[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 21876-21882]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                TRIBUTES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, at this time I do want to yield such time 
as he may consume to the man who has been talked about a great deal. If 
I didn't know better and didn't know him so well, I would say they've 
been exaggerating, but there has been no exaggeration, a great man, a 
great Representative. It's been an honor to serve with him.
  I yield to Jerry Weller of Illinois.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend 
from Texas for sharing his time in giving me the opportunity to say 
thank you, not only thank you to my constituents but thank you to my 
colleagues, particularly those from the Illinois delegation who are 
here tonight, my friend Don Manzullo and John Shimkus and Peter Roskam 
for taking time to say a few nice things about Ray LaHood and myself, 
and for that I appreciate that so much. But also I want to say thank 
you for the partnership I've had with you as a member of the Illinois 
delegation over the 14 years that I've had the privilege of serving in 
this House.
  You know, Ray LaHood's a good friend to all of us, and of course, I 
want to take a moment and just salute Ray LaHood who, as my colleagues 
in the delegation and all the Members of the House, both Republican and 
Democrat know, is a man who's a man of this institution, someone who's 
worked tirelessly to bring civility to the House, a man who led efforts 
to convene bipartisan retreats. Four House bipartisan retreats were 
cochaired by Ray LaHood in his effort to bring civility and 
bipartisanship to the House. And I think if you can think of just one 
thing about Ray LaHood, it is his commitment and desire that the 
institution of this Congress should work together to solve the 
challenges that we have before us.
  You know, I look back over the 14 years that I've had the privilege 
of serving in the House as a member of the House Ways and Means 
Committee and the opportunity I had to serve on the Foreign Affairs 
Committee and serve, of course, as a deputy whip, I think of those 
opportunities to get to know my colleagues and have an opportunity to 
work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I can't say a 
few words tonight without saying thank you to all the men and women 
that I've had the privilege of serving with, for the courtesies, for 
the opportunity to work together, and frankly, we had some good times 
as well in that process. I want to say thank you to everyone, and I 
also want to thank my colleagues for serving in this Congress.
  You know, there's a lot of work that goes sight unseen. You don't 
often get thanked enough for the work that's done behind the scenes, 
but I want to thank my colleagues for their work and for their 
commitment to public service.
  I also want to thank my colleagues for the support that you have 
given me in the projects and the legislation that I've had the 
opportunity to work on.
  My friends mentioned the marriage tax penalty, which was an issue of 
fairness, and that issue came to me in my first campaign. I remember a 
young woman who came up, she was working in the office in my campaign, 
and she

[[Page 21877]]

said, you know, Jerry, if you do get elected to Congress, there's an 
issue I want you to look into and I hope you will fix it. It's a 
penalty. If you're married, you're going to pay higher taxes.
  She said, you know, my boyfriend and I, we want to get married. We 
both have pretty good jobs, and my friends said you better do your 
taxes jointly just to experiment and find out what your obligation 
would be. And they did that. They discovered they paid about $1,400 
more in higher taxes just if they got married.

                              {time}  2130

  And because it was clear to me that it was unfair and, frankly, wrong 
that you should pay higher taxes just because you're married, that 
doesn't seem right, it's wrong, that our Tax Code was punishing 
marriage; where if two people worked, and because when you marry you 
file jointly, your incomes were combined. And the way our complicated 
Tax Code was structured, 42 million married working couples across 
America were paying higher taxes, on average about $1,400.
  And I want to thank President Bush for signing into law my 
legislation eliminating the marriage tax penalty, which, on average, 
saves married couples today $1,900 that they otherwise would pay had we 
not successfully worked to bring greater simplicity to the tax code, 
and ensuring that our tax code essentially today is marriage neutral. 
Two married people who both are in the workforce, who file jointly 
because they're married, will not pay higher taxes than two people that 
aren't married, but with similar incomes and with similar status. And 
so, today, we've eliminated the marriage tax penalty.
  Unfortunately, in 2011 that reform expires. And I would encourage my 
colleagues to make elimination of the marriage tax penalty permanent so 
that we can protect the most basic institution in our society from a 
financial penalty we all know as the marriage tax penalty.
  I also want to thank my colleagues for the work that we did on 
working to protect children from Internet predators. With their 
support, we were able to pass the Internet Predator Protection Act. I 
want to thank my colleagues for the support you gave me in our effort 
to ensure that veterans would have a better opportunity to obtain 
health care locally. You know, traditionally, the Veterans 
Administration always provided health care through VA hospitals. But 
many of our veterans live in rural areas and ex-urban areas where they 
would have to drive great distances.
  And so we worked--in fact, my colleague, Dave Weldon, and I, he is a 
classmate--and he's retiring this year as well--we cosponsored 
legislation that for the first time gave the VA the authority to enter 
into a cooperative sharing agreement with local health care providers, 
like a local hospital, to open, essentially, an outpatient clinic in 
the local area where veterans can go and receive their outpatient care.
  And one thing I noted, because today the La Salle Veterans Outpatient 
Clinic in La Salle, Illinois, is a perfect example of that; we have 
45,000 veterans living within a 45-minute driving radius of La Salle. 
Many of the veterans that obtained health care there, it was the first 
time they were able to obtain health care because otherwise it was too 
inconvenient. They weren't able to travel all the way to Chicago to 
Hines Hospital.
  So those efforts made a difference. And whether it was helping 
veterans or protecting kids from Internet predators, eliminating the 
marriage tax penalty, it took the support of my colleagues. And I want 
to thank all my colleagues for the support that you gave me in those 
efforts.
  Some of my friends in the Illinois delegation referred to the Joliet 
Arsenal. And when I was elected to Congress, the Joliet Arsenal was a 
24,000-acre surplus military facility during the Vietnam conflict, 
during World War II, and before. The vast majority of the TNT 
production for America's military was produced at the former Joliet 
Arsenal. In the late seventies it was shut down. In the 1980s it was a 
rusting, essentially abandoned place. And the community came together 
and we worked with conservationists and business and labor, political 
leaders in both parties, a lot of volunteers, veterans, the 
environmental community, and we worked to put together a plan, a plan 
that was a win-win-win for the community. We took what was the largest 
single piece of property in Northern Illinois, created the Midewin 
National Tall Grass Prairie, a 19,000-acre conservation area, the 
first-ever tall grass prairie--now administered by the Forest Service--
and the first of its kind, but also the largest today.
  Essentially, we created what became as affectionately known by many 
as Will County Central Park. We doubled the amount of open space set 
aside for posterity in Will County with our legislation to redevelop 
the Joliet Arsenal.
  We also created the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery, which today, 
geographically, is the second largest national veterans cemetery named 
after Abraham Lincoln. Not only is Illinois the land of Lincoln, but we 
have to remember that the Gettysburg Address, made so famous by Abraham 
Lincoln, actually was the dedication of our Nation's first veterans 
cemetery. And so we thought it was appropriate to name the Abraham 
Lincoln National Cemetery after the President who started the national 
cemetery system in order to honor, with dignity, those who risk and 
sacrifice their lives for our Nation.
  We also set aside about 3,000 acres for the creation of jobs. And we 
were fortunate to recruit Center Point Properties, a Chicago-area firm. 
They partnered with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. And as a 
result of that partnership, private development attracted over $1 
billion in investment--creating jobs, creating what is one of the 
largest intermodal truck, rail, freight handling facilities. We've now 
had manufacturing, warehousing and distribution come there. Our farmers 
benefit because their grain goes to Asia through the terminal there at 
the former Joliet Arsenal. And almost 8,000 workers today are directly 
and indirectly employed as a result of that effort.
  And it was a team effort, I'm so proud to say. And we can continue 
building on that effort to redevelop the Joliet Arsenal, creating the 
Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery, the Midewin National Tall Grass 
Prairie, and of course the two industrial sites that now have attracted 
over $1 billion in investment.
  You know, one of the areas that I've also enjoyed having the 
privilege of being involved in as a Member of this House was my belief 
that our economy grows, and manufacturing and farmers and workers, that 
all Americans benefit when we expand trade, when we increase the 
commerce between our Nation and others. You know, we're a Nation of 300 
million people. We represent 4 percent of the globe's population. 
Ninety-six percent of the people who live on this Earth live outside of 
the United States. And I believe that our economy grows when we find a 
way to market services and produce products and manufactured goods and 
agricultural products that come from States like Illinois that I 
represent, having an opportunity to sell them overseas to foreign 
markets. It grows our economy and creates opportunities for our young 
people.
  And trade today, if you look at economic figures, you look at the 
discussion we're having about the economy, this past quarter we had 3.3 
percent economic growth. And if you analyze where that growth occurred, 
90 percent of that growth came as a result of exports--whether it's 
yellow construction equipment made in Joliet or corn and soybeans grown 
in Illinois, our export markets growing this economy.
  And a key part of that are the trade agreements that we passed in the 
last few years, particularly the Dominican Republic-Central American 
Free Trade Agreement, known as DR-CAFTA, the Chilean Agreement, the 
Peruvian-Chilean Trade Agreement, all good agreements that the 
opponents would say were going to cost us jobs, and actually today have 
generated tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of new jobs.

[[Page 21878]]

  The DR-CAFTA agreement actually took a trade deficit with our six 
trading partners in Central America and the Dominican Republic, where 
we had a trade deficit prior to that agreement, and because it 
eliminated all sorts of barriers--particularly tariffs--on U.S. 
products and Illinois products, today we have a significant trade 
surplus with our DR-CAFTA partners.
  Clearly, trade wins for States like Illinois as well as America. And 
that's why it's so important that we ratify the U.S.-Colombia Trade 
Agreement, which, Colombia is a nation of 42 million people; it's the 
longest standing democracy in all of South America. It's recognized as 
America's best friend and best partner in all Latin America. But the 
population of Colombia is essentially equal to the population of all 
the DR-CAFTA nations combined. Tremendous opportunity.
  My hope is that we will ratify this agreement before I leave Congress 
before the end of this year. And my hope is, as we look to the future 
on the issue of trade, that we can bring trade back to the middle again 
and continue moving forward to grow our economy and expand 
opportunities to sell U.S. products and grow our economy in agriculture 
and manufacturing, and of course give workers the opportunity for 
better jobs as a result of expanded exports.
  Let me close by saying thank you to my family. You know, I remember 
when I was sworn into Congress 14 years ago, my mom and dad, Lavern and 
Marilyn Weller, came out, as did my Aunt Mary and Aunt Eileen, and many 
friends and family came. I particularly want to say thank you to Mom 
and Dad, Lavern and Marilyn Weller, who worked so hard raising pure 
bred and Durock and Hampshire hogs, having many champions at various 
fairs, selling pure bred hogs all over the world.
  And frankly, Mom and Dad taught me the value of trade. I remember 
when President Nixon opened up relations with China, the first shipment 
of hogs that were purchased by the Chinese included pigs from the 
Weller family farm. And of course after that, the result of the hard 
work of my mom and dad, they sold hogs to about 30 nations around the 
world. I'm very proud of that. In fact, they gave me the opportunity to 
be involved in 4-H and FFA. And I had the grand champion barrel at the 
Illinois State Fair my last year in 4-H. But it was all because of Mom 
and Dad and the opportunities they gave me, to go to the University of 
Illinois, to pursue a career off the farm, and of course to become 
involved in public service.
  I look back at my campaigns. My mother was always my best campaigner. 
If you went to a Jerry Weller campaign event, you would always see 
Marilyn Weller, my mom, right there, shaking everyone's hand, thanking 
them for coming. And she would always wear a big button that said, 
``I'm Jerry's mom.'' She was my best campaigner.
  I want to thank my sister Pat and my brother Doug. We lost our 
brother Rod this past year, and he is now buried at the Abraham Lincoln 
Cemetery. And Rod and Doug and Pat were all part of the campaign as 
well, the support they gave me. And I can't go without saying thank you 
to my siblings.
  And of course, as I close, I want to say thank you to my wife and my 
daughter. You know, when I came to Congress, I was a single guy. And 
who would have thought that as a result of coming to Congress I would 
meet my wife and fall in love and have a family today. And my wife and 
I, we have a very unique relationship. We're the only parliamentarians 
from two different countries who are married. My wife is a Member of 
Congress in the nation of Guatemala. She served in her Congress as long 
as I have, 14 years. And she's much younger. And frankly, she is a very 
skilled and dedicated legislator on her own, someone who I am so proud 
of the work that she does. But Zury Rios de Weller--as she is 
officially known as now--is a great partner, and she is a wonderful 
wife, and most important of all, she's a wonderful mother. Who would 
have thought that as a result of my opportunity to serve in Congress I 
would meet my wife and I would become a dad? And we have a 2-year-old 
girl, Marizu Catherine Weller Rios. Marizu is a very bright, happy, 
healthy little girl. And I am so very proud and so very fortunate to 
have Zury and Marizu in my life.
  And as I look at what I'm going to be doing in the future, when I 
leave this Congress, my first priority is to be a good husband and a 
good father. And I look forward to my years ahead with Zury and with 
Marizu and the opportunities that we'll have to do things together.
  So many of my colleagues have said, you know, when I got elected to 
Congress, my kids were in diapers. And all of a sudden they're now in 
high school or they're now in college, and I haven't seen much of them. 
But what really caught my attention was, I was looking through the 
family photo albums, and I'm not in the photos--because I wasn't there, 
because I was attending meetings and functions everywhere else. Well, 
for me, I want to be with my daughter. I want her to see me at all our 
family functions. I want her to see her dad every day.
  And people often ask, why do you want to leave Congress at age 51? 
It's because I was blessed at age 49 becoming a father for the first 
time. And my daughter, Marizu, is my one and only child. And I look 
forward to being her father in the years ahead, to being there, 
attending all her activities, hopefully being a good dad, but most of 
all, enjoying life with my wife and daughter.
  Again, I want to say thank you to my colleagues in this Congress for 
the courtesies, the opportunities to work together. I want to thank 
especially my colleagues in the Illinois delegation for the partnership 
we've had, both Democrat and Republican, and for those who took time 
tonight to say some nice things about Ray LaHood and myself, since 
we're departing this Congress.
  I particularly want to say thank you to John Shimkus and Don Manzullo 
and Peter Roskam for taking time to come to the floor to say some nice 
things. And for that, I want to say thank you, you're my friends.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is probably the last speech I will make on 
the floor of this House as a sitting Member of Congress. My hope is we 
will have a lame-duck session, but if we don't, this is my final 
address. Again, I want to say thank you very much.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, we are going to miss the Honorable Jerry 
Weller and do appreciate all he has done for this country, not just for 
the people of Illinois.
  Well it is with great pleasure that I rise tonight to pay tribute to 
a constituent, a good friend, a former colleague, Judge Cynthia Stevens 
Kent, who will be retiring at the end of this year following 25 years 
of judicial service. So I wanted to make this tribute a part of the 
permanent Congressional Record so that people in future generations 
would know of this great judge.
  Throughout her years of faithful service to the State of Texas, Judge 
Kent has gained the respect and admiration of friends, colleagues and 
especially fellow judges. Her knowledge of the law and commitment to 
bettering the judiciary is not just well known in east Texas but 
throughout the country. East Texas has been blessed to have such a wise 
leader. And it's truly a better place to live because of her hard work.
  After receiving her law degree from South Texas College of Law in 
Houston, Judge Kent moved to Tyler, Texas, with her husband, Don. She 
opened her own law firm, but in 1984 she left the lucrative practice to 
dedicate herself to public service. For 4 years she served as judge of 
the Smith County Court at Law Number Two. She oversaw misdemeanor 
criminal cases, workers' compensation cases, substantive civil cases, 
condemnation cases, mental health, probate, juvenile, family law and 
appeals from justice of the peace and municipal courts.
  After 4 years in that capacity, Judge Kent was successfully elected 
as the first woman to serve on the Texas 114th

[[Page 21879]]

Judicial District Court serving both Smith and Wood counties. As judge 
of this court, she has overseen felony criminal cases, divorce and 
family law, juvenile, land claims, election contests, very substantive 
civil cases, workers' compensation, contested probate matters, and 
juvenile law in general. She has diligently presided over this court 
for the past 20 years.
  Now throughout her career, Judge Kent has established herself as a 
wise, hardworking, law and order judge. There is not much question 
about that. She has cleared a large backlog of cases while gaining a 
reputation among criminal defendants as a judge you wanted to avoid.
  Judge Kent is widely known for her strong commitment to teaching and 
to furthering her own legal education. During her time on the bench, 
she received a masters of judicial studies from the National Judicial 
College, and she is currently working toward candidacy for a Ph.D. She 
served as a faculty instructor at the National Judicial College 
teaching ``advanced evidence'' and ``handling capital cases.'' She has 
spoken and taught at countless judicial conferences, seminars and 
courses throughout the country, all the while dedicating herself to the 
east Texas community by serving as a volunteer instructor at Texas 
College in Tyler, Texas.
  Judge Kent has written and co-authored numerous publications, and she 
has served on a variety of boards and associations. Most recently she 
was chosen by Governor Rick Perry to be a member of the Governor's 
Criminal Justice Advisory Council which is tasked with the difficult 
job of reviewing the criminal laws in Texas. It's undeniable that Judge 
Kent has distinguished herself as one of the Nation's leading judicial 
scholars.
  Throughout all of the many demands of her professional career, Judge 
Kent has managed to raise a wonderful family with the love and support 
of her husband, Don Kent. The Kents have been married for over 32 years 
and have three sons, Drew, Jarad and Wayne.
  Judge Kent's dedication and commitment to God, her family, the law 
and to faithfully serving east Texas is evident not just from the 
accomplishments already mentioned, but from the admiration and kind 
words of almost anyone across the region. She has been a wise judge, a 
dependable colleague, a patient instructor and a dear friend whose 
leadership has been an inspiration to so very many. Whether you agreed 
or disagreed with her, you never wondered where she stood. ``Shy and 
withdrawn'' were never adjectives used in the same sentence with her 
name.
  During my years as a judge, I served at the opposite end of the 
courthouse on the same hall, same floor. It was always such a comfort 
to know that as difficult questions arose on exceedingly complex and 
even life-and-death cases, I had a knowledgeable friend whose judgment 
and advice could be trusted at the other end of the hall. All it took 
was a walk down the hall to her office or she to mine for an 
insightful, methodical discussion of the law to arrive at a proper 
solution. I was always in awe of just how amazing she was at 
multitasking like no one I had ever seen. She is truly an extraordinary 
person.
  Judge Kent is to be congratulated for her so many years of dedicated 
service, and now with retirement, she should be thanked for her 
committed devotion to the people of east Texas. My condolences on the 
other hand also have to go out to Smith County residents on the loss of 
such a dedicated jurist.
  May God bless Judge Cynthia Stevens Kent and all of the work that she 
has done.
  Now Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield such time as he 
may consume to my friend from Illinois, Mr. John Shimkus. We have been 
in a financial crisis, we're told, and my friend, John Shimkus, has 
been talking about something that could have avoided the whole problem.
  And I would yield such time as he may consume.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, thank you, Judge. You're a friend and a colleague, 
someone that helps us share a laugh and a joke. We also know of your 
powerful oratory ability when things need to be said. I don't know if I 
have seen you so emotionally engaged in this tribute to your colleague 
and friend. I think that is probably one of the best tributes you can 
give someone. So it was noticed by me. And I know it was noticed by 
your colleague. And I know she appreciates it.
  I'm going to take a few minutes just to tie two things together. We 
had this great financial crisis. This financial crisis is based upon 
two events. One is the subprime financial mortgage issue that has 
worked its way through Wall Street. The other one is high energy 
prices. And these two things have really put a damper on the economy.
  We've had some great successes in this Congress with this CR that 
just passed. After a good couple of months about fighting over the oil 
and natural reserves in this country, we won. The OCS moratorium has 
been lifted, and the moratorium on oil shale has been lifted.
  Now what am I talking about? I'm talking about that we, as 
legislators, especially on the Outer Continental Shelf, which are these 
areas here, the red, since 1982, we said we're not going to allow any 
Federal money to be spent to lease areas for exploration and recovery 
of oil and gas, thus depriving the country of the revenues from those 
areas and depriving those countries from the jobs that would be 
created. And so we, with the consistent drumbeat, have, for this time, 
for this short time, have won that fight. Also here, we see three 
mountain States in which we also put off-limits recovery exploration of 
oil shale. Oil shale can be turned into liquid fuels. We said we're not 
going to allow any Federal money to be spent to allow that to happen. 
In the continuing resolution, these moratoriums were taken off the 
books so that now, we know it still takes years, the Federal Department 
of Mines and Minerals are going to have to go through the regulation 
and accept the request and do that action, but at least these things 
can start. And when we're exploring for oil and gas and starting to 
recover that, we're using oil shale to turn into fuel, we've got a 
couple of things happen. We bring on more supply.
  Now I'm not one that says we're going to drive prices down to prices 
that they were a year, a year and a half ago. But I will say what we do 
want to do at a minimum is stabilize energy prices. And hopefully we 
can drive them down. But we do need to stabilize them, because the 
middle class, the poor and rural America are those who are hurt the 
most by high energy prices. And it hurts our ability to buy goods and 
services, and it depresses our economy.
  It didn't take very long for the ink to dry on the CR, the continuing 
resolution, when rumors started coming out from the Democratic 
leadership saying, we were just joking, as soon as we come back, we're 
going to replace that moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf, thus 
depriving us of the oil and gas in those areas and depriving us of 
those revenues that can be generated to help grow our economy. So I'm 
just putting my friends on the other side on notice. We're going to do 
what we did in this Congress next Congress. And we're going to hold 
them accountable. And we're not going to allow them to take these areas 
that we have now opened and open it and allow them to use it for this 
political short period of time to get re-elected and then come back 
here and close it. If they think they had a fight this year, wait until 
next year. We are going to sharpen our swords, and we're going to be 
ready to come back. And I think it's going to be much more difficult 
for them to make the case that they should close these areas up.
  So I want to come down here tonight, obviously a great competitor in 
the political arena and public policy is the majority leader, Steny 
Hoyer. Actually most of us really like the majority leader. But his 
quotes today say, we're going to do this first order of business, we're 
going to close these areas up. And to the majority leader, I just say, 
we're ready to go and fight for this in the long haul because it will 
be good for jobs and the economy and lowering the energy costs for 
average Americans.

[[Page 21880]]

  So Judge Gohmert, I appreciate your allowing me to share some of your 
time tonight. I look forward to the conclusion of this Congress. And 
I'm even looking more expectantly to the next Congress as we try to 
continue to use all our natural resources that we have. We won on OCS. 
We won on oil shale. We have a long way to go on coal. We still have 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We have great places that we can 
recover oil, gas and coal and make this country more energy 
independent. And I know with your help we're going to be able to that.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Would the gentleman be willing to engage in a colloquy?
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I would be honored to engage in a colloquy.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Here we have been hearing so much about the financial 
crisis, and the Secretary of the Treasury has said that we need $700 
billion to bail out Wall Street. He doesn't use those words. It's so 
ironic. We've been hearing Boone Pickens talk about $700 billion. But 
he has been talking about the massive transfer of wealth from the 
United States to countries, many of whom don't like us, where we're 
buying their oil, when we could be producing our own if the majority 
would just let us do so.
  So when we talk about a financial crisis, and we talk about that 
influx of $700 billion being spent on American energy and American jobs 
being created, because I know you and I have talked about it before, 
and you haven't touched on it tonight about the effect of that $700 
billion being spent on our shores in ANWR. Do you want to touch on 
that?
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Well I do want to highlight the fact everybody talks 
about the trade deficit, and what is the biggest impact on the trade 
deficit is our purchasing of energy from foreign countries, especially 
in this era of high energy prices. This $700 billion number that you're 
referring to is a transfer of wealth from Americans to some of our 
friends, Canadians, they are our largest importer. We import from them. 
They are a large exporter of energy to us, and Mexico, but we also 
transfer our wealth to places where we're not sure about our 
relationship. We know Venezuela is not our friend. We have an 
interesting relationship with Saudi Arabia. One day we're close, and 
the next day they may be funding our enemies. They fund our enemies 
through oil revenues that we're paying.
  There is a better way. And that is to become more energy independent. 
And what I like about this debate, and I think you are alluding to it a 
little bit, is when we are recovering oil and gas and oil shale and I 
would say coal in other places, the government receives royalty 
payments for that exploration.

                              {time}  2200

  Congressman Barton, the ranking member now of Energy and Commerce, 
has proposed, hey, if we are going to have to do this great outlay of 
money to stabilize the economy, we have a place we can go for revenues. 
Great idea. Let's have a pay-for. These would be great pay-fors.
  Now, that hasn't really been resolved in this debate, but I still 
have always historically on the floor talked about the jobs that are 
created when you look for, find and then recover oil and gas in the OCS 
and the oil shale. And, of course, I am talking about that because that 
was part of the continuing resolution. Those are the provisions.
  In fact, the majority leader of the Senate in the CR wanted to strip 
this portion out. In fact, he is trying right now, to say, oh, the 
House was wrong. They shouldn't have eased the moratorium on oil shale. 
I want to put that back on.
  I don't think he is going to be successful. But the fact that in the 
Senate they want to do that and in the House they are talking already 
about doing the OCS, what does that do for the average consuming 
citizen of this country, and what signal does it send to the futures 
markets? It says, well, is the government serious about opening supply, 
or are we not?
  We Republicans are serious about an all-American energy policy that 
brings in all our natural resources. Are our friends on the other side 
just playing a cruel joke on the country, saying yeah, we said so now, 
but, man, wait until January. We are just going to take it right back. 
I hope it is not a cruel joke, because it will cost my constituents a 
boatload of money, our schools, our hospitals, our jobs.
  Again, we need to continue the fight that we started early this 
spring, through the summer, through the end of this Congress.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Looking at the map that the gentleman from Illinois had 
prepared, it is ironic to me. Like up in New England, we see the area 
that is off limits for drilling. Well, it is not that New Englanders 
are against drilling the Outer Continental Shelf. In fact, apparently 
they are 100 percent for it, as long as it moves up the coast just a 
little bit and our friends from Canada drill right off of their part of 
the coast. Then our friends from Canada, as the gentleman has 
indicated, are gracious enough to pop it back down and sell it to us.
  Now, I don't know if those sands under the Outer Continental Shelf 
are such that those formations, that pool is actually draining some of 
our oil that they are selling back to us, or our gas and selling it 
back to us. But if so, that is awfully gracious of them to do so, to 
sell us back some of our own oil and gas.
  Then we have people saying under no circumstances whatsoever do we 
ever want any drilling done less than 50 miles off our coast. Well, you 
look at Florida, the map that you have got there, you see Cuba, they 
are 90 miles from the Florida coast, which nowadays under international 
law most countries claim 200 miles out, except where you share an area 
like that, in which case you split it.
  So now Cuba is being kind enough to other countries, whether it is 
Russia, China, Venezuela, to allow them to come drill within 50 miles 
of the Florida coast, and, who knows, maybe they will be willing to 
sell us back some of our own oil and gas too for an appropriate profit 
going to those countries. But how ironic. They say they are against it, 
but it is not really being against it. It is just in our little 
backyard area.
  I was amazed as the gentleman was talking about the arguments that 
have been made for some months, and I have got to say, I thank the 
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, who has been the leader on this 
issue and been terrific about it. John Peterson from Pennsylvania, we 
are going to miss him. He has been a great leader in discussing energy.
  But as we talked about it through August, Ralph Regula came and spoke 
one day on the floor without the mikes and with the lights dimmed. I 
did not know until Mr. Regula pointed it out, he was on Resources back 
in 1981, and, of course, President Carter had signed an executive 
order. And in that order, and Ralph had that as well, he had said that 
the Outer Continental Shelf was such a vast great resource for energy 
for America, and the two words that stuck in my mind in President 
Carter's order was that it should be ``developed expeditiously.''
  Well, according to Ralph, they got lobbied in 1981 by wealthy 
beachfront property owners on the California coast. They didn't want to 
see a platform out there within their sunset. They lobbied hard and 
eventually they won. Okay, we will give California a moratorium on 
drilling off their coast.
  According to Ralph, immediately Florida beachfront landowners, the 
wealthy, not the poor and the downtrodden, not the hardest working in 
America, but the wealthy beachfront property owners, and I am proud of 
them, I am glad they are able to do that, they came rushing in. Wait a 
minute, you gave a moratorium to the wealthy beachfront property owners 
in California. We need to have one in Florida. So, they lobbied hard 
enough, had the wherewithal, the money to do a good job lobbying, and 
they got a moratorium.
  And Ralph said, he said when they gave the moratorium to California, 
the committee will rue the day we ever did it, because that was 27 
years ago. Then Florida got theirs. Then other States started coming in 
and saying, you gave it to California and Florida, we ought to get one 
too. That is where that came from.

[[Page 21881]]

  Of course, in Texas, pretty pragmatic, we heard lots of horror 
stories. If you put platforms out there, it will kill all the aquatic 
life. You will never get another shrimp or fish out of the gulf.
  Lo and behold, we have the platforms out there. They withstood 
category 5 hurricanes as far as not leaking. Some of them were 
destroyed, but they still didn't leak. And I kind of thought it looked 
pretty, you know. The sun sets, and out there you start seeing lights 
twinkling on the horizon, it is platforms. I know I am getting energy 
from it, and it is a whole lot better than having tankers come along 
and leak.
  I was amazed, and that came because of the discussion we had with the 
lights dimmed, the microphones off, and Ralph Regula giving us a little 
bit of history.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I was here that day also. And, of course, we honored 
Ralph tonight at an earlier special order where the delegation from 
Ohio was here, and that is the benefit of having Members who have 
served a long time. They help keep the whole debate in perspective. The 
new Members are firebrands, want to change the world, and that is good. 
We need all sorts. We will miss the Ralph Regulas of the world.
  But he wanted to come back. He wanted to participate in this debate, 
because he knew the history of this. Sometimes you think, oh, it is 
just the young firebrands. But he knew what we were doing, and because 
he had experienced the story you just told, he said I wanted to be part 
of that, because I want to set the record straight of what happened and 
why, and why we need to use this great resource that we have available 
for our energy security and for jobs and the economy.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate the input, the insights. This deals with 
the energy issue, but it deals with the financial crisis in America. As 
the gentleman alluded to, this has helped contribute to a perfect storm 
in America for a financial crisis. But we are not hearing people on the 
other side of the aisle, and we haven't heard Secretary Paulson say, 
you know what, that kind of infusion of wealth could really boost the 
country, and then you wouldn't have to worry about bailing out the 
greediest among us that were on Wall Street and drove some companies 
into the dirt. Instead, what we have heard is we have got to spend $700 
billion to build this governmental entity that will start managing 
assets.
  Now, I think the world of the President. I think history is going to 
be good to him. He is an honorable, noble man. The biggest problem he 
has I think is what Jeff Foxworthy says about people that speak with a 
southern accent; people hear the accent and immediately deduct 50 IQ 
points from how smart they think you are.
  He is much smarter than people give him credit for. But he has 
listened to people like Secretary Paulson and others who have told him 
it is all gloom or all doom, and then has come before us and he said 
last night only the Federal Government could be patient enough to 
manage these assets.
  I immediately thought, in the Resources Committee 2 years ago, in the 
last Congress, we put in a biomass incentive program where we would 
incentivize people to help create this alternative energy source. 
People bought into that, like we wanted them to, and they started 
building biomass plants. And when they are about to come on line, this 
Congress in the Resources Committee comes back and knocks that out. 
They say, no, we are not going to do that incentive program anymore. We 
are going to spend several million dollars to study, to see whether it 
is really feasible. Of course it was feasible. People relied on the 
government's promise that they would have an incentive, and then we 
yanked it out from under them.
  So when I hear somebody say how patient the Federal Government is, we 
can't even keep the same tax incentives in place for 2 years so that 
people can take advantage of them. They know they would have trouble 
trusting the Federal Government.
  Then I can also tell you as former outside counsel for the RTC and 
FDIC, I can't go into individual cases, but it is public knowledge and 
you can talk to anybody who ever dealt with the RTC or FDIC, when 
people knew the government owned an asset and they were needing to sell 
it, even if they could sit on it for a number of years, they always 
knew if the government owns it, we can pay less and get away with 
paying less than if a private entity owned it. They knew that.
  The same way, if the government was going to buy it, they knew they 
should hold up the Federal Government, because eventually they would 
get what they want, and that is just the way it works. The private 
sector is the better place.
  We have had some people who were greedy and ran these things into the 
ground. This Congress previously, as Congressman Frank and Senator 
Dodd, forced requirements on lending that caused them to make loans to 
people that couldn't repay them. We have had questions arise now as to 
potentially many of those loans may have been to illegal aliens, or, as 
they say in Great Britain, irregular migrants. But there is an 
accountability issue, and Congress has not done a good job of holding 
these people accountable, and that needs to start.
  I am working on a bill, and some people are not real crazy about it, 
but there needs to be accountability. In the public sector, publicly 
traded businesses, there is a concept in contract law called the 
corporate veil. So if you are acting as an officer of a corporation and 
you commit some act of negligence, the corporation can be sued, but not 
pierce the corporate veil to go after the officer because he was acting 
on behalf of the corporation, unless you could prove he was acting 
outside that course and scope with the corporation. Then you might 
pursue him personally.
  I would like to see if an officer makes decisions that a reasonable 
and prudent officer would not have made under the same or similar 
circumstances, and it is one of the or a proximate cause towards the 
demise, the bankruptcy, the insolvency of the corporation that is 
publicly traded, then perhaps there should be no corporate shield, and 
in the bankruptcy court the bankruptcy judge could look at the assets 
of that officer and make a determination legally, was this negligence, 
was it a proximate cause for the insolvency or bankruptcy, and, if so, 
let's bring those millions back you got from your golden parachute and 
put them back in the employee pension fund or to help some of the debts 
that you ran up before you left them high and dry.
  There are things we can do. I am not getting a lot of traction on 
talking to friends on that, but, who knows? We may get them back.
  We heard this morning that China banks have been told by their 
government not to make loans, one-day loans to U.S. banks, because they 
are concerned about their solvency. It is amazing that China would need 
to teach us a lesson about capitalism.
  But I do thank my friend from Illinois. I appreciate your 
participation and insights into energy, because it is such a huge part 
of the solution to our financial crisis. So I thank you.
  I was intrigued when a number of our Members went over to China 3 
years ago. We talked to a number of CEOs about why you moved your 
company, why you moved your facilities, your plant, to China.

                              {time}  2215

  I figured the answer would be solely, well, it was just cheap labor. 
But the number one reason was that their corporate tax was half of what 
our corporate tax is in the United States. Then not only that, but 
China was willing to negotiate even lower taxes for a period of time to 
incentivize their coming to China.
  Then you talk to them further, China has had some very polluted 
bodies of water, some of them were told if you will come and set your 
factory up on this body of water that's totally polluted, start using 
the water from that body, put it back clean, then we will cut you a 
better deal on corporate tax, and that it was well worth it for them to 
take advantage of that. So China was using corporations to help clean 
up their environment that they had made such a mess.

[[Page 21882]]

  Having been an exchange student to the Soviet Union back in 1973, I 
am quite familiar with the fact that over there, any money that was 
paid was supposed to go into the Federal Government. That was 
socialism. Then everybody got a check got a check from this central 
government. That's how socialism worked.
  I didn't realize, until I went to China, they don't do it that way. 
The Chinese do have a totalitarian government, and it's cause for great 
concern, but they have also noticed that in Hong Kong, and around the 
country, if you incentivize entrepreneurship and just take a part of 
that success, you make a whole lot more money than if you just make 
everybody bring in to the central coffers and then split it up equally.
  That didn't work in the New Testament, when the New Testament Church 
tried. It ultimately resulted in the Apostle Paul saying, if you don't 
work, you don't eat.
  It didn't work when the pilgrims did it. When they came to America 
they had a compact that they just bring into the central storehouse and 
then divided up equally. But then that ended up causing people, 
pilgrims, to notice, well, I am killing myself working here, and he is 
not working as hard I am, and he is getting the same amount, so they 
quit working.
  I will never forget going to a collective farm, outside of Kiev, and 
I spoke just enough Russian back in those days when I could ask a 
question. I was intrigued because it was midmorning, around 10 a.m. or 
so, and there were a bunch of farmers sitting around in the shade.
  I asked, you know, when do you work? Anybody that's worked on a farm 
back in east Texas or in west, anywhere in Texas, knows if you are 
going to work out there, you get up early, and you do everything you 
can as early as you can, because it starts getting hot. It was the same 
way there. I said, when do you work in Russia, and they laughed. One of 
the men, and I am not sure how many rubles he said, but he said, I make 
the same number of rubles if I am here in the shade or out there in the 
sun, so I am here in the shade.
  That's why socialism doesn't work, and that's why, when we had this 
proposal from Secretary Paulson to have the government seize this 
massive amount of assets and then manage them for years and years, we 
could see this is the biggest step towards socialism that we could have 
ever imagined in this country, couldn't believe it was being proposed 
by our administration.
  It's still unbelievable to me. We know the principles. As I have said 
before, I started making speeches in junior high and in debates in high 
school talking about the free market and entrepreneurship. If you set 
the American spirit free, it's amazing what they could do.
  Now they want to come in and have me say that that was all a lie? I 
don't believe it was a lie. I believe the government makes sure 
everybody has a level playing field, punish the wrongdoers, punish the 
evildoers, but then keep that level field available out there to play 
on, and then let entrepreneurship reign.
  That's the best way to go. That's not what's proposed here, so there 
was a bunch of others. We had a plan that we proposed in the Republican 
Study Committee that would cut capital gains, cut income tax or anybody 
that will come in and buy these assets.
  Boy, you think about that, we would stir up the market, get them 
excited about coming in and making money. It would be fantastic. We 
wouldn't have to create this huge bureaucracy to do that. It just comes 
back again to the USSR that lasted 70 years, because it was doomed to 
failure, couldn't stand, versus the free market.
  You look at Ireland. I was talking to somebody from Ireland, and I 
understood them to say their corporate tax was 12 percent, China 17 
percent, we are double that. France and Germany saw the way Ireland has 
become, I believe, the fourth fastest-growing country in the world, as 
companies are flocking in there, more jobs, better standard of living.
  France and Germany, who had been tending towards socialism are now 
realizing, whoa, if we will just cut our taxes, then people will flock 
into here like they are into Ireland and like they have been into China 
to do business.
  Now, I appreciated my friend, Mr. McCotter, pointing out that 
Secretary Paulson could end up with a piece of paper, he was hoping to 
come away from their discussions today, come out, wave a piece of paper 
in front of the cameras, say we have this agreement, and this means 
fleece in our time, because Americans taxpayers would not be well 
served.
  I appreciate my time is about to expire, and I appreciate the time 
tonight to talk about these issues, but there has got to be 
accountability. I believe you will have full cooperation in making 
people fully accountable on both sides of the aisle, but let's don't 
turn $700 billion of the economy over to the government. Let's 
incentivize good conduct. Let's incentivize the free market at work 
because socialism doesn't.
  I yield back and appreciate this opportunity.

                          ____________________