnell and seven other republicans in the senate that co-sponsored the bill.
just ask the liberal democrats. there was some work in the senate and there could have been more of involving republicans. i know there were two republican senators that were called in to mitch mcconnell office. this is a time that worries me for the future when i see the kinds of things we are seeing that we will have to make in the next few years. i just came from a briefing and they were talking. they were saying the europeans are very worried about the prospect for a dysfunctional american government.
it is very difficult to kn when to accommodate and when to not. i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> before i open it up to the floor, i want to give our other earlier panelists the chance to make comments on anything that has been said after them. >> did you have any follow-up questions? >> i this one to make a comment on the dilatory tactics. it is increasingly the minorities goal to make the majority inoperable, unable to function. not just in time, but when the
fiscal year begins. i think this is a trend that has bipartisan and is terribly destructive. it is not the people offering -- are offering, in his amendments that come out to filibuster. countless, almost repetitive amendments that cause the majority to say that we do not have the time to spend a week on the energy and water appropriations bill and therefore a kid's world into an omnibus and there is no conference it gets rolled into an omnibus and there is no -- a gets rolled into an omnibus and there is no conference. minorities conclude that the most they can do is to make sure
that the majority fails. that becomes more important than whether or not they actually accommodate the minority in any concept of amendments or changes to law. this is reminiscent of an era that we're in. this is so much a part of our media that is really what the two-party basis is. florida has passed a constitutional amendment that may change this. by requiring districts to have more integrity based on population. the bottom line is that the
polarization that we now see in congress has led us to afford -- to a point to make sure that the majority fails. i think this is a very troubling change. >> of the anecdote to that is to allow free and open debate in the congress. i think a mistake has been made by both parties. i would say to jackie on the port of the health care bill, the republicans have absolutely no input whatsoever. then they bring it to the floor and people expect republicans to say okay, fine.
they do not have to come up with alternatives. but if you put it out there, they have to come up with solutions that put them on the line for what this them for. when republicans shut down the process, only one bill was permitted on the floor. one bill was brought to the floor. that is not legislating and it is not the way in which you're sure -- in which you sure.
>> once you put these out there, they are so filled with earmarks and there are people that want to get a vote on every one of those and that can go on and on. the majority has the ability to restrict the lows and they have done that in the past. -- restrict those and they have done that in the past. breakdown of the committee leadership working across the aisle with winking republicans. i think that we have seen the majority and minority and the
end of the discussions that routinely take place between the leaders. they would orchestrate what was needed to get, the on the floor. we would get so many amendments on the floor and that would be what will allow the process to work. the communication on all these levels has broken down to a point where these were the least partisan bills. >> there is no ability for the committees to work in that fashion so the bulls are not written in the committee anymore. they are written in leadership offices and brought to the floor. the only people that participate in that are the majority leader's but nobody from the minority is permitted to have a say in what the legislation looks like.
that will lead to a rival, immediately. -- a revolt immediately. the way you get around such intense partisanship this to allow everybody to have their say and allow real policymaking to take place. if it takes two or three weeks on the floor, then it takes two or three weeks. ultimately, you will have a better product for the house to work its will. >> i do not disagree with that. this is part of the new gingrich genius, breaking down the committee and making sure the chairman does not have his way. everybody was worried about
going to washington. live at home. >> on the east coast, we have had the tuesday/thursday club for as long as i cannot remember. >> let's open this up to the audience. please wait for a microphone and give your name and affiliation. let's start of here with tom fahey. >> congressman, based on your comments, is the word of bipartisanship nearly as i drink? >> in this -- merely a pipe dream? >> i think it would be a very rare occasion. i am afraid that we have come a
long way from bipartisan relationships, let alone the ability to work together. >> congressman boehner has said that the commissions will have the power. does this mean that somebody will be an adult to say that he will go back to the committees and do the laws there? >> he has said that he will open up the process on the floor. i hope that he means it. he is a former committee chairman himself. thener n dan
committee's are a place where you can hammer out this partisan debate and maybe come up with some compromise the bills. i think that john means that. i believe that he will be the first speaker of the house to serve in the minority and majority twice. it is best to be fair to the minorities. i do think that john is a much more institutional leader. he has been bipartisan.
i will say that it is usually when he had a republican president. that will be interesting to see if he can be bipartisan when he has a democratic president. >> other questions? >> under president reagan, when we had a republican senate and a democratic house majority, the republican house minority was left out of all negotiations. they were nonexistent. do we expect that same triangulation under a democratic president with a democratic senate and republican house majority? >> do you mean well obama stiff nancy pelosi?
there will be some tough times. [laughter] if you really knew the russian ship that rham emanuel -- the relationship that warahm emanuel has, it will be different. the party in power needs to govern to be reconfirmed in power. the need to be able to show accomplishment. 'sat is certainly in obama on' interest. it is not always in the interest of the democrats in the house to buy into a compromise that he wants to engage them. they would be better off, politically, drawing a line just boehner has.r
>> they do not have the votes to accomplish this. the question will be whether that is the role of a want to play or whether or not they want to play the role of defining themselves or leaving it up to the administration to veto the veins that want to accomplish in the house. >> he really needs to get back to the independent voters. at the same time, he has to do something to get back in the excitement of the base. one thing that the white house is counting on, and is not a bad bet, is that the republicans will govern in the house in a
way that excites the base for them. there is nothing that motivates voters than anger, fear and both of those things to the emotions that come into play as they watch house republicans, depending on how the government. -- how they govern. >> other questions, in the back. >> i know this is a focus on the house, but if we look at the senate and senator dole's name has come up. he was famous for sitting down at the table and negotiate on a theory that he would rather leave with half a vote the no votes. -- of van note vote -- of van
know both -- than no vote. is that where compromise is headed, were you will still preserve the issue at the expense of the legislation? >> that gives me an opportunity to say that when bob took issue my issue, i think -- i do not know if house republicans or senate republicans will compromise. a lot of people do not have the inclination. they do not see grounds for compromise.
those republicans that want to do deals, you just have to say bob bennett. you can look down the list of others and see what was said about mike castle and others such as liz of macao's the -- lease of -- police that -- lisa urkowski.e th >> when we are talking about the work that was done in the senate, there were two or three
republicans that they tried to bring in. there was not much work with the republican caucus. what they did was pick out three or four republicans that followed their philosophical base and try to work with them. that is not the kind of compromise that is partisanship. the real bipartisanship that has to be demonstrated is a bipartisan ship is one -- bipartisanship is one that is based on the reality of their positions. not simply trying to pick off one or two so you get enough votes over 60. >> that process prolonged
process and made it ugly and let them say they are cutting your medicare, which created the atmosphere where democrats could proceeds.v >> the right strategy is to allow real bipartisan activity to take place and that is what happens in the committee structure rather than a general kind of leadership effort. >> ok, other questions? yes, over here. >> if you have a neutral people
come in and work with both parties and look beyond positions and come up with really concrete national policies, it would be a collaborative effort. what would be so bad about that? why could they not have a conflict resolution training? you could teach the skills to people who have the nature to be confrontational. given these skills so that they can move forward and get something done instead of having this gridlock? >> congressman walker is from
the science committee. does this work in politics to resolve disputes? >> not very well. our constitutional system was designed as an adversarial system. you have a constitutional system that created three separate branches of government that are all adversarial and the senate and house hate each other. it is not personal, but they hate each other because they operate on very different place. if you throw in philosophical differences that truly do exist in politics, it is very hard to have conflict management in that kind of situation. it seems to me that the way in
which you could office to let everybody have their say. most people feel frustrated if they do not have a chance to have their say. i offered a lot of amendments and i lost all the time. [laughter] i figure that i have the chance to make my case and then at some point, maybe somebody else would be recognized -- would recognize that. the way you will get congress back to a position that makes sense is if you get to a situation where you have a good debate on the floor and have lunch together and say that i really got you on that last point. that is the way that the process
should work if we really have a sense of true debate. >> if you look at the public, coming out of the election, republicans want their members to stand for no compromise. democrats are wish-washy. that is not likely to produce the kind of environment where does the resolution can work. in part, because people that come to congress are probably more disposed. the people that come back as part of the incoming republican class are heavily in experience in government of any sort. they know why they were nominated and they know why they were elected and they are coming to town to accomplish something.
whether or not they can do that will depend on whether they come has -- the comeback -- they come back. >> you are dealing with frustration of leadership in the congress. that also plays a role in all of this. >> didn't the moderates, at one point, when they existed in congress play that dispute resolution will, finding the common ground? >> it happens within party caucuses. democrats knew that abortion would be a terribly difficult
issue to handle on health care reform bill. people were on both sides of that issue and were taxed with dealing with this resolution over a year-and-a-half and the could not get their -- they could not get there. it became a serious issue in the elections on the part of her life -- of pro-last democrats. this became a divisive issue. even if the parties try to resolve these issues, it is hard to get a handle on. >> for all the criticism, and
much of it may be valid, we had moderates whose goal was to try to prevent those sorts of funds. then the criticism was that the party did not stand for anything. you had democratic activist and republican activists that wanted to know what party stood for. now, you have these alternatives. it looks like a parliamentary system. now there is a concern about what -- lack of harmony and lack of agreement. if you want to go back to a system where there is more cross-party agreement, then you may lose something in the process. i want to get back to thomas bracket.
he did not care for the minority very much even though he was in the minority because he saw them obstructing everything. he eased a-line -- he east a line -- he used a line that said that according to your speaker -- that was the attitude back then. >> other questions? >> i was wondering if any of you would be willing to comment on the tea party.
are they born to be republicans or will it be a minority party? >> in my opinion, the tea party has been around for a long time. back in nixon's time, they were y.e silent majority cur there are a lot of independence that have had to a lot of feelings about the debt and deficit of the country over a long period of time but they have never really organized themselves into a separate party. the thing about the tea party is that it really does not exist as a real defined movement. it is a series of activists who
have their own issue agenda who have organized virtually for the internet. -- through the internet. it allows them to act in a common cold, but they really are not. they would have to unite around some kind of leadership model and i do not think they are able to do that. the republicans have failed in what they said they would do in the congress. i think that we have to wait and see what the performance of the republicans is. they recognize that the tea party is given a second chance, but perhaps it is their only chance. >> there were not very happy
with george of the bush -- by george bush. they certainly did not like paying for the drug benefit of the books are paying for the worse in afghanistan or iraq off the books. in their employment is uncertain and there 401k was cut. those were threatening things and they needed to get off the bench. this is after all the debt and deficit we have from the clinton budget. the root question is who's going to pick up the [unintelligible] there will try to agree a firm,
but who will be the presidential candidate? if they get someone they're not enamored with, they could not support a third party, i think. >> loss four wrote certainly had a third party. >> -- ross perot certainly had a third party. >> there were similar arguments about the constitution and the budget. the difference between then and now is that the liberal elite was a top-down organization. the second thing is that democrats are much more aggressive. it made them less aggressive. the economic crisis was far greater.
we all thought helen for the constitution was. those kinds of differences made the tea party more influential. i think it is important to think about what their influence i surely is -- inflows actually is. -- influence actually is. those candidates that have said that they will claim their line with the tea party, their behavior will be watched by those groups. it is probably early to say exactly what will happen in the coming months. >> as several people commented,
as a journalist, i am feeling the changes in journalism. it has reinforced polarization. when you have this parliament three form of government, each side is dedicated to see the other side failed. a lot of things get said on both sides that are more rhetoric than reality. you have the media outlets that more and more people are going to. i think that is very dangerous.
there are those that are losing subscribers because people are not interested and do not even trust. so, we're all in this together. >> of the jefferson party have own newspapers and the federalists had their own paid newspapers. >> >> steny draw some parallels between this election and what happened in the 1970's when he have the liberals come in and essentially split the democratic party? for the prospects of that this time around? d u c them splitting the
republican party and giving rise to more moderate sides? >> in the initial phases, there are doing a pretty good job of pulling together the majority. they have 84 new members to work with. a lot of home came out of activist movements. part of the genius of this is too looked at what the agenda looks like. not to over analyze what the mandate is. to some extent, in 1994, what said in was what our agenda meant. for many people out there, it
was in fact a proxy for debt and deficit. if there is no doubt a particular majority that has a mandate on government spending and big government, i do not think there is any doubt about that. how you interpret that determines how you will hold together that caucus. you need to go to the committees and worked for the issues. that will roll it together. so far, it appears that they're off to a good start. >> here? >> to what extent do the lobbyists play into this in terms of members of the senate
and congress not having time to talk to each other and have lunch with each other because they have to spend so much time soliciting funds and getting reelected? is there a large factor from the lobbyists that exaggerates what might have happened in past years? >> that is a very good question. you have to people. >> you don't have a lot of time when your only in town for a couple of days to sit down with lobbyists and talk to your staff. manning has become a huge -- money has become a huge factor in how they spend their time and what they do. it would allow for matching
funds and small donations the candy parlayed into larger public funds. it is not a free ride for candidates. it is a long way from enactment and it may not be something that this court would accept. i do not see any alternative but to keep going down this road. a growing amount of time simply raising funds for the next wave of elections. >> i agree that the fund raising has become of scene. scene.scene -- obce
it takes the intellectual issue of the process. most of us would rather be talking about the issues on the merits of the issue and not on the basis of fund raising. a lot of the context -- contacts that people have in this town with members of congress are in fund raisers. i regret that. i think that is bad. if i had my way, i would ban lobbyists from giving any lobbyists from -- i would ban lobbyists from giving any money to the candidates. i would also -- my reform would be to not allow any candidate to
have any fund raising committee. have the political party is raise all the money and apportion the money to the candidates. there are some things that you doing.look at dillon >> and i would argue that this s back before the rise of action committees. police before the 1970's when you have new members getting elected who were not as interested in interacting with others and one and to focus on their districts.
there was an opportunity to meet and talk to people on the floor. you do not see the floor as a place for people to sit and anorak with each other as it used to be and i think that is a loss as far as an opportunity to reach across the aisle. >> i would like to make an additional comment, here. our spouses are even more for these reforms. people do not think about the reality of pulling out of iowa and moving to washington. this is not just taking johnny out of high school. the spouse is often involved. you just do not pull someone out of a career, male or female, and move them to washington. that does not work very well.
everything is sped up and people are just constantly connecting and not dealing with each other as human beings in washington. i think that is at the root of all of this inability to work together. >> let me follow that up. if we agree that lobbyist do not like like to ask for money, is that people want to be legislators again? >> i have been the leadership room where we sat and listened to people who told us that unless you have real legislation to schedule on the floor, i do not want to be in town. but they get home to my district. and that would be a heavy lift
for the leadership of key members in town willing to actually purchase of a in substantive committee activity -- to actually participate in a substantive committee activity. >> they want face time with their constituents. it may work in some cases, but not in many. more and more, if members are really good and understand how they can mitigate that, they will be there. whether it is monday, tuesday, thursday, friday, they want to be there. that is a test we will see unfold in the next congress. before i ask you all to join us for a reception, i inflect my little point on you, my ode to jefferson. thomas jefferson, as the senate's president studied hard
>> the house return for a session and walt member start the orientation process. others return to complete unfinished business. now we expect votes on three measures today. live on c-span. house resolution 716 will resume later in the week sm the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote, remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. ld members please take their
the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. danny davis of illinois for today, mr. hinrich of new mexico for today, mr. plant of pennsylvania for today and november 16 and mr. woeful of virginia for today. -- mr. wolf of virginia for today. the speaker pro tempor without objection, the requests are granted.
the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is correct, the house is not in order. the house will be in order. would members move conversations from the floor. the house will be in order. please clear the aisles, take a seat. cease conversations. the house is not in order. will members take a seat or remove conversations from the floor. the gentlelady from texas deserves order.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: the children of haiti need help. children around the world need our help. today in haiti, thousands upon thousands of children are living in temporary tent conditions, in camps, many that have been ravaged by the waters and the heat and deterioration. today in haiti, the people of that country, particularly the children are suffering from an epidemic of cholera. we did not take up the help haiti bill today but i'm asking we begin a full press to provide better work conditions, living conditions and as well,
a better quality of life for the children of haiti. cholera is an epidemic that can spread and kill thousands upon thousands of children. it's important for usaid and the companies who indicated their willingness to donate to haiti to get their donations in and it's important for the government of haiti to stand up and be heard on behalf of these children. i look forward to working with the help for haiti bill to be sure that more children can be adopted but the epidemic of cholera is spreading to these children and we must help them now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. would members in the rear of the chamber please take their conversations off the floor. would members kindly clear the aislings -- the isles. -- the aisles.
for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: ski unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house, are revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. burton for today, november 16, 17, 18 and 19, myself, mr. poe, for today, november 16, 17, 18, and 19. ms. ros-lehtinen for today, mr. smith from new jersey for today, mr. garrett for today, november 16, 17, 18 and 19, dr. paul for today, november 16, 17, and 18, many moran for today, november 16, 17, 18, and 19, and mr. lincoln diaz-balart for november 16 and 17. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman rise?
>> i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special oorders heretofore entered into, the following members be allowed to address the house for five minutes and revise and extend their remarks. i read these in slight sli different order than the staff may have on their list, ms. woolsey for five minutes, myself, mr. sherman for five minutes, mr. defazio for five minutes and ms. kaptur of ohio for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previoused orer of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. ms. woolsey of california. the gentlelady from california is recognized.
ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. the house will be in order. the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, a year ago the president of the united states quite clearly laid out a plan to begin redeploying troops out of afghanistan in july of 2011. it was not soon enough for me but it demonstrated at least the recognition that this could not go on forever. and a commitment to do the right thing, the thing that the majority of americans want, bring our troops home, was on the table. but now top officials are telling us not to start planning our welcome home parades for our soldiers. that u.s. combat troops would actually be on the ground in afghanistan until 2014.
the commander in chiefs have said this that this war will begin to end next july -- that this war will begin to end next july and it appears -- mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. would members in the back of the chamber please take the conversations off the floor. the gentlelady from california may proceed. ms. woolsey: the commander in chief has said that this war will begin to end next july. and it appears that the general who work for him are actively trying to undermine that deadline by painting a rosy picture of conditions on the ground, often in direction contradiction of intelligence reports. the most galling moment and the most galling comment of all came from lieutenant general william caldwell who leads nato's training of afghan security forces. he not only talks of the 2014
date as if it's established policy, he says he needs more resources and more military trainers. just to get afghanistan ready to provide for their own security by that date. so, we've gone from the military saluting president obama and saying they could get it done by july, 2011, to saying that current levels of personnel aren't adequate to get the job done in four more years' time. lieutenant general caldwell also echoed what other officials have said, that the 2014 date comes not from the oval office or the pentagon or the situation room but was initially put forward by afghanistan president hamid karzai. but since when, i ask you, mr. speaker, does a foreign head of state set our goals?
i thought u.s. foreign policy and decisions about our national security were made by the elected representatives of the american people. the truth, mr. speaker, is that things have gotten far worse in afghanistan since we committed more troops. our troops are dying at a greater pace than at any other point in the nine years of war. civilian casualties are also on the rise. the afghan people have little confidence in our mission and its ability to improve their lives. the insurgency remains as nimble and sophisticates as ever, effective local governance is barely in existence. we've heard all the arguments before about why accelerated timetables supposedly don't work. that they embolden the enemy, that the insurgents will simply wait us out until the date of departure. but they're not waiting us out now.
they effectively control vast swabs of the country and the one thing that's grisking them greater strength and moral authority -- giving them greater strength and moral authority is the continued presence of our combat troops on afghan soil. how much more do we have to fail before we change strategies, i ask? how many chances are we going to give this military occupation? how much patience are we supposed to have? i say not a minute more, mr. speaker. i say it's time to bring our troops home. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: mr. burton from indiana. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? without objection, the gentlelady from florida is recognized for five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker, and tonight i am so honored to recognize an outstanding public servant,
assuncao, as he is known by his friends. he will soon be retiring from the united states postal service after 45 years of service. ace has helped to provide efficient mail service to every address within our country. ace has assisted not only individuals but also the needs of our small businesses in south florida. in an area as busy and as diverse as south florida, ace never misses a beat. as a testament to his dedication and tireless efforts, ace was recently recognized by his colleagues at the hispanic organization of postal employees. it is indeed a tribute for an individual whose career has had such humble beginnings. proud of having been born in cuba, and never losing his yearning for a free and democratic cuba, ace also proudly served our country in the military, serving in vietnam.
in fact, he is the most highly decorated cuban american to have fought in vietnam. ace joined a postal service after his service in 1968 as a letter carrier. and i'm proud to say that he employed the same focus, the same determination, the same patriotism that marked his distinguished military career. as a result, he impressed his superiors and rose through the ranks. ace has held numerous man jeerial positions including -- managerial positions, including supervisor and hispanic program specialist. in this last position he has also been an invaluable liaison to the hispanic community. ace is regularly interviewed by news outlets and he helps promote postal service products and services to our diverse hispanic community nationwide. ace has appeared on national news programs that have aired in hispanic markets across the country. the united states postal service' executive committee has
also -- service's executive committee has also presented ace with a special recognition award for his media relations efforts. above all else, ace has been an exemplary and active member in our south florida community. the city of miami commission appointed him to the miami community relations board. he's also a member of the spanish american league against discrimination and has served on the greater miami hispanic concil and the united way of dade county subcommittee. ace has been awarded the diversity vice president partnership award, the dot sharp lifetime achievement and has been named federal employee of the year. simply put, ace has been a tireless leader in our community and a shining example of professionalism and service. his talents will be sorely missed at the united states postal service. he leaves behind a wonderful legacy and i join his many friends, families and peers in celebrating this well-earned
retirement. you have served our community well, ace, and i am lucky to count you as a friend. congratulations, my friend. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. sherman from california. mr. sherman: unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sherman: i come here to address the house on economic issues facing us this month and next month. and i come here to talk about the good,ed bad and the ugly -- the bad and the ugly. first the good. the federal reserve board is going to buy $600 billion worth of long-term bonds. this will increase america's share of the american market for manufactured goods.
that's why it has been condemned by china, germany and japan. because they know it means moving jobs from germany, japan and china to the united states. this is an effective tool that is reversible. we can expand the money supply now and then the fed can reverse its action when is the economy improves. therefore it involves no increase in the money supply that is permanent and of course involves no increase in our national debt. the unemployment rate is over 9.6%. we need to act to bring down that unemployment rate and the fed is to be commended. this does not mean that its decision is risk-free, just given all the risks that we're confronted with, this is a good move. and the fact that the countries that running giant trade surpluses with it have condemned
us gives it an additional advantage. second, the bad. the tax proposals, and focus here only on the tax proposals of the simpson boles proposal, they have offered three different versions of their tax proposal and i will address what they call the widened approach. there are two other approaches. the zero plan, which is even worse than the one i'm going to describe, and a third option of basically doing nothing except inviting the ways and means committee to earn their salary and to look at our tax law. now, i was anxious to embrace this proposal because we need to see shared sacrifice. mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the gentleman may continue. mr. sherman: we all are looking for a way to bring down the debt and i was willing to embrace a program of shared sacrifice and austerity.
but mr.s boles and simpson have given sacrifice a bad name. by using our desire for shared sacrifice to disguise a giant tax cut for large corporations -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members take their conversations off the floor, would members clear the aisle? would members clear the aisle? take their conversations off the floor? the gentleman from california.
mr. sherman: in the name of austerity and shared sacrifice we are told that the tax rate on the wealthiest americans needs to be cut to 35%. roughly a 12% cut in their tax rate. and we are told that the corporate tax rate needs to be cut by a quarter. this in the name of increasing revenue, this in the name of austerity and shared sacrifice. no. this in the name of using the debt crisis as an opportunity to shift wealth and power and income from the middle class to corporate elites and the very wealthy. now, it is true that they talk about reducing certain corporate tax expenditures but only in vegas terms. only to a -- vague terms. only to a small degree. it is basically a dramatic decline in corporate tax -- in the revenue of the corporate
income tax. now, finally on to the ugly. we have been told by our republican colleagues on so many occasions that the worst thing we could do is increase taxes in the middle of a recession. yet the republican proposals, all of them, involve a dramatic increase for working families going into effect this next year. namely by allowing the making work pay tax credit, the so-called obama tax cuts, $800 for every working couple, $400 for every working single, expire at the end of this year. i urge my colleagues to join with me in co-sponsoring our colleague scott murphy's bill to extend this $800-$400 tax credit with all the talk of extending the bush tax cuts, with all the talk of extending the bush tax
cuts for those who make more than a quarter of a million dollars a year, we should not forget that the obama tax cuts expire at the end of this year. and for well more than half of all american families. the obama tax cut is more important than the bush tax cut. now, why is nobody even talking about extending the obama tax cuts? because no one with an income of over $150,000 a year gets any of that benefit. and so when we have a tax cut that's targeted at working families, that is more important than the bush tax cuts, to only half of american families we see this tax cut about to expire without any discussion from those who tell us that the worst possible thing would be to increase anyone's taxes in the middle of a recession. i don't want to hear about spending $700 billion over the next 10 years to provide tax
relief to the top 1%. i don't want to hear that from those who are talking about increasing taxes on half of america's -- more than half of america's working families. it is time to extend the obama tax cut. i look forward to working in a bipartisan way, to provide tax relief, to get this economy moving again and then to shift to fiscal austerity. but allowing the obama tax cuts to expire and then cutting corporate income tax rates by a quarter is not the way to go. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. poe from texas. mr. poe: request permission to address the house for five minutes, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, just another day on the texas border on october 1, 2010. a young couple, david and tiffany hartly, were on falcon lake, falcon lake is a massive lake that borders mexico and the
state of texas. it's an international border. they were on their jet skist, they traveled across the international line into mexico and they had gone to esan old mission that was sub merged partially in falcon lake. on the way back into the united states, they were being chased by three boats of obvious drug cartel members, we learned they were the zeta drug cartel, firing automatic weapons at david and tiffany. david was shot in the back of the head. tiffany tries to help him but they're still shooting so she flees. she comes back into the united states, and one of the boats, get this, mr. speaker, followed her into the united states for over three miles until she got ashore and finally sought safety with some passer by standing there, then this boat casually goes back into mexico. david hartley was murdered on october 1, five weeks ago. the way the current runs in
falcon lake, his body would have been to the american side in about two hours had not someone taken his body out of the water or cut the life preserver off of him or both. his body has never been found. the mexican government accuses tiffany of being the culprit, the awe dasties. it was an excuse on the part of the mexican government not to investigate the case. david's body has never been found. the perpetrators who murdered him and shot at tiffany have never been prosecuted. a detective by the name of rolando flores from mexico was assigned to investigate the case. he was the only person investigating the case. soon after he started investigating it, his beheaded body turned up in guerro, mexico, in front of a police station. mexico quickly, oh, we're not investigating the case. and of course they have not. mexico has a condition an awful
track record on solving homicides, not just homicides of americans in mexico but of mexican nationals who are murdered in the name of selling drugs across that border and bringing them into the united states. so this case has not been solved, i doubt it ever will be because of the ineptitude of the mexican government to preserve and defend and protect people in mexico. as sheriff gonzalez of zapata county has said this lake is a trafficking area for drug car el tells. the cartels have operational control of part of the lake and bring drug into the united states at night. i went down to falcon lake along with sheriff gonzalez's people. we went up and down the lake in speedboats, of course before we were allowed to get on the boats, we had to make sure the locals taking us had automatic weapons and everybody was wearing a bulletproof vest. we flew up and down the international border of this
lake, some 60 miles long, ithe miles wide. interesting to note, mr. speaker, the entire time we were on the lake, either in a boat or flying over it, we saw no other boats on either side. no americans are out on the lake no mexicans on the lake. for six hours we toured the lake and saw no one. the reason is, it's dangerous. people on both sides of the border don't go on the lake because it's not under the operational control of mexico or the united states it's under the operational control of the drug cartel. this is unfortunate. this is one ince stance of many where there are places on the international border with the country of mexico where neither cubtry has operational control of the border. it's time we force and do something about this nonsense that's taking place. the murder of americans. since then, there have been other americans murdered in
mexico. have the crimes been solved? of course they have not been solved. so we were just hearing comments by the other side about being at war with afghanistan and iraq. it's true, we go to war and fight the bat unless afghanistan and iraq, we defend the borders of other nations maybe it's time to come home and defend our own borders prooned tect our own borders and defend our borders in so what do we need? we need more boots on the ground, national guard troops on the ground, more air national guard, coast guard and the help of the border patrol to protect the dignity and sovereignty of the united states to help from bringing that cancer into the united states. it's the first duty of government to protect the people. it's about time we protect all the citizens of this country. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. defazio of oregon.
ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. smith of new jersey. mr. garrett of new jersey. mr. moran of kansas. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it is such a pleasure and honor to be -- mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. it is such a pleasure and honor to be back here after our recess. obviously since we were here last, the vote verse spoken and spoken pretty loudly. there are a number of things that concern americans, there have been significant tea party
groups and organizers here talking, it looks like those folks have found out that americans have voices and they can be heard. and one of the great things, i think, that has been realized across america is, once again, it's being acknowledged that the people are the government. and every couple of years, we have a hiring day to hire servants who will step up and do the will of the government, the people, as directed by the people. well, they've forgotten for a while that hiring day is election day and you shouldn't go into it unless you've properly prepared as any good employer would by reading the
resumes, talking to the candidates, doing interviews and seeing who would be the best hire to be the public servant from that area. the employee. boy, their voices were heard this year. it's quite reassuring. and i'm pleased to work with folks across the aisle, i know we all are, to move forward with the things the american people have once more said are very important. if you go back to november of 2006, you find out the people really haven't changed their opinion much. they made it clear in november of 2006 they were not going to tolerate the deficit spending that the republican majority was doing. they didn't care who was in the majority. they still don't. they want the deficit spending to stop. they wanted it to stop in november of 2006, they made their voices clear and said,
ok, democrats, you have promised us that if we make you the majority, you have promised to end the deficit spending. because the republicans, my goodness, they've reason $1 billion, $200 billion deficit in a few years, it was outrageous who knew within four years that a democratic administration would be deficit spending done by republicans on steroids -- would beat deficit spending done by republicans on steroids. we can't continue as a couldn't arery with that kind of spending going on. it has to be stopped. but we were hearing in the last week the cry of people across america, too, about this lame duck session. now, it is nice, we had some lovely votes tonight, the copyright cleanup clarification and crecks act.
recognizing and honoring the 50th anniversary of ruby bridges' desegregation of a previously all-white public elementary school. very worthwhile. the third vote honoring the 30th anniversary of the bayh-dole act, which sounds like most people don't know what that was. nonetheless, people are scared it's going to get a lot more serious than that because they made their voices heard in the election and we don't want people coming at us with that crap and trade bill and saying, we're going to shove this down your throats like we did the health care bill they didn't want the health care bill they thought they made it clear but they were not listened to. they made it clear, they don't want the elimination of what my wonderful elementary, junior high, and high school teachers who nearly all of were members or supporters of the democratic
party, all of those teachers made clear during my growing up that a very are important foundation in any democratic republic like ours is the secret ballot. and now we still have this bill out there, the card check bill, that will eliminate secret ballots. we can just think back in our own chamber here to the race for majority leader, between steny hoyer and john murtha, the late john murtha. speaker pelosi, speaker-to-be pelosi made clear she wanted john murtha to be her majority leader. they seemed to work closely on the issue of bashing president bush over the military operations and trying to stop him at every turn, in return, he was named by speaker-to-be
pelosi as her choice to be majority leader who in their right mind would go against someone who is clearly so adapt at using political power as the gentlelady from san francisco? if she knew who was going to go against her choice. but the fact is, like the republican caucus, the democratic caucus used a secret ballot. so the people in the democratic party after the november of 2006 elections were free to choose the person they most wanted to be the majority leader and that ended up being the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. had a similar card check bill been shoved through this congress to force democratic -- the democratic party to have a secret ballot eliminated, then i think you could anticipate
that the late john murtha would have been majority leader and the will of the democratic members in this body would have been overwhelmed shrimp because such a primary component to a democracy was removed, the secret ballot. we don't need to remove the secret ballot so that might will make right instead of right standing on its own. the ballot has to be secret in any organization in which anyone wts it to be secret. check robert's rules of orders of the requirements to have a secret vote. of course out here when we're doing the people's business, it can't be secret because we're employees, we're servants. sent up here to do the people's will. so it shines up on the wall exactly how we vote when we vote.
but one of the things that people should have learned after this november election, including senators that are up for election two years from now, you jam another one of these bills down somebody's throat, the people's throat, across america, as you did health care, and you'll be looking for a place to retire or another job. now, one thing if they do ram through the crap and trade bill as it passed through the house, with 300 pages of amendments filed at 3:00 a.m. in the morning where we zrnt time to read them all, i was able to get to the point in the bill, i think it was around page 900-something, where there was a fund created in there to help pay people who lose their jobs as a result of that bill.
although we heard from people across the aisle, no one would lose their jobs as a result of that bill, it turns out the people that actually wrote that bill, whatever special interest group it was, perhaps wall street, because they're going to be engorged with riches if that bill passes, and more union jobs will be lost, it'll be a disaster to working america, but whoever wrote it realized there would be a lot of good americans lose their jobs if that bill passes and if you go over a little further there was a fund that would pay for moving expenses if people lost their job as a result of that bill and they could move within the united states to a place to get a job. unfortunately, it didn't help people move to china and indja and argentina and other places where the jobs really moved. so the good news for those in the senate perhaps helped by anybody in the house if they
try to ram that crap and trade bill through in this short lame duck session, the good news is there is a provision in that bill that will help them with their moving expenses and perhapso give them a subsidy until they find another job because there is no question there's going to be people lose their job as a result of that bill if they vote for it during this lame duck session when the public has made very clear, don't you dare. so we'll see what happens. but i see my good friend from texas, also a former district judge, as was i. and i'm proud to yield such time as he may use to my friend from texas, mr. poe. mr. poe: i appreciate you yielding time, judge gohmert. yes, on november 2 the american public, the american people, the american voters, went to the polls and they voted and it's a
good thing that they vote. and we have the right to vote and as you mentioned, judge gohmert, the right to vote in this country is sacred. and we should always treat it that way to make issue that -- sure that -- in all elections tharkts voting box and the voting ballot are sacred and only valid voting takes place anywhere in the united states. i heard a lot of comments as did many members of congress, probably all americans of -- members of congress, during the recess before the election, and one of the biggest concerns was the run-away spending that the government seems to be addicted to. and it seems to be an adricks of spending somebody else's money -- an addiction of spending somebody else's money, the taxpayers' money, people who work every day and go out and try to support their families. one startling statistic, mr. speaker, is that for every
dollar that the government spends on something, whether it's a good project or it's a worthless probably, for every dollar the government spends, 42 cents that have dollar is borrowed money. so we don't have the money. the bank is broke. and we can't print it fast enough, so we have to borrow the money. 42 cents on every dollar. now, that's kind of hard to understand how much that is, but that's a lot of money. almost half of what we spend is borrowed money. but that 42 cents amounts to approximately every year just on the interest payment of that 42 cents, $600 billion. that's with a b. now we're talking about real money. $600 billion. the war in iraq i understand so far has only cost up to $720 billion a year. excuse me, $720 billion total
for the entire iraqi war. but yet just the interest american taxpayers have to pay on that 42 cents is around $600 billion every year. and of course who does that money go to? it goes to our good friend the chinese. who own most of our debt. there are other countries that we borrow money from, too. puts us in a bad national security position when we have to go overseas and ask countries to lend us some more money. well the american public, i think, is tired of those days and wants the borrowing, the spending and of course the taxes to all stop where they are. and i hope members of this body in january have heard the american people and that we get our house in order and we quit spending somebody else's money. and reduce the size of government, get government out of our lives and have government work for us instead of work
against us. as so many people have said. one of the other two things that i heard during the recess or the break before the election was the concern that people had about this lame duck session that we are now a part of. the lame duck session. where we have come back and there's a lot of legislation that haas hasn't been addressed and people are concern -- that hasn't been addressed and people are concerned about members of congress on both sides of the aisle who have been defeated, still here to vote on legislation, even though the public has not returned them for the next congress. maybe one thing that we need to do in the future -- in future congresses is that on the election year, the federal election year, the even year, that the session of congress end on election day. therefore there is no lame duck session because congress adjourns on election day and doesn't return until the
following january. therefore we prevent some of the concerns that people all over the country have mentioned about people returning in both parties who have been defeated in their elections. and the third issue, of course, as you know, judge gohmert, in texas, although the economy was the number one issue for most people in the united states, in our state the number one concern among voters was the lack of border security with our neighbors in mexico. and we've heard all of the recent cases of americans being murdered, just on the other side of the border, and of course there are mexican nationals that are getting murdered as well and they're not all members of the drug cartel or affiliated with the drug cartel. they'reust good folks trying to earn a living as well, but they get in the way of the drug cartels. and it seems to me that this is a national security issue. and people who say that the
border security -- that the border is secure, i invite them to go with me down to the texas-mexico border and then you can make up your mind firsthand. of course earlier we talked about the situation on falcon lake, this massive lake, nobody's on the lake on either side of the border because it's not safe. the safest thing in falcon lake is -- are the fish. because nobody's out there fishing and those bass are probably getting rather large by now. and that's an unfortunate situation for not only americans but mexican nationals as well. and we also now hear that we have the extortion racket taking place on the american side. there are reports that americans of hispanic descent, living on or near the american border, are being extorted of money to protect some relative they have on the other side of the border. and that protection rack et is being run, we understand, by of course the drug cartels.
so you got money and guns going south of the border and you've got people and drugs coming north of the border. and the operational control of the border is by the drug cartels. the mexican government doesn't protect their borders any more than we do. that's how guns can get in. i don't know if the mexican government complains about the money coming south of the border or not but that money is going back into mexico by the drug cartels. so what do we knee to do? i think we ought to -- do we need to do? i think we need to put more boots on the ground. the border patrol needs some help. it is a national security issue. and we need to put the national guard on the border and allow them to do their job, to prevent people coming into the united states, especially the drug cartels who have operational control in portions of the texas-mexico border and other portions of the border, in arizona, new mexico and
california as well. to show you how serious and how dangerous it is to be living or be in one of the cities in mexico near the border, you've got an el paso, and i don't know, mr. gohmert, if you were stationed at fort bliss or not, but you have fort bliss in el paso, texas, military base where our troops come and go from fort bliss to iraq and afghanistan. they go off to war in iraq and afghanistan, they come back to fort bliss but they cannot cross the river and go into haur he is, mexico, because -- juarez, mexico, because it's off limited to people in the military. we send our young men and women off to war but they cannot cross the rive floor our neighbor's country because it's too dangerous. that's an unfortunate situation for americans and an unfortunate situation for mexican nationals who just want to survive on their side of the border as
well. so, it's become a national security issue. it's an issue of great concern to people along the border and i hope more americans understand how the border has become in places a place of really no man's land except for the drug cartels who shoot their way across the border and shoot anybody that gets in their way. i will yield back. mr. gohmert: as i'm sure my friend knows, juarez, just across the border from el paso, that you've been discussing, is now called the murder capital of the world. 2,600 deaths in one year last year in juarez. we didn't have that many american soldiers die in iraq in a year. and yet right across the border from el paso, right across the little river, it's juarez.
the murder capital of the world. it is outrageous. and i never had the opportunity to be stationed at fort bliss, i had friends in the army that were, and i always enjoyed fort bliss. i was at fort benning for my four years that i was in the military. but it is amazing to me that we have the greatest military in the world, in the history of the world, they're the best equipped, best trained military in history and yet you go look at our border and specifically the 32-mile stretch in arizona that is national park area on the north side, mexico area on the south side, and it's wilderness area, considered such, classified in the u.s. as wilderness area, so you can't
take a vehicle, you can't take anything mechanical, so the only people that use vehicles in that area are the violent drug smugglers and then this administration, instead of helping members of congrs and the president keep his oath, we're not providing a defense against all enemies foreign and domestic, they've put up signs that in essence say, this area is used by violent drug smugglers who are illegally in our country. so we would recommend that american citizens use parks north of interstate 8. excuse me? this is american soil. when anyone armed attacks american soil it's an act of war. we've got people who are coming
into the united states and have taken over part of our property and the best this administration can do is put up a sign that says, a bunch of american citizens use the area north of interstate 8 because we've just given this over to drug smugglers. the only good news i see out of that is that for so long i have been greatly concerned with the hypocrisy of this administration telling israel, just let palestinians built he will legal settlements and -- build illegal settlements and take over areas that are not theirs. just let them take over and i thought, how hypocritical. for our u.s. administration to tell israel, just let people take over areas of your country, they're not altogether ridsed to take over. because we -- they're not authorized to take over. because we would never allow that here in the u.s. which brings me to the only good thing about violent he will
lisle -- illegal alien drug smugglers taking over american soil, at least we're not hypocritical anymore. when we tell israel, just to let people take over land that's not theirs, because now this administration can say, look, israel, we're doing it here. we're letting people take over american soil that they shouldn't. so you can do it, too. the fact is, of course, it shouldn't happen either place. we have taken an oath to defend this country, this constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that includes illegal drug smugglers armed to the teeth on our border regions. we have an obligation. we took an oath. i yield to my friend. mr. poe: well, -- >> well, i think that the current plan is two-part plan. mr. poe: the plan isn't just
erect a few signs in arizona saying, we can't take care of you, travel north of interstate 8, and as you mentioned, really is he seeding the land south of interstate 8 to the drug cartels. that maybe part of the plan. that's plan a of a two-part plan. plan b, though, is, we're also as the government going to sue states who try to defend themselves. so, put up some signs and sue states that try to protect their citizens like the state of arizona where both of these incidences are occurring. and i think it's tragic that the united states government has gone to court and spent who knows how much taxpayer money suing a state that wants to protect the people of that state in enacting state laws that do what the federal government is supposed to do, but obviously won't or cannot do. i yield back.
mr. gohmert: i appreciate you bringing that point up, i overlooked that part b of that plan. that's a great point. as my friend knows, perhaps the speaker is not aware, but judge poe was one of the best-known and probably will have been one of the best-known judges, purveyors of justice, in all of texas history, so i know my friend, judge poe, knows all about the case of terry vs. ohio. fra that case, we -- from that case we got what law officers were taught is a ter arery stop, where they can stop people and get identification. and if anybody cares to go back to the 1960's and read that opinion, and then read the arizona law, they'll actually find out that what arizona passed is not near as intrusive
as the terry stop can be. they've got guards within that bill that keep it from even reaching the extent of a full terry stop and authorization of law officers to use a ter arery stop so i've just been intrigued. here you have an administration that refuses to follow the law, refuses to defend the law, refuses to defend sovereign american territory, and then takes that added step as my friend points out and sues the state that is just trying to protect their citizens. and it is heartbreaking, as i know my friend, as i have, tried kidnapping cases and then when you find out that an american city is the second biggest capital for kidnappings
in the world, in arizona, you would think that any president who is trying to do his duty to this country would be outraged. that people were being kidnapped in numbers in phoenix bigger than known organized crime refuges around the country. phoenix, arizona, you would think a president would come riding to the rescue. and all america would thank him and be grateful that they elected a man who would come in and follow his oath and protect them from having a city in his country in which so many people are kidnapped. we're hearing every day about ransoms and being -- ransoms being demand after kidnappings
in third world areas and in the middle east and you hear it on the news this morning about another kidnapping incident and ransom and ransom being paid and yet, it's not halfway around the world. it's going on in arizona. and then as my friend pointed out earlier in his five-minute speech about the poor mexican investigator who gave his life just trying to look into the murder of an american citizen on falcon lake. i mean, what does it take to provoke a president to fulfill his duty to protect this country? i don't know. if that doesn't do it, what does it take? i yield to my friend. mr. poe: i thank my friend for yielding. yes, investigator gonzalez of
mexico had just started his investigation into the death of david hartley when he was beheaded. of course when the zetas and other drug cartel members behead someone and telehis body in a place like in front of the police station or city hall, it's to send a message. and they sent a message they sent a message first to the government of mexico, back off. falcon lake is ours. and five weeks later, it looks like the mexican government backed off. no one has ever been held accountable for that homicide. body was never found of david hartley. so that was the warning of, unfortunately, an obviously good man, investigator flores. but it was also a message to the united states that falcon lake by longs to them. it doesn't belong to mexico, doesn't belong to the united states, but portions of it,
right there in the middle have operational control of the zetas at night and it belongs to them. apparently that message has gotten to our government as well because five weeks later, doesn't seem like anything has occurred to improve the situation and in the meantime, more people, mexican nationals and american citizens, have been murdered in the border, on the border, on the mexican side. i would hope that we won't need more people being murdered regardless of their nationality on the border. to get the attention of most americans and members of this house that this is a national security issue. it goes back to the basics that it is the government's responsibility to protect the country and i don't see, in my opinion, that we are protecting the people of the united states
by the way the border is insecure. we need to do whatever is necessary to secure our side of the border and our sovereignty and also to help mexico are rid itself of the corruption it has in the government and in law enforcement. that's a tough job to be over there and be an honest cop. we need to help them as well and do -- we have a mutual responsibility, i think, with mexico and they with us, protect the safety of americans and mexican nationals who live along the border. i'm sure you've traveled there as well as i have and when you go to the small towns, people are afraid. they're just afraid. nobody should have to live that way in fear of some narcoterrorist comesing across -- coming across whenever they want to with automatic weapons bringing drug into the united
states. and then when they want to go back they cross back to the mexican -- back to mexico because ethe mexican government has the same issues we co-with border crossing. mr. gohmert: i know my friend travels to the border area -- area of texas with mexico on the texas line and -- but just from personal example, i'm routinely, at least once a year, down in that area and for years, any time i was down near laredo, with friends, we'd cross the border into nuevo laredo and get some great mexican food and walk around and you could get some real bargains on different things around there, so my family always knew when i came back from the area was going to bring back gifts from nuevo
laredo and yet in the last 10 years, i know at least the last 10 years, we have not crossed over into nuevo laredo. all the indications are, you just don't do that anymore, it's too risky. i would like to get back to the point where our friends to the south had safe enough areas where we could go back and forth without worrying about it. it's not tohat point right now and i would also submit -- i know there are people who have said repeatedly in the last year, we really wish that both sides of the aisle would work together, but now we've seen, you know, when somebody is just not protecting the country, not protecting our sovereignty and our land, running up trillion -- $1.6 trillion deficits in one year, doing all those thing wecks understand you've got to fight that and it can't be bipartisan if one side is just insisting on doing that.
but i have a strong feeling that my friend judge poe and i would absolutely agree that if this president stepped up and said, this situation will not stand where violent people on the mexico-united states border intimidate, kill, kidnap, come across into our side, bring poison through drugs into america, we will not let that stand. i wouldn't care that he's a democrat. i would stand up and give the greatest standing ovation, anything we could to help and support a president doing the job he was sworn to and i hope and spray that this president doesn't discover in two --
doesn't say, i know i haven't done it in the past, i let the violence go on too long, but it comes to an end, here's what we're going to do to stop it and step up and stop it. i have a feel lig friend wouldn't care either, we would be in total support and do anything we could to help him. mr. poe: yes, of course this is an issue haas not a partisan issue, as my friend, former sheriff rick flores said, this is not a republican or democrat issue, this is a red, white and blue issue. he used to be a border sheriff in laredo. there are those who say, the answer is this -- don't go to mexico. it's too violent, so don't go down there first of all, i don't think that's a realistic point of view. in other words, it's ok for people in mexico to be violent and the drug cartels to have their way and try to run roughshod over the mexican
military and law enforcement, i think that's an insensitive comment about our neighboring country, mexico, they are our neighbors. but also that comment is a lack of understanding of the border culture. the border culture, especially in texas, and i'm sure this is true in arizona, new mico, maybe california, goes back hundreds of years where there's cross border travel and we need and want cross border travel. i think we should have delejit mat travel across our border into mexico, between mexico and the united states, as long as it's verified the people are coming in with pering my. but many families have citizens who live -- with permission. but many families who citizen who live in mexico and they want to go back and forth across the border. that attitude, don't go into mexico, that's just telling people on this side, don't go see your relatives.
that's not the position we want to be in. we need to be good neighbors, we need to help in every way we can to secure the border. when we have a secure bored, it heps the united states and mention ke as well. we should be concerned about the vibles not just because it's coming into the united states, because it affects mexican nationals and mexican national who was relatives and family members on the american side of the border. it is a complex issue. verified border security, making sure people don't cross without permission, is something we have talked about for a long time in this congress and as my grandfather used to say, then all is said and done, more is said than done and not much has happened. we secure the border first, then work on the other isues. it's senchly -- certainly something i think is a national security issue. i wish we had stronger leadership from our government to secure that southern border of the united states because a
will the of good people on both sides of the boarderer losing their lives because of the government's failure to act other than put up some signs and sue states that try to defend and protect their citizens because the government doesn't. i yield back. mr. gohmert: thank you. i appreciate that perspective from my friend from texas, judge poe. it is outrageous what's going on. it is outrageous that we're allowing that kind of danger to permeate our border and we do nothing about it. it's time to get something done. one other issue that i would like to get in the remaining 20 minutes that we have here tonight, is the tax rates. my friend across the aisle taking that up in a five-minute speech he gave earlier tonight, and he was saying that and he was saying that republicans want to