John Carter

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I thank my friend. Now I yield again to my friend from Georgia. He seems like he has something he wants to say.

Mr. CARTER. Well, we have raised a lot of issues, we have talked about a lot of things. I think we expressed our personal concern about this issue of the veracity of our CIA and whether or not they have been lying to the Congress and to the Speaker of the House, the third most powerful person and the most important person in line for the presidency. These are issues, as the ethics issues we have raised previously, issues that have places they could be resolved, either in the leadership of this House or the Ethics Committee, they need to be resolved, Madam Speaker. We need these issues resolved, and I would finalize this argument by saying, especially this intelligence issue, before the world blows up in our face. I want to thank our colleagues for being here with us and for helping me with this today. And I really value their opinions, and I appreciate them expressing it. Now, we will yield back the balance of our time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CARTER. I think most everybody understands that these bills that come before this Congress have sometimes a thousand, well you saw the one John Boehner dropped on the floor--it's about that thick. I mean, they have got thousands of pages of things in them. So how you vote on a bill doesn't necessarily tell you what's in the weeds, like a couple of million dollars for missile defense, a couple billion dollars for missile defense. It doesn't tell you that. And if it's not discussed, you don't know and there is not any way we can tell you. That's why the openness of this House is so important, why an open rule is so important.

Mr. CARTER. As much as we don't want to get off process, so everybody is clear, let's put it this way: If you are listening to what we are talking about here today and you would like for us to have this addressed by the Members of the House, it takes the ability under the rules to raise the issue. And if we have what they call a closed rule or a modified closed rule, where only certain agreed-to amendments to a bill can come forward, we hate to talk about process, but that's how we are prevented from asking the questions that I would hope that many of the people that might be watching this would say somebody ought to ask the whole House about this. Do we need that missile defense Mr. Gingrey mentioned? I kind of think we do. I would like my Member of Congress to do something about that. Maybe they might even go to the trouble to write their Member of Congress and say I would like to see you vote on this, vote in favor of it. But how are they going to see it if we are closed off from even offering it on this beloved floor, which is, of course, this sacred people's House. And that's why we think the rules ought to be open.

Mr. CARTER. All the time she says they lie. All the time. It's not just this instance. Her statement was they lie to us all the time. Mr. King.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on congressionally directed spending, I am submitting the following information regarding congressionally directed spending I received as part of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010. Project Name: Tarleton State University Rural Law Enforcement Account: DOJ OJP--Byrne Project Recipient and Address: Tarleton State University, 1333 W. Washington Ave., Stephenville, TX 76402. Amount Provided: $1,500,000 Project Description: Small cities and rural jurisdictions are often manpower and budget limited to accomplish all the duties necessary to their missions. While the insertion of modern information technology and associated criminal justice technology is intended to make local law enforcement operations more efficient and informed, the initial integration of computer technology can be manpower intensive and, overwhelming. The objective of this initiative is to establish a rural law enforcement information technology and anti-terrorism service at Tarleton State University. Its focus will be to provide information technology assistance and anti-terrorism training to small city and county law enforcement operations in coordination with other State and Federal chartered information and assistance resources. Benefit to Taxpayers: The objective of this initiative is to establish a technology assessment capability to contribute to the U.S. Department of Justice's National Resources Center for evaluation of information technology products for use in information sharing for criminal justice matters of interest to local and concurrent jurisdictions. In addition, small and rural jurisdictions have very limited access to anti-terrorism training. The Texas Department of Public Safety and Texas Department of Homeland Security are cooperators with Tarleton in this initiative. In addition, anti-terrorism technology and training will be conducted as endorsed by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) and the Department of Defense (DoD). Standardized DHS/FEMA/DoD curricula have been and will be delivered to small and rural jurisdictions. Emergency preparedness training and anti-terrorist response teams training will be included. Spending Plan: Salaries (25%): 375,000 Travel (2%): 30,000 Records Management & Database (73%): 1,125,000 Total: 1,500,000 Project Name: Belton, Texas First Responder Equipment, Technology and Interoperability Upgrades Account: DOJ OJP--Byrne Project Recipient and Address: The City of Belton, TX 333 Water Street, Belton, TX 76513. Amount Provided: $700,000 Project Description: Federal funds will be used to acquire equipment, technology and communications apparatus that will enable first responders in Belton, TX to address crime that occurs due to the City's location at the intersection of I-35 and I-190. In addition to upgrading antiquated equipment, this funding will assist in the identification, prosecution and cleanup of drug-related crimes, including methamphetamines. As the county seat, enhanced equipment will benefit Bell County by resuming Belton's participation in the Central Texas Narcotics Task Force; bringing Belton current with state of the art communications equipment; improving emergency response due to updated emergency sirens; and by standardizing department weapons. Benefit to District: Funds will address four goals: Interoperability; Public Safety and Emergency Operations Enhancement; Drug Interdiction; and Training and Technology Enhancements. As the county seat, funds will benefit Bell County by Belton's participation in the Central Texas Narcotics Task Force; modernizing communications equipment; improving emergency response; and by standardizing department weapons. Spending Plan: I. Communications Interoperability, $303,200; Handheld Radios--38 @ $3,650; Mobile Data Terminals--Police/Fire--18 @ $7,750; Police Negotiator ``Throw'' Phone--1 @ $25,000. II. Emergency Operations Enhancement, $121,100; Outdoor Emergency Sirens--2 @ $15,000; Defibrillators for buildings/vehicles--29 @ $2,100; Standardized Police Department Weapons. III. Drug Interdiction $350,000; Central Texas Narcotics Task Force; K-9 Unit. IV. Police Technology and Training, $115,370; Police ``Shoot/Don't Shoot'' Simulator; Automatic Ticket Writers--12 @ $4,785; Dry Safe Cabinet for Evidence Handling. Training Mannequin Total Project Cost, $889,670 Federal Appropriations Request, $700,000 Private Contribution, $189,670 Project Name: Law Enforcement Technology and Equipment Account: DOJ OJP--Byrne Project Recipient and Address: City of Round Rock, TX, 221 E. Main Street, Round Rock, TX 78664. Amount Provided: $300,000 Project Description: The city of Round Rock's Police Department has a critical need for criminal investigation funding, life-saving SWAT equipment, and key Individual officer equipment and facilities. The equipment provided by this funding would be used by officers to fight and prevent crime in many areas, including gang and drug-related activities, routine criminal investigations, security surveillance, and large-scale emergency response. Benefit to District: The Round Rock Police Department, a subset of the city of Round Rock, Texas government, is responsible for the safety of the citizens of Round Rock, Texas and those who visit it. Spending Plan: Criminal Investigations: $120,000; Forensic software, Trackers, Kell Kit, Light/pole surveillance cameras, MCT's, IR Camera. SWAT: $60,000; Scout/robot, CINT-negotiations management. Individual Officer Equipment: $120,000; Tasers, Vehicles, Cameras, Recording devices.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, today I rise in recognition for the 100 years of work of scientists at the Blackland Research and Extension Center in Temple. They have worked on securing a safe and affordable food supply, protecting the environment, and strengthening the economy. The Center was created by the Texas Legislature in 1909 and was charged to solve pressing problems with the soils and crops grown in central Texas. Today the Center occupies a 542 acre site in the south- central part of the Texas Blackland Prairie, a 12 million acre agricultural region stretching over 300 miles along I-35 from the Texas-Oklahoma border to San Antonio. The Center is the state's premier research agency in agriculture, natural resources, and the life sciences. In 1931 the USDA-Soil Erosion Service, which was later renamed the Soil Conservation Service, joined scientists at Blackland to intensify research on soil and water associated with farming the region's highly erodible soils. This began a long history of cooperative and highly productive research between the Texas A&M System and USDA in Temple, which has led to the development of many modern soil conservation practices used by farmers around the world today. Today, the Blackland Research and Extension Center shares research facilities with the Grassland, Soil, and Water Research Laboratory of the USDA--Agricultural Research Service. By combining innovative research, they continue to find solutions to problems and issues in the way we manage our land and water resources in Central Texas and beyond. They work regularly with scientists in the military helping to find innovative ways to restore and maintain Fort Hood's military lands in the best possible condition for training those who defend our country. The Center also works closely with USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service and other federal and State agencies to assist in applying sound scientific principles to manage our agricultural and urban lands in a way that maximizes production and profits with minimal impact on the environment. The Blackland Research and Extension Center frequently collaborates with scientists in developing countries to assist them in finding better ways for farmers to manage their water, livestock, and grow crops to feed their growing populations. The value of research by the scientists stationed at the Temple Center is remarkable. The long-lasting partnerships between the State Land Grant Universities (Texas A&M AgriLife), and Federal Agencies (USDA Agricultural Research Service and Natural Resource Conservation Service), illustrate the superiority in effectiveness in partnerships when solving our agricultural and natural resource problems versus what individual agencies can do alone.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, I thank my colleague for his passion. I was on the floor of this House about 6 weeks ago talking about exactly the same thing. We like to tout the rule of law. We like to say--and, in fact, it's true--that what really makes America work is having the rule of law. That means when you make a contract, we honor that contract. When we have laws on the books, we follow those. We can depend--as an investor or a purchaser or an employee, we can depend upon those laws which have been written in the bankruptcy arena, for instance. And I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague that the way this has been handled, we have thrown the rule of law in bankruptcy law right out the window.

Mr. CARTER. I thank my friend for joining me. As we sum this up here, Mr. King mentioned something that I think is important. He mentioned we needed a denationalization czar or an exit strategy czar, or maybe both. In this world of proliferation of czars, maybe we need both. But the reality is, in seriousness, when the President of the United States came into office, he told us there is a drop-dead deadline we're going to get out of Iraq. This is it. There is a drop-dead deadline we're going to close Guantanamo Bay, and this is it. So this time next year, we won't even need the Guantanamo closure czar because it will be closed. And very clearly, we are going to draw down our soldiers in the war in Iraq. The President has shown leadership. Whether you agree or disagree with him is for other times. But he certainly has become one who says there should be a drop-dead date, an exit strategy. I think it is important that this Congress, when we look at this massive increase in the executive department and we say to ourselves, They are not answerable to us except through the appropriations process, we can cut off the money, but other than that, they're answerable to the President. We had nothing to say about who got hired. We had nothing to say about what the duties were. This was a creation of the executive department, and that would be the President of the United States and his staff. They owe this Nation and some of these areas a time to get out. They say they don't want us to run the automobile industry. Well, we need to be planning on getting out of the automobile industry. We can't stay in there. The country doesn't want a government-made car. Just ask them; they don't want one. So we can get rid of the car czar, the executive pay czar, a lot of these other czars, if we would just say, this is their mission, here's when we expect that mission to be accomplished, as we did to our soldiers, and this is when we expect it to be accomplished, and by that date you either accomplish it or you're getting out. You know, I personally think the way we look at this massive $1.5 trillion worth of authorized spending, authorized by this House--mainly that side of the aisle--the way we look at that right now is we should be saying stimulus means rapid infusion into the economy. Anything that hasn't been rapidly infused this year we should halt. So if they haven't spent the $787 billion--or whatever that number is--like right now, at least some papers report only $25 billion of that money, or we'll say $40 billion of that money has been used so far. And if you study some of those projects, many of those projects are for getting money to people for things that will not have an effect on our economy for years--3, 5, 7 years down the road. That's not stimulus. If they haven't gotten the thing done this year, we ought to say, de-authorize it at that point in time. It hasn't worked; try something that works. That's where we ought to be. That's the way this Congress needs to start thinking because we are creating a power structure that is outside the normal power structure of the executive branch of the government. These are things for us to think about. Madam Speaker, I thank you for your courtesy tonight.

Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman. I believe my friend from Iowa (Mr. King) would like some time. I'll yield 5 minutes to Mr. King.

Mr. CARTER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CARTER. This bottom of the page, you're right. The one thing I find good about the climate czar is the poor old weatherman is going to get a break, because when the weatherman on Sunday night says it's going to be a beautiful day all day long and it rains, who do they blame? The poor old weatherman. Now they can blame the climate czar. You know, these folks here, here on the majority side, they would like all the center of the universe to be Washington, D.C., and there you go. Now, everybody in the country will be blaming the climate czar for bad weather. At least we've got centralized blame. I'm sure that there are some people sitting at home saying--and in this body saying, Why are you talking about this? I think there is something really critical that we need to interject into this, and I said it briefly, but it really takes us out of the realm of humor and into the realm of seriousness. When you realize the Founding Fathers that created this country, they assigned the government with checks and balances, and this circumvents that system. This puts absolute authority in these people's hands at this category. And they have not gone through any Senate confirmation, which the executive branch, those people are supposed--all of our Secretaries and Under Secretaries have to be confirmed by the Senate. We've got a good friend in this body that's going to be--that has been nominated for Secretary of the Army, and I certainly hope he gets confirmed by the Senate, and I'm sure he will, but he has to go through that. These people don't go through that. There is nobody overseeing this but the executive department, but the President of the United States. So there's no congressional oversight. There's no judicial oversight, both of which were created by our Founding Fathers. No. The only real person they answer to is the President of the United States. And they work for the President of the United States. He hired them. He chose them. He put them in this position. I'm sure he's paying them good money. But they don't do what our Founding Fathers envisioned our country to be doing. So what does it create? It creates an executive department that is garnering power in every area. I'm joined by my very good friend from Texas, Louie Gohmert. I yield to you however much time you wish to consume.

Mr. CARTER. If the issue would be a Federal nexus, it would be hard to find an industry, really, that wouldn't have some connection with the Federal Government if they've gotten a grant, if they've gotten a fellowship, if they've gotten a guaranteed loan, if they've gotten a tax break that's designated for their industry that other industries didn't get. All of these categories could be quickly expanded to add to that stimulus czar, if you will. So I'll yield back.

Mr. CARTER. If the gentleman would yield, I would reclaim my time for just a moment.

Mr. CARTER. That's correct.

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to thank you for recognizing me today. I have some stuff I think is kind of interesting to talk about. Let's start with recently, while listening to the radio, I heard an announcement that President Obama was appointing a gentleman to be named the compensation czar, and that kind of threw me. Being an old criminal law trial judge, I remember the drug czars of the past. I remember I think a couple of Homeland Security czars. But I never had heard of a compensation czar. So I started to look into it, and I always thought it was kind of peculiar for a democratic country to even use the term ``czar.'' But others adopted it ahead of time, so I have no criticism of using the term ``czar,'' though I think if you look up ``czar'' in the dictionary, you will find out the most popular version is a form of the Russian totally autocratic emperors of the old Imperial Russia. To me, I think it sounds a little funny for us to be comparing ourselves with that failed system. But, you know, I can't criticize it too much, because we have had multiple folks that have had the name ``czar.'' Exactly what are these czars that we create in this country? Well, the best I have been able to determine, these are people who are hired members of the executive branch of the government, but they are not like Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare or Secretary of Labor. But they are given sort of absolute authority in their field to give direction to the government and to advise the President as his personal kind of alter-Cabinet, if you will. Now, the first thing that comes to mind when you wonder about that is, you say now, wait a minute, all these secretaries that become members of the Cabinet, they have to be confirmed by the Senate. Constitutionally, it is required that they be confirmed by the Senate. We have these confirmation battles in every administration, and actually some issues have come up this time which caused people to withdraw their names before the issue of whether or not they be confirmed, for reasons like they didn't pay their taxes or some other reason that they felt they didn't want to go through that kind of an onerous process of getting to be the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce or whatever Secretary it may be, which for a long time has been the historical heads of departments of the executive branch of the Federal Government. But now we have these new guys that are going to be czars. Now, it wasn't so hard to figure out when you said, well, you have got an Attorney General who is one of the Cabinet members, and he is confirmed by the Senate, just like the Constitution requires, and to have somebody who is totally focusing on the drug fight that we have. Maybe that might not be such a bad idea. So that is kind of the first concept of czar that I can recall, and I think probably at some time Ronald Reagan may have used that term. So, you can understand that. But when you hear ``czar,'' you think Russian. When you think of Russian czars, you think of the Romanov dynasty, which is the dynasty that was ultimately overthrown by the communist revolution. From its inception and for 300 years, the Romanov rule had 18 czars, and two or three of them didn't last very long, and in 146 days the Obama administration has 22 czars. Now, these folks have lots of titles, these 22 czars, but if ``czar'' means what czar has sort of historically meant, it is designed to give them sort of an absolute in-charge position on a certain subject matter. And, remember, these folks are not ones who would have to be confirmed, the way I understand it, in order to hold a position. These are just hired folks that the President, through his presumed authority, gives them this power to do this. So, the Russians took 300 years and we took 146 days to create this ``czardom,'' if you will. Now, let's see who these folks are. The best I can tell, this is a pretty accurate list of our czars that have been created by the Obama administration. We start off with the border czar, Alan Bersin, and then the energy czar, Carol Browner. I believe she was part of the EPA last time, maybe under Carter or Clinton, I'm not sure. Probably Clinton. I don't know all about all these people. The urban czar is Adolfo Carrion. The infotech czar is Vivek Kundra. The faith-based czar is Joshua DuBois, at least it has been reported he is an atheist, but that is his faith, I suppose. Health reform czar, Nancy-Ann DeParle, I guess it is. TARP czar, we have all heard about the TARP, Herb Allison is the TARP czar. The stimulus accountability czar is Earl Devaney. The nonproliferation czar, Gary Samore. I may be mispronouncing these folks' names. Let me say right off, if I mispronounce anybody's name, it is because I am from Texas, and I just apologize for that. The terrorist czar is John Brennan. The regulatory czar, there is an interesting one, Cass Sunstein. The drug czar, we have seen that one before. The drug czar is Gil Kerlikowske, it looks like. The Guantanamo closure czar, which is on the front page of all the papers, is Daniel Fried. The AF-PAK czar is Richard Holbrooke. The Mideast peace czar, George Mitchell. We are very familiar with him, former Senator Mitchell. The Persian Gulf-Southwest Asia czar, Dennis Ross. The Sudan czar, J. Scott Gration. The climate czar, Todd Stern. The car czar, Steve Rattner. He has been all over the place. The economic czar, Paul Volcker, who is very famous. The executive pay czar, that is one of my favorites right there. The executive pay czar is Kenneth Feinberg. And then the cybersecurity czar, position to be announced, but they are going to have one. Now, right off I wondered about the cybersecurity czar, because we have got an infotech czar up here, which is sort of both first cousins anyway, and I don't know whether they will be working together or what, but they are going to have absolute power in their field, whatever that means. I think this is something we ought to be curious about. That is so many czars. You know what is interesting? The Russians gave nicknames to some of their czars based on their behavior. I wonder who is going to adopt some of the nicknames for some of the czars? I don't think anyone would like to be called Alan the Terrible. We had an Ivan the Terrible in the Russian Romanov dynasty. I am sure they would all like to be Peter the Great or Catherine the Great, have ``the Great'' after their name. But I guess we can make up names for them. But the question is, why? I think it's a question that the administration ought to have to answer. You know, I'm not the only one asking these questions. A statement from Senator Robert Byrd said: ``The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff has taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.'' And he's raising the same issue that I was raising just a few minutes ago, and that is, these people don't go through the confirmation process. There's no Senators looking and seeing what kind of reputation these people have, what they've done in the past, where their area of expertise is, whether or not this is the most qualified person, whether this is the person who would meet the constitutional requirements of serving our Nation. I know these are hired by the President. It's like there's this alternate universe that we're creating. We've got the Cabinet. I guess you leave the Cabinet and you go over to the czardoms and you meet with them, or maybe they all get in one room and battle it out. I don't know how it works. We'll see. But this is sizably more czars than we've ever had. In fact, taking a look at President Ronald Reagan, he had one czar. President George Herbert Walker Bush had one czar. President Bill Clinton had three czars. President George W. Bush had four czars. So we've gone 1, 1, 3, 4, 22. If these czars are set up to target historically needed help for people in this country, I think it's done with a good heart. But I really think we should be, we as the American people, should start asking why. Why should you hire somebody, for instance, to be the border czar? Now, Allan may be a really nice guy and he may be smart as a whip. We also have Ms. Napolitano, who is the head of Homeland Security, and it is her statutory responsibility to be in charge of defending the borders of this country. And, in fact, it's the constitutional responsibility of every Member of this House to defend our borders. But it's certainly her statutory responsibility to defend our Nation. We have an Energy Department; and the Secretary of Energy, I think, the best I can figure out, is supposed to be responsible for the Energy Department. Now, I wonder why we have to have this energy czar. Urban czar. Well, we've got a Department of Urban Development that's, you know, Housing and Urban Development, HUD. That's been around for an awful long time. That is a Cabinet post. So why all of a sudden do we need an urban czar? We never had one before. Infotech czar. I don't know where that would fall in the purview of the established secretariats by the Constitution or by statute, but somewhere. Faith-based czar, I can--we've dealt with the head of a faith-based initiative in the Bush White House that came under a lot of criticism from the now-majority; but they've created one, and at least it is reported, put an atheist in charge of that, which, seems to me seems rather strange. The health reform czar should be active right now, because, as I understand it, the President spent his day today trying to convince people in various places that we needed this massive health reform that he's seeking to put up. And he wants to actually create, put the government in competition with private industry on health care, I would say, leading to the kind of health care, ultimately, maybe through the back door, but ultimately, I think there's no doubt, and most experts would say, the recommendations that they're making, that they're pushing forward between now and probably the 4th of July, are to set in motion the possibility of a single-pay health care system in the United States run by the government. And when we have that, we will see the quality of our health care plummet, and we will see people like me, people in Washington, making decisions as to what certain people are supposed to do for health care, and rationing that health care. Now, if you ask our good friends and neighbors to the north in Canada, you say, we hear you've got the greatest health care system in the world. They said, it is good; it's real good as long as you're well. But if you get sick, you've got to get on a waiting list to get treated. And, in fact, we have a greater cure rate for breast cancer in this country by about 30 points, percentage points, than they do in Canada because they wait too long to take action on the breast cancer issue. Same thing goes for prostate cancer for men. These are things we ought to be thinking about. We have somewhere in the 90 percentile success rate if we catch breast cancer early and aggressively pursue it. They're in the early 60s, like, 61, 63 percent. This is something that we ought to be concerned about. If you get an orthopedic problem in Canada, say, a bad knee that you need to get fixed, you could wait 5 years before you get in to see the orthopedic surgeon, where, in the United States, you could probably see him day after tomorrow, and you could probably get surgery done next Monday. So we have to think about those things. But we've got a health reform czar, and I'm sure she's going to tell us how it's going to work. TARP czar, now that's particular and peculiar to what we're doing right now, and that's the TARP stuff. And there may be some understanding as to where that is. But, you know, we were told by two Secretaries of the Treasury that they were going to oversee this and they were going to make sure nothing bad happened. Okay. Now that's what they told us. We heard one under George Bush, and we now hear one under Barack Obama. And both these guys have told us that they're going to be looking out for our money over here. But we've got Mr. TARP czar is doing that. And the stimulus accountability czar. Accountable to who? And what does that mean? But I'll tell you, there's no doubt about it now. This is true. The American people are sure worried about how this money's being spent and where it's going, and is there any waste, fraud and abuse involved in it as it comes out, because when you start throwing around billions and billions and billions of dollars until you reach trillions of dollars, it doesn't take a rocket scientist back home to figure out that much money is just a target for somebody to abuse the system. So maybe that's a good thing. Nonproliferation czar. I assume that's nuclear proliferation. That's what you always hear connected to the proliferation word. But the question is, that's sort of new. Terrorism czar. You know, when 9/11 happened, and this was before I came to Congress, when 9/11 happened, the Members of Congress here, in their combined wisdom, in a very, very, bipartisan effort, which everybody wondered about bipartisanism, in a very bipartisan effort, created the Department of Homeland Security. And it wasn't just for borders. It was for all issues to protect the homeland of America. And they became the entity where we gathered experts on terrorism. Of course, all of our military services intelligence divisions have always had information about terrorism, because that's part of their job. They know who has to clean up the mess after the mess is created. And so our military certainly has that information too. But we created, I would argue, one of the largest, outside of the Defense Department, Departments in the entire United States, and it was created because of terrorism, but now we've got a terrorism czar. The drug czar we've had, I'm pretty sure, in every administration for the last four administrations. And I know how that works, and I understand how that works. Now, whether or not we--drug czars have had the absolutism that the word ``czar'' seems to indicate, I don't know, and whether these folks are going to have that kind of absolute authority is anybody's guess. Guantanamo closure czar. At least we know this guy is going to be out of work by the end of next year, that is, if the administration keeps their pledge. Now we've been told, absolutely, that by this time next year, Guantanamo will be closed. And so this guy's got a short--he's on a short leash. The AFPAC czar, I don't even know what that does. Middle East peace czar, well, you could just also call him an ambassador, a credentialed ambassador or whatever they call those people that go out and negotiate peace. And George Mitchell's done more than his share in his lifetime, and he's very competent. I'm not going into the competence of any of these people. As far as I know, all these czars could be, ultimately, Allan the Great, Carol the Great, Adolfo the Great, Gary the Great, Jay Scott the Great. I mean, just like Peter the Great. We don't know how great these guys are going to be; but they could be one of those. And let's hope none of them end up being Ivan the Terrible, because that would be terrible. Persian Gulf czar. Sudan czar. Now, we have an ambassador to Sudan, I think, and we have diplomats that work with Sudan. We have a Secretary of State who has an office that Sudan falls under, and I'm sure she has got some of the best experts on Sudan anywhere in the country, just like she does on the Persian Gulf, just like she does on the Middle East. The Secretary of State has the best people we can hire, and some of these people have been working in this field forever. And now we've got a Sudan czar. This means this is the absolute monarch of Sudan experts? And what does it mean? Or is it just an associate of the administration that needs a job? I don't know. I don't know what it does. Climate czar. It's not climate change czar. It's not global warming czar because we've had to change those terms. We started with climate, started with global warming and it started getting colder, so that's kind of dropped, and now we're at climate change czar. This guy doesn't even get the word change. He's got to be the climate czar. You know, we always blame the weatherman for the weather. But, hey, we've got a czar we can blame now. This guy could very quickly become, that could be Steve the Terrible. Very quickly. How would you like to be responsible for the climate of the United States? I mean, that's tough. That's a tough job. The Car czar. Well, if this guy doesn't do his job, he's going to have a whole lot less to be czar over, because the Federal Government now runs the car business and at least two of the largest three firms in our country, so he sort of could be the government auto czar because the government's now in the automobile industry. Heaven help us. The Economic czar, and I know we've got a half a dozen people that serve in Cabinet or sub-Cabinet positions that we refer to as economic specialists, including, we've got the Federal Reserve that gives us advice on economics, and we've got the Secretary of the Treasury that gives us advice on economics, we have a board that gives us advice on economics, and there's an economist behind every bush. Probably the only thing more in Washington that we've got than economists is lawyers. Heaven help us. But we've got an economic czar, and he's one we've heard of, Paul Volcker. And I guess Paul's going to tell us how it works. Now, this one is the one that got me wondering about this czarship, executive pay czar. There are an awful lot of people asking: What does that mean? We know at a minimum what it means is that we're going to decide what some of the big firms that took bailout money are going to pay their top executives. It has been all over the papers and on all of the TV shows about the various, huge, gigantic amounts of money that some CEOs and CFOs and others get paid with bonuses in some of these large corporations. It's really beyond most of our ability to conceive of how much money these folks get. So this guy is going to limit that. Then the question becomes: If he is going to be the czar--the absolute monarch--over executive pay and that executive pay is going to be from anybody who took government money, then does that mean anybody who got a tax break from the government could be kind of grandfathered into this deal? Does that mean for anybody who got a grant from the government and a big one--not the bailout money, not the TARP money or the other one, the stimulus money--that he's going to get to tell them what their pay is going to be? In fact, maybe the company that you work for has gotten some of this money. Is he going to be able to tell your company what you're going to get paid? Where does it stop? So is this really a wage-fixing czar? Is that a better term for this than executive pay czar? I don't know. Finally--and we haven't gotten the person's name yet--there's the cybersecurity czar. Then we've run out of space on the page. I guess the next thing we'll find out is that, instead of 22 czars, we may have 42 czars. I tried to find out what these folks get paid, but I haven't been able to figure it out yet. Stay tuned. I'll try to come back to you and talk to you about what all of these czars are going to get paid. You know, if they're following in the Russian pattern, it's going to be pretty good because those czars lived in some pretty nice houses, and they did pretty well. So, in 300 years, the Romanovs had 18 czars. In 146 days, the Americans now have 22 czars. I am very pleased to see that I'm not by myself today. I have a good friend. My good friend, colleague and classmate is here, Steve King from Iowa. Steve is always ready to have some fun. Steve, what do you think about all of this? I'll yield to you as much time as you wish to consume.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for his description of just exactly what is going on. Just as you were saying, it came to mind some of the things that just in my lifetime I can remember. If you study history, you learn when we put in the Panama Canal we had a horrible, horrible situation when we built the Panama Canal because of malaria and yellow fever that were insect-bearing diseases. We invented DDT, and we used DDT to hold down those bug populations, and by that we were able to build the Panama Canal. As a child growing up in Houston, Texas, without air conditioning, the DDT truck went by every Friday night and sprayed the whole neighborhood. And yet a lady wrote a book called Silent Spring. She said that all the research shows--I hate it when people say ``all the research shows''--all the research shows if we continue to use DDT, we will have no insect life on Earth and the birds will die and we will have a silent spring. When spring comes, the birds won't be singing, the crickets won't be cricketing, and they will go away. And being loyal, progressive believers, we launched a campaign to get rid of DDT, and we got rid of it. It has been gone. But we now have one of the--we actually give millions, maybe even billions now, of dollars from this Congress to fight malaria. Something that was almost eradicated when I was a kid is now a major worldwide problem because we did away with DDT. And, guess what? Now the research, the real, present-day, 21st century research, says everything they said about DDT is just not true. It was made up. And now, we're even finding out the lady knew she made it up. But she just didn't like DDT. Now, you talked about global cooling. I can remember global cooling. I can remember people talking about why it was going to cool down. We were going to all be in the ice age. We were going to blame the Russians. It was going to be the Russians fault, okay? All this stuff. And we had to build big industries around global cooling. You know, we told our people, you better quit propagating, because you're going to run out of space on this Earth. By the 21st century it will be standing room only on the Earth, unless you limit the number of children you have. And being good, college-educated progressives, we launched out to reduce the amount of children we had. And we did it with birth control. And later we did it with that horrid invention, abortion. But we limited our birth control, and our Western European friends limited their birth control. We still replace ourselves. Well, I think 2.1 children to the family. But I believe the Europeans now, some of the countries over there are like 1.2. And I think some of the best countries over there are 1.8, so they're not even replacing their families with the number of children that they're having. And then we wonder why 12 million people cross the Texas and Canadian border to come into the United States to fill jobs, because we don't have enough people to fill these jobs. And we wonder why that is. And, hey, Europeans have got the same problem and they've had that problem--I can recall they had the problem in 1956. The Germans were importing Turks into Germany because they didn't have enough population. Now, when you buy into a program, as you point out, down the road, if they're not telling you the truth, it has major consequences. And when you made that 10-year comment, at the present rate this Congress is going, 10 years from now, we may find ourselves sitting around trying to watch television by candle light, okay? Because we're using batteries for our television sets. Because, quite frankly, we are in the process of trying to tax our energy industry out of business, every form or fashion that has any kind of carbon connected. So 10 years from now we could have, we could be a Third World country and wonder why. That's why this science is so very important. That's why knee jerk reaction, overreacting to things, which the government is famous for, I don't care if it's knee jerk conservatives or knee jerk liberals, any time you get in a hurry, bad things happen. And if you study the history of legislation in this country, it is absolutely true, and nobody will dispute it. You can look at slavery, you can look at the labor laws, you can look at the environmental laws, you can look at anything and see where knee jerk reaction and quick--that's why we have a Senate to slow things down because our Founding Fathers knew that knee jerk reaction created bad legislation. Well, we're about to knee jerk ourselves into the poor house if we're not careful. I yield back.

Mr. CARTER. That's good. I like that.

Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Don't be comparing it to ``Remember the Alamo.'' That's pretty sacred stuff from where I come from. But, seriously, today I was watching the news, and I saw these four detainees who are now living in probably the most luxurious setting I believe I've ever seen in, I believe it's Bermuda. I mean it's a beautiful house overlooking the ocean with a swimming pool. It's like a three-part swimming pool, a swim area and I guess that's the lounging area or maybe a kiddie pool. I don't know what it is. And these guys are sitting there. Like the guy said the other night about what was reported on the money we were going to spend to send to Palau, where they were talking about putting some people out on that island. He said at that rate of spending, $200 million for 12, I think it was, that were going to go to Palau, if that's the rate of spending, why don't we just buy the Waldorf Astoria and put them all in there because it would come out cheaper? And, you know, it would. I think that the world is going to look and say, Look at how the administration is reacting to this criticism of Guantanamo. They're pulling them out of a state-of-the-art prison which has state-of-the- art rules and state-of-the-art treatment and they're moving them to the tune of $200 million to an island out in the middle of nowhere? By the way, none of these guys are on the no-fly list. Because I remember we voted on that less than 2 weeks ago to put them on the no- fly list, and the majority killed it in a big, big way. Now, we pay $200 million to Palau. They go out there and hang around a while until they kind of get their feet on the ground, and then they're on a great white jet headed anyplace they want to go. And they're not under detention there. In the Bahamas where those four guys are, they've got freedom of the island. In the Bahamas you could get on a boat and go to the United States. We've got drug smugglers probably that smuggle that route. But, seriously, this is ridiculous how we are overreacting to this thing and doing things that I'm sure the rest of the world has got to be saying, These guys are crazy in the United States, setting these guys up in a seaside resort in Jamaica. Insanity rules.

Mr. CARTER. That's a very interesting position, and I agree with you actually. That would be the kind of world we would create. That's the fairness that Americans give to others. It's not the world of those we fight against. The world we fight against is an autocratic world in which it's their way or the highway. One more thing I want to point out. I get kind of tired of hearing people say we've got to close Gitmo because it is the target for creating more terrorists. So let's see. What do you think is going to be the target if we take everybody out of Gitmo and put them in Leavenworth? Then next year the recruiting tool is going to be, guess what? Leavenworth. So now we're going to close Leavenworth, because it could cause people to go over to the terrorist side, and send them to La Tuna down in El Paso. But wait a minute. In a year that's going to be the target. That's going go to be the evil Guantanamo. So eventually they're going to end up in the Williamson County Jail. But wherever you put them, until they are back home on the enemy terrorists' battlefield, they will recruit based on that holding facility. It's a ridiculous argument to say you have to close Guantanamo because it becomes a recruiting tool for terrorists, because if they were in Leavenworth, it would be the recruiting tool for terrorists.

Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As you were talking about Guantanamo Bay, it dawned on me that the world talks about American treatment of political prisoners, they call them. We call them enemy combatants, which I think, since we pick them up from the battlefield, we've got a pretty decent argument. We don't hear anybody talking about our enemies' treatment of our combatants when captured on the battlefield. There is a reason, I think. First off, we do everything in our power to make sure that we don't lose any of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to the enemy. We even remove our dead. We leave no soldier on the battlefield; it's the pride of our military. But there is also an underlying principle here because, if you will recall, less than, I think, 3 or 4 years ago, they got their hands on some people and they dragged them behind cars and hung them from the bridge in Baghdad. They got their hands on another guy; and on television, with everybody watching, they cut his head off in front of anybody who wanted to watch it. So let's compare nine selected menu items, temperature regulated to suit your lifestyle, and your religious material of choice treated with great respect--which is our way of dealing with prisoners versus decapitation, dragging, setting on fire, and hanging from a bridge. Where is the outcry? Well, there certainly can't be any comparison of treatment because we're doing our dangest not to see that happen again. And I'm proud to say that our guys are doing a great job on that; they're protecting Americans on the battlefield. It's because the enemy has no qualms with what they're going to do. Do you really think the enemy would be providing Bibles to the Christians that they captured? Do you really think, if they were from the border regions of Texas, one of their choices on the menu would be Mexican food? Give me a break. Anybody that's got any logic at all knows exactly what would happen to American prisoners that were captured, and that's why we fight so hard to keep them safe. I yield back.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank both of my colleagues for going forward on this resolution today for First Lieutenant Kile G. West. As has been said, Kile G. West died with four other soldiers on May 28, 2007, in Abu Sayda, Iraq. This happened when an improvised explosive device struck their vehicle. Kile graduated from Hutto High School in Williamson County, Texas, and went on to achieve the rank of sergeant in the Texas National Guard while serving as a cadet in the ROTC program at Stephen F. Austin University and serving as secretary of the Delta Chi fraternity. He graduated and took his oath into the United States Army as a second lieutenant in December of 2005. In January of 2006, Lieutenant West went to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, for officers training, and then in June of 2006 was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, where he was a field artillery officer for the 1st Cavalry Division, 3rd Brigade, 6th Squadron, 9th Regiment, Apache Troop. Kile deployed to Iraq on October 4th, 2006, and was promoted to first lieutenant the morning before his death on Memorial Day, May 28, 2007. On a voluntary rescue mission to save the crew of a downed helicopter, his Bradley was hit by an IED en route to save the pilots. Kile was due home for R&R 2 weeks before his death and 6 weeks before his 24th birthday. Kile received the Purple Heart and Bronze Star among his awards. He was also honored with the Valor Award from his fraternity, Delta Chi. This young man is one of those many, many American heroes that we have seen go out and stand up for freedom in the name of the United States of America. I would ask that we pass H.R. 2422, naming the post office in Georgetown, Texas, after this young warrior.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start first by apologizing to Mr. Ryan, whom I just wandered in here and inadvertently walked in front of while he was speaking. So before I start with my speech, I want to apologize to Mr. Ryan for that inappropriate thing I did. I agree with President Obama when he said this about spending in May of 2008 while on the campaign trail in North Dakota: President Obama, the candidate at that time, said: ``$9 trillion of debt, that's just bad. That's not fiscally conservative. And so we're going to have to change our policies. The first thing you do when you're in a hole is what?'' And the crowd reacted, ``Stop digging.'' Unfortunately, what President Obama said is not what he has done. In fact, not only did we not stop digging, we threw away our shovel and got a backhoe and started digging double time because in 2008, the debt was too high; but now President Obama has increased spending so much that we have broken historical records on spending. We started off with the stimulus bill of $787 billion to stimulate the economy. It was promised that its big goal was to cap unemployment at 8 percent. We weren't going to go above 8 percent unemployment, and that's why we had to spend all that money. But, unfortunately, we are sitting here today with 9.4 percent unemployment and rising. The debt that we have accumulated since the President has come into office has been unbelievable. The $8.5 trillion in 2009 will grow to $16 trillion in 2019. In only 5 months, President Obama and the Democratic majority have managed to spend and borrow more public debt than in the entire history of the United States. That's the past 233 years. So in less than 150 days, they have obligated this country in debt more than the past 233 years. A couple of weeks ago, I was on the floor of the House talking about the proposed bailout of the automobile industry, which I still contend is an unconstitutional takeover of private industry, based upon the Youngstown case. The administration has recklessly used the taxpayers' money to basically put the administration in charge of General Motors, Chrysler, AIG, Citibank, and the list goes on and on and on. I don't think the change the American people were looking for when we heard that change was coming was the change where the government took over the micro-management of industry. I really don't believe that was the change Americans were looking for, and yet that's the change we got. Even worse, when these people who see where the government is going, where the Democrats are taking this country, they say, We'll give our money back. We don't need your bailout money. We want to give it back to you. And they are having trouble trying to give it back. The Obama administration won't take it. So with all this accumulated debt and with all this spending that we have done, between now and probably the end of July, we are going to take up basically a government health care plan which is going to include another $1 trillion in entitlement health care spending at a time when all experts agree that Medicare, as we have it right now, has real problems and is going to eventually go broke because there are a whole lot more people taking out of the program than are paying into the program and it only gets worse as the baby boomers grow. So we are going to add to that $1 trillion and, don't worry, we'll figure it out. And, of course, we just heard about the energy tax that's coming our way. You know the real money that we ought to be worrying about? It's not these folks we are bailing out. Who we ought to be worried about are those guys who have lost their jobs. That's the money we ought to be worried about, and that's what the folks back home are worried about.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to commend Temple Parks and Recreation for their recent honor of being named one of the top four departments in the country for a city of its size. When the American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration honors one city with its National Gold Medal Award for Excellence, I am proud to say that one of our own cities, in Texas District 31, will be among the elite finalists. Congratulations to the residents, boards, committees, city council, city administration, and department staff, whose commitment to excellence over the past several years did not go unnoticed. I wish you all the best when the winner is named in October.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I think indulgence is a perfect word because you are allowing the dirty people to indulge in staying dirty by paying for it.