Congressional Record, Volume 156 Issue 172 (Tuesday, December 21, 2010)

[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 172 (Tuesday, December 21, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H8928-H8933]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LAME DUCK CONGRESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is recognized for
60 minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, it's always a privilege and an honor
to

[[Page H8929]]

address here on the floor of the House. And we're in the waning days,
waning hours perhaps, of this 111th Congress as many are prepared to go
home for Christmas, and by the count of the votes on the board tonight,
some have gone home for Christmas.
And I listened to the remarks of the gentleman from Colorado who
spoke ahead of me, and I'm not of the spirit to directly rebut each of
the points that he's made. I want to stay within the Christmas spirit
here tonight, Madam Speaker, and simply address that there is another
viewpoint, and that other viewpoint was heard.
We have, over the last 4 years in this Congress, seen significant
majorities for Democrats, and there were opportunities for Democrats to
seek to pass their immigration legislation which they constantly refer
to as comprehensive immigration reform. And that has become what the
American people understand; comprehensive immigration reform is a
euphemism for amnesty. And even though there were opportunities along
the way over the last 4 years under the Pelosi speakership, there
hasn't been a significant piece of their version of immigration reform
that's passed. And, of course, neither has there been a significant
piece of immigration enforcement that has passed, especially over the
last 2 years with President Obama in the White House, having made those
promises that he would be supporting and working towards the passage of
some type of comprehensive immigration reform.
And as we saw the majority shift here in the House of Representatives
dramatically, where we have 96 new freshmen coming in, 87 of them are
Republicans. And I don't think there's anyone out there that looks at
the results of the election and believes that this House of
Representatives is going to be persuaded by emotional arguments. The
incoming House of Representatives, with the 87 Republican freshmen that
are coming in and swearing in here on January 5, I believe, will be a
Congress that sets the rule of law in very high respect and is not as
swayed by individual anecdotes and more concerned about the empirical
data and what really happens to a country over the long term that
doesn't enforce its laws. That's what I think we can expect to come.
I am the ranking member of the immigration subcommittee, and on that
committee, over the last 2 years, with Chair Lofgren chairing that
subcommittee, there have only been eight hearings in 2 years on
immigration. That's fine with me because the agenda that they would
have driven would have been, I think, an agenda that I would have
opposed.
But nonetheless, those eight hearings that have been held, only eight
in 2 years, four hearings a year, that's all the activity that's really
measurable in the immigration subcommittee.
And so I think when the gentleman from Colorado makes his case, I
think it's heartfelt, and I think he is deeply convinced that it's the
right policy and agenda for America. As we move close to Christmastime,
knowledge that he has is a viewpoint, and I think he'd acknowledge that
I have mine. I will stand up, Madam Speaker, for the rule of law.
And the implications of what goes along with the very well named but
not very good policy DREAM Act, I think, became more and more aware to
the American people. And as they spoke and weighed in and made their
calls in the Senate, then this project, this vote that was held in the
Senate failed. And when it did, that's the end of it for the 111th
Congress. And it's pretty unlikely that it will be the beginning of it
in the 112th Congress as the Congress is configured. And so, from my
standpoint, I'm looking forward to the work that we must do and the
work that we must do to address the immigration issue coming forward.
There is something that I think is a bipartisan interest to us
though, Madam Speaker, and that is, I hear on both sides of the aisle,
and I began to hear this about 6 years ago, the concern about how
employers were victimizing employees who were unlawfully here in the
United States, working unlawfully in the United States.

{time} 2200

So I began to look at how can we address this in a bipartisan way.
And even though it seems as though the Obama administration and Janet
Napolitano included are unwilling to enforce immigration law against
employees, they are willing to enforce it against employers. Note some
of the enforcement action that has gone in and just gathered the
information from the illegal employees, but not brought charges against
them, nor started deportation, but brought just the charges against the
employer instead.
So I looked at this situation a few years ago and put together a
proposal, and this proposal takes into account the Democrat viewpoint,
the Republican viewpoint. Both of us are opposed, I believe, in
principle, to employers victimizing employees, of them flouting the law
and capitalizing on the cheaper labor that they are able to hire and
compete against their competitors who would be complying with the law.
And also it recognizes that this Federal Government has found itself
sometimes where the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is
doing. And sometimes the agencies within the government are working at
cross-purposes to each other.
One of those examples would be a Social Security Administration that
deals with millions and millions of no-match Social Security numbers or
Social Security reports that are duplicated multiple times, the same
Social Security number used multiple times, maybe all across the
country where we know it's impossible to be in two jobs at the same
place at the same time.
The Social Security Administration seems to turn a blind eye towards
the implications of the illegal employment and the fraudulent documents
that are used for people to work unlawfully in the United States
because often those claims on the Social Security trust fund aren't
ever filed. People are walking away from it.
If they are working illegally in the United States, often those
illegal workers will claim the maximum number of dependents so their
withholding on their State and Federal income tax is zero. But they pay
the payroll tax, the Social Security, the Medicare, and the Medicaid
because they really have no choice with that. But then they aren't
going to be in a position to tap into that as an illegal worker in
America.
So the duplications that go on and the money that flows into the
Social Security trust fund, a significant amount of that is rooted in
illegal labor. Social Security trust fund, happy enough getting those
extra revenues coming in, and the Department of Homeland Security seems
to want to secure some of the areas that are their due, but not reach
out and actually put together a network that would address this thing
in a broader holistic way.
So I was looking at that thinking, which agency actually does an
effective job of enforcing the laws that they have and which one is
most respected by the American people? And as I cast my mind across
these agencies, it came to the IRS. The IRS has the respect of every
taxpayer in America. They don't want to be audited. They fear an audit.
Was it 58 percent of the people would rather have a root canal than an
IRS audit? Root canals may or may not be all that painful, but that's
one of the measures that came out in one of the pollster's numbers, 58
percent would rather have a root canal than be audited by the IRS. I
would be among them. I would rather have the tooth pulled myself.
But the IRS does an effective job of enforcing the law, and they do
an effective job of going down through a person's books and accounting
and coming up with flaws that are there. So I put together a proposal,
and it's called the New IDEA Act. The New IDEA. New IDEA stands for the
New, and the acronym IDEA is Illegal Deduction Elimination Act. What it
does is it clarifies that wages and benefits are not tax-deductible for
Federal income tax purposes if they are going to an illegal employee.
And it gives the employer safe harbor if that employer uses E-Verify.
So if the employer in their hiring of employees runs the Social
Security numbers, the identification information that's on the I-9 form
into E-Verify, and it comes back and they only hire those employees
that clear through E-Verify, then we give them safe harbor. But if they
have employees that are on the list, the Social Security numbers will
be on the tax form when the IRS comes in to do a normal audit. We don't
accelerate the audits,

[[Page H8930]]

just a normal audit. The IRS would then punch the Social Security
numbers of those employees that are on the tax form into E-Verify; and
if it comes back they are all lawful to work in the United States, no
problem. If it bounces back that some of them cannot be confirmed to
work lawfully in the United States, we give the employer time to cure,
the employee time to cure. And if the employer uses E-Verify, again
they have safe harbor.
But the IRS then can conclude that the wages and benefits have been
paid to illegals, and therefore those wages and benefits are not tax
deductible. What that does then is it kicks that business discount, the
schedule C business expense, over onto the profit column. When it does
that, it makes that income, and the income then is taxable for interest
and penalty.
And so the net result will be roughly this: if an employer is hiring
illegals roughly at say $10 an hour, and I can do the math on this,
Madam Speaker, and the IRS comes in and does the audit and concludes
that an employee is illegal at $10 an hour, by time the tax that's
applied to that as a business income as opposed to an expense, and the
interest and the penalty is applied, the $10 an hour illegal employee
becomes about a $16 an hour illegal employee, causing the employer to
make the rational decision with their capital, and that is clean up
their workforce before the IRS shows up.
There is a 6-year statute of limitations. It's cumulative. The clock
would start to tick on that when the bill would become law. And then
over a course of 6 years, there would be a cumulative 6-year statute of
limitations. That means that employers the first year would see 1 year
of exposure, second year 2, obviously, on up until 6 years. And the
greater the exposure, the greater the risk and the liability and the
greater the incentive to clean up their workforce as they move forward.

But it doesn't pull the plug on anyone. It's not a dramatic change.
It is a business incentive plan that I think will move thousands of
employers into the legal employment business.
And today it's New IDEA Act, it's H.R. 3580. And I believe it will
become, in the upcoming Congress, the most useful and effective piece
of immigration legislation that this Congress may consider. And it's
likely to be referred to the Ways and Means Committee because there are
tax components to it. And I look forward to working with people to get
the cosponsorships on the bill and work it through the process and earn
a hearing and perhaps earn a markup, and one day see it go over to the
Senate, where I would be glad if they would take it up and onto the
President's desk. It's something that should have bipartisan support
again, Madam Speaker. H.R. 3580 the New IDEA Act, the IRS coming in.
By the way, the bill also requires the Internal Revenue Service and
the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland
Security to put together a cooperative team so that they are sharing
information so that when the right hand doesn't know what the left hand
is doing, we put them together and require that they cooperate with
each other so that the right hand and the left hand and the middle hand
of the IRS, Social Security Administration, and Department of Homeland
Security all know what each other is doing, all are cooperating towards
a common goal of cleaning up the illegal workforce in America through
the New IDEA Act.
And I think that that has some promise and an opportunity to one day
become law in this Congress. And I intend to work it pretty hard.
That's something that I think can be proactive.
Now, I wanted to speak, though, as I came here tonight, Madam
Speaker, I wanted to address the situation of a lame duck session. A
lame duck session, this lame duck session has been full of all kinds of
issues that I think didn't have any business being in the lame duck
session. A lame duck session is, of course, for those listening in,
it's the session of Congress that takes place after the election.
So the election took place November 2, and there was a dramatic shift
in seats here in this Congress. And as in a shift in power, all the
gavels are changing hands going over from Democrats to Republicans,
including the Speaker's gavel. And this will happen on January 5 of
this upcoming year, not very far from now. And as that happens and this
dramatic shift is taking place, it's because the people in America have
spoken. The people in America have spoken up, and they have said, we
want to change course.
They watched President Obama digging this hole economically,
socially, I think a radical social agenda, I think a radical economic
agenda, foreign policy agenda that I don't quite have a theme figured
out for. But the President's agenda, the agenda of Speaker Pelosi, the
agenda of Harry Reid, the American people said, Stop, you have been
digging a hole. Been digging a deep hole with roughly $3 trillion in
spending that's over and above what would be normal spending here in
this Congress. And the American people went to the polls November 2,
and they took the shovel out of the hands of President Obama by means
of shifting the majority here in the House of Representatives and
changing the gavels from the hands of Democrats into the hands of
Republicans.
When the people of America say stop, it's enough, the people that are
serving in this Congress in this lame duck session, this session
between November 2, the election, and January 5, which is the swearing-
in of the new Congress, the people serving in this Congress need to
understand when the American people said enough, that's too much, stop,
this Congress needed to respect the will of the American people and
stop.

{time} 2210

Stop digging, stop moving the radical social agenda. In fact, stop
moving the radical socialist agenda. Harry Reid should stop, Speaker
Pelosi should stop, Barack Obama should stop, and this Congress should
have only dealt with those issues that were necessary to keep this
government functioning in its proper fashion between November 2nd and
January 5th.
This Congress could have passed a simple continuing resolution like
this House did today that would have bridged the gap through November,
December, maybe even January and February, but have gotten a smooth
transition over into the next Congress, a respect for the voice and the
will of the American people, as Republicans essentially did in the year
2006, respected the will of the American people.
This has not been to be. One radical thing after another. Don't Ask,
Don't Tell comes through here on the floor. That is a piece of policy
that had all the last 2 years to be brought forward, if that was the
will of the majority. But the majority was afraid of the wrath of the
American voters.
They were afraid of the wrath of the American voters, so they didn't
bring a budget. It is required by statute. Since 1974, the first time
this Congress hasn't passed a budget, the House of Representatives
since 1974. It didn't happen this year.
The process was shut down, Madam Speaker, so that first the thing
that went away was the open rule that allowed any Member to offer an
amendment on an appropriations bill that could cut spending down or
plus spending up and make some reasonable changes within the
germaneness rules of the policy of the appropriations rules. But that
was shut down in the second year of the Pelosi speakership.
And then there were the appropriations bills themselves shut down,
and they began to run this government on continuing resolutions,
omnibus spending bills. The omnibus spending bill that was brought up
in the United States Senate, $1.72 trillion, full of pork, chuck full
of earmarks, 6,600 earmarks, pork that just dripped with fat in the
United States Senate. And the American people finally rose up and they
let the Senators know it is no longer going to be business as usual.
The American people have risen. They have packed this Capitol with
tens of thousands of people, and they come with their American flags,
their yellow Gadsden flags, the Don't Tread on Me flags, Constitutions
in their pockets, patriotism on their heart, tears in their eyes at
what they see is happening in this country. The American people have
done everything that you could ask them to do in a constitutional
fashion. The American people have peacefully petitioned the government
for redress of grievances. It is constitutional.

[[Page H8931]]

And, Madam Speaker, this Congress' heart was hardened. They refused
to listen to the American people. They rammed through out of this House
the cap-and-tax bill, cap-and-trade some call it, a debilitating bill
that punishes American industry and American investment and American
entrepreneurs and rewards other countries, puts us at a disadvantage
with emerging economies such as India and China. It passed the House
and not the Senate, thankfully.
I am thankful for the filibuster that exists in the United States
Senate. There is a complaint that it has been used too much and that
something needs to be done to put an end to the filibuster or to alter
it. Well, I would submit, Madam Speaker, that the reason the filibuster
has been used this much is because of the radical agenda that has been
driven through the Senate, promoted by the President, promoted by the
Speaker of the House and driven and managed by Harry Reid, the majority
leader in the United States Senate, who looks like he will stay as
majority leader in the United States Senate.
Cap-and-tax out of this House floor. ObamaCare. We watched the
President come in and nationalize the banks, the insurance companies,
the car companies, Fannie and Freddie, the student loans. All of that
swallowed up, 33 percent of the formerly private sector economy
swallowed up by the Federal Government. And then ObamaCare, the
nationalization of our skin and everything inside of it.
The American people came and surrounded this Capitol. Not one deep
with arms stretched out as far as they could go, six and eight deep all
the way around the Capitol. We don't have a picture of that because of
air security, or there would have been news helicopters up above taking
shots of the human ring, six and eight deep all the way around the
Capitol that was formed to tell this Congress stop. Stop. You are
spending too much. You are taking away our liberty. You are passing
legislation that is unconstitutional, or at a minimum constitutionally
suspect. All of that taking place before the election.
And then at the election, the American people poured forth and filled
up the voting booth and put their mark down on their ballots, no, no,
no, no, to the radical social leftist agenda that has been driven
through this Congress, and that message should have been heard loud and
clear before the stroke of midnight on the 2nd of November.
And the new day comes forward, the new day came forward and we see
nothing but dig in, drive that agenda and drive that agenda. I, Madam
Speaker, am here to speak up against it, and I am hopeful that in any
succeeding lame duck session that we have, whether it would be
Republicans in the majority or Democrats in the majority, that we
respect the will of the American people and stand down and bridge the
gap between the election in November and the new Congress in the early
part of January with just the minimum amount of legislation necessary
to make that transition.
If the majority holds the same and there is work that needs to be
done and not very many seats have changed dramatically, then in that
case it is a little bit different question. But when the majority
changes and the majority changes dramatically, as it did this time in a
way more dramatic than 1994 even and as dramatic as going back to 1948
and another previous election, then no.
There have only been three or four times in American history that
this Congress turned around the way it turned around this time, and at
no time to my knowledge has there been such an aggressive agenda driven
in a lameduck session, including the idea of taking up a treaty in the
United States Senate. I don't believe that has ever been done.

So, Madam Speaker, we have had the food safety bill today, the food
safety bill that is a $1.3 billion bill or $1.4 billion bill that is
another big reach in government that brings in about 17,000 new
government employees and inspectors.
We have the safest food in the world, and we need an army of 17,000
additional inspectors so that we can satisfy the urge to expand the
nanny-state? It is the only reason I can think of that we would have a
policy like that. The safest food in the world and the largest army to
inspect the food, and now out of the House goes the food safety bill,
another irresponsible safety and growth in government and unnecessary
solution in search of a problem, Madam Speaker.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The repeal of Don't
Ask, Don't Tell, one of the few policies that Bill Clinton endorsed
that I thought was a good policy that actually was working. Another
solution in search of a problem. It is a political agenda. It is a
social experiment in our military.
Our military needs to be able to fight. We need to listen to them.
And when we hear the modified positions of our top military officers,
one can only suspect that it is a possibility they are taking orders
from the commander-in-chief. How about that. What would that mean, if a
multiple-star general was taking orders from the commander-in-chief and
decided that he would have a position on Don't Ask, Don't Tell that was
less clear than it might have been 2 or 4 years ago?
The passage of ObamaCare, as I mentioned, is another piece that came
along in this past year, although not in a lameduck session. I look
forward, Madam Speaker, to the repeal of ObamaCare as it passed here in
late March of this year, late into the night. I was the last one to
leave the Capitol here at night, which isn't new, but it happened that
night, I am confident.
As I walked home, I told myself, I am going to lay down and rest. I
am exhausted. I spent weeks fighting this with everything that I have.
And the rest didn't last very long. After about 2\1/2\ hours I was up
thinking about what can we do?
It is extraordinarily unusual to have a piece of legislation,
especially a high-profile, hard-fought piece of legislation like
ObamaCare, extraordinarily unusual to ever see anyone introduce
legislation to repeal the legislation that has just passed. But I got
up and I drafted a bill draft request to do just that, to repeal
ObamaCare. And, curiously, without coordination, the same thing was
going on in the office of Michele Bachmann, and our bill drafts came
down within 3 minutes of each other.

{time} 2220

Identically, the same 40 words that conclude with words pretty close
to this: Repeal ObamaCare--a little more language--as if it had never
been enacted. That's the quote, ``as if it had never been enacted.''
That's a pretty complete way of talking about repealing a piece of
legislation.
There were those that thought that it was just an act of protest, an
act of frustration. They maybe thought that neither one of us were
enough of a statesman that we could accept losing on a vote like that
and walk away and fight on another issue another day. But, truthfully,
it was simultaneously coming to the same conclusion, the same
conclusion that America cannot reach the next level of its destiny if
ObamaCare is going to be a component of that destiny because it ties us
down, because it anchors us, because it takes away and diminishes our
options as individuals, because it mandates that we buy insurance.
There are, I think, four constitutional violations in ObamaCare itself,
and some of that is in the middle of being litigated right now.
The commerce clause is the clearest and easiest one, and I am happy
to see the decision by Judge Hudson in upholding the suit that was
brought by Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia, and others. And I look forward
to the decisions that will unfold from the Florida suit. And it looks
like about 25 States have joined in this litigation in one form or
another. And I'm hopeful that when our new Governor in Iowa is sworn
in, that one of the first acts in office he will have is that Governor
Branstad will join in the litigation against ObamaCare in whatever
capacity he is able to do that.
There are three ways to undo ObamaCare, Madam Speaker, and one of
them is through the courts and every means of litigation at our
disposal, and that path is following pretty well. But we learned--we
knew this actually going in, but it was very clear--McCain-Feingold was
one of those examples, a piece of legislation that perhaps was signed
by the President in anticipation that the courts would overturn it. I
don't know that. I just say

[[Page H8932]]

perhaps. But anybody that believed that the court was going to save us
was disappointed in the short term and mildly pleased in the longer
term. But one should never vote for and never sign a piece of
legislation that they believe will be unconstitutional because that
leaves it up to the courts to do the job that we need to be doing as a
legislature.
However, I believe the litigation needs to go forward on ObamaCare
and that if the courts finally find all components of it
unconstitutional, we can at that point perhaps wash our hands of it and
we should pass, then, a repeal to get it out of the books so it's not
sitting there waiting to be litigated again.
But I'm looking at the courts for relief--short-term relief,
injunctive relief--and I'm hopeful that all of ObamaCare will be ripped
out by the court. I believe that it has enough unconstitutional
components and no severability clause, so that would tell me there's a
possibility that it all could be removed by its violations of our
Constitution. That's one of the ways to address the repeal of
ObamaCare.
Another way is for our States, our Governors, to refuse to implement
ObamaCare and to refuse to invest those State tax dollars in the high
cost of increasing Medicaid that it imposes on the State and
essentially throw a wrench in the works and resist the administration's
determination to implement ObamaCare, and do that from all of our
Governors' offices across the country where we have people that oppose
it. That's another component of this opposition that can be effective.
The third one, and the one that's the most essential and the one
that, if it's completed, is the most certain is a statutory legislative
repeal of ObamaCare. Since the tax bracket bill came through last week
that extended the 2001 and 2003 tax brackets for 2 years that provided
for a $5 million exemption for the estate tax and a 35 percent rate,
fixed a few other things and caused a lot of other problems, but since
that tax bill went through and there's an agreement that's made on it
for 2 years, then I'll submit, Madam Speaker, that the most important
piece of legislation that the new Congress can take up, and I'm hopeful
that incoming Speaker Boehner will elect to make H.R. 1 the first piece
of legislation here in the House of Representatives, H.R. 1, the
standalone repeal of ObamaCare, a 100 percent repeal of ObamaCare;
legislation that would stand on its own, that would be very clear, that
would put up a vote in this House that would allow for a full repeal of
ObamaCare in H.R. 1.
Just to put a marker down and declare the approach that I support,
since I have taken this issue on in a personal way and filed a
discharge petition where I have 173 signatures on that discharge
petition, I thought it was important that I articulate the legislation
that I would like to see come forward in the 112th Congress. And in my
consultation with Congressman Herger of California, I looked into the
language that he put together after I had introduced the repeal
language, and he did so after the reconciliation package that came from
the Senate.
There were two pieces of legislation that came together to make up
ObamaCare. One was the bill itself, and the other one was a
reconciliation package that passed several weeks later. That
reconciliation package needed to be included. So I added the component
of the Herger legislation repeal to the repeal language that I've
introduced and the same repeal language that I added that Michelle
Bachmann introduced. And she and I filed that bill last Friday, just to
add some clarity and unity to the language we support for the repeal of
ObamaCare, with the complete agreement of Congressman Herger from
California, who agrees with the language and encouraged me to file the
bill.
So that's there as a marker, so anyone that wants to take a look at
it and see what it is that we want to repeal, it's ObamaCare; it's the
reconciliation package that came from the Senate. They did that in
order to circumvent the filibuster. I thought that it was legislative
sleight-of-hand myself. And that's what we got.

I'm committed to the full, 100 percent repeal of ObamaCare. I believe
that our leadership is committed to the full, 100 percent repeal of
ObamaCare. And yes, there will be a lot of different ways to look at
this strategically. But to march down through this beyond the repeal
piece of legislation, which I anticipate will be very early in the new
Congress, my proposal is that we shut off spending in every
appropriations bill; that we put language in every appropriations bill
that no funds and no funds heretofore appropriated shall be used to
implement or enforce ObamaCare. If we do that with all the
appropriations bills going through the 2011 calendar year, the 2012
calendar year, by the time we arrive at the Presidential election in
November of 2012, it will be pretty clear that ObamaCare has not been
implemented, it has not been enforced, none of the dollars would be
allowed to be used for that.
And I'm hopeful that we will elect a President who runs on the ticket
and calls for the mandate from the American people that the first order
of business for the next President of the United States who would be
inaugurated on January 20, 2013, would be to have Congress put on his
desk the repeal of ObamaCare and sign that as a first order of business
as the next President of the United States. That's the goal. It can be
done. It isn't a futile effort.
I've had some people say, Well, why do you think you can repeal
ObamaCare? The President would veto it as soon as you pass the
legislation. In the first place, if the House passes the repeal of
ObamaCare, there's no agreement the Senate would take it up. But
surely, they're not going to take it up unless we send it over there.
So we need to pass the repeal, send it to the Senate, build the
pressure so that they can perhaps find a way to take it up in the
Senate. If they do so and the repeal of ObamaCare gets passed by both
Chambers in the same form and it goes to the President, yes, I, like
every other thinking American, would expect President Obama to veto
such legislation, but we would have people on record. We would have an
agenda that would be laid out. And that lays the foundation to unfund
ObamaCare, and it lays the foundation then to take us to the point
where we can elect a President who will sign the repeal. That's the
strategy. It needs to be done.
If the American people are going to reach the next level of our
destiny, we cannot have ObamaCare as an anchor that's tied around our
leg that continuously sinks the entrepreneurs, sinks the small
businesses, grows the taxes, creates lines, rations care, prohibits us
from buying the insurance policies of our choice. The list goes on.

{time} 2230

Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the time of the season that we have
here, and I am thinking about the families of all of those who are on
their way home tonight and of those who will be on their way home
tomorrow and perhaps the next day.
All the staff that works here in this Congress and the people who are
here as this team is tonight, recording every word that comes from any
Member of Congress and who are in the middle of this debate constantly,
making sure that everything is precisely, accurately quoted and
coordinated in this Congressional Record, are top-notch and the envy of
the world. Of the team that is here, many of them I have worked with
for years, and I don't know if they're Democrats or Republicans. I know
that they respect the institution and the people who serve here. I
appreciate them, and wish all of them a very Merry Christmas and a
happy new year.
While I look around at my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans,
and know some of their families and our staff from our offices, who
toil sometimes in oblivion, I think of all of that contribution that's
there, and I am grateful for them all.
I also cast my mind's eye overseas to some of the places that I have
gone to visit our troops and our personnel. It just so happens that, a
little over a year ago, I missed a family event that was of high
importance to us because of duty here, and even though there were quite
a number of calls expressing sympathy for that, a month later, I found
myself in Afghanistan. As I was seated in a late-night briefing, one of
the generals--and I probably asked one too many questions, and got a
little bit close to the personal side. He will know

[[Page H8933]]

who he is, but I won't utter his name into this Record, although I have
great respect for him as a patriot, as a warrior and as a servant for
America.
He said, though, in that night conversation in Afghanistan, I was
deployed when they served divorce papers on me from my first wife, and
I started a new family. I have a girl and a boy. My little boy is 5
years old, and I have been deployed for three of his first five
Christmases.
I sat there and listened to that, and it had been about a month since
I had missed a very, very important family event in my own family. I
listened to that officer tell me of being deployed when he received
divorce papers, of being deployed for three of his son's first five
Christmases. I think he is deployed right now.
I think about the men and women who put on the uniform and who are
deployed in harm's way around the world in Iraq, Afghanistan and in
other places around the world.
I was watching as the USS Harry Truman docked here in the last day or
so. The sailors who got off of that ship were seeing babies born, their
children born--babies they had never seen since they were born. Little
babies were put in their arms. They'd kiss their wives quickly and pick
up and marvel at a little miracle that would be 2 or 3 or 6 months old
who they had never seen. Their own child. They weren't home for the
birth of the child. They missed weddings. They missed funerals. They
got back when they could, but they were deployed; they were at sea.
They were serving America.
That's true on the USS Harry Truman. That's true in places like
Afghanistan and Iraq and other places around the world where we have
our men and women in uniform--our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
marines--in harm's way every day, at risk of death, at risk of
sacrifice, some losing their lives. While all of this is going on,
sometimes we get wrapped up here, and we think ours is a sacrifice.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that ours is a duty and a service
and a privilege and an honor, and sometimes it is a sacrifice; but when
we think about our sacrifice here, I ask all to think about the
sacrifice over there, which is far greater--far more family time lost
and missed, moments that will never be recaptured again, limbs lost,
and lives lost . . . never to come back again.
So, with all of that in mind and with the Christmas season upon us, I
would like to close with a poem that was written by the greatest
respecter of our warriors in this Capitol building--Albert Caswell--who
can be seen around this Capitol, giving tours to the wounded on a daily
basis with eagerness and enthusiasm and a profound respect for those
who have served us so well and especially for those who have been
wounded and for those who have been lost. Sometimes he sits up in the
middle of the night and will write a poem. I think he gets started, and
he can't stop until he finishes it and brings it to a conclusion. This
is a poem that he wrote just a few days ago. It's called ``This
Christmas.''
``This Christmas . . .
``As the snow falls to the ground . . .
``And all the children dance, with songs of joy so
all around . . .
``With stockings hung by the chimneys with care . . .
``With hopes and dreams, of Santa there . . .
``With Christmas dinners and fires all aglow, as
before this family a feast lies so . . .
``'O Holy Night! A Child was born, for all to know!'
``Joy to the world, let Heaven and nature sing, but
remember . . . remember . . . remember all of them, and
all of those . . .
``Those families! Those patriots of peace!
``The ones, who'll this Christmas . . . will not so
together be!!
``Who upon battlefields of honor fight!
``So far away from our country tis of thee, this
night . . .
``Men and women of such honor bright, who for all of
us so carry that fight . . .
``Why there can be peace on Earth, because of their
light!
``Who now so live with such heartache and death . . .
``Who upon each new day, their honor our lives so
bless!
``As they so bless us one and all, with all of their
gifts of most selfless sacrifice . . .
``And all of those lost loved ones, who lie in soft,
quiet, cold graves . . .
``Teaching us all the true cost, the price of freedom paid!
``Precious daughters and sons, husbands and wives . . .
``Fathers and mothers, sisters and brothers who gave
their lives . . .
``That last full measure . . . as for them we cry!
``Whose loved ones' pain, will never die . . .
``Who on this Christmas morning, sit with but tears
in eyes . . .
``As they listen to their children cry, 'Mommy,
Daddy . . . I wish you were by my side.'
``With one less place at the dinner table this
year . . . they all so begin to cry . . .
``And all of those who have come home, without arms
and legs, who did not die!
``Without eyes and faces, with burned in all
places . . . in hospital beds they try!!
``Blessing us all with their fine gifts they gave!
``Making us all so see, just how magnificent and
inspiriting a heart can be!
``And remember all of those, whose loved ones lie far
across the shores . . .
``As with each new day, brings such great worry . . . so
for sure!
``But, waiting . . . but waiting for, that knock on the
door . . .
``That phone call, that they now so pray not for . . .
``Quiet heroes, one and all!
``Watching them from Heaven, the angel's teardrops
fall . . .
``Lord God, Lord God . . . bless them . . . bless them all!
``For these are the families, who have paid the cost!
``Bore the burden, carry that cross, that cross of
war!
``This Christmas, as you hold your families tight . . .
``And all seems so fine, and all seems so very
right . . .
``And you see all of those smiles upon your
children's faces, so bright . . .
``Give thanks! Give praise! As upon your knees as
you begin to pray . . .
``For all of those families, who have so
sacrificed . . .
``And remember their blessings, their gifts of
freedom . . . this night!
``This Christmas . . . ''
Mr. Speaker, I wish all of us a Merry Christmas and a happy new year.
May we reconvene in the 112th Congress with a new spirit--a spirit that
keeps in mind the price and the sacrifice paid by our veterans and our
families that support them, the legacy that they have left for us, the
duty that we have to honor their sacrifice. May we come back and join
together in that task in January of 2011.
May we go home and give great thanks for their sacrifice and the
blessing of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

____________________