Thad McCotter

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue and for yielding me some time. We have heard a lot throughout the past years about making America more energy independent. Myself, being a natural contrarian, have heard recently members of my own party saying that the Speaker has yet to unveil her plan to lower gas prices. I think this is an error. I think the more disturbing news is we have seen the Democratic party's plan to lower gas prices, and it has failed miserably. If we remember last year, we were told we were taking the steps toward American energy independence. We passed a ``Lethargy Bill,'' as I referred to it, that was going to solve all our problems. We were going to innovate our way out of this, we were going to conserve our way out of this. We were going to throw American taxpayers' money to India and Communist China and around the world to make the red bureaucrats green. When the Speaker was recently on Larry King's show last week, apparently she was under the impression that their plan had worked. When asked what the price of gas was, she replied, $2.56. She was off by $1. Evidently the pattern of wishful thinking had already set in; that their wonderfully detailed plan that they had waited to unveil had already been hoisted upon an unsuspecting American electorate. And these are the results. Now we hear the ``blame game'' beginning. Because having had their energy plan fail, they are now looking for scapegoats. When politicians come looking for scapegoats to explain their failure, I assure you of one thing, it's going to cost taxpayers money. It may cost you directly, it may cost you indirectly, but this will cost you money. I will say why. First, their policy having failed for a fundamental reason, they can come up with no better thing to do than to try to affix blame. Their policy has failed because it's built on a 21st century energy fallacy. The fallacy is that environmental conservation and energy production are irreconcilable. The Republican party takes the opposite view. We believe that a plan of conservation and innovation and responsible production through the use of green technologies and others is entirely possible for our free people, and it can help increase the supply of domestic energy and help to alleviate the cost of gas at the pump and the cost of energy throughout our economy, which is eating into family budgets even as we speak and do nothing in this 110th Congress. Now what are they going to do instead? They are going to put taxes on energy companies. Windfall profits tax. I remember something Ronald Reagan said a long time ago. Corporations are not taxpayers, corporations are tax collectors. So here's how this works. This is the new energy plan. The new energy plan is to divert attention from the fact this Congress has done nothing to increase the supply of oil or domestic energy to help Americans. They will then try to tax the energy companies. The energy companies will turn right around and put that cost into your pump. It will be passed right on. This is not my speculation, this is what economists tell you almost universally. Then the politician comes to you, after Government has more of your money, and says, Thank me. I punished those bad people. And you say to them, Well, that is great, but what about me? Is there any more energy being produced? You have taxed it, there is less of it, the price continues to go up. You walk out of here with more of my money. I don't think the American people are going to be grateful for that. Another short term gimmick that we are hearing is we must demand that OPEC produce more oil. This is sheer genius. Sheer genius. We are now hearing calls from the Democratic party to make America more energy dependent on foreign sources. They pump more, we buy more, they keep the money. There is no energy independence in this shortsighted call, there is just another attempt to deflect blame and responsibility away from this Chamber, where it belongs, the Chamber across the hall, where it belongs, and from a total failure of a 21st century fallacy to fix energy needs in America and make us more energy independent. Now, as we know, these costs go throughout the economy. They are inflating the cost of living for all Americans. And yet there's talk, talk, talk, talk. But there are people who are not talking about energy. We are engaged in a fight for the global access to oil with the Communist Chinese as we speak. They are in every continent of our world and they are trying as hard as they can to gain direct access to these foreign sources. At the very time the United States of America, as the distinguished gentleman from Texas points out, is trying to deter American companies from finding new sources of oil, at the very time we are told by some voices that we demand energy production everywhere but America, it is easy in our day and age to say to ourselves that there is no real direct cost to Government. We live in a credit card age. We don't live in the age my parents grew up in, my grandparents, and I was raised to respect you save your money, you plan your budget, you work responsibly, and hopefully the good Lord takes care of you. No. But when you think that votes on an energy bill or votes on a regulation that is imposed or votes on litigation that is imposed or votes on taxation that seem indirectly removed from you, there's a cost to all this. When we talk about the cost of taxation, litigation, regulation and an aversion to production of American energy, you need not go to the CBO to have this scored. Look at the gentleman from Illinois's chart. That is the cost of a government that is unaware of what is happening in America, what our future energy needs are, and who do not understand that the American people, when challenged, will meet that challenge, we will provide for environmental conservation, free market innovation, and the domestic production of energy to take America where it needs to be, which is energy independent. But then, again, we have always viewed America as the solution, and we always will. I thank the gentleman for all the work that he has done on this, and I look forward to continuing this discussion with him in similar forums, for it is important that the American people understand something. According to the chart in front of us today, it is clear that in the 110th Congress Democrats don't care what they cost you. I yield back.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. I appreciate that. Thank you. We have a fundamental agreement and yet a disagreement. I think that everyone can see that there are three key elements to America's energy situation: Production, conservation, and innovation. We all agree on conservation. We'd like to see America more energy efficient, and we differ on whether or not what the extreme would be in terms of conservation. Republicans generally would hope that they would be community-oriented conservation, recognizing these tiny ripples of hope, citizen engagement in protecting their local environment would be the most efficacious way to deal with this situation rather than pass an overarching bill in Washington, with no citizen participation and only hope and more regulation, taxation, and burden upon America's industry and upon the American people. In the area of innovation it is a very stark difference. Our side of the aisle believes that the free market and the genius of the American people will come up with the innovative solutions necessary to move us toward green fuels and a cleaner environment. The other side of the aisle believes the government knows best, and if they just capture enough revenues from the hardworking American people, they will then determine what ideas will work and will not work and force them upon the market. But it is most noticeable in the area of production where the two sides differ. We believe production is essential. The gentleman from Iowa has properly laid out we live in a global economy. Supply and demand are the keys to the crisis today. If America does not produce more energy from its own sources, the cost will continue to go up because the supply will remain constricted, if not finite, and the demand will continue to grow from developing countries such as Communist China, India, and others. What we believe is necessary is a declaration of energy independence which, like our own country's Declaration of Independence, recognizes that it would not happen overnight, it would not be easy; it would require sacrifice, and yet together we would get there. We need to continue to produce domestic energy as we transition through a free market-based approach to innovations that will get us to a green energy policy and through the community-based conservation that will help foster and perpetuate energy efficiencies within our communities, within our homes. Now the difference between these two policies is clear in the chart that the gentleman from Iowa has put before us. As someone who does not come from Iowa, but from Michigan, once known as the arsenal of democracy, a proud manufacturing State, the State that put the world on wheels, we see what the cost of energy does. It is not an abstract number, it is a situation which causes an intense amount of pain and anxiety to the constituents of my district and the constituents of my State. Manufacturing requires energy. We know the manufacturing sector has been decimated by unfair trade competition and other unfortunate policies. Yet, when you take the cost of energy on top of it, you are almost signaling the death knell of the manufacturing base as we know it and as we would like to preserve it, because that cost of energy, as it rises, is put into everything the manufacturer must do. And in the age of global competition, it becomes increasingly difficult for the manufacturer to keep his costs down, his fixed overhead rising, and in the end, there comes the push, especially from the tier one and tier two suppliers, the push comes from above to either eat the cost or send it offshore. We also are starting to see what the government dictates in terms of innovation with the emphasis on ethanol and others is we are beginning to hear stories about food shortages in the United States, we are now beginning to hear about how the cost of basic staple commodities is rising. Again, in our economy today, which is slowing down, the cost of energy, the cost of gasoline in particular is the cause. In my mind, this is the cause. Because it is one important commodity that is continuing to go up in price without any relief in sight, and it also has spillover costs to all of the other commodities related to it. There is nothing that does not wind up on your kitchen table that does not require energy to produce and transport. There is nothing in your home that you turn on, your Internet, or anywhere else, that does not require energy. As the cost of energy goes up, the cost of everything goes up. If we do not help increase the supply of energy, the costs will continue to rise, the American people will continue to suffer. Now there will be an attempt, because evidently production conservation and innovation in a sound way is not palatable to some in this chamber, indeed a majority, there would be the attempt to shift the blame for the rising costs of energy to the producers. I am no fan of any multinational corporation. But then, again, I am not their executioner either. Because I remember what Ronald Reagan once said, Corporations are not taxpayers, corporations are tax collectors. You want a windfall profits tax, you want a punitive tax on oil companies, energy producers, you can do it. And where are these energy producers and oil companies going to get that revenue from? They are going to pass the cost right onto the American people at their pumps, because Americans right now cannot survive without driving their cars to work. They cannot survive without energy. It would seem to me that these are simple lessons that we should have learned in our youth. Then it occurred to me as I watch my children grow up, we have an entire generation of voters that were not alive in the 1970s. They did not live through the OPEC oil crisis, they did not live through taxation upon energy producers, they did not live through the syn fuels, where government raised taxes, put money in a fund, handed it out and we were going to be energy independent, or when Jimmy Carter went on TV and declared that by turning down the thermostat to 68, this was the moral equivalent to war. The gentleman from Iowa and I have in the past talked about our love of history and its need to be taught in the schools. Because anyone with a remote understanding of the 1970s would understand that the failed policies of the 1970s are inadequate to meet the pressing energy needs of today. What we need is a 21st century energy strategy, not a failed 1970s Jimmy Carter policy that actually helped pave the way toward more energy dependence in America. So I thank the gentleman for what he is doing today, and I would encourage my colleagues to go back and look at what was tried before and failed and then perhaps they would be more amenable to coming across the aisle in joining with us to try to take concrete steps to alleviate not only the rising cost of energy but the rising cost of everyday life that is associated with it. I yield back to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge Mr. Abe Munfakh upon his receipt of the Wayne 11th Congressional District Republican Committee's 2008 Lifetime Achievement Award. Throughout his career, Mr. Munfakh has dedicated himself to bettering our community. He served on the Plymouth Township Board of Trustees for 12 years, Plymouth Community United Way Board for 8 years, and was a member of the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments for 8 years. Since 1984, Abe has been actively involved in promoting the conservative principles of the Republican Party in Michigan. He represented the State of Michigan at the 1992 National Republican Convention as an Alternate Delegate. He has served on the Michigan Republican State Committee since 2005 and is a member of the Outreach and Diversity subcommittee and Budget subcommittee. He currently serves on the Eleventh District and Wayne 11th Republican Committees. Madam Speaker, Mr. Munfakh's legendary dedication to the founding principles of our great democracy and his tireless efforts to perpetuate America's revolutionary experiment in human freedom are an inspiration to all. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Abe Munfakh upon his receipt of the 2008 Lifetime Achievement Award and in recognizing his selfless service to our community and our country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge Dr. Ma Ying-jeou upon his recent election to the Presidency of Taiwan. On March 22, 2008, Taiwan elected a new President, Dr. Ma Ying-jeou, former mayor of Taipei. As a long term observer of Taiwan, I have noticed that this island country has taken great strides toward full democracy. The latest presidential election proved that democracy is thriving in Taiwan. Regarding Taiwan-U.S. relations, President-elect Ma has also indicated the need to strengthen our informal ties with each other. After 9/11, Taiwan was one of the first countries to give its support to us and has been proactive in providing information and resources to us in combating global terrorism. In addition, Taiwan has been cooperative in reducing its trade surplus with us and promoting U.S. goods and services in its domestic market. In return, we must assure Taiwan that we will remain faithful to the letter and spirit of the Taiwan Relations Act. Madam Speaker, Taiwan has come a long way from its authoritarian past and is today a beacon of democracy and freedom in the Far East. I wish to congratulate President-elect Ma and the Taiwanese people for their latest demonstration of democracy. A true democracy like Taiwan deserves friendship and support.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge the noble and essential role nurses play in providing quality health care across our Nation. Our Nation's health care system is complex and every day people with all types of needs are cared for by qualified and professional nurses. Every individual can remember an experience when someone they loved needed health care and a nurse was the first person by their side providing compassionate and essential care. My wife, a registered nurse works on the front lines of caring for Americans and like so many nurses, her devotion extends beyond the workforce; as she goes home every day after work and is just as thoughtful and attentive to the needs of our family. The tireless efforts made by nurses to provide nurture and solace are an inspiration to all. A growing number of nurses are essential to ensuring all people receive quality care; and our Nation's public health infrastructure has the professionals necessary to respond to natural and manmade disasters. The Department of Health and Human Services projects the current ten percent vacancy rates in registered nurses will grow to 36 percent by the year 2020, representing more than one million unfilled jobs. We must make sure to provide strong Congressional leadership, unflagging support, and the Federal funding necessary to ensure the United States continues to maintain a steady supply of nurses to care for the patients of today and tomorrow. Madam Speaker, in honor of their unwavering commitment, dedication, and selflessness, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring nurses and their exemplary service to our community and our country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank Chairman Berman, Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, and all of the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee for bringing this resolution to the floor. You know, I remember back when I was growing up there was a movie, and the movie was called ``A Hard Day's Night.'' This was at the height of Beatlemania, and the Beatles had obviously been wildly popular and well-received when they first hit our shores. And yet in the movie there is a scene where a reporter, seemingly unaware of this, asked John Lennon a question. And the question was this: ``How did you find America?'' And Lennon said, ``I turned left at Greenland.'' The point I bring this up for is quite simple. Today we hear many inane questions about how His Holiness will be received by the American people. How will America find the Pope? How will the Pope find America? Well, I think these questions are inane for a very simple reason: The United States understands the Holy Father because he advocates that we use faith and reason to find our way through these trying times and on to a transcendent Creator. The United States, our revolutionary experiment in human freedom, was founded upon faith and reason. The Founders had the faith that they were playing a role in divine provenance, that they had rights that were endowed to them and inalienable by a Creator. And yet it was not passion alone that allowed for the founding of our free republic; they also used their reason to find their way to express how those rights could be guaranteed against government, and how individual citizens could live together with their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is no different than the message that the Holy Father brings today. The Holy Father has said that faith and reason are concomitant blessings from God which allow us to find him not only in ourselves but in each other. So as Americans await the Pope's first visit, I am not saying that there will be teenyboppers dropping in the streets as the popemobile passes, but I do say His Holiness will receive a warm reception from people who have understood and who continue to understand that faith and reason are gifts from God we squander at our own peril.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, as the Olympic torch goes through San Francisco today, I would just like to bring attention to the fact that I, as well as others on each side of the aisle, will be introducing legislation to ensure that we send our athletes to the games but not our politicians. In the past, America has sent their athletes to the Olympics to show what free people can achieve, most notably in 1936 when Jesse Owens won gold and disabused the world of the Fuhrer's propaganda that there was an inferior race amongst us. FDR did not go to the Olympics. I would encourage American politicians, including the President of the United States, not to politicize the games by their attendance, but rather stay home and attend to the pressing issues which face us as a people. This would be the proper way for the United States to both honor the spirit of the Olympics and the spirit of our free people.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, one of our greatest Presidents was Harry Truman. And one of the reasons President Truman was held in such high regard by people, including my own father, was that he had the courage to go against conventional wisdom, especially in the area of foreign relations. It was President Truman who had the moral courage to tell the American people that our World War II ally the Soviet Union was no longer our friend and had become a threat to the very liberty that our people had helped advance throughout the course of that conflict. This was not a message that the American people were particularly expecting. In fact, there were many who decried President Truman's analysis at the time. One of them was George F. Kennan, who is, unfortunately, often remembered as the father of the containment policy. In fact, when faced with the rise of the Soviet Union as a strategic threat and rival model of governance, it was Mr. Kennan's position that the Soviet Union could be managed, that we should constructively engage them, that their ideology meant nothing to them, and that, in fact, they were but a different variation of the traditional Czarist order within Russia. And, besides, Mr. Kennan concluded, what did it matter? Eventually the two systems of communism and our free Republic's democratic system would merge into one. President Truman was not as educated as Mr. Kennan. He was not as sophisticated as Mr. Kennan. And President Truman took the Soviets at their word that they were in fact communists. He took them at their word that they meant they were going to put in practice their intrinsically evil ideology. And Mr. Truman dissented from Mr. Kennan and said that the fundamental goal of the United States foreign policy to defeat the intrinsic evil of communism will be the advancement of liberty throughout our world where and when we can achieve it. Recently I came across a picture that I had ordered from a friend of mine in the District, Mr. Doug Brown. It was from one of Mr. Truman's return trips to St. Louis. He was meeting a gentleman from his old World War I Artillery Battery. And a picture that struck me the most was this: The MC of the event that night for President Truman in Missouri was an entertainer named Ronald Reagan. And in that crystalline moment, it was clear for me to see the link in the Cold War's victory between the foundation President Truman courageously laid and the way that President Reagan courageously won it ultimately. What we see today now is a repeat of history where we have two paths we can take. We can take the path of Mr. Kennan and the detente crowd of the Kissingerites and others that says we can manage the rise of Communist China, that we can engage them and barter with them and engage in structural diplomacy, all the while the oppression of their own people's God-given rights to rights to life, liberty, and dignity are repressed, while Tibet suffers under their yoke, while the Burmese and Sudanese regimes are propped up, and while they continue their stealth assaults on our national security with sleeper cells, and I could go on. Or we who profess to be the heirs of Ronald Reagan, especially within the Republican Party, can follow the path of President Truman and understand that you cannot barter with butchers. You cannot constructively manage evil nor engage it. But what you can do is unleash the liberty of people yearning to breathe free where and when you can. The reason I bring this up is not merely the Beijing Olympics. I'm on record as opposing our President's attendance at the games. I believe it would be a betrayal of our free Republic's commitment to liberty. But I was struck by a statement in this regard by our current Secretary of State, ironically enough herself a Sovietologist. I will not make the joke that a Sovietologist is often considered diplomacy's equivalent of a Latin teacher for this has relevance. She said, ``It is important for the Chinese people to see that the United States supports their emergence onto the world's stage.'' I fundamentally differ with that assessment. I remain a Reaganite. I remain my Truman Democratic father's son. The United States, and my party in particular, exists to put communism in the ash can of history, not to usher communism onto the world's stage. If my party, as it has strayed from principle in the past, does not understand the emancipation imperative that runs through Abraham Lincoln to Ronald Reagan and to today, we are in a sad state. I trust we wake up while there is still time.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, we stand at a historic moment. In the stream of history, it is oftentimes overlooked as we circumnavigate around time, fate and circumstance the momentous era and the momentous deeds which must be undertaken. This is one of them. I thank the Speaker for bringing this resolution. I thank her for bringing with it the moral weight of her opposition to Communist China's abysmal human rights record throughout her career in this Congress, and for uniting Republicans and Democrats behind it. But at this moment, I am also reminded of someone who is no longer with us, someone from whom I learned very much. That man is the late Chairman Tom Lantos, a man who embodied the human spirit in its ability to triumph over evil. How many people in this Congress understood the moment when the tanks rolled into Budapest and the Soviets went into Hungary, that that was a seminal moment in the Cold War, that the desire to breathe free, of the Hungarian people, could not be quelled by tanks and could only be quenched by freedom? And throughout the history of the Cold War, their example was emulated by others, including the Czechs in 1968, and of course the Poles, and that eventually brought down the Soviet Union. Today, what may appear a resolution of the moment for a specific incident is not that. It is our generation's Budapest. It is this generation of Americans who get to witness the Tibetans trying to breathe free from beneath the Communist yoke of the Chinese regime. And as we Republicans and Democrats stand together today, we stand with them, and we send a clarion message to the Communist Chinese Government. They will be free. And as the Olympic torch goes from town to town and you see people gathering together of all political persuasions and all walks of life to protest the abominable suppression of the Tibetans, let us remember that we here have come together to make sure that the torch of Lady Liberty still shines bright as a beacon of hope for all the world.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge Ms. Fran Toney, Executive Director of the Plymouth Community Chamber of Commerce, upon her retirement from seventeen years of dutiful service. Fran Toney is a woman who has always loved Plymouth, Michigan. Fran has focused the past seventeen years of her career on getting others to love it too. As executive director, Ms. Toney encouraged members of her community to invest in local businesses and the community. Under her venerable tenure, the Plymouth Community Chamber of Commerce has nearly doubled its size from 400 to 700 committed members. Ms. Toney initiated more than 42 new programs which continue to make the Plymouth area a prosperous and proud part of Michigan. From Scarecrows in Kellogg Park to the annual Auction Fundraiser, Fran Toney has made the Plymouth Community Chamber of Commerce a point of pride for our community and the entire state of Michigan. Madam Speaker, for seventeen years Ms. Fran Toney has faithfully served the Plymouth community and its citizens. As she enters the next phase of her life, she leaves behind a legacy of dedication, vibrancy, and fellowship. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ms. Fran Toney upon her retirement and recognizing her years of loyal service to our community, state and country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I come from Michigan, a State that respects honesty, even when one is in error, so I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised by the integrity, if not the ultimate decision, that we heard from the gentleman from New Jersey. We heard a lot about change over the course of a year or two, and I too must be honest. We have seen change in how Washington budgets. We have seen change. We have gone from bad to worse. Now, as I recall sitting in Michigan, living there with my wife and children, I have seen a similar instance out of my State government which, in a one-State depression, faced the choice of allowing working families to keep their money and protect their budgets or raising taxes and protecting the State budget. They started with the smokers. They went after them. They took their money. Nobody likes smokers. Who cares? Then they had a one-time-only property tax advance. They never did tell us when the property tax relief comes, but I am sure one day it will. It is only once. And then they raised our income taxes. They raised our income taxes because by then it was for the greater good. And whose family budget wants to stay in the way of the greater good? Certainly not somebody like me, somebody whose children are looking at college, somebody whose mother may be getting older and may need care, somebody who worries that their dreams of their future for their children might go up in ashes in a State that is mismanaged by a government that cares more about itself than it cares about the sovereign citizens who elected it. And then I come out here to do their work as their servant and I see the same thing. I see the same thing. I hear the same talk. I see the change that was promised and delivered. The sad part is the promise was implied. I remember hearing the government spent too much. Got to stop. The government spent too much. We are going to change that. I didn't hear the part where you said the government spends too much. We are going to spend more. I heard people talk about working families struggling, and we are only going to tax the rich. We are only going to tax the rich. Evidently we must not be doing too well. There is not enough rich to back up the promises. So what do we do? The largest tax increase in American history on everybody. Well, that is a change. I concede the point. It is a change. But I was shocked again with both the honor and the erroneous conclusion of the gentleman from New Jersey. I never in my life expected to see a Member of Congress apologize for not raising taxes on the American people. That is a change. I grant you that. The question is then, if the American people need to have their taxes raised to come into prosperity, surely you know what the ultimate number is. How high, how fast until we get to prosperity? How much more of my money has to go the Federal Government before I can dream for my family and feed them? Surely somebody must know that number. Is this largest tax increase in American history going to be the last? Are we then going to reach the American Dream? Are we going to have our liberty and economics to pursue that dream through our own works, or will government have to do that for us? Are we going to get bureaucrats as life coaches? What is going to be necessary? Give me a number. I haven't heard that number. I haven't heard that percent. I think the one thing that we do need to change immediately right now in rejecting this budget scheme to bloat, to soak your family budget, to bloat the Federal Government's budget, is I want to hear somebody admit that America's economic prosperity comes from our free people, not from the growth of government, for that is a truth to hear that would be a refreshing change of late.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge Kay Beard, Wayne County Commissioner and dedicated community advocate, upon her retirement from a distinguished 30-year career in public service. Kay became interested in politics at an early age at the knee of her grandmother who used to host meetings of the local congressional delegation in their Detroit home. Throughout her life, Kay was active in civic and community organizations, but did not run for political office until 1972 when she launched an unsuccessful bid for State representative. Undeterred, Kay ran for Wayne County commissioner in 1976, Kay was later appointed to fill a vacancy on the Wayne County Commission in April 1978. Subsequently, Kay never failed to win another election she ran in including her most recent reelection in 2006 to her 15th term. Her 30 years on the commission made her the longest serving member ever. While managing the daily tasks of a county commissioner, Kay gave back a tremendous amount of time and effort to her community. Kay served on the National Advisory Council for School-to-Work Opportunities, the Senior Advisory Council of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan, the United Way Community Services Board of Directors, and was a founding member of Hospices of Michigan. Her efforts did not go unnoticed by the citizens of Michigan. The Michigan Democratic Women's Caucus presented her with its highest honor, the Eleanor Roosevelt Award. She was also a recipient of the Westland ATHENA Award and in honor of her achievements has had a building on the grounds of the Eloise Psychiatric Hospital renamed the Kay Beard Building. During her 15 terms on the Wayne County Board of Commissioners, Ms. Beard has dealt with issues ranging from the termination of the drain commissioner's job, a failed smoking ban, the creation of an antifraud law, and a valiant yet unsuccessful attempt to save Wayne County General Hospital. Ms. Beard felt that spirited opposition was the touchstone of democracy. Despite displaying a vibrant spirit, Kay has been ordered by her doctor to step down for health reasons. Her loss will be felt by all the citizens of Wayne County who wish her nothing but happiness. Madam Speaker, for 30 years Commissioner Kay Beard has faithfully served Michigan and Wayne County. As she enters the next phase of her life, she leaves behind a legacy of dedication, integrity, and excellence. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Commissioner Kay Beard upon her retirement and recognizing her years of loyal service to our community and country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like today to discuss an issue that is on the horizon that could very well affect the economic freedom of Americans, especially their family's prosperity and happiness. It is an issue that I would also like to thank the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Representative Frank, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Representative Kanjorski, for bringing forward. The issue I am talking about is the issue of sovereign wealth funds. Many people will question what is a sovereign wealth fund. The answer is very simple. A sovereign wealth fund is a fund that is controlled by a foreign government that then invests into the private market of the United States. Many people, especially those within my own party, disturbingly think sovereign wealth funds are a wonderful way to inject capital into the United States. The reality is these are very dangerous instrumentalities of foreign nations and would allow for the potential interference of these foreign nations in our domestic affairs, and not only within our economic sphere. One of the reasons I joined the Republican Party was because I oppose socialism, communism; and I wanted to advance the cause of liberty. A sovereign wealth fund denies all of those. Again, a sovereign wealth fund is controlled by a government. Those who recall economics can understand that when a government buys an asset from the private sector, when the government owns it, the product or service has been ``nationalized.'' This is the root of socialism. Government buys something in the private sector, socialism gets bigger, free markets and free enterprise and free people get diminished. This is the root problem of a sovereign wealth fund. It will diminish the economic liberty of individuals in the face of governments that are trying to control free enterprise. We should not have this occurring in the United States of America, the bastion of free enterprise conducted by free people. The second problem I have with sovereign wealth funds grows from the first: a foreign country controls this fund. This is not protectionism of anything except Americans' liberty, prosperity, sovereignty, and security. The Communist Chinese have one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world. As they continue to tell us, although few people seem to understand that they are serious, they remain communists. The communist sovereign wealth fund from China comes in and buys private assets in the United States. Those government assets are now socialized; and, again, your freedom, liberty, prosperity, and security are diminished and there is a huge problem with this in the hands of the Communist Chinese. In addition, whereas in the free market private investment funds have to raise capital voluntarily from individuals and then make rational decisions based upon the profit motive, a sovereign government's wealth fund is allowed to take and spend and invest. They spend and invest that which they take from their people. They have no accountability to these citizens, and they can invest for a political motive. These entities of sovereign wealth funds are antithetical to private sector free market investment. And, again, when they are forced to operate on a private sector profit motive, the sovereign wealth fund can operate on a political motive, which may or may not be in the long- term interests of the people of the United States. So for two reasons I would like to go on record immediately in my opposition to sovereign wealth funds in any nation's hands being invested in the United States and socializing our private sector assets. And I would like to also especially emphasize my abject contempt for nations that are opposed to the United States' continued existence as a bastion of liberty being able to buy up influence within the United States based upon a solely political motive, and that political motive is not in the people's best interests. So to my fellow Republicans I would ask them to remember why they are Republicans, to remember that we have the duty to advance the economic liberty of Americans and to protect and preserve their liberty and prosperity and security, and ask them to reassess these sovereign wealth funds. Because no matter how much money they inject into our economy to socialize private sector assets, the cost we are going to pay to the long-term vitality of our free people is too high a price to tender to the very enemies of our existence.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor Robert Walter Deacon, a beloved coach and community leader, and mourn him upon his passing at age 78. Robert Deacon was born in Brooklyn, NY, on May, 30 1929. An accomplished athlete, Robert earned nine varsity letters in high school before attending Georgetown University and playing quarterback for their football team. When Georgetown discontinued their football program in 1953, Robert transferred to the University of Vermont where he played football and baseball, eventually earning a place in the school's Sports Hall of Fame for football. After school, Robert dedicated his life to teaching children the values he cherished including hard work, sportsmanship, and fair play. Mr. Deacon served as a city parks and recreation commissioner and became a fixture of the Livonia baseball fields and basketball courts for decades, where he often found time to heckle opposing players, like me. Robert coached his five sons in little league baseball and basketball from the 1960s through the 1980s. While very competitive, as a coach, Robert always made sure to stress sportsmanship among his players and helped them learn from their mistakes. Following his retirement Robert worked as a field manager for many years on Livonia's Ford Field baseball diamonds and on basketball courts at George N. Bentley High School and then the community recreation center. Regrettably on February 13, 2008, after a battle with lung cancer, Robert passed away. He will be remembered as a kind supportive man who was devoted to his family, especially his grandchildren. To his wife, Marjorie; his children Bob (Julie), Bill (Christine), Tom (Patricia), Tim (Caroline), and Kevin (Sue); his grandchildren David, Michelle, Andy (Christine), Jimmy, Peter, Hannah, Jackie, Mitchell, Matt, Caileigh, Rachel, Laura, and Charlie; his sisters Dorothy MacNaughton and Eileen Hartke; and to everyone who knew and loved him, he was a dedicated member of his community who will be truly missed. Madam Speaker, during his lifetime, Robert Walter Deacon enriched the lives of everyone around him by serving as an exemplary role model and teacher. As we bid farewell to this extraordinary individual, I ask my colleagues to join me in mourning his passing and honoring his years of loyal service to our community and country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge Sue Mason upon receiving the Women of Westland's 2008 ATHENA Award. The ATHENA Award recognizes individuals who have attained and personified the highest level of professional excellence in their business or profession, have devoted time and energy to the community in a meaningful way, and have opened the door of leadership opportunity for women. Throughout her distinguished career Sue has been committed to her family and community. Mrs. Mason faithfully serves as the community editor for the Westland and Garden City Observer newspaper. Her community service activities revolve around her children's education and athletics as she supports the Wayne-Westland Soccer Association, and she is a valued member of the Garden City Public School's Foundation for Educational Excellence committee. Sue has earned numerous awards throughout the years for her service and professional conduct including being named the O&E Journalist of the Year and being recognized by the Westland Civitans as their Citizen of the Year. Sue has also been honored by the Michigan PTA and Wayne-Westland community schools for her exemplary coverage of educational issues. Sue has been described as ``a well-rounded, thoughtful individual who is a genuine asset to our local journalistic community.'' Of all her accomplishments, Sue is most proud of her family, and celebrates this honor with her husband Bob and her children Bobby and Carol Lee. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending sincere congratulations to this year's ATHENA Award winner, Sue Mason, for her dedication to professional excellence and commitment to her community and country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge Dr. Richard Witkowski, Superintendent of the Garden City Public Schools, upon his retirement from a distinguished 41-year career in education. For just over four decades, Superintendent Witkowski has served the citizens of Wayne County. Richard began his 39-year tenure with the Garden City Public Schools in 1969 after 2 years with the Gibraltar schools. Throughout his distinguished career with the Garden City Public Schools, Richard served as both an educator and administrator. Mr. Witkowski began as a mathematics and science teacher at Garden City East High School in 1969 before moving across town and becoming Assistant Principal at Garden City West High School in 1971. Mr. Witkowski discovered an innate talent for administration, being promoted to director in the central office in 1974, business manager for the district in 1985, associate superintendent, and superintendent in 2001. Superintendent Witkowski will be best remembered for his dedication, both to his job and community. Shortly after his promotion to superintendent, Richard was tested with several crises, including the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and a bacterial meningitis outbreak at the high school, which resulted in a first-ever schoolwide inoculation of the students. He also oversaw the rebuilding of the district's five elementary schools, assisting school staff in directing students to buses, which would take students to their temporary classrooms. Witkowski remains active in the community as a member of the Garden City Rotary and the Garden City Chamber of Commerce. Richard has served as president of both organizations and currently serves as treasurer of the Rotary. Superintendent Witkowski will also continue his commitment to education and connection with students through the class he teaches at Madonna University in Livonia. Madam Speaker, for 41 years Superintendent Richard Witkowski has faithfully served Michigan citizens of all ages. As he enters the next phase of his life, he leaves behind a legacy of dedication, integrity, and excellence. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Superintendent Richard Witkowski upon his retirement and recognizing his years of loyal service to our community's and country's future.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge the State of Michigan school board members in observance of School Board Recognition Month for their service and unwavering commitment to our children and our schools. The Michigan Association of School Boards was founded in 1949 to provide a united voice for the thousands of men and women who champion the cause of public education as board members. Michigan's 4,100 school board members contribute hundreds of hours each year leading their districts by adopting policies, hiring superior personnel and administrators, and listening to staff, parent and student concerns. Through their tireless motivation and many contributions, school board members have distinguished themselves as compassionate individuals who are deeply committed to educating our children. These members have sought to ensure every child is given the opportunity to learn and succeed. Also, their many contributions serve as a fine example to inspire others. The Michigan Association of School Boards launched the National School Board Recognition program in Michigan in 1989, in which only five states chose to celebrate this special month. Subsequently, the National School Board Association's Delegate Assembly resolved to initiate National School Board Recognition Month in 1995. Other States followed suit by annually recognizing their local school board members' service and commitment to their children and schools. January 2008 marks the annual observance of this year's School Board Recognition Month. This year's theme is ``School Boards Lead Strong.'' This theme reflects school board members' combined commitment to leadership and accountability in ensuring all children succeed. Madam Speaker, for 59 years, Michigan state school board members have exemplified civic duty by making decisions which fundamentally enrich the quality of education for over 1.7 million Michigan students. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating these school board members upon observance of School Board Recognition Month; and recognizing their years of loyal commitment to education which has, undoubtedly, helped to create exceptional scholars and citizens.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge Scott Knepshield, Fire Captain in the Wayne Fire Department, upon his retirement from a distinguished 22-year career in Wayne, Michigan. Fire Captain Knepshield has dedicated his life to helping others. Upon graduation from Churchill High School in Livonia, Michigan, Scott joined the United States Army and served honorably from 1975 to 1977. Following his service to our country, Scott attended Madonna University, where he received his emergency Medical Technician certification. Scott joined the Wayne Fire Department on June 26, 1985, and continued his employment with the department for 22 years. Scott has been a valuable member of the Department, being promoted to Lieutenant on January 2, 1998, and Fire Captain in February 2000, where he served until December 12, 2007. In his pursuit of public service, Fire Captain Knepshield has attended the National Fire Academy in Emmetsburg, Maryland, served as a Michigan State Fire Inspector, and earned a certification from the State of Michigan as a licensed Paramedic. Fire Captain Knepshield has also been associated with the Metropolitan Detroit Fire Inspectors, the Michigan Fire Inspectors Society, and has been an energetic and vocal member of the Wayne Fire Fighters Local 1620 for his entire career. Scott looks forward to more time with his wife of 32 years, Mary, and their daughter Melissa, who attends college at Grand Valley State University. Madam Speaker, in honor of his commitment to protecting the citizens of Michigan and his dedication to serving the residents of Wayne, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Fire Captain Scott Knepshield for his years of service to our community and our country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge Timothy Reynolds, Fire Chief of the Wayne Fire Department, upon his retirement from a distinguished twenty-five-year career in public service. For over two decades, since joining the Wayne Fire Department on June 24, 1982, Fire Chief Reynolds has served the citizens of Wayne, Michigan with distinction. Throughout his career with the department, Timothy served in numerous capacities having been promoted to Lieutenant in December 1994, Captain in 1997, and Fire Chief in 2003 where he served until December 14, 2007. Timothy Reynolds worked tirelessly to further his education and sharpen his abilities in order to better serve the citizens of Wayne. Fire Chief Reynolds holds numerous degrees and certifications, including a degree in Fire Science Technology from Henry Ford Community College, a State of Michigan certified Paramedic license, and a Fire Inspector certification with the Michigan State Fire Marshal Office. Fire Chief Reynolds has served as the Emergency Program Manager for the City of Wayne and is an active member of the International Association of Arson Investigators, the Michigan Fire Chiefs Association, and the Southeastern Michigan Fire Chiefs Association. Among his many accomplishments, Fire Chief Reynolds remains most proud of his family, which includes his wife of twenty-nine years, Shannon, and their three children, Jennifer, Neil, and Maureen. Madam Speaker, for twenty-five years Fire Chief Reynolds has faithfully served the citizen of Michigan. As he enters the next phase of his life, he leaves behind a legacy of dedication, honor, and courage. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Fire Chief Timothy Reynolds upon his retirement and recognizing his years of loyal service to our community and country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, I know that it is getting close to closing time, and I am in the unenviable position of being between so many good people and the door, so I will try to make sure that I give a truncated version of my simple desultory philippic to my constituents. We in Congress are charged with the sacred duty of heeding and serving our constituents' aspirations and addressing their tribulations. We also have the responsibility of offering them a national vision and purpose and, most importantly, of putting them first in policymaking, which is why I have risen today to again lay before my constituents what I believe to be the four great generational challenges facing the United States of America. Like the Greatest Generation, we face four challenges. The Greatest Generation, due to the rise of industrialization, faced social, economic and political turmoil. They faced a world war for freedom against an abjectly evil enemy. They faced the rise of the Soviet superstate as a rival model of governance and strategic threat, and they faced the moral question of whether the constitutional rights of all Americans applied equally regardless of race. This generation of Americans in the age of globalization faces social, political and economic turmoil. We face a world war for freedom against an intrinsically evil enemy. We face the rise of the Communist Chinese superstate as a rival model of governance and strategic threat, and we face the question of whether moral relativism will erode the foundations of a Nation built upon self- evident truths. The Greatest Generation faced their challenges consecutively. This generation of Americans faces their challenges simultaneously. In the past year, this Congress, sometimes together, sometimes not, have striven to address some of these challenges, and I would like to quickly go through a couple of them. In the area of globalization's economic, social and political upheavals, we have seen a continued emphasis on the role of the centralized Federal Government. This is done through taxation, increases in taxation and increases in spending. It is my belief that if we continue to build the monument to Big Government on the backs of the American taxpayer, we will exacerbate the economic and social turmoil, and, yes, political turmoil that they are experiencing. I believe what we need to do is go back to the fundamental concept and change the debate. The debate about people's money staying in their pockets and about the government spending people's money, which was taken from their pockets, should be this: We must stop discussing how quickly government spending grows and start getting back to talking about how quickly government spending is reduced, because this directly affects the liberty, sovereignty and prosperity of the American people. And, at least in my District, they feel they are in short supply of their own money and don't believe the Federal Government needs to take more from them. In the war for freedom, we have seen a change of course in Iraq. It has been contentious and it has been difficult on the political level here in Washington. But, fortunately, progress in Iraq and with our troops is occurring. There is a long way to go, as we know from the fact that so many of our friends and family members that are serving in the military are not home with us for this holiday Christmas season. But what we have seen, and I want to explain it again, is a fundamental change of course in this sense. The past mistakes of the reconstruction effort were based upon the imposition of a system, a system of governance and a system that was perceived to lead to prosperity. What is now being done, which is much more important and is a lesson for future generations of American policymakers, is that democracy cannot be imposed, liberty can be unleashed. When liberty is unleashed, when a people finally breathe free, as General Petraeus' plan recognizes, we must help them fashion their representative institutions in their own way. In Iraq, this is being seen through local reconciliation, where you're beginning to see people who are finally out from underneath the oppressive Saddam Hussein regime and starting to come out from the oppressive reign of terror of al Qaeda and other murderers in the country who would take it back to a time when the government ruled through the bullet rather than through the ballot. What we are seeing is them working with tribal leaders, religious leaders, pillars of order in their community, to begin to reconcile themselves to each other, to begin to recognize the future that they may have if they remain free and resolute in the face of evil. And you are beginning to see this national reconciliation lead to the reduction of violence in Iraq, and you will continue to see it if we remain courageous and remain prudent in our policies. You will continue to see this grow and evolve into a national reconciliation process. Again, this will not happen overnight, but at least this has occurred. Unfortunately, in my mind, on the third great generational challenge we face, which is Communist China's rise as a strategic threat and rival model of governance, the administration and this Congress have largely continued their policy of unconditional engagement. I think the American people are much further ahead of policymakers in this instance. As we have recently seen from the U.S.-China Economic Security Review Commission's report, people who are worried about dangerous imported products from Communist China should be. According to the Economic Security Review Commission's report, because of the closed system of the communist government in China, it is impossible or extremely difficult with any certainty to determine what products are defective or not before they arrive, and it is going to be increasingly difficult as time goes on as the regime consolidates its hold, which means that there is no simple resolution to the issue. We are trying to allow imports from Communist China to come in by spending more American taxpayer moneys on customs or inspections to allow these products to come in, because we will never know with certainty whether they are defective or not because, again, the closed nature of the Communist Chinese regime. We have also seen in the area of national security repeated attacks by the People's Liberation Army through attacks on America's existing computer networks, both in industry and financial services, and in the United States Government itself. For example, what the Communist Chinese Government likes to do is set up front companies for people who are former members of the People's Liberation Army, and in this instance, we use the name Huawei, that is what it is called, which is trying to purchase a major U.S. supplier of cyberdefense technologies. Now, this is still, at my last understanding, pending in front of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, despite the fact that our own Office for National Intelligence has told us this is a strategic threat to the United States. Now, how is this occurring? This is occurring because people wish to refuse to believe that the Communist Chinese Government is engaged in massive espionage against the United States of America, both in terms of our private sector and in terms of our public sector, i.e., our Pentagon as being one prime example. The reason that Americans or their policymakers are so loath to recognize this fact is because there is not a whole lot of support to be anticommunist anywhere, except from the American people. Well, I prefer to have that support than any kind of political or economic elite's momentary approbation. In fact, it was the Economic Security Commission's report that actually steeled my convictions and helped me with this, because we were now able to tell people that according to the Economic Security Review Commission, Communist China's espionage against the United States firms and our governmental entities is likely the number one strategic threat that we are facing at the present time. So we will continue to work and push on this, not only because this is a strategic threat to us, but also, more importantly, the second part of the equation. Communist China is presenting itself to the world as a rival model of governance to Western democracies. The fundamental tenet of the Communist Chinese approach is this: That liberty is a danger to their people's prosperity and security. I am going to repeat this. The Communist Chinese Government believes that its own people's liberty are a danger, a danger to their stability and prosperity. This is a direct contradiction to what we believe here in America and in the free world is that people's liberty leads to a nation's stability and prosperity. The reason this is dangerous is we need not look any further than Time Magazine's current Man of the Year to see that this school of thought, this neo-communism has advocates amongst people who were former communists, such as the former President of Russia, Lieutenant Colonel Retired Vladimir Putin. As we watch Russia slide from the first steps in democracy back towards autocracy, it is Putin who is telling his people that their liberty stopped their prosperity and stability under the Yeltsin years, and if they just cede more liberty, they will again have stability and they will finally have prosperity. Other tyrants throughout the world are watching this, from Chavez in Venezuela to Castro in Cuba, who is still clinging to power, and they are watching to see in the coming years, in the coming decades, what will be the preferred model of governance in the world. Now, we know what the dictators would like. We know what all those who would subjugate their fellow human beings beneath their ideological bents would prefer to see. They would prefer to see liberty considered a danger, a threat, to humanity's stability and prosperity. We will find them continuing to echo the siren song that we hear from people in Beijing and Moscow and elsewhere that echoes the words that we heard from Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor, ``Give them miracle, mystery and authority, but above all, give them bread.'' It is a materialist philosophy, it is a cynical philosophy, it is a neocommunist philosophy which we in the United States and the free world must reject. We must again reassert the primacy of liberty to all human beings as their divine right endowed to them by their creator and that the view of our free people that the future belongs to free nations, remains intact, not only for ourselves, but for all those who are oppressed and yearning to breathe free. In the fourth area, the question of moral relativism eroding our foundational truth, we see this every day. We see this every day in the areas of faith, family, community and country. This Congress needs to do more to help reaffirm the historic role and the critical role that it currently plays, that faith currently plays in the lives of the American people and in the life and perpetuation of the American Republic. Fortunately, Congressman Randy Forbes, I believe, is going to be introducing a resolution to do just this, and to remind people that the constitutional right under the first amendment is to the free exercise of free religion. It is not for the freedom from religion. It is not for the excoriation of religion and faith from the public square. In the area of family, we continue to see erosions by the State upon the parents' sovereign and I believe inviolable powers to impart their moral teachings to their children. We have seen this in Maine, where the situation was presented to parents where if you did not want your child to get birth control under the school medical program, then your child would get no health care at all. This is a diabolical dilemma presented to parents, and there are some that are occurring throughout the country in various locales that are unreported, and this must stop. A parent's right to raise their child and impart their moral teachings to them, the inviability of the parental family structure, of the parent-child relationship, must be respected by this government, must be respected by all governments, and we must take appropriate steps to see that that continues. In the area of community, we must do more to ensure that the voluntary mediating institutions, nongovernmental institutions, remain intact as a buffer between the sovereign American people and their subservient government. What de Tocqueville saw when he went through the United States of America and what he expressed to us must always be remembered, that the true strength of America lies in its voluntary associations and its individual senses of community, which then grow upward into the grand Republic which we now have inherited. If the government goes out of its way to continue to make it difficult for people to join volunteer associations or begins to let it be known or to subtly or directly try to coerce volunteer associations as the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, or such as Rotaries, Kiwanises and Chambers of Commerce, or, yes, labor unions, if these voluntary associations are infringed or encroached or eclipsed by the Federal Government, we are going to continue to see an atomization of individuals from their sense of community and we will continue to see a devolution of the true public purpose that is expressed by citizens in our Republic even today. Finally, in the area of country, certainly we must do more to remind Americans not only of their civic rights and duties as citizens of the United States, but also the history of the United States. How can any individual citizen who is unaware of their rights, who is unaware of their duties, who is unaware of how a bill becomes law, how a constitutional amendment is adopted, how Congress spends money or who has the power of the purse, if they do not understand this, if they do not understand the history of their country, where we have been, where we are going, where we hope to, then they will be like lambs led before the shepherd of big government, because they will not know how to think for themselves in relation to government nor how to defend themselves from government actions and policies when necessary. This fourth area we must not overlook, because in many ways it is one of the most critical. That is why when in facing these challenges, I believe it is important that we remember our shared American philosophical heritage, which is this: Men and women are transcendent children of God, equally endowed by their creator with inalienable rights. Secondly, government was instituted to defend citizens' inalienable rights and to facilitate citizens' pursuit of good and true happiness. Third, over the generations, divine providence has established and revealed through tradition, prescriptive rights and custom within communities, how order, justice and freedom, each essential, coequal and mutually reinforcing, are best arranged and nurtured for humanity to pursue the good and true happiness. Finally, human happiness is endangered by every political ideology, for each is premised upon abstract ideas. Each claims a superior insight into human nature not revealed through historical experience, each proffers a secular utopia unattainable by an imperfect humanity, and each demands an omnipotent centralized government to forcefully impose its vision upon an unenlightened and unwilling population. This is a shared heritage that transcends simply Republicanism or Democratism, for this is what was in the seminal documents of our Nation and this is what our Founders set out to do. It is from this shared philosophical tradition that we have been able to see in the United States the creation and perpetuation, even up to our generation, of American excellence. Now, American excellence has a foundation and four cornerstones. Each of these is mutually reinforcing. Americans understand that our excellence is built upon a foundation of liberty, and the four cornerstones are sovereignty, security, prosperity and truth. If we think about them individually, it becomes much more clear. Your liberty comes from God, not the government. Your sovereignty is in your soul, not in the soil. Your security comes not from the thin hopes of appeasement, your security comes from our collective love of liberty and from the courage of our fellow citizen soldiers who defend us in hours of maximum danger. Our prosperity comes from the innovation and perspiration of free people engaged in free enterprise, not from the growth of a government or from centralized planning or from higher taxes or from increased government spending. And, finally, our truths are communal. They have preserved over time. They have been perpetuated by families and institutions of faith and voluntary associations, and we revere them every day by voluntarily celebrating a culture of life. This is what American exceptionalism is supported by. If we turn our back on that concept, then America is no longer an excellent Nation. If we go back and try to determine that somehow America exists to emulate other nations rather than America existing to inspire the world, we will be cheating our future generations of Americans of the legacy which we ourselves have inherited and which we ourselves so enjoy. It seems to me that in this period of time that is very difficult, we must also make sure that we remember to have two goals as elected officials in this Congress. I think that the first goal we should have is to prevent the centralized Federal Government from growing ever larger and unaccountable by taking citizens' liberty and prosperity. And that is what happens through taxing and spending powers. And we must also reduce and decentralize the Federal Government and empower Americans to exercise their inherited and inalienable rights within a culture of faith, family, community, and country. To obtain these goals, I believe that we must take the following critical steps: One, we must empower the sovereign American people to protect and promote their God-given and constitutionally recognized and protected rights. All policies that we pursue should promote the decentralization of Federal governmental powers to the American people or to their most appropriate and closest unit of government. I believe we must also defend Americans' enduring moral order of faith, family, community, and country from all enemies. We must foster a dynamic market of entrepreneurial opportunity for all Americans. And we must honor and nurture humanity of scale and Americans' relations and endeavors. This last point I would like to emphasize a little more directly. In the age of globalization, much like the age of industrialization, average Americans often felt that so many things were occurring to them outside of their control that they felt almost impotent in the face of the major changes that were occurring to them and radically altering their traditional way of life and their livelihoods. Fortunately, in the age of industrialization, Presidents with vision from Theodore Roosevelt to Franklin Roosevelt were able to help Americans through that transformational time. We too must have such sagacity, because we too must recognize that in the age of globalization Americans oftentimes feel powerless against many of the forces that are shaping and radically altering their lives. And they look to the Federal Government, their duly elected servants, to try to help make sense of it, to try to help alleviate their sense of danger. And we must do this. We must do this with empathy, we must do this with creativity, we must do it with integrity. For to simply deny it does not exist or to simply say that somehow there are these mechanical determinative forces out there that no one can control such as globalization is not to do the American people justice, it is not to do ourselves any honor, or to provide to ourselves any honor in their service. We can impact decisions that are the result of human decisions. Globalization is not a deterministic, mechanistic force, much as Engels and Marx said communism was and much as many of the globalists today say free trade is or any other economic determinative. This is not outside of people's control. People can still think their way through it. They can make sound policies within your Federal Government, with your help. And we can try to get through this difficult time with as little social, economic and political turmoil as we can. Or, instead, we can turn a blind eye to it, and we can watch as people continue to suffer many of the effects of globalization which could be ameliorated and which must be ameliorated. Madam Speaker, I know the hour is late so I will not dawdle much longer. But I just want to say that while we have come to find ourselves in a global age, it is a perilous global age, but it is not a global age without hope. We are not the first generation of Americans; we are not the first people on this earth to face momentous challenges. And I believe that, like our fellow Americans before us and so many Americans, we will meet these challenges and we will transcend them. I believe we will preserve American excellence. I believe we will promote and defend the institutions of faith, family, community, and country against all enemies. And I believe that one day future generations of Americans will look back and say, well, they argued a lot; but they had a lot to argue about, but in the end they managed to get it right and we remain a free people. And I believe that the United States of America then, to the rest of the world, will be an inspiration to them for all the oppressed, for all those who yearn to breathe free, and that they will never lose hope that some day they, too, will enjoy in their own homes what we enjoy in ours. Again, it will not be easy, it will not be immediate, but it will be done. We will preserve our shared heritage of freedom, and we will ensure that the permanent things amidst our ephemeral existence are preserved for future generations to come, because it is imperative that we make sure that things such as love, truth, beauty, justice, and honor remain because they surpasseth all politics and they give meaning to our somewhat troubled and yet ultimately majestic existence. Madam Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks by expressing my personal and my constituents' sincere appreciation and heartfelt prayers for the men and women who are serving the cause of freedom overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere throughout the world, as well as extending them to their families. May God continue to bless them and all of the majestic American people.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, in the immediate aftermath of World War II, at the commencement of our Cold War against the Soviet Union and international communism, in his blunt, son of the middle border manner, President Harry Truman enunciated the eponymous doctrine he would apply to this challenge during his March 12, 1947, address to a joint session of Congress. ``I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or outside pressures. I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way. I believe that our help should be primarily through economic and financial aid which is essential to economic stability and orderly political processes. ``One way of life is based upon the will of the majority, and is distinguished by free institutions, representative government, free elections, guarantees of individual liberty, freedom of speech and of religion, and freedom from political oppression. The second way of life is based upon the will of a minority forcibly opposed upon the majority. It relies upon terror and oppression, a controlled press and radio fixed elections, and the suppression of personal freedoms. ``The seeds of totalitarian regimes are nurtured by misery and want. They spread and grow in the evil soil of poverty and strife. They reach their full growth when the hope of a people for a better life has died. We must keep that hope alive. ``The free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms. If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world and we shall surely endanger the welfare of our own nation.'' Regarding the Soviet Union, in the face of experts' arguments, Stalin's imperialist dictatorship should be psychologically understood and indulged to purchase an illusory peace, Truman morally comprehended this evil empire's threat to the United States and the Free World. Through the United Nations, multilateral and bilateral treaties, his strategy to contain and defeat inhuman communism called for the United States to champion the cause of human liberty and dignity. We heeded his call, and, through American leadership and sacrifice, the Soviets' evil empire imploded and Eastern Europeans and the Russian people experienced a new birth of freedom. This victory of humanity over tyranny must not lull us into the conceit liberty is now without enemies or invincible in their face. For we must always remember our Founders' caution: ``We will give you a republic, if you can keep it.'' Today, as we confront a barbarous terrorist enemy and the rise of another Communist superstate, China, it is wise to reexamine President Truman's sound strategy, revise it as appropriate to our circumstances, and defeat the enemies of our free Republic and the free world. A revision I propose is this: We can no longer rely on any part on the United Nations for the preservation of American or human freedom. For global altruists afflicted with cognitive dissonance, in a likely futile effort, let us remind them of the U.N.'s recent, execrable acts against the human liberty and dignity it was founded to defend. The U.N. humanitarian aid program, Oil-for-Food, provided little bread for Iraqis but large bribes for Hussein, his regime, U.N. cronies, and likely terrorists. Estimates are Saddam's dictatorship siphoned $10 billion from the program through oil smuggling and systematic thievery, and illegal payments and kickbacks from international contractors, all beneath the nonjudgmental gaze of U.N. bureaucrats who were nevertheless judged culpable for gross incompetence, mismanagement and potential complicity with Saddam in perpetrating the biggest corruption scandal in human history. Secondly, widespread instances and allegations of the sexual exploitation of Congolese women, girls, and boys were leveled against the U.N. personnel sent to protect them. The particulars of this barbaric sexual abuse are unfit for this forum. Thirdly, the U.N.'s waste, fraud, and malfeasance has turned tawdry graft into a global art, an epic debacle of avarice less worthy of journalist than a satirist. As one U.N. peacekeeping staffer informed the Inter Press Service News Agency: ``Corruption and kickbacks were taken for granted in most overseas operations.'' Though not in a New York Federal Court where, on June 7, the former top U.N. procurement official, Sanjaya Bahel, was convicted of steering $100 million worth of U.N. peacekeeping contracts to the family of a personal friend. U.N. officials refuse to explain how Bahel was twice exonerated by its internal investigations, while a New York jury convicted him of fraud and corruption in half a day. These are not the acts of the U.N. envisioned by President Franklin Roosevelt in his March 1, 1945, address before the Congress on the Yalta Conference. ``A common ground for peace ought to spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balances of power, and all other expedients that have been tried for centuries and have always failed. We propose to substitute for all these a universal organization in which all peace-loving organizations will finally have a chance to join.'' Weighed against Roosevelt's words, the U.N. is deemed wanting, and the reason is revealed. A universal organization will include peace- loving nations and tyrannical regimes. Consequently, all of the exclusive alliances, spheres of influence, balances of power, and all other expedients which occurred and failed for centuries outside of a universal organization have now occurred and failed this century inside the United Nations. Unlike Roosevelt, Truman viewed the U.N. as a future hope, not an immediate panacea. Though personally honest, Truman was versed in Boss Tom Pendergast's political machine, and so understood the U.N.'s membership's math boded ill for free people. Today, according to Freedom House, of the 192 U.N. member states, 89 are fully free and 103 are not. Thus, a solid majority of 54 percent of member states know liberty directly threatens their survival, which requires the suppression of their own peoples and, through their U.N. membership, the entire human community. While it is said that words cannot hurt, the majority-ruled General Assembly's resolutions and speeches can and do hurt free peoples. As reporter Claudia Rosett poignantly observes: ``What may appear to an American audience as irrelevant and even tedious theater is anything but harmless. The speeches on that U.N. stage are not, as a rule, meant for Americans, nor even for the multilateral audience in the chamber. Especially amongst repressive regimes, they are beamed to home countries and regional neighbors as evidence of the dignity and respect enjoyed by these governments at the world's leading conclave of nations. They feature as one more blow to the courageous Burmese monks, the hungry North Koreans, the desperate opposition in Zimbabwe, and the democrats who risk prison when they raise their voices in places such as Syria and Iran.'' This holds true at the U.N. Security Council and its Human Rights Councils, from which a few bitter vignettes painted an abhorrent portrait. The U.N.'s Permanent Security Council includes a nuclear armed communist China and an increasingly authoritarian Russia. Their unsettling synergy of interests and actions on this body ominously echoes the heights of their Cold War cooperation. Consider: Despite over a decade of U.S. protestations, communist China and Putin's Russia are the top exporters of nuclear technology, chemical weapons, precursors and guided missiles to Iran. In 2004, the U.S.-China Security and Review Commission declared, ``Chinese entities continue to assist Iran with dual-use missile-related items, raw materials, and chemical weapons-related technology''; and further noted that these transfers took place after the communist Chinese Government's 2003 pledge to withhold missile technology from the Iranian regime. Looking at the U.N. Human Rights Council, some members are more suited to a rogue's gallery than a roster of righteous nations. Soon, the U.N. will enthrone as arbiters of human rights regimes like communist China, communist Cuba, Putin's Russia, and Saudi Arabia. Only the U.N. would put oppressed people's hopes in such blood-stained hands. Our association with this insanity exacts a steep price. Since 1945, the United States has been the U.N.'s largest annual contributor. In 2006, American taxpayers forked over $423.5 million in dues, or 22 percent of the U.N.'s regular budget, and over $5.3 billion in total funds to the United Nations. Nevertheless, the U.S. and all other free nations remain the targets of the U.N.'s member regimes' internal intrigues and corrupt practices. Two statistics define this function. Only 46 percent of the U.N.'s members are free nations. All of the top 10 financial contributors to the U.N. are free nations. In a crystalline instant are the U.N.'s symptoms manifest, its disease diagnosed, and its prognosis shameful: The U.N. is a global Tammany Hall lethal to the liberty and dignity of our human family. In our time, we face challenges equivalent to those posed to President Truman. Once more, the United States and the entire free world face a global, generational war for freedom against vicious enemies bent upon our destruction. To win, our devotion to liberty must transcend their obsession with death. This cannot be accomplished by fecklessly continuing to rely upon a debauched U.N. for our collective security. Recall Truman: ``It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.'' So, it remains in our global age, wherein a world convinced by an Internet cannot endure half slave and half free. Our survival at stake, all free nations must prudently diminish their participation in a debased U.N., and unite in the cause of human dignity and liberty. Encircled at the U.N., we have no more time to entreat with wolves in our midst. Best we hold them at bay in their lair, and forge a course for the world's new birth of freedom. Our new course is a Liberty Alliance. Similar to the Community of Democracies, which could be transformed into this more focused and potent international organization for freedom, the Liberty Alliance must be founded upon the self-evident truth, all human beings are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and, it must be steeped in the wisdom that extending liberty to the the enslaved will ensure liberty for ourselves. The Liberty Alliance must be composed of free nations dedicated to expanding human liberty to peoples yet free. Member nations must meet a mutually agreed-upon criteria of human and civil rights. Observer nations must be domestically expanding their people's liberty and, upon attaining the agreed-upon criteria for membership, shall be admitted into the Alliance. Importantly, member nations which diminish their people's liberty beyond the agreed-upon criteria, must be demoted to observer status and, when necessary, expelled from the Alliance. The governing structure of the Liberty Alliance shall be determined by its member nations, with the objective being the maximization of transparency, equity, and democracy in accordance with the effective expansion of human liberty and dignity. In accordance with Truman's doctrine, the Alliance ``must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way.'' Ergo, the Alliance's emphasis must be upon liberty, wherein human beings individually and communally shape the nature, form, and functions of their representative institutions, not upon abstract notions of uniformity, like western democracy or democratic capitalism, presumptuous and too often destabilizing impositions upon peoples trying to seize their freedom and shape their destinies as they deem fit. Heeding Truman's assessment, ``The seeds of totalitarian strife are nurtured by misery and want, poverty and strife, and reach their growth when the hope of a people for a better life has died.'' In order to foster liberty, the Alliance must advance human liberty and dignity through diplomatic, political, economic, and cultural initiatives aimed at empowering and emancipating the individual, their communities, and their emerging democratic governments from dictatorial rule. The Alliance must not have a military component. But member and observer nations will retain their powers to continue or commence security agreements with other free countries through bilateral and multilateral treaties. Never must any member or observer nation's rights be infringed upon by the Alliance. Now, two sanguine hopes. The U.S. must lead the establishment of the Liberty Alliance; and, secondly, the Liberty Alliance's headquarters shall be sited on the free soil once scarred colonialism, communism, fascism, world wars, and the Holocaust. I speak of Eastern Europe, where, cradled in the intrepid human spirit, liberty's lamp triumphantly pierced these benighted recesses of evil. In heralding the Liberty Alliance, we do not invite the free world to exit the U.N. Especially by participating in a democracy caucus, the United States and all free nations should remain in the U.N. to advance or defend liberty by keeping her enemies close. But we must not be so mad as to continue paying through the nose to be kicked in our assets. So, a simple proposal. No free nation will pay more to the U.N. than does it lowest paying tyrants, like North Korea and Burma, who contribute only $170,660, or 1/100 percent of the U.N.'s regular budget. Free nations' monies and personnel spared from the U.N. shall be dedicated to the Liberty Alliance or returned to taxpayers. Doubtless, discombobulated global sophisticates will decry the Liberty Alliance as undesirable and/or impossible. They are overwrought and best ignored. For as we know: ``The day is short; the task is great.'' But we will not withdraw from it. The United States and all free peoples are cemented and steeled by the harmonic bonds of liberty, comity, and duty. Like Harry Truman and the greatest generations of both our nations, to date, we will not bend, we will not break in our reasoned faith in a future graced by free nations. ``We (will) keep that hope alive.'' Toiling our way up to that day, may God grant all free peoples the strength to be as He in Marie Syrkin's verse, ``The Strongest'': ``I'll be the strongest amid you, not lightning, stream or mountain blue, but dew that falling to the Earth gives birth. ``I'll be the strongest in my hour, and lofty tree and quiet flower will both drink gratefully from me. ``I'll be the strongest in the land. I'll be the word that heals, the hand that unseen and still, as from above, gives love.'' Mr. Speaker, may it be. And may God continue to grace, guard, guide and bless the people of the United States and our entire human family.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, as my Republican Party completes its first year in the minority since 1994, we find ourselves held in historically low regard by the sovereign American people. To end this trend, Republicans must accurately assess our party's past and present failings; and its future prospects of again providing Americans a meaningful choice between the major parties. This remain, after all, a party's duty to the citizenry. For my GOP to fulfill it, first we must bury our ideological dead. Safely on this side of the cleansing mists of memory, it is chic to eulogize the late Republican majority. From the chattering class few insights emerge, for in the aftermath, only poetry is an apt epitaph. ``The world is too much with us; late and soon; getting and spending we lay waste our powers; little we see in nature that is ours. We have given our hearts away. A sordid boon.'' Such was the Republican bathos: A transformational majority sinned and slipped into a transactional ``cashocracy.'' Promises, policies, principles, all bartered, even honor. The majority now is of the ages. May it rest in peace. And be redeemed. Once, George Santayana cautioned: ``Those who do not learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.'' If our current Republican minority guilefully refutes or gutlessly refuses to admit, accept and atone for the bitter fruits of its lapsed majority, it will continue to decline in the eyes of the American electorate. Thus, for the sake of our Nation in this time of transformation, we must fully and frankly examine and understand the cardinal causes of the Republican majority's recent demise, and, sadder but wiser, commence our Republican minority's restoration as a transformation political movement serving the sovereign citizens of our free republic. To begin, we must retrace our steps down a broken alley of broken hopes to glean the essence of our party's headier times, big hits and fazed cookies. Though many of its legislative leaders may moot the point, two Presidents caused the 1994 Republican revolution: Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. The members of 1995's new Republican majority were Ronald Reagan's political children. From President Reagan, Republican congressional revolutionaries inherited a philosophy of politics as the art of the possible: Cogently expressed by conservative intellectuals ranging from Edmund Burke to Russell Kirk, this philosophy's central tenet held: Men and women are transcendent children of God endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. Government was instituted to defend citizens' inalienable rights and facilitate citizens' pursuit of the good and of true happiness. Over the generations, Divine Providence has established and revealed through tradition prescriptive rights and custom within communities how order, justice, and freedom, each essential, coequal and mutually reinforcing, are best arranged and nurtured for humanity to pursue the good and true happiness. Finally, human happiness is endangered by every political ideology, for each is premised upon abstract ideas; each claims a superior insight into human nature not revealed through historical experience; each proffers a secular utopia unobtainable by an imperfect humanity; and, each demands an omnipotent, centralized government to forcefully impose its vision upon an ``unenlightened'' and unwilling population. This is the political philosophy and resulting public policies a once-impoverished youth from Dixon, Illinois, Ronald Reagan, engagingly articulated to America throughout his Presidency in the 1980s. By 1994, the American people who have taken Ronald Reagan at Russell Kirk's word that ``conservatism is the negation of ideology,'' and remembering its beneficent impact upon their daily lives, yearned for its return. For self-described congressional Republican revolutionaries, this formed fertile electoral ground, one shaped as well, it must be admitted, by a host of unheralded and immensely talented GOP redistricting attorneys. But like all revolutions, the peace required a villain. Enter Bill Clinton. Exuberant at having defeated an incumbent President George H.W. Bush, Clinton mistook a mandate against his predecessor as a mandate for his own craftily concealed liberalism. In his first 2 years in the Oval Office, this mistake led Clinton to overreach on ``kitchen table'' issues, such as raising taxes and socializing medicine. Daily, the four-decade old Democratic congressional majority abetted Clinton's radical policies, and across the political spectrum, voters seethed. Congressional Republicans bided their time, planned their revolution and seized their moment. Led by their spellbinding and abrasive guru from Georgia, congressional Republicans unveiled their ``Contract With America'' to much popular, if not pundit, acclaim. Though much mythologized, if it is to prove instructive for the present Republican minority, this contract can and must be placed in its proper perspective. A musical analogy is most elucidating. When a reporter once praised the Beatles for producing rock's first concept album, Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band, John Lennon curtly corrected him: ``It was a concept album because we said it was.'' Lennon's point was this: Yes, the Beatles had originally set out to produce a concept album, but early in their sessions the band dropped any conceits to creating a ``concept album'' and recorded whatever songs were on hand. Recognizing their failure, the Beatles tacked on a final song, Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band (Reprise), to engender the illusion they had, after all, created a concept album. Importantly, when the band later tried to produce a true ``concept album'' and accompanying film, Magical Mystery Tour, the lackluster result was one of the Beatles' few failed artistic ventures. Similarly, congressional Republicans' ``Contract with America'' was a collection of specific policy proposals and concrete grievances against the incumbent Democratic President and his legislative allies. It possessed merely an implicit philosophy, one obviously harkening back to Reagan. Even less than Sergeant Pepper, the individual tracks of which have mostly stood the test of time, today many of the Contract's specific proposals sound dated. But like Sergeant Pepper, what endures about the contract is the fact that it was marketed as a revolutionary concept in governance. Of course, it is not. The contract was a suitable period piece which served its purpose--the election of congressional Republicans in sufficient numbers to attain our party's first majority in 40 years. Nevertheless the contract's lack of a clearly enunciated political philosophy sowed the seeds of the subsequent Republican devolution. Therefore, if the current Republican minority buys into the myth and makes the contract the basis of a derivative ``concept'' agenda, the GOP will be condemned to another 40-year Magical Mystery Tour through the political wilderness. This is not to say the members of 1995's new Republican majority lacked a political philosophy or immutable principles. Quite the contrary: These Members were steeped in the Reagan tradition. But after an initial rush of laudable accomplishments, the Members found themselves trapped by the contract's inherent pragmatism and particularity. Absent a philosophical anchor in the contract, Members drifted into the grind of governance, which distorted Reagan's philosophical principles for public policy into nonbinding precedents for political popularity. Exacerbating this process, the new majority's leaders, exuberant at having defeated an incumbent Democratic congressional majority, mistook a mandate against their predecessors as a mandate for their own finitely posited conservatism. In its first 2 years in control of the House, this led the majority's leaders to erroneously conclude it could govern as a parliament rather than as a congressional equivalent in power to the executive branch; and they over-reached on key issues, most notably in the shutdown of the United States Government over the issue of spending. Artfully framed by President Clinton with sufficient plausibility as an irresponsible Republican ideological attack on good government, this moment marked the beginning of the Republican majority's end. In point of fact, from the government shutdown to the present, the House GOP conference has never had as many Members as it did in 1995. Some persist in too facilely dismissing this Republican debacle as being due to Clinton's superior messaging of the issue from his bully pulpit. This analysis is errant. The reason Clinton succeeded is the kernel of truth he wielded on this issue: House Republican leaders had stopped governing prudently in accordance with Reagan's political philosophy of politics being the art of the possible and, instead, started acting belligerently in an ideological manner against the public's interest. It is not an accident this battle fundamentally affected Clinton's thinking and spurred his reinvention from a liberal ideologue into a pragmatic problem-solver and proponent of ``good government.'' Unfortunately, Clinton's publicly applauded posturing as a centrist incensed the Republican majority and accelerated their efforts to differentiate themselves from an unprincipled President by being increasingly ideological, which they confuted with being principled. As this ideological fever progressed through 1996, too late did the new majority's members intuit the political cost to candidates considered ``ideologues.'' The Republicans' majority did survive the partisan carnage of Clinton's overwhelming 1996 reelection, but the cycle's cumulative effect was lasting and damning. Without gawking at the gruesome minutia of each ensuing GOP ideological purge and internal coup instigated by this election, we can note it spawned the unseemly political perversion of the House Republicans' transformational majority into a transactional ``cashocracy.'' Hubristically deemed by its leading denizens as a ``permanent majority,'' the GOP ``cashocracy'' was a beggars' banquet at taxpayers' expense. The cashocracy's sole goal was its own perpetuation; and its cashocrats and high priests of money-theism myopically chased the same through pragmatic corporatism and political machinations. Obviously, the cashocracy's cardinal vice was its conviction to survive for its own sake. Curiously, this was not the height of arrogance; it was the height of insecurity. Aware it stood for nothing but election, the cashocracy knew anything could topple it. This fear cancerously compelled the poll-driven cashocrats to grope for ephemeral popularity by abandoning immutable principles. Materialistic to their core and devoid of empathy, the cashocrats routinely ignored the centrality to governmental policies of transcendent human beings. This cashocracy's first cardinal error facilitated its second: Pragmatic corporatism. Ensconced in insular power, the cashocrats lived the lives of the rich and famous, despite their middling personal means, due to their newfound friends in the corporate and lobbying community. Cut off from Main Street, these cashocrats embraced K Street. The desire was mutual, and the corporatists' influence grew gradually but ineluctably. Closed within a corporatist echo chamber, the cashocrats became deadened to the tribulations and aspirations of real Americans, and came to measure the ``success'' of its pragmatic policies by their reception on K Street. Reams of measures spewed forth prioritizing the interests of multinational corporations over the needs of middle-class Americans. In fairness, even without the Cashocrats' incessant inducements, blandishments and bullying, the majority of GOP members truly did feel they were promoting the interests of their constituents. This belief was insidiously sustained by the Cashocrats grafting their pragmatic corporatism onto the philosophy of economic determinism. It was not an unforeseeable development. Akin to their conservative brethren who after the fall of the Soviet Union proclaimed the ``End of History,'' House Republicans convinced themselves the ideology of democratic capitalism was an unstoppable deterministic force predestined to conquer the world; and on their part, they viewed their job as hastening its triumph and preparing Americans to cope with its consequences. Combined with the Cashocracy's insatiable need of corporate contributions for its sustenance, this adherence to ideological democratic capitalism reveals how the Republican House majority helped President Clinton (whom they had unknowingly come to emulate and likely loathe ever more because of it) grant the permanent normalization of trade relations to Communist China. With the enactment of this legislation, the Cashocracy reached its political zenith and moral nadir, for it did not shape globalization to suit Americans' interests; it had shaped Americans' interests to suit globalization. The handsome rewards for such ``courageous'' legislation fueled the Cashocracy's third vice, avarice. The process was both seductive and simple, especially in a materialistic town forsaking the qualitative measurement of virtue for the quantitative measurement of money. While this temptation is to be expected in a city where politicians ``prove'' their moral superiority by spending other people's money, it was equally to be expected Republicans would collectively resist it. They didn't. Earmarks, which began as a cost-saving reform to prevent Federal bureaucrats from controlling and wasting taxpayers' money in contravention of express Congressional intent, spiraled out of control once the Cashocrats and their K-Street cronies realized the process could be manipulated to direct any appropriation, however undeserving, to any client, however questionable. In turn, political contributions materialized from the recipients of these earmarks for the Members on both sides of the aisle who dropped them into legislation, oftentimes without the knowledge of or the appropriate review by their peers. The passage of policy bills, too, increasingly mirrored the earmark process, as special interest provisions were slipped into the dimmer recesses of bills in the dead of night. The outcome of this fiscal chicanery was an escalation of the K-Street contributions the Cashocracy required to attain its aim of perpetuating itself in power; and of the illegal perks required to sate the more venal tastes of some morally challenged members who are now paying their debts to society. Cumulatively, in addition to rendering it morally bankrupt, these three vices left the Cashocracy intellectually impotent. Tellingly, within this less than subtle and manifestly sinister system of earmarks and contributions, the Cashocrats greased the skids for their legislative ``favors'' by relegating the majority's younger Members to voting rather than legislating; ignoring these Members' qualitative virtues, ideals and talents; measuring these Members by the quantitative standard of how much money they raised; and, thereby, condemning these Members to the status of highly paid telemarketers. Having squandered this infusion of youthful energy and insight, the Cashocrats hailed the election of Republican President George W. Bush and handed him the Nation's legislative agenda. At first, the Cashocrats' subordination of their separate, equal branch of government to the executive branch bore dividends. But by 2006, when the failures of the Iraq war's reconstruction policy and Hurricane Katrina's emergency relief torpedoed Bush's popularity, the latent danger to the Cashocrats of hitching their SUVs to the fortunes of a President was evident. Precluded from tying its vicarious popularity to Bush's coat tails, the Cashocracy teetered beneath the gale force invective of the Democrats' campaign mantra the Congressional Republican majority was a ``culture of corruption'' slothfully fully content to rubber stamp the failed policies of an unpopular President. Panic stricken, the politically tone-deaf Cashocrats urged GOP members to tout America's ``robust economy'' and attack Democrats on national security issues. The innately materialist economic argument was doomed to fail because the ``robust'' economy was not to be found in regions like the Northeast and Midwest. The latter argument proved unconvincing to an electorate convinced Iraq and New Orleans were GOP national security fiascoes. And, finally, nothing could persuade an outraged electorate to return a Republican majority which, in the interests of perpetuating itself in power, failed to protect House pages from predatory Members of Congress. By election day the public had concluded the Republican majority cared more about corporations than Americans; and when the tsunami hit, the Cashocracy crumbled down upon many now former GOP members who became the last, blameless victims of its stolid cupidity. In hindsight, the Cashocracy would best have heeded President Theodore Roosevelt's warning: ``The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living, and the get rich quick theory of life.'' Straggling back to Washington for the Republican revolution's death vigil, the 2006 election's surviving GOP members bid anguished goodbyes to defeated friends and struggled to make sense of it all. Dazed and confused, some Members managed to grasp the reality of their newly minted minority, while some still grapple with it. Out of this former group, a distinct vision has emerged concerning how House Republicans can revitalize and redeem themselves in the estimation of their fellow Americans. ``Restoration Republicans'' are best considered Reagan's grandchildren. Like their Reagan-Democratic parents, Restoration Republicans were attracted to our party by the intellectual, cultural, and moral components and proven practical benefits of philosophical conservatism. Transcending talking points and political cant, these Restoration Republicans are devoted to restoring the human soul's centrality to public policy decisions; and focusing these policies on preserving and perpetuating the permanent things of our evanescent earthly existence which surpass all politics in importance. The enduring ideals of Restoration Republicans are succinctly enumerated by Russell Kirk in his book, The Politics of Prudence: One, conservatives believe that there exists an enduring moral order. Two, conservatives adhere to custom, convention and continuity. Three, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription, that is, of things established by immemorial usage. Four, conservatives are guided by the principle of prudence. Five, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. Six, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Seven, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Eight, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntarily collectivism. Nine, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passion. And finally, 10, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. Given how the Cashocracy repeatedly violated these principles during its descent into oblivion, and how the Democrats' 2006 rallying cry was ``change,'' this 10th ideal merits deeper contemplation. For to understand it fully is to fully understand why Restoration Republicans, who are convinced we live amidst a crucible of liberty, proclaim our minority must emulate and implement the philosophical conservatism of Ronald Reagan and the fiery integrity of Theodore Roosevelt in the cause of empowering Americans and strengthening their eternal institutions of faith, family, community and country. Again, I quote from Kirk: ``Therefore, the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of permanence and the claims of progression. He or she thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious terrestrial paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and tempered progress. He or she is opposed to the cult of progress whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old. ``Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires and what sort of change depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.'' Kirk's words compelled Restoration Republicans to empathetically assess our Nation's age and circumstances, and ponder the direction and scope of the changes our American community requires. In making these determinations, Restoration Republicans draw parallels between, and inspiration from, America's greatest generation. Our greatest generation faced and surmounted a quartet of generational challenges born of industrialization: Economic, social and political upheavals; a Second World War against abject evil; the rise of the Soviet super- state as a strategic threat and rival model of governance; and the civil rights movement's moral struggle to equally ensure the God-given and constitutionally recognized rights of all Americans. Today, our generation of Americans must confront and transcend a quartet of generational challenges born of globalization: Economic, social and political upheavals; a third world war against abject evil; the rise of the Communist Chinese super-state as a strategic threat and rival model of governance; and moral relativism's erosion of our Nation's foundational, self-evident truths. The critical difference between the challenges conquered by the greatest generation and the challenges confronting our generation of Americans is this: They faced their challenges consecutively; we face our challenges simultaneously. In response to these generational challenges to our free republic, Restoration Republicans have drawn upon the roots of their philosophical conservatism to affirm the truth America does not exist to emulate others, America exists to inspire the world, and to advance the policy paradigm of American excellence, which rests upon a foundation of liberty, and the four cornerstones of sovereignty, security, prosperity and verities. Individually and collectively, American excellence's foundation and four cornerstones are reinforced by these policy principals: Our liberty is granted not by the pen of a government bureaucrat, but is authored by the hand of Almighty God. Our sovereignty rests not in our soil but in our souls. Our security is guaranteed not by the thin hopes of appeasement, but by the moral and physical courage of our troops defending us in hours of maximum danger. Our prosperity is produced not by the tax hikes and spending sprees of politicians, but by the innovation and perspiration of free people engaged in free enterprise. Our cherished truths and communal virtues are preserved and observed not by a coerced political correctness but by our reverent citizenry's voluntary celebration of the culture of life. Restoration Republicans conclude, therefore, that we must be champions of American freedom in this challenging new millennium to keep our America a community of destiny inspired and guided by the virtuous genius of our free people, and forever blessed by the unfathomable grace of God. It will not be easy, given the root public policy question of our times. In the age of industrialization, President Theodore Roosevelt empathized with Americans' feelings of powerlessness in the face of economic, social and political forces radically altering or terminating their traditional, typically agrarian lives. Writing years later in his book A Humane Economy, the economist Wilhelm Ropke examined the impacts upon human beings by these forces, which he collectively termed ``mass society'': ``The disintegration of the social structure generates a profound upheaval in the outward conditions of each individual's life, thought and work. Independence is smothered; men are uprooted and taken out of the close-woven social texture in which they were secure; true communities are broken up in favor of more universal but impersonal collectivities in which the individual is no longer a person in his own right; the inward, spontaneous social fabric is loosened in favor of mechanical, soulless organization, with its outward compulsion; all individuality is reduced to one plane of uniform normality; the area of individual action, decision and responsibility shrinks in favor of collective planning and decision; the whole of life becomes uniform and standard mass life, ever more subject to party politics, nationalization and socialization.'' In that industrial epoch, the root public policy question was how to protect Americans' traditional rights to order, justice and freedom from being usurped by corporate or governmental centralization. The advent of virtual corporations and transient international capital has ended the old industrial welfare state model of governance, wherein solutions to Americans' economic and social anxieties were the shared burdens of centralized corporations and government. The stark choice is now between increasing the centralized power of the Federal Government or decentralization of power into the hands of individuals, families and communities. In their urgency to replace their lost or slashed corporate benefits, Americans will be sorely tempted to further centralize the Federal Government to do it. But expanding the authority and compulsory powers of the Federal Government will be injurious to the American people. Big Government doesn't stop chaos; Big Government is chaos. By usurping the rightful powers of individuals between its bureaucracy's steel wheels, highly centralized government alienates individuals and atomizes communities. Once more, Ropke speaks to the heart of the matter: ``The temptation of centrism has been great at all time, as regards both theory and political action. It is the temptation of mechanical perfection and of uniformity at the expense of freedom. Perhaps Montesquieu was right when he said that it is the small minds, above all, which succumb to this temptation. Once the mania of uniformity and centralization spreads and once the centrists begin to lay down the law of the land, then we are in the presence of one of the most serious dangerous signals warning us of the impending loss of freedom, humanity, and the health of society.'' Only liberty unleashes Americans to establish the true roots of a holistic American, the voluntary and virtuous individual, familial, and communal associations which invigorate and instruct a free people conquering challenges. In contrast, centralized and, thus, inherently unaccountable government suffocates liberty, order and justice by smothering and severing citizens' voluntary bonds within mediating, nongovernmental institutions, and so doing, stifles our free people's individual and collective solutions to challenges. In consequence, the temptation for more centralized government must be fought to prevent turning sovereign Americans from the masters of their destiny into the serfs of governmental dependency. Fully versed in this verity, restoration Republicans have made their decision: power to the people. Thus, in this age of globalization, restoration Republicans vow to empower the sovereign American people to protect and promote their God-given and constitutionally recognized and protected rights; promote the decentralization of Federal Governmental powers to the American people or to their most appropriate and closest unit of government; defend Americans' enduring moral order of faith, family, and community and country from all enemies; foster a dynamic market economy of entrepreneurial opportunity for all Americans; and honor and nurture a humanity of scale in Americans' relations and endeavors. Further, while these restoration Republicans will be releasing a more detailed program in the future, the above will form the basis of any concrete proposals brought forth. Madam Speaker, my constituents are honest, hard-working and intelligent people who are bearing the brunt of the generational challenges facing our Nation. They have lost manufacturing and every manner of jobs due to globalization and, especially, the predatory trade practices of Communist China. Throughout these economically anxious times, they spend sleepless nights wondering if they will be able to afford to keep their jobs, their houses, their health care, their hopes for their children. In the war for freedom, they have buried, mourned and honored their loved ones lost in battle against our Nation and all of civilization's barbaric enemies. And every day, they struggle to make sense of an increasingly perverse culture that's disdainful of and destructive to faith, truths, virtue and beauty, if the existence of these permanent things is even admitted. True, my constituents differ on specific solutions to their pressing problems, but they do agree Washington isn't serving their concerns. They agree this storied representative institution is increasingly detached from the daily realities of their lives. And they remind me that when we enter this House, their House, we enter as guests who must honor the leap of faith they took in letting us in and allowing us to serve them. With my constituents, I utterly agree. While it is not my purpose here to discuss the majority party, let me be clear as to my own. House Republicans have no business practicing business as usual. My constituents, our country and this Congress deserve better, and we will provide it. Our Republican minority has Members who know America isn't an economy; America is a country. Our Republican minority has Members who know the only thing worth measuring in money is greed. Our Republican minority has Members with the heart to put individuals ahead of abstractions, people ahead of politics, and souls ahead of systems. Our Republican minority has Members who have seen sorrow seep down a widow's cheek and joy shine from a child's eye. Yes, Madam Speaker, my Republican minority has Members who know our deeds on behalf of our sovereign constituents must accord with Wordsworth's poetic prayer: ``And then a wish: my best and favored aspiration mounts with yearning for some higher song of philosophic truth which cherishes our daily lives.'' It is these Republicans whose service in this Congress will redeem our party by honoring the sacred trust of the majestic American people who, in their virtuous genius, will transcend these transformational times and strengthen our exceptional Nation's revolutionary experiment in human freedom. With these Republicans, I hereby throw in my lot and pledge my best efforts on behalf of my constituents and our country. May God continue to grace, guard, guide and bless our community of destiny, the United States of America.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, as the world stumbles toward the Communist propaganda extravaganza labeled the Beijing Olympics, somewhere Chairman Mao is looking up at us and laughing. According to the Catholic News Agency, Bibles and all other religious symbols are among Communist China's list of athletes' ``prohibited objects'' due to ``security concerns.'' Since the leader of the Free World, President Bush, has articulated his eagerness to attend Communist China's Olympics, I am compelled to ask three questions: Mr. President, how many Bibles will you be taking to Beijing? Will you visit the five bishops and 15 priests in prison for opposing the Communist regime's official church? And will you tell China's Communist tyrants this fundamental truth: No good government denies God's presence.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor and mourn the extraordinary life of Rhys Lewis upon his passing at the age of 83. Born on May 13, 1924, Rhys Lewis dedicated his life to serving others. As a United States Marine Corps sergeant during World War II, Rhys served in the South Pacific and fought to defend the liberty of Americans and all humanity. His tour of duty included seeing combat on Iwo Jima, where he demonstrated his unfaltering honor and valor. Following his return home in 1947, Rhys married his beloved Ruth and continued his service to our Nation. An active church member, Rhys was ultimately elected to and entrusted with numerous positions of governmental and civic trust. He served as a Republican precinct delegate, a Redford Township trustee, a Redford Civil Affairs chairman, the chairman of the Redford Republican Party, as a member of the Michigan Republican State Committee, and a 1980 Bush delegate to the national convention. Regrettably, on October 27, 2007, Rhys Lewis passed from this earthly world to his eternal reward. He is survived by his wife, Ruth Lewis, his children, Arthur Lewis and Charlotte Wirth, his grandchildren, Kathryn Ostreko, David R. Wirth and Jeffrey Lewis, and his great grandchild, Jack Ostreko. A courageous and honorable man, Rhys will be sorely missed. Mr. Speaker, Rhys Lewis is remembered as a compassionate father, a dedicated husband, a leader, a soldier and a friend. Today, as we bid Rhys farewell, I ask my colleagues to join me in mourning his passing and honoring the unwavering patriotism and legendary service to our country and community of this fine American. And I would be remiss if I did not add what I believe encapsulates the essence of the man. Early in my tenure as a Member of Congress, I was honored to be asked to participate in a ceremony where Rhys Lewis was honored for his commitment to our Nation and his service as a member of the Greatest Generation of World War II. We had to work with his wife, Ruth, because Rhys, an honorable man, was not a proud man. And so when we surprised him at the VFW that day with the medals that he had earned, he was stunned. Part of him seemed to be surprised that people had remembered his service to our Nation in its crucible of liberty, and the other part of him was deeply, deeply concerned that he was being singled out for what he and so many other fine young Americans had done to preserve the freedoms we now hold. That was the man that we honor today. That is the man whose example I believe we should ever cherish and ever emulate.