Trey Gowdy

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte for his leadership on this bill and a host of others in the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Chairman, I want to have a pop quiz. That may seem unfair to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but I am going to give them a hint: the answer to every one of the questions is the same. I am going to read a quote and then you tell me who said it: These last few years, we have seen an unacceptable abuse of power, having a President whose priority is expanding his own power. Any guess on who said that? Mr. Chairman, it was Senator Barack Obama. Here is another one: No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the coequal branch the Constitution made it. That was Senator Barack Obama. What do we do with a President who can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying I don't agree with this part or that part? Senator Barack Obama. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution. Senator Barack Obama. And my favorite, Mr. Chairman: One of the most important jobs of the Supreme Court is to guard against the encroachment of the executive branch on the power of the other branches. And I think the Chief Justice has been a little too willing and eager to give the President more power than I think the Constitution originally intended. So my question, Mr. Chairman, is how in the world can you get before the Supreme Court if you don't have standing? What did the President mean by that when he looked to the Supreme Court to rein in executive overreach? If you don't have standing, how can you possibly get before the Supreme Court? So my question is, Mr. Chairman, what has changed? How does going from being a Senator to a President rewrite the Constitution? What is different from when he was a Senator? Mr. Chairman, I don't think there is an amendment to the Constitution that I missed. I try to keep up with those with regularity, but what I do know is this: process matters. If you doubt it, Mr. Chairman, ask a prosecutor or a police officer, both of whom, as my friends on the other side of the aisle know, both of them are members of the executive branch. What happens when a police officer fails to check the right box on a search warrant application? The evidence is thrown out even though he was well-intended, even though he had good motivations, even though he got the evidence, because process matters. What happens when the police go and get a confession from the defendant? He did it. This is not a who-done-it; he admitted he did it. You got the right person for the right crime, but what happens if he doesn't follow the process? The defendant walks free. The criminal defense attorneys who are now Congressmen on the other side of the aisle know that is exactly what they argued when they were before the judge; not that the end justifies the means. Don't look at the motivations, look at the process. Mr. Chairman, we are not a country where the end justifies the means, no matter how good your motivations may be. We all swore an allegiance to the same document that the President swears allegiance to: to faithfully execute the law. So I will be listening intently during this debate for one of my colleagues to explain to me what does that phrase mean. What does it mean, not to execute the law, but when the Framers thought enough of that phrase to add the modifier ``faithfully''? What does that mean? If a President does not faithfully execute the law, Mr. Chairman, what are our remedies? Do we just sit and wait on another election? Do we use the power of the purse, the power of impeachment? Those are punishments; those are not remedies. The remedy is to do exactly what Barack Obama said to do: to go to court, to go to the Supreme Court and have the Supreme Court say once and for all. We don't pass suggestions in this body, Mr. Chairman, we don't pass ideas; we pass laws, and we expect them to be faithfully executed.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte. I also want to thank my friend and colleague from the great State of South Carolina, Mr. Tom Rice, whose legal research and expertise and acumen and leadership is one of the reasons we are here today. I also am curious about this notion of prosecutorial discretion. I am curious, even though I was a prosecutor for 16 years. I guess I am curious, Mr. Chairman, as to whether there are any limitations on this thing they call prosecutorial discretion. Can the President refuse to enforce discrimination laws under that same theory of prosecutorial discretion? Can the President refuse to enforce election laws under that same theory of prosecutorial discretion? Mr. Chairman, how about term limits? Do we have to have an election in November? I mean, if he is well-intentioned, as long as his heart is in the right place, if you can suspend other categories of laws, why not? If prosecutorial discretion is as broad as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want us to believe it is, are there any limits, Mr. Chairman, to this thing they call prosecutorial discretion? There are laws that prohibit conduct, like laws against possession of child pornography. There are laws that require conduct, like filing a tax return in April. Is the Chief Executive equally capable of suspending both categories of law, Mr. Chairman? Is he? Can he suspend those that require conduct as well as those that prevent conduct? I am just trying to get an idea of what limits, if any, exist to this thing you call prosecutorial discretion. Hearing none, Mr. Chairman, I know a little bit about it. It is case by case. It is on the facts. It is not the wholesale refusal to enforce the law.

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, prosecutorial discretion encompasses the executive power to decide whether to bring charges, seek punishment, penalties, or sanctions. This next line is really important. It does not include the power to disregard other statutory obligations. Mr. Chairman, that is from a United States Supreme Court case. So, I guess my question is: I have heard about immigration. I haven't mentioned immigration. I want to talk about mandatory minimums in drug cases. That has been the law for 20-something years. You have X amount of methamphetamine, you get X amount of time in prison. It is called a mandatory minimum. Are you telling me that the phrase ``prosecutorial discretion'' includes the Attorney General telling his prosecutors to disregard the law, not to not prosecute the case? That would be consistent. He is not telling them not to prosecute the case. He is telling them don't inform the judiciary of the drug amounts. That is not prosecutorial discretion; that is anarchy. So, yes, Mr. Nadler, I agree--or my friend from New York, I agree, Mr. Chairman, with the concept of prosecutorial discretion. I used it for 16 years. But your amendment does not define it. And my fear is-- while my friend from New York would never do this, my fear is some may overread it to include allowing a President to disregard obligations that we place on him or her, and under no theory of prosecutorial discretion is that legal.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for just a moment as colleagues--not as Republicans or Democrats, not as members of the majority or the minority, but colleagues who are blessed to serve in the United States House of Representatives, the people's House, with all the tradition, with all the history, with all the laws that have been passed, with all the lives that have been impacted. I want us to talk as colleagues. Because our foundational document gave us, as the House, unique powers and responsibilities. We run every 2 years because they intended for us to be closest to the people. The President was given different duties and powers. The President was given the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. So my question, Mr. Speaker, is what does that mean to you, that the laws be faithfully executed? We know the President can veto a bill for any reason or no reason. We know the President can refuse to defend the constitutionality of a statute, even one that he signs into law. We know the President can issue pardons for violations of the very laws that we pass, and we know the President has prosecutorial discretion, as evidenced and used through his U.S. attorneys. Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of power. What are we to do when that amount of power is not enough? What are we to do when this President, or any President, decides to selectively enforce a portion of a law and ignore other portions of that law? What do we do, Mr. Speaker, regardless of motivation, when a President nullifies our vote by failing to faithfully execute the law? How do we explain waivers and exemptions and delays in a bill passed by Congress and affirmed by the United States Supreme Court? How do we explain away a refusal to enforce mandatory minimums that were passed by Congress and affirmed by the Supreme Court? Why pursue, Mr. Speaker, immigration reform if Presidents can turn off the very provisions that we pass? You know, in the oaths that brand new citizens take, it contains six different references to the law. If it is good enough for us to ask brand new citizens to affirm their devotion to the law, is it too much to ask that the President do the same? If a President can change some laws, can he change all laws? Can he change election laws? Can he change discrimination laws? Are there any laws, under your theory, that he actually has to enforce? What is our recourse, Mr. Speaker? What is our remedy? Some would argue the Framers gave us the power of the purse and the power of impeachment, but Mr. Speaker, those are punishments, those are not remedies. What is the remedy if we want the Executive to enforce our work? This bill simply gives us standing when our votes are nullified. This bill allows us to petition the judicial branch for an order requiring the executive branch to faithfully execute the law. Mr. Speaker, we are not held in high public esteem right now. Maybe Members of Congress would be respected more if we respected ourselves enough to require that when we pass something, it be treated as law. Maybe we would be more respected if we had a firmly rooted expectation that when we pass something as law, it be treated as law. Maybe we would be more respected if we put down party labels and a desire to keep or retain or acquire the gavel and picked up the history, the tradition, and the honor of this, the people's House. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives does not exist to pass suggestions. We do not exist to pass ideas. We make law. While you are free to stand and clap when any President comes into this hallowed Chamber and promises to do it, with or without you, I will never stand and clap when any President, no matter whether he is your party or mine, promises to make us a constitutional anomaly and an afterthought. We make law. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, one of the most enjoyable parts of our job is speaking to children at schools, and you get some tough and interesting questions. A couple of months ago, a precious child at a school in upstate South Carolina asked me who was the most famous person I had ever met. That is a very good question, I told the child. I have met President Bush; I have met President Obama; I have met John Lewis; I have met Paul Ryan; I have met Bono, the lead singer of U2; I have met McGruff, the Crime Dog--I have even met Tim Scott--but I told the child the most famous person I had ever met was his teacher, and we all smiled and laughed. But it did get me thinking, Mr. Speaker, that we are surrounded by fame. We fly into an airport named for Reagan. We work in a town named for Washington. We pass monuments to Jefferson and Lincoln and Dr. King. The buildings we work in are named for famous people, and within those buildings are statues and portraits of still more famous people. We are surrounded by fame, Mr. Speaker, and it is easy to forget that, while those people made contributions to our country, the country was built, is being built, and will continue to be built by average, ordinary women and men who lead quiet lives of conviction and courage-- average folks doing above average things, ordinary folks doing extraordinary things. That is the essence of who we are as a people, and while there may not be a monument or a portrait dedicated to those ordinary men and women, there is something even better, and it is called a legacy. So, in honor of those women and men, Mr. Speaker, who lead quiet lives of conviction, I want to honor a man who was just like them. Bruce Cash was a pharmacist in my hometown of Spartanburg. He was buried last week--way too soon, in my opinion, but such are the ways of the Lord. He was a pharmacist, so we saw him when we were sick, and more importantly, we saw him when our children were sick. He was compassionate, and he was kind, and he acted like you were the only person he was taking care of that day. He was active in his church, doing everything from driving a bus on choir tour, to being chairman of the Board of Deacons, to taking his vacation time to chaperone other people's children while they went and sang to prisoners in prisons. He was a devoted father and husband. He and his wife, Kitty, had six children and scores of grandchildren; and when you walked into his pharmacy, Mr. Speaker, you didn't see his business license, and you didn't see his pharmacy license--you saw a picture of his children. He wanted to quietly signal to you that that was the most important thing in his life. I would tell you, Mr. Speaker, to look up Bruce Cash on the Internet, but you are not going to find much. In fact, he never even bothered to change the name of his pharmacy. He left on his pharmacy the name of the man who owned it before him. He had the quality that best defined the Lord Jesus that he believed in, which is humility. He didn't want to talk about himself; he wanted to talk about you. He didn't want to tell you his opinion; he wanted to ask you your opinion. He didn't want to talk about his illness; he wanted to talk about your illness. He didn't want to talk about how life had dealt him an unplayable hand of cards; he wanted to talk about grace and hope and things that last beyond our lifetime. In conclusion, Bruce was humble, and he believed it was more important to live a sermon than to preach one. So I want to thank you, Bruce, for setting an example of average, ordinary people building this country, and the next time a child asks me who the most famous person is I have met, I will tell him it is you.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Liz Chesterman was an honors graduate from Hollins University in Virginia. Then she got her Ph.D. in molecular biology. Then she became a patent agent with the largest law firm in South Carolina. And she still wasn't done. At night, she would sit in the kitchen and study for the LSAT. She was going to go to law school. She wanted to be a doctor and a lawyer. But her greatest accomplishment was her character. She was smart, hardworking, a source of joy and inspiration in the lives of everyone who worked with her and knew her. And with just a little bit of luck, Madam Speaker, Liz Chesterman could be speaking to you from the floor of the House of Representatives. With just a little bit of luck, she would be representing South Carolina in Congress. But she's not in the House of Representatives, Madam Speaker. She's in a cemetery in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Her husband couldn't stand her success, so he abused her. She tried to escape, and she almost made it. She made it to the back door, where he met her with a shovel, and he broke every single bone in her face. And then he nearly decapitated her, leaving her in a pool of blood in the kitchen where she used to study for the LSAT. I run into her mom from time to time, Madam Speaker, in South Carolina. She comes back for a victims right service. She's just like Liz, warm and compassionate. And she always asks: What can I do to help? Imagine that, a mother who lost a daughter in such a horrific way wants to help. And that got me wondering, well, maybe we should be asking what we can do to help because we really can help. We can provide women a safe harbor. We can provide the means to leave abusive relationships. We can provide women the counseling that they need. We can accelerate the prosecution of sexual assault cases so women don't have to wait and wonder and worry about whether or not they're going to be abused again before the case gets to trial. We can do all of that; but, I think, Madam Speaker, we can do more. When my daughter was little, she would ask me to look under her bed for monsters, and I did. But as our little girls grow into women, we realize the monsters are not under the bed. The monsters are in the bed and in the den and in the kitchen and on the college campuses and walking the halls of the high schools and on the computer and on the phone. And for some women, especially today, the monster is this broken political system that we have, a broken political system which manufactures reasons to oppose otherwise good bills just to deny one side a victory. The House version protects every single American, period, but it will not get a single Democrat vote because it is our version. Welcome to our broken political system. I never ask a victim if she is a Republican or a Democrat. I never ask a police officer if he or she is a Republican or a Democrat. I never ask a counselor if she is a Republican or a Democrat. I never ask the parents of a victim if they are a Republican or a Democrat because there are some things that ought to be bigger than politics, and protecting people who cannot protect themselves ought to be one of them. And I had hoped that the House bill would allow us, Madam Speaker, to join arms and walk on a common journey of protecting people who are innocent and cannot protect themselves. And I had hoped, Madam Speaker, that this fractured body could possibly be healed by something that ought to be nonpartisan, like protecting women against violence. And I had hoped, Madam Speaker, that just for 1 day, just 1 day, we will stop scoring political points against each other and try to score political points for other people. And I had hoped, Madam Speaker, that just for 1 day this body could speak with one clear, strong voice for all the women who are too tired and too scared and too hurt and too dead to speak for themselves. I had hoped that today would be the day. Maybe next time, Madam Speaker, maybe next time.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker I submit the following paper on lessons learned from the Roman Empire from Rachel Castellani, a 6th grade student from Southside Christian School in Simpsonville, SC. Rachel wrote, I believe that what I have learned can help me with politics and economics. I think that if the Romans had not gone and taken some of the risks they had taken and maybe had been less violent, the empire might still be alive today. A topic I want to talk about is the economy. If you are trying to encourage the lower class citizens (plebians) why do you raise tax rates higher? This is the same thing happening to America, I don't want to be left in the same situation. Let's lower taxes and form new business in America. Don't let our nation crumble like Rome's!

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2076) to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the statutory authority for the longstanding practice of the Department of Justice of providing investigatory assistance on request of State and local authorities with respect to certain serious violent crimes, and for other purposes.

Mr. GOWDY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the matter currently under consideration.

Mr. GOWDY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, violent crimes, especially mass killings, are often unpredictable and impulsive. The venues are random. The jurisdictions where these crimes take place include the smallest of towns, the least likely places for crimes of this magnitude and this depravity. When we were drafting this bill months ago, Madam Speaker, of course we had hoped against hope that it would not be needed--not so soon, at least. We hoped it would sit on the sidelines, available but unused. Sadly, this is not the culture we live in, Madam Speaker. We have recently witnessed another example of the depth to which the human condition can sink. In times like these, when State and local resources are stretched, Federal law enforcement is ready, willing, and able to assist. Indeed, they do assist, but they do so without statutory coverage. The manner and method of the assistance, Madam Speaker, is vast and varied. Most local police departments do not have criminal profilers. They may not have quick access to a world-class forensic lab, grand jury subpoenas, or the experience that comes from handling similar investigations in the past. Law enforcement, Madam Speaker, is a particularly close-knit community, with State, local, and Federal agents working together sharing resources and expertise, working under very difficult circumstances to prevent crimes or quickly investigate and apprehend afterwards those who commit such crimes. Madam Speaker, I have seen in my own prior career in South Carolina the willingness of Federal law enforcement to assist in kidnappings, murders, arson, and robberies. Tragically, our country has seen the need for Federal law enforcement to assist in places as disparate as movie theaters, college campuses, and even elementary schools. Federal law enforcement agencies and officers do not currently have specific statutory authority to assist in the investigations of mass killings, attempted mass killings, or other violent crimes that occur. Federal law enforcement officers frequently receive emergency requests for such assistance from State and local law enforcement agencies. And while this assistance is routinely provided, Madam Speaker, it is possible that Federal officers who provide such assistance could be found to be acting outside their scope of employment. To correct this problem, H.R. 2076 specifically allows certain Federal agents to provide State and local law enforcement with the assistance requested when the violent act does not otherwise appear to violate Federal law. These Federal agents come from agencies such as the FBI, DEA, ATF, U.S. Marshal Service, Secret Service, and ICE. And while we hope and pray, Madam Speaker, and take affirmative steps to prevent such similar crimes in the future, this bill ensures that State and local police now can at least request the assistance of Federal law enforcement officers in similar situations, and do so fully covered by the law. This bill allows Federal law enforcement officers to provide an emergency response to critical situations where violent crimes have occurred or may remain in progress. This bill is not an expansion, Madam Speaker, of Federal authority and does not expand the jurisdiction of any Federal law enforcement agency in any manner whatsoever. Any law enforcement assistance must be requested by a State or local authority and agreed to by the Federal authorities. Last year, Madam Speaker, this bill passed the Judiciary Committee in the House with broad bipartisan support. Earlier this month, the Senate passed, by unanimous consent, this bill. This bill is supported by the FBI Agents Association and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to concur in the Senate's amendment to this bill so that it may be sent to the President for his signature, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY. Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I just want to take this one final opportunity to thank Chairman Smith for his leadership, not just on this particular bill, but his leadership throughout the 2-year tenure he was chairman of the Judiciary.

Mr. GOWDY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time and the right to perhaps finish at the end.

Mr. GOWDY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY. Madam Speaker, in conclusion, and I'm sure on behalf of all my colleagues, I want to thank the women and men in law enforcement for their service, their sacrifice, their willingness to do jobs that either we cannot do or will not do. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) for his leadership over the last 2 years, and I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for his collegiality and friendship. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first thank Chairman Lamar Smith. This may be my last opportunity to thank him for his service as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, not just for this bill but for the work he's done in the full 2 years. He has done a fantastic job, and I would like to thank the chairman for that. Mr. Speaker, two things are clear: protection, security, and public safety--those are the fundamental obligations of government; and, secondly, we live in an increasingly dangerous world with increasing threats against our citizens and targets that are viewed as high profile. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, and others, I earnestly believe those who serve this country as President should never have to worry about their personal safety. Under current law, protection for President Obama and President George W. Bush will cease after 10 years. Both men are young, enjoy good health, and have long lives ahead of them post-Presidency. This bill proposes to extend that security for the remainder of their lives. There's an unintended anomaly, Mr. Speaker, that if current law were not changed, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Bush and Laura Bush would receive more protections by virtue of being First Lady than they would if they had served as President themselves. So I hope my colleagues will make sure that the person and the symbol of our Presidency is safe and secure for the duration of their natural lives.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, the politicians set the policies, and others carry those policies out. At least that's the way it happens in this country. It hasn't always been like that. Political leaders of yesterday also led the armies and navies. But in this country, for now, we work in this ornate building and make policy while men like Channing ``Bo'' Hicks from South Carolina salute smartly and carry out the orders. Mr. Speaker, Bo Hicks' body was returned to his beloved South Carolina Monday, to his family and to his friends. He is in the presence of the Lord. He died fighting for this country, doing what his country asked him to do. And he fought, lived, and died with honor. He died, Mr. Speaker, before his 25th birthday. The decisions we make in this assembly have real life eternal consequences. May we strive to make the service and sacrifice of Bo Hicks meaningful. May he look down and say, ``It was worth it.'' Thank you, Bo Hicks. God bless you and your family.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle wish to change the law, and that's fine. They just need to do it navigating this testy little thing we call the Constitution and respect the separation of powers between the various branches. Mr. Speaker, I want to read the proposed rule to you in part: HHS has the authority to waive compliance with this work requirement and authorize the State to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specify limitations and verification procedures. Then the next sentence, Mr. Speaker, is essentially this, and I'll paraphrase it; it's by the HHS Secretary: trust us, trust us that we're going to have the right motives when we weigh what Congress has expressly said to do. To my lawyer friends on the other side, I would ask you this, why do we have something called substantive due process and procedural due process? I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. Because the way things are done matters. For my friends who prefer literature, the end does not justify the means. We have separation of branches under our system of government. Among my many limitations, Mr. Speaker, is an inability to deign the motives of other people. Their motives may be laudatory. I don't know that. I know this. We have a process in this country which must be followed, and this President has repeatedly said if Congress won't do it, I will do it alone. Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is, no, sir, you will not. In a democracy you will not do it alone, whether it's the NLRB or EPA or most recently HHS with the health care mandate or now with this. There has been an erosion of Congress' authority and we have ceded it to the executive branch. And I will say this to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, the sun does not always shine on the same people all the time. There will come a time where there will be a Republican chief executive. So I would be careful about ceding this body's responsibility to the executive branch. And when that time comes, when there is a Republican President, I will stand up for the right of Congress to make the laws and not the executive branch, just as I am now.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your leadership on this and a host of other issues on the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Speaker, this week has provided tragic reminders that the world is a dangerous place. We are targets even from people we have helped in the past--with lethal consequences because we represent freedom, liberty and tolerance even among those with whom we disagree. Each of us is asked when we go back home to our districts, Can Congress agree on anything? Is there anything that rises above politics anymore? Many of us would like to answer yes. We'd like to tell the people we work for that, yes, on issues of national security and protecting this country, yes, we can come together. We are capable of putting down talking points and red herrings and straw arguments and of picking up something called responsibility. To say that this reauthorization has bipartisan support is an understatement. This bill passed unanimously in the House Intelligence Committee. For those in shock back home, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to repeat that: this bill passed unanimously. All Democrats, all Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee with access to the most information, not a single ``no'' vote. President Bush supported this. Mr. Obama supports this. National security experts support this. Law enforcement officials support it. Our colleagues who served in the FBI and those who are Federal prosecutors and in the military support it. The Democrat-led House passed this bill in 2008 with former Speaker Pelosi giving a glowing speech extolling the virtues of the underlying bill and excoriating her colleagues about the necessity of passing. All of this happened, Mr. Speaker, because intelligence is the lifeblood of our ability to defend ourselves. It happened because this bill has nothing to do with Americans on American soil. It passed because this provides protections for Americans who are traveling abroad. It passed because there is ample oversight. It passed because it has the needed checks and balances between the legislative branch and the executive branch and the judicial branch. So why the opposition? How can you explain supporting something when Ms. Pelosi had the gavel, but you can't support it when Mr. Boehner has the gavel? What I want to do, Mr. Speaker, just for today is: let's put down the red herrings, and let's put down the straw arguments and the misrepresentations. This bill doesn't implicate the Bill of Rights anymore than it implicates any other part of our Constitution--unless you think that foreign nationals who are on foreign land fall within the protections of the United States Constitution, and that is an absurd argument. Foreign nationals in foreign lands, do they have the right to vote? Do they assert states' rights under the 10th Amendment? Can they claim cruel and unusual punishment? Go to Iran. If you're an Iranian, you go to Iran and assert your Fifth Amendment right to Miranda or your Sixth Amendment right to counsel and see what happens. Yet we're to believe that the Fourth Amendment applies to the entire world? It's absurd. Mr. Speaker, I'm almost out of time, but I do want to say from the bottom of my heart--what's left of it after having been a prosecutor for 16 years--I want to say this.

Mr. GOWDY. I believe you were with us, Mr. Speaker. I believe all of our colleagues were with us on the steps of the Capitol. We came together to remember 9/11 and what we lost and what we still grieve for as a Nation, Mr. Speaker, what we found as a Nation in the aftermath of 9/11. Republicans stood with Democrats on this, the steps of the people's House, and conservatives stood with progressives and moderates, and libertarians beside us. We were just Americans. That was enough on Tuesday. We were united. We were just Americans. Even for just one fleeting moment, in our desire to honor, protect, and defend, if we can come together, Mr. Speaker, to remember 9/11, surely we can come together to prevent another one. I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Madam Speaker, I rise to say thank you to Adam Ross and his parents, Dudley and Amanda Ross, from the Boiling Springs community in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Adam Ross has been described as a ``well-mannered, good-spirited, and all-around good American boy.'' When he left Spartanburg to follow in his father's and his brother's footsteps to go fight for this country he loved so much, he told his family, Madam Speaker, I know where I am going, I know why I am going and what the purpose is. Madam Speaker, Adam Ross' body was returned to this country he loved and believed in last week in a flag-draped coffin. His parents buried him at the tender age of 19. He died defending this country and fighting for the qualities that make this the last best hope for mankind. So, Madam Speaker, I rise to honor his service, to honor the sacrifice his parents made, to pray for their peace and their wisdom, and to pray that when Adam Ross looks down from heaven and sees the America of years to come, he may believe his sacrifice and service were worth it.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Tim Scott. And I was in rapt attention when he was talking. It was almost as if he stole my thoughts. But I don't mind because he's a member of the freshman class. And many of us in the freshman class, Madam Speaker, we weren't here in December of 2010 when this body last decided to extend the tax cuts for all Americans, not some of them, but all Americans, 18 months ago. So you can imagine, Madam Speaker, how intrigued we are by the debate on the other side. We're also intrigued at the number of our colleagues who, not 18 months ago, decided it would be bad economics to raise taxes on any American, which leads me to wonder, were the rules not fair 18 months ago? I know that's the campaign slogan, that everybody has to play by the rules and everybody should pay their fair share. Were the rules not fair 18 months ago? Was everybody not paying their fair share 18 months ago? Because heaven knows they voted for it 18 months ago. Which got me wondering, Madam Speaker, what's different today than it was 18 months ago? Well, maybe the economy's better off. Maybe that's the explanation. And then I saw, well, gas prices are higher and milk prices are higher and bread prices are higher and inflation is higher, which is the most insidious of all taxes, and people's purchasing power is down. So, no, that couldn't be why they changed their minds. It can't be because people are better off, because they're not. So then I thought, Madam Speaker, well, maybe it's because government has become a better steward of the tax dollars that we do give them. Maybe government's spending the money better. And then I thought, well, no, we've had Solyndra and we've had Abound, and we've had a failed stimulus plan, and we've had a GSA scandal, so no, it couldn't possibly be that we're spending the money wiser. So why in the world, Madam Speaker, would so many of our colleagues who just 18 months ago thought the rules were just fine and that 35 percent was enough to pay, why in the world would they change their mind in the course of just 18 months? And then it dawned on me, Madam Speaker. It dawned on me while I was listening to the President tell our fellow Americans you didn't build that, and promising more flexibility in a second term, that we're in the middle of a reelection campaign. It dawned on me, no, the economy's not better, and no, government's not spending its money better, but I have to have something to run on, so I'm going to pit one group of Americans against another group of Americans, because God knows I can't run on my record. So let's try the politics of bringing people down and perpetuating this myth that somehow pulling other people down makes me taller. Let's pit one group of Americans against another group. Madam Speaker, the economy is still struggling. Heavens knows it is. People are suffering. If you want economic growth, why in the world are you talking about taking more money from people, even if you don't think they built it? What has changed in the last 18 months other than the vicissitudes of a political cycle, Madam Speaker? And then I got to thinking, while Congressman Scott was talking, let's assume for the sake of argument, Madam Speaker, that we do what they want us to do. Go ahead and raise it to 39 percent. It may be 39 this time. How about 50? If you didn't build it, how about take half of it? What about 60 percent, Madam Speaker? If you didn't build it, take 60 percent of it. Where does it stop?

Mr. GOWDY. What the Democrats want to do, Madam Speaker, is bad citizenship. It is bad economics. It is bad for our fellow Americans. It remains to be seen if it's good electioneering or not. That remains to be seen. But duplicity is duplicity, no matter what the calendar says.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, my question is simply this: What percentage of the truth do you want? When we're asked to negotiate; when the Attorney General comes and asks us for an extraordinary accommodation, whatever that means; when we're asked to compromise; my question for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, is this: What percentage of the truth will you settle for? If you have ever sat on the other side of the table from parents who have lost a loved one, is 50 percent enough? Is that enough of the documents? Seventy-five percent? A third? The truth, the whole truth, so help me God--that is what we ask witnesses to do, jurors to do, and that's not too much for us to ask for the Attorney General of the United States of America to do.