Thad McCotter

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I thank him for allowing me to borrow the disputed chart. One of the things that I think frustrates Americans is when they entrust elected officials with office--especially Congress--and the Members of Congress forget a simple thing: We do not represent Washington to our districts. We represent our districts to Washington. I think that that important principle is often missed in the debate we are currently having. By all objective standards, the American people want health care reform, and they want it done right. Yet in the rush to misjudgment, they are very concerned that one of the truisms Americans understand will, once again, be proven: That no matter how bad a situation may be, Congress can still make it worse. The rush to judgment now to pass a bill before the August deadline, to me, is based upon one ineluctable fact--the more the American people learn about what's in this 1,200-page health care bill, the more they are opposed to it. Thus, if this Congress leaves without having passed a flawed health care bill that will increase costs, decrease quality, eliminate choices and kill jobs, the American people will have time to tell their duly elected Representatives what they think of this bill; and it will not be pleasant. Thus, we come to the problem before us tonight, which is the inability of Members of Congress to put out a chart that shows how the process would work under this bill. The chart in question is here before us. It is on the floor of the U.S. House; it is being broadcast by C-SPAN across the country; and yet Members are not allowed to put it in materials to be distributed to their constituents. I can find no logical explanation why this chart can be shown to you here and yet cannot be shown to you in a piece of mail, in a flyer or anything distributed out of the office of a Member. I would eagerly await the logical rationale as to why this is the case because, quite simply, if the majority has its way and does not allow Members of Congress to put forward the chart of their own 1,200-page health care plan, you will not see this chart. This is what they want you to see. This will lead no one to an informed decision about what is in the bill. This will lead no one to an informed decision about how one of the most intimate relationships they will have, between themselves, their doctor and their health care insurance, will be affected by this bill. All we ask is that rather than allowing the people less information about this bill, that the majority do what is right and give the American people time to make their own determination based upon what is in the bill, and allow them to see this chart, contact their Members, tell them what they think of it; and let us come back, let us get rid of a flawed bill, and let us come together from the center and work out for true health care reform that is right for Americans, that will decrease costs, increase quality, empower patients as consumers, and continue to make the best health care system in the world even better for all of our citizens.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. When the cap-and-tax national energy tax bill was passed from the House, the Congress went on a break, and when people went home on break, they found out how much the American people did not like the cap-and-tax bill that this House passed. In fact, I remember being home--I am sure a lot of Members had this moment, both people who voted for it and voted against it. You go to the grocery store, somebody might recognize you. They would look around. They would walk up and they'd say, Are you my Representative? And you'd say, Yes. They'd look at you and look around again, and they'd say, Dude, this is crazy. This cap-and-tax is crazy. I would just say, Yes, it is. And I said, Especially in Michigan, our State where we have a 15.2 percent unemployment rate, where we are a manufacturing giant now in difficult times, why the Federal Government would make it harder to manufacture in the United States, why we would be but a Senate vote and a Presidential signature away from a radical, ideological imposition on America's energy future that will raise people's energy taxes and will kill their jobs. I still can't figure out why we would do this. It is absolutely insane to add massive government spending, debt and regulatory burdens on a recessive economy, and why you would threaten to raise tax rates on people at the very time we need the entrepreneurial genius of the American people to grow this economy, create jobs and start to stabilize ourselves for the future and the international competition in this age of globalization. Now, when I say it's insane, people say, Well, isn't that a little harsh? I say no. I'm 43. As I was growing up, we had a new book put in front of us in school. It was called Ecology. It had a nice picture of the world on it from outer space. I was like, Oh, this is nice. And in the course of learning about ecology, my generation, Generation X, was told that the greatest threat we faced wasn't the Soviet Union. I tended to disagree even at an early age. I was a bit precocious about the Russians. They told me in my generation that we would freeze to death in the next ice age if we didn't reduce pollution. Flash forward. My wife and I, our children are in school. Today our children's generation is being told that unless the government regulates the economy and raises energy taxes, they will face a climate change in which global warming will destroy their way of life. So we have gone from ice to fire, and yet the solution remains the same, oddly, from the proponents of the cap-and-tax legislation who say, We have to have government control of the weather, raise your energy taxes, dictate your lifestyle and devastate your jobs all so that we can prevent global warming. This from the people who told me there was an ice age coming. That, to me, is not sane. That is not realistic. That is not based on science. That is based on ideology, and ideology applied to a nation at a struggling time leads to dire ramifications for the American people. I want to show you the extreme to which this goes. When in the majority the Republican Party heard about the debt dangers the United States faced, especially debts from nations such as Communist China, I agree with that. Now that the Democratic majority and President Obama are racking up unprecedented levels of debt and unprecedented levels of spending, I want to show you what the Commerce Secretary said about cap-and-trade regulations in our relations with Communist China. This is from The Wall Street Journal, But yesterday, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said something amazing: U.S. consumers should pay for Chinese greenhouse gas emissions. You see, the Communist Chinese, in one of the ironies of life, are tending to protect their manufacturing base more than the free market--United States--from governmental intrusions, regulations, and taxation. Now, what Mr. Locke, our Commerce Secretary, said was this. It's important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America. And it's our own consumption activity that's causing the emission of greenhouse gas. Americans need to pay for that. I want you to think about this. After President Clinton signed the permanent normalization trade relations with Communist China, we in Michigan, before the rest of the country, started asking where are the jobs. Why is manufacturing in America hurting? Why is it going offshore? Where is it going? We knew where it was going. It was going to Communist China. So we have a two-for here. We have the Commerce secretary saying that he doesn't seem to mind that the jobs are going over there and that what we really need to do is, if the United States decides to continue to pass legislation that impedes and impairs and harms its manufacturing base, not that we should seek fair trade with Communist China, but what we should do is borrow money from Communist China with interest to pay them for their greenhouse gas emissions to get them to adopt the very thing that American people do not want to adopt in America. I want you to think about this. I'm going to borrow money with interest from Communist Chinese to give to them so they can be environmentally sound. Now, I do not understand why, given what happens to our party here in the House, why the Commerce Secretary did not say that the Communist China is the party of ``no.'' And I think it would have been appropriate. But I also would not expect that from an administration whose vice president says we have to keep spending to keep from going bankrupt. I had no idea that that meant that not only would he spend the money here, he'd spend the money over in Communist China and borrow from them to give it back, leaving you, the American taxpayer, with the interest. And it also would not be surprising to me from an administration who said we have to spread the wealth around. I don't think the President said quite how far he said he was going to spread your wealth. I don't remember him saying that that the world would be a better place in, we take U.S. taxpayer money, send it to Communist China to make red bureaucrats green. I would have liked to have heard that. I'm sure a lot of people would have liked to have heard that around October last year where their money was going to wind up, rather than announced now via the Commerce Secretary. The frustration that the American people feel is that they realize our prosperity comes from the private sector, not the public sector. They understand that we do not want a radical cold-turkey shift from fossil fuels into some nebulous green energy future. What we want to see is maximum American energy production, commonsense conservation and free-market green technological innovations that will transition us into a more environmentally sound economy of the future. What we see in an ideologically rife House, Senate, and administration is the opposite. They want to do cold turkey on fossil fuels and the existing economy and move us into a radical, and again, ill-defined green economy that in many ways--with the absence of nuclear and others--proves impossible to obtain in a reasonable period of time without doing more damage to a recessed economy. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his time.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? They are not in Michigan, my home State, where we have a 15.2 percent unemployment rate. And what could we expect, especially when this was one of the driving forces behind the trillion dollar stimulus package. One could expect similar results, and, sadly, that's true. We then saw a national cap-and-tax energy tax did not create jobs, did not help, and now we're on the verge of a radical socialization of America's health care network. And what do we hear from the other side? Statistics but no references to the bill. And do you know why? Because while our health care system needs reform, it is not broken. The one thing that's broken is this Congress. And if this Congress keeps spending people's money and engaging in radical change to our cherished way of life, every single family budget in America will be broken by their hand.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, the Iranian people's peaceful struggle for freedom continues despite the tyrannical regime's barbarous crackdown. In fact, in his Friday's sermon, former President Rafsanjani called into question legitimacy of the present government and rebuked the regime for its crackdown on peaceful protesters and its cavalier rejection of the cries that the election was stolen. Finally, former President Rafsanjani called upon the regime to free and fully account for all those peaceful freedom seekers who have been arrested in the repression. Then, on Sunday, former President Khatami called for a referendum on the legitimacy of the Iranian regime and asked that the results be tallied by an objective independent Iranian body to ensure its accuracy. This led the current opposition, Presidential candidate Hossein Mousavi, to say, You are facing something new, an awakened nation, a nation that has been born again and is here to defend its achievements. Arrests won't put an end to this problem. End this game as soon as possible and return to the nation its arrested sons. While humanity agrees, Supreme Leader Khamenei disagrees. And to leaders who both tacitly and expressly support the freedom seekers in Iran, Khamenei issued this warning. The elite should be watchful since they have been faced with a big test. Failing the test will cause their collapse. I'd ask Supreme Leader Khamenei to look at this picture. Her name is Taraneh Mousavi. She was arrested near Ghoba Mosque, where she was on her way to attend hairdressing college. After her arrest, she was raped, sodomized and tortured by her captors, taken to a hospital in a coma, and it was there that she died. Upon her death, her body was removed to the outskirts of Karaj Qasim where, to prevent an autopsy, it was burned. She came from a religious family. Taraneh was only 19 and an only child. Her family has been threatened to keep quiet, and yet the resistance wants her story out. Why? Because here's the truth denied by Khamenei and his misogynistic, murderous regime. Your referendum has been held and you have failed your test. Taraneh and Nadeh condemn you as the despicable killers of women. You have no legitimacy either in the eyes of the Iranian people or in the eyes of the civilized world. You are doomed by your own hands, and it is but a matter of time until your regime collapses and the Iranian people breathe free.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor Bruce Phillips Davis, a devoted husband, father, and Veteran; and to mourn him upon his passing at age 44. Bruce was born on March 18, 1965. He attended Lincoln Elementary School, Frost Junior High, Bentley High School and Cleary University, where he earned a Bachelor's degree in Business. He became a consultant with DTE Energy, a position in which Bruce excelled for twenty years. Following in his father's and brother's courageous footsteps, Bruce heeded a higher call of service and joined our United States military; and nobly served us and defended human freedom during Operation Desert Storm. A lover of life whose company brought joy to all he knew, Bruce enjoyed numerous outdoor activities and giving back to his community through his memberships in the Fraternal Order of Eagles and American Legion. On July 6, 2009, Bruce succumbed in his ongoing struggle with pulmonary hypertension. He will be remembered as a father devoted to his family, especially his wife, Penny, and daughter, and to his many nieces and nephews. Bruce was a wonderful man, kind to all he encountered; and he will be truly, and sorrowfully missed. Madam Speaker, during his lifetime, Bruce Phillips Davis enriched the lives of everyone around him. As we bid farewell to this wonderful individual, I ask my colleagues to join me in mourning his passing and honoring his years of loyal service to our community and country. Goodbye and God Bless, ``Tiger!''

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Today we consider a bill that claims the government can control the weather by raising your taxes, taking your job and dictating your life. In my State of Michigan, with a 15 percent unemployment rate, we know we cannot afford this cap-and-tax bill. Others, however, disagree. ``Make no mistake,'' President Obama pronounced, ``this is a jobs bill.'' He is correct. This bill will destroy jobs. But then again, this comes from an administration that claimed its trillion-dollar stimulus bill would stop unemployment from going over 8 percent. The argument for this bill is nuts on its face. Government cannot design our economy and prosperity. It can only engineer our decline in poverty. But such feelings explain why this job-killing cap-and-tax bill is a fundamental shift from a manufacturing economy to an old green economy called hunting and gathering. Passing this abominable energy tax on working families in a recession shows this job-killing, budget-busting government doesn't understand how much real Americans are hurting for work. This is the hubris of Big Government, the delusion that our families' economic futures rest in the manicured hands of Congress rather than the hardworking hands of the American people. I disagree, and I urge the rejection of this bill.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, from the hellish streets where Iranians demand freedom, voices arise to pray for deliverance and liberty; but, elsewhere, safely ensconced in freedom, others argue for appeasement and ``neutrality.'' We must choose wisely between these competing voices and visions, lest we betray our allegiance to liberty. Some voices allege America's support of Iranian democracy demonstrators harms their cause, strengthens the regime, increases the repression, and, once the freedom seekers are slaughtered, precludes ``good'' relations with the murderous mullahs. Their siren song is wrong. Despite pronouncements, America has not intervened, the mullahs publicly accuse us of it, their illegitimate puppet Ahmadinejad demands our prostration at the regime's feet, and all the while, the regime butchers innocents. On June 24, CNN recorded a call from a terrified Iranian girl, who told of democracy demonstrators being hacked with axes, shot or thrown from bridges. She pleaded: ``You should stop this. You should help the people of Iran who demand freedom. You should help us. It's time to act.'' She was pleading to America. She was pleading to us. Once, another generational chance for freedom was seized, as Soviet dissident and gulag prisoner Natan Sharansky attests, ``We developed our own tapping language to communicate with each other between the crawls of our cells. We had to develop new communication methods to pass on this great, impossible news. ``Reagan dared to call of the great Soviet Union an evil empire. That moment made it impossible for anyone in the West to continue closing their eyes to the real nature of the Soviet Union. ``It was one of the most important, freedom-affirming declarations, and we all instantly knew it. For us, that was the moment that really marked the end for them, and the beginning for us. The beginning of a new revolution, a freedom revolution. Reagan's revolution.'' As for voices clamoring for a ``grand bargain'' with Iran's inhumane regime if it clings to power, Sharansky warns: ``How a government treats its own people cannot be separated from how that government could be expected to treat other countries.'' How did the regime treat the family of Neda Agha-Soltan, the student it shot in the streets? Her state executioners refused to tender Neda's body to her family; buried her without a funeral; banned all signs of mourning; and forced her family to flee from their Tehran home. To defeat such a regime, Sharansky offers Reagan's example: ``Ronald Reagan had the moral clarity to understand the truth, and the courage both to speak the truth and to do what needed to be done to support it.'' What concrete actions can we take today to aid the Iranian people's march to freedom? We must increase funding for Radio Farda and other democracy building programs to provide the Iranian people with the free flow of information and communications in their struggle to be free. The President must use his full authority under the Iranian Sanctions Act to deter companies from investing in Iran's energy sector. We must place column 2 tariff rates on Iran's remaining exports to the United States. We must pass the Global Online Freedom Act to prevent American companies from assisting foreign governments, including Iran, from censoring and monitoring their people on the Internet. We must pass the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act and the Iran Threat Reduction Act to embargo the flow of refined fuel to and increase the pressure upon the regime. The President must prohibit regime members from entering the United States of America. We must seek a United Nations Security Council resolution denouncing the regime; demanding a new, internationally monitored election; and tightening the current U.N. sanctions against the regime until this election occurs and its outcome's integrity verified. We must work with American labor organizations to establish a support fund for Iranian workers striking in protest of the regime. Finally, we must link all of our relations with Iran, and with those nations abetting the regime's perpetuation in defiance of its people's freedom to human rights. If we pale and fail to take these measures, we will be haunted by the cries of the oppressed Iranians abandoned to preserve our neutrality in this time of moral crisis. But, when we act, we will expand freedom to the oppressed and enslaved; and ensure it for our children and ourselves. Only then will we have honorably performed our duty to liberty by guaranteeing generations of Americans and Iranians may proclaim, ``We are free.''

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Her name was Neda. In Farsi, it means ``the voice.'' True to her name, she loved music, sought freedom, and she's dead, shot down in the streets by the Iranian regime's state-sanctioned murderers. She must not have died in vain. Today, Iranians and Americans face a generational chance for freedom--one that ensures a rogue regime's implosion prevents a nuclear confrontation. Regrettably, our President's ``post-American'' foreign policy presumes talk can thaw the murderous mullahs' hearts and attain a ``grand bargain'' for peace in our time; consequently, while Iranians demanded their freedom from a barbarous regime, the President vapidly opined: ``It is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be. We respect Iranian sovereignty.'' Then, as the crisis escalated, the President optimistically noted, ``You've seen in Iran some initial reaction from the supreme leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election. And my hope is that the Iranian people will make the right steps in order for them to be able to express their voices, to express their aspirations.'' Tragically, the supreme leader's deep concern drove him to step on the throats of pro-democracy protestors, like Neda. Next, on June 20, the President stated, ``The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.'' It was painfully evident just how far behind them he stood. ``The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than make this an argument about the United States.'' With these contradictory statements of support and appeasement, the President returned to square one. ``The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian Government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.'' In truth, the Iranian people have already judged the regime and found it wanting. The supreme leader, his cleric cronies and their puppet government have never respected the dignity of the Iranian people or governed through consent. This is why the regime stole the election and shoots peaceful, pro-democracy demonstrators. Implying otherwise mocks the Iranians risking and losing their lives for liberty. As for the claim that American ``meddling'' in support of the demonstrators plays into the mullahs' hands, the Iranian regime will claim this regardless, for as our President noted, ``That's what they do.'' Yet, what matters is not what the regime says about America, but what the demonstrators think about America. Presently, brave Iranians watch as our President still holds an open hand to the regime that opened fire on them, that opened fire on Neda. This is the passive, disastrous policy of Jimmy Carter that led to the rise of this rogue regime, not the courageous policy of Ronald Reagan that led to the demise of an evil empire. The surest, safest termination of Iran's nuclear weapons program and support of terrorism is to hasten this fanatical tyranny's collapse by supporting its people's liberty. Taking its rightful place amongst the community of free nations, a democratic Iran will necessarily realize and reverse the insanity of this terrorist regime's homicidal obsession with nuclear weapons. Thus, for their and our security, the United States and the world must do everything in our power to further the Iranian demonstrators' sacred claim to freedom. We know Neda did. Further, in the grand strategy of our war for freedom over terrorism, how we aid pro-democracy Iranians will remind the world of who we are. We are Americans, the revolutionary children of freedom who have lived and died defending our liberty and extending it to the enslaved and oppressed. We will do no less today in support of our Iranian brothers and sisters. Today Neda's voice calls to our consciences and warns that the fate of Iranians' liberty is entwined with the fate of America's security. We must not miss this generational chance for freedom; again, one that ensures a rogue regime's implosion, prevents a nuclear confrontation, and ensures that Neda and all of liberty's martyrs shall not have died in vain. As Americans, we must seize this moment and help Iranians seize their freedom. That's what we do.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. We are going to soon be facing a question of health care for Americans. We've heard about how important it is for fellow Americans to have access to quality, affordable health care, and we hear that government is the answer. We hear that, if we spend $1 trillion, we may be able to insure one-third of our fellow citizens. Extrapolating from that, that means, to insure all of the uninsured, it will cost us $3 trillion. We hear this must be done by August. Government haste makes taxpayer waste. We must do this properly. We must do this correctly. We cannot do it properly or correctly with an arbitrary deadline set by people who have, to date, passed bills they have not read and that have yet to work for the American people, whose number one concern right now is keeping a job or finding one.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report precisely because it is about our troops. The bill that left this Chamber with broad bipartisan support was 100 percent about our troops, and it is precisely now why it is only 80 percent about our troops. We should not allow for that 20 percent reduction to delude us that somehow this is a better bill. I had the opportunity today to read in the detroitfreepress.com that the Treasury Department had said that $10 billion in loan guaranties to auto manufacturing suppliers was a nonstarter. They didn't have it. I come here tonight. I hear that we have $108 billion for the IMF. This is not only about our troops. It is about the hardworking men and women who put money into the Federal Government not only to defend our troops but to defend their own way of life and their own prosperity and to make sure that it's here when they get back. Of the $108 billion going off to the IMF, I did not hear of anyone at the IMF losing their jobs in a painful restructuring. I did not hear of anyone at the IMF being asked to take reductions in their lifetimes of hard-earned health care benefits. I did not see anyone lose anything from the IMF for the $108 billion underwriting by the U.S. taxpayers; but for $85 billion, I did see back home in Detroit people losing their jobs under a painful restructuring. I saw retirees losing health care benefits. I saw dealerships closing. I was told this was necessary. I was told by this administration that we've got to be careful not to put money into a sinkhole. Well, this is also about equity. When those troops come home, when they come home to the Midwest, when they come home to my Michigan, I will look them in the eye and say, ``As long as I have been here, I have defended and supported our troops, but I have also made sure that, when you came home, you came back to the American opportunities that you left behind to defend us.'' As for the future that the majority leader has talked about, I don't have to speculate. Let me read you a statement: If people tell you that we cannot afford to invest in education or in health care or in fighting poverty, you just remind them that we are spending $10 billion a month in Iraq.

Mr. McCOTTER. If we can spend that much money in Iraq, we can spend some of that money right here in Cincinnati, Ohio, and in big cities and in small towns in every corner of this country. That was candidate Barack Obama. I would never take money from funds appropriated for our troops and use it for domestic spending. I have said that before; but if you're going to add $108 billion to fund a conference report for our troops, then spend it here in the United States. Spend it on the men and women who support our troops every day. Spend it on their families so they stay employed. Do not send it to the IMF. I oppose this bill.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding through the Chair. Just two quick inquiries of the distinguished gentleman from Ohio. First, I was wondering if you considered the response from Mr. Munchus to be indicative of the most transparent administration in history. And, secondly, I would like to commend you for putting the question mark signifying the poor staffer who will be blamed if we continue this, unless, of course, someone confesses or the media actually looks into the matter, because I remember growing up and I watched reruns of Star Trek. Whenever the captain and Bones or Spock would get on that transporter platform, there would always be somebody you didn't recognize, and you knew they weren't coming back. So when I see that question mark, I just think of the poor staffer that, at the direction of someone else, actually utilized the pen, because if this inquiry continues, as it will, you know that he may not be coming back.

Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding through the Chair. Let's also put out that we have, in fact, understood from the White House, in fairness to them, that the President has taken responsibility for the AIG bonus. He said so, which I think is only appropriate since he signed the bill that executed it into law. But what we are really looking for is that shadowy figure between the President of the United States, who may or may not have known the bonus was in the bill, and the poor staffer that may have been directed to do this. So we want to point out that we are trying to be fair. We have not determined whether the President even knew the AIG bonus was in the stimulus bill, which was rushed in a crisis atmosphere upon a deadline that he set, and the staffer who may potentially receive all the culpability unfairly.

Mr. McCOTTER. I appreciate that recap of exactly what happened. And now subsequent to these events which have had such a devastating effect upon my community, Michigan, the entire Midwest and America's manufacturing base, we hear the administration and the task force saying that they did not determine which plants would be closed. They did not determine which dealerships would be closed. That is a factually true statement. But by omission they do not add that they determined how many plants would be closed and how many jobs would be lost and how many dealerships would be closed. Because when they rejected those viability reports, they said they did not go deeply enough quickly enough to provide viability to Chrysler or a path forward for General Motors. Put in terms of the human cost, that means more people had to lose their jobs, more plants had to close, more dealers had to be culled from the franchise ranks. So I would hope that in the future with the task force, again that the most transparent administration in United States history by its own profession would be honest with the American people as to where the decision for these lost jobs came from, not merely which ones faced the ax.

Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Again, it cannot be emphasized enough that while we talk about jobs and numbers, and we have talked about the jobs that the United Auto Workers will lose, I can attest to you that throughout this bankruptcy process the people of my community, the people of Michigan, the people at Chrysler and the people at GM thought that we had a chance to avoid a bankruptcy, that that was the hope we were given. We were given it by the first Bush administration, which initially granted the bridge loan to the autos. Early on in the process, we were told that the auto industry would not be walked away from. Early on in the process we started to get signals, however, that the bankruptcy might become a more and more likely option. Yet we were never told, as reports are starting to come out, that early on the administration's Auto Task Force had made the decision that bankruptcy would be the best option. And as we watched Chrysler and as we now watch GM, two of the big three domestic auto makers in bankruptcy, we see that clearly that best option was pursued and promoted. But, again, as the gentleman from Ohio points out, these are figures. These are facts. Throughout this process there was a cruel uncertainty that affected the people of my district, that affected the people of Michigan and throughout the manufacturing sector. No one knew when the bell would toll for them. So as the process continued, especially if you talk about the United Auto Workers who ratified the agreement, as you got closer to the point of Chrysler going into bankruptcy, when you signed that agreement without any indication that you were going to lose your job and that you might actually be a part of Fiat and Chrysler going forward, to learn in the blink of an eye that all that hope was gone, after you had done everything you could, after your union president and their team had done everything they could to save as many jobs as they possibly could, to lose it all at that point is exceedingly cruel. I have talked to them. They feel this in my district. I have talked to auto dealers who, after a lifetime of work in the industry, of being pillars of their community, in the blink of an eye have lost everything that they have worked for, who have talked on the phone in tears or in person been on the verge of tears about what happened to them and why they cannot get an answer. So through the Chair to the gentleman from Ohio, we see a pattern emerging. Again, I absolutely agree with the gentleman from Ohio. I believe that the President had no idea his administration had put the AIG bonuses in the stimulus bill. I truly believe the President of the United States had absolutely no idea about what would follow the consequences of the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies in terms of the human cost to the working people of America. But what I cannot figure out is that if that is the case, if we are correct in our assessment, why the President of the United States, A, does not want to find out who in his administration put him in that position, and more importantly who put the people of the auto companies and the workers in that position, or the taxpayers of America in that position, and then as the most transparent administration in American history does not want to tell the American people who those actors were. It would seem to me that would serve the country well and it would serve our President well. I yield back.

Mr. McCOTTER. Yes. Through the Speaker to the gentleman from Ohio, first I caution you that if you continue to quote Mr. Feldman, you may get a PG-13 rating for your Special Order. But I would also like to point out that many of us in Detroit had grave concerns when the membership of the Auto Task Force was announced because of the absence of an understanding of the auto industry and manufacturing, and, to be quite honest with you, the absence of some of the Members owning cars. I yield back.

Mr. McCOTTER. Yes. I would just like to go back to the quotes from the emails, because it is very important that we catch one of the underlying sub-texts to this entire situation. We were told that it was the investors that forced Chrysler into bankruptcy due to their obstinacy and greed. And yet from the emails we see here, this is precisely one of those investors who is seeking to come to an agreement with the Auto Task Force to preclude that bankruptcy. I relate this back to what the gentleman showed us from the UAW, who had gone through a very grueling, excruciating process to find an agreement with the Auto Task Force. And yet when Chrysler went into bankruptcy, which was clearly the intent not to do everything possible to avoid, people started to pit the investors and the auto workers against each other. I would submit to all that it was the process of the Auto Task Force, its arbitrary nature and its lack of accountability that pitted workers and investors against each other in a race to beat the inevitable bankruptcy which would occur. I think that is one of the crucial things that needs to be pointed out, and I think it also bears repeating, why the individual, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich, as well as yourself and other Members of this body, sent a letter to the administration saying we wanted the Auto Task Force to revert back to an advisory capacity. Because many of us remember the 1970s when a congressionally led assistance of the Chrysler Motor Corporation brought the stakeholders together in an equitable process and resulted not only in the survival of the company, but Lee Iacocca presenting a check with interest for those loans to President Ronald Reagan.

Mr. McCOTTER. May I inquire as to how much time is available?

Mr. McCOTTER. Thank you for the 30 seconds. I just want to point out that, while all of this has been lighthearted, this is very important. We have twice seen the President unaware of what his own administration has done. We hear calls for alacritous action. We hear people saying that we must rush to do health care, that we must rush to do climate change legislation. Let us never forget that government haste makes taxpayer waste. Due deliberateness and prudence are always the best course of action in legislative affairs. We should do a lot more of it here. I yield back.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman. I grew up in Carl's district. We watched as he went from a Wayne County commissioner to a Michigan State Senator and then into this illustrious body. As a young person growing up getting interested in politics, Carl's example was an inspiration. It showed that a fine and decent gentleman could come from the small town of Plymouth, retain his Main Street truths, and do the people's business in this, the people's House. The last several years have not been kind to Carl. He is in a far better place, and we are all diminished. Our best goes out to his family, and we would appreciate it if you keep him in your prayers.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman from Ohio and I thank him for what he is doing today. As you mentioned, I come from the suburbs northwest of Detroit. Obviously, what we have seen with both Chrysler and with GM is very painful because of the human cost involved: the workers at these plants who will lose their jobs, the manufacturing supply chain, those employees and owners that will lose their jobs, lose their small businesses, and the dealers who will lose their jobs and their small businesses. But it will not simply be a Michigan problem. It will not simply be a Midwest problem. As we found out from the Chrysler dealerships that were closed, it went across the country, all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Many of our colleagues all of a sudden remember that if auto manufacturers have a problem, auto dealers have a problem. This was not news to many of us, but it portends what is going to happen over the course of this year and next year as these plants are closed. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. LaTourette, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich, put forward a bipartisan letter, which I was very grateful to be able to sign, that talked about how Congress should reexercise its power in this area, how the task force should have become advisory and brought the stakeholders together in a process similar to what was done with Chrysler in the 1970s to allow all stakeholders to come together, as opposed to being pitted against each other, workers or investors, in the process that we saw, which in the end turned out to be nothing but a prepackaged bankruptcy that could not be avoided. At this point in time, obviously all of us who have plants closed--I had my Livonia power train assembly plant notified it was going to close; 164 workers going to lose their jobs. And I know that next door to me we saw the Willow Run assembly plant closed that had produced the B-24 Liberator bombers that helped this Nation in World War II. Our thoughts are with those workers and with all the workers who are going to be displaced. But to those who think again that this is simply an economic problem for Michigan, for the Midwest, I ask them a simple question. General Motors was a symbol to the world of the United States' prosperity and security. When this icon of the United States went into bankruptcy, in the nations that bode ill toward us, they were gleeful. Because with General Motors going into bankruptcy, it sends a clear signal to the world that the United States is in decline, and into that perceived vacuum these nations will inject themselves to advance their interests, with very detrimental results to the United States of America. It is so often that we forget because we live in a land of prosperity and security what these corporations, especially General Motors, have meant throughout the world. It has not been lost on the rest of the world. And you ask yourself: If General Motors goes into bankruptcy, what do they think? We have already seen what the Russians think. We will soon find out what the Communist Chinese think. And ask yourself this question as well: What do you think is going to happen when cars are made in Communist China, imported into the United States for sale? What does that tell us about the future of the United States, both in terms of its ability to defend itself by manufacturing the armaments necessary to undergird a peace through strength policy or the ability to provide prosperity for its people. It's been a very painful week for Michigan and for America. The manufacturing base will be far smaller. We will get through this. We will help our fellow citizens who are going through a very difficult time, and we will emerge stronger, if not larger. I yield back to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. In fairness, I must point out that one of the first things that this Democratic-controlled Congress did, in conjunction with the administration, was pass a $1 trillion stimulus bill, because I include the interest, and we're all going to have to pay it. The $1 trillion stimulus bill had one provision that would have particularly helped the auto industry that was virtually eliminated in the dead of night by a hidden hand that also did something interesting. The $1 trillion stimulus bill had protected the AIG bonuses, and yet it did nothing to prevent Chrysler and GM autoworkers from going into bankruptcy. At the time, I referred to it as a post-American manufacturing bill. I would just like to point out that, sadly, events have proven that assessment correct. I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. McCOTTER. Will the gentleman yield for a question? My question is: If these 1,200 jobs in Ohio were in Ohio and they have moved to Georgia, does the administration consider them created or saved or is it going to have to come up with a third category--or shifted?

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge Diane Policelli, upon her receipt of the Tribute to Women Award, presented by the Michigan Federation of Republican Women. Diane Policelli has selflessly dedicated herself to serving her community and actively promoting the values and ideals of the Republican Party. Since retiring from her career with Ford Motor Company, she has become dynamically engaged in her neighborhood. A certified member of the Community Emergency Response Team, Diane frequently supports the city and Police and Fire departments during emergency situations. She is a Board member and chief fundraiser for the Livonia Public Schools Foundation, as well as the Vice President of the Civic Library Commission. In these roles, she dedicatedly volunteers her time to mentoring high school students. As the Community Service Chair and Hostess Chair for the Suburban Republican Women's Club, she dedicates her time to organizing activities which allow the members to creatively engage with the community. Under her direction, the Suburban Republican Women have been participating in a program to collect coupons to assist the military families of the United States. Diane also worked with a local senior citizen center on a project to have the club serve food at a dinner for the seniors. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending sincere congratulations to this year's Tribute to Women Award honoree, Diane Policelli, for her devoted service to her community and country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Unprecedented Campaign to End Tyranny, which took place on May 9, 2009. The Unprecedented Campaign to End Tyranny is a Midwest tour across nine states to support the people who have peacefully quit the Chinese Communist Party. It celebrates the condemnation of communism and the evolution of attitudes that encourage freedom of speech, religion, and expression. Since 2004, nearly fifty-four million Chinese citizens have bravely and publicly disassociated themselves with the Chinese Communist Party. This number continues to grow by up to 40,000 each day. The defection movement is gaining in momentum. Madam Speaker, it is the responsibility and duty of free Americans to stand with those who yearn to be free. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the bravery of those who have had the daring audacity to publicly step forward and denounce the stifling oppression of communism, and embrace the ideals of freedom and liberty.