Matt Salmon

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to my colleagues' attention an incident that occurred on November 16, 2014 in which two American rabbis and three Israeli citizens were brutally murdered in a West Jerusalem synagogue by two cousins associated with the Har Nof terrorist group. While I appreciate the role Jordan, her government, and her people play in fighting terrorism and promoting regional stability, I am deeply disappointed at the Jordanian government's response to this sickening, ruthless act of terrorism and murder. While the Prime Minister's office officially condemned the action and its extremist ideology, these admonishments are rendered moot when they are followed by a letter of condolence from Jordanian Prime Minister Abdullah Ensour to the terrorists' family. Additionally, the Jordanian parliament not only condoned but celebrated the murders by holding a minute of silence on the parliament floor to memorialize the perpetrators. Such mixed signals from the Jordanian government are unconscionable and counterproductive to ongoing efforts toward regional stabilization and peace. Praising those who commit acts of terrorism promotes the culture of political violence that continually shocks the neighborhoods of East and West Jerusalem, further derailing an already strained reconciliation process at each turn. Such official endorsements send the wrong message to Jordanian citizens and Muslims worldwide, especially youth who are faced each day with the decision to turn to violence or toward peace. The U.S. Congress must encourage the Jordanian government to stand in condemnation of such acts of violence.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to my colleagues' attention a September 8, 2014 article by David Clark, printed in the Huffington Post UK, entitled, ``The Unacceptable Face of Putinism''. In this troubling article, Mr. Clark comments on Russia's continued efforts to ignore, and in fact undermine, the rule of law. At the heart of this most recent demonstration is Putin crony, Igor Sechin, a former KGB operative-turned-Rosneft CEO, who, reportedly, upon losing an arbitration case at The Hague under the Energy Charter Treaty and being required to pay $50 billion in compensation to the majority shareholder of YUKOS Oil, threatened the plaintiff, Mr. Leonid Nevzlin. The lawsuit stems from the Kremlin's act of taking over YUKOS Oil and imprisoning the company's top executives. As we watch Russia violate Ukraine's sovereignty through its annexation of Crimea and flout the international community's warnings about their actions in Eastern Ukraine, it is important to note that President Putin's government continues to violate the rule of law and must be held accountable. Russia must be required to live up to their international obligations, which includes compliance with rulings by The Hague as prescribed in the Energy Charter Treaty. The international community must ensure that Russia is held accountable for their actions and meets their responsibilities under the law. I hope my colleagues will take the time to read this article. [From the Huffington Post, UK, Sept. 8, 2014] The Unacceptable Face of Putinism (By David Clark) There isn't a better weathervane of Kremlin opinion than Igor Sechin. The 53 year old former KGB operative has been Vladimir Putin's most loyal and influential lieutenant since they worked together for the Mayor of St. Petersburg in the 1990s. Officially he has served as Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration, Deputy Prime Minister and now Chairman of Rosneft, the state oil company. Unofficially he has long been leader of the Kremlin's hardline siloviki faction; the group of senior intelligence and security officers who provide the muscle that makes Putin's leadership possible. So when Sechin publicly threatens the life of an exiled Russian businessman, as he did recently, it's worth paying attention. Russia's behaviour could be about to take another turn for the worse. Sechin's outburst came at the end of a bad period for Russia. Already facing escalating international sanctions and a setback to its covert military intervention in Eastern Ukraine, an international tribunal in The Hague at the end of July found the Russian government guilty of illegally expropriating Yukos Oil a decade ago and ordered it to compensate the company's former majority shareholders to the tune of $50bn. This was a particularly bitter blow to Sechin who has been accused of personally orchestrated the destruction of Yukos and who's company, Rosneft, subsequently acquired its main production assets. Indeed, Rosneft stands to lose directly if its assets outside Russia are seized to facilitate payment of the award. Incensed by the loss of face and the possible loss of business, Sechin raged about the unfairness of the ruling before turing his remarks directly to Leonid Nevzlin, the largest former shareholder. Nevzlin, he warned, ``should take care of himself.'' It's hard to interpret this as anything other than a direct physical threat. Given Sechin's status and connections, it certainly deserves to be treated as more than a throwaway remark. Putin's Russia has a long history of using targeted assassination as a tool of policy, both inside Russia and abroad. Outside Russia the targets have usually been armed Chechen separatists. Investigating authorities in both Qatar and Turkey have accused the Russian intelligence agencies of murdering Chechen exiles on their territory. Russia is hardly alone in carrying out the targeted assassination of those it deems to be terrorists. But it is also now one of the few countries that appears ready to use the same method against non-violent opponents. Rather than a shocking exception, the 2006 murder in London of former Russian intelligence officer Alexander Litvinenko may prove to be an ominous foretaste of what the Kremlin is capable of. Now the subject of a public inquiry, British officials long ago concluded that there was Russian state involvement in the crime. Yet even in the Litvinenko case the motive was related to national security, or at least the Kremlin's interpretation of it. If Leonid Nevzlin has now been added to a hit list it marks a further escalation of Moscow's willingness to resort to violence beyond its border. After all, the offence that seems to have made him a target was to do nothing more than exercise his legal rights in a court of law. In the context of the ongoing violence in Eastern Ukraine, it might be tempting for Western governments to treat Sechin's indiscretion as a matter of comparatively little importance. That would be a mistake. If Russia is allowed, in effect, to announce its willingness to resort to state terrorism, there is no way of knowing what consequences may follow. The Kremlin is strongly suspected of involvement in the dioxin poisoning that almost killed Victor Yushchenko shortly before he became President of Ukraine in 2004. Without a clear signal of international condemnation it might consider doing something similar today to President Poroshenko or Prime Minister Yatsenyuk. The message therefore needs to be sent that murder for political ends would put Russia outside the community of civilised nations. The first step should be for the European Union to follow U.S. policy in putting Igor Sechin on the sanctions list of individuals subject to travel bans and asset freezes. The U.S. included Sechin on its list because of the immense influence he has exerted during Russia's lurch towards authoritarian nationalism. Perversely, the EU chose to exclude him from its own list for precisely the same reason. He is considered too important to be signalled out for punishment because of his involvement in the strategically vital energy sector where Europe's dependence on Russian imports has all but paralysed its capacity to act. That will need to change if the EU wants to challenge the impunity of the Russian elite. A second step should be for Western governments to issue a formal demarche and put Russia's leaders on notice that the country will be designated a state sponsor of terrorism if any attempt is made to follow through on the threat against Nevzlin or anyone else legitimately standing up to the Kremlin. Difficult as this may be, the lessons of the recent past have to be learned. Every time the West has shied away from tough action in the face of Russian lawlessness the result has been to encourage its leaders to greater and more dangerous policy excess. It's time to draw a line.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the grand opening of the Bridgestone Americas Biorubber Process Research Center in Mesa, Arizona on September 22, 2014. I'm honored to represent this facility, which will serve as a research and development center for advancing the use of the desert- based Guayule plant--native to the Southwestern United States--as an alternative natural rubber source for Bridgestone products. This research will help further the development of a more diverse domestic, sustainable and renewable source for natural rubber that will decrease the reliance on rubber trees. The Biorubber facility will be supplied with guayule from the nearby Bridgestone Guayule Agro Operations Farm in Eloy, AZ which is expected to submit its first sample for research for evaluation by mid-year 2015. The Biorubber facility will provide significant economic benefits to my district with 40 high-skilled research and technician jobs, in addition to the almost 500 Bridgestone employees already in the state. The opening of this facility further underscores Bridgestone's ongoing commitment to technological and environmental innovation, and adds to its reputation as a leader in corporate environmental sustainability. Again, I would like to congratulate Bridgestone Americas on the grand opening of its new Biorubber Process Research Center. I am proud that Bridgestone is an integral part of our community, and I'm pleased to commemorate this significant development in Arizona's 5th District.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, as everyone in this Chamber knows, Russia has been conducting itself in a manner that is irresponsible and demands accountability. Over the past several months we have witnessed President Vladimir Putin's ruthless actions in Crimea and now Eastern Ukraine that has prompted a series of economic sanctions that are being escalated as he continues to display a doctrine of muscular nationalism amid the growing concerns in Europe and the U. S. This past week, the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague announced a historic ruling that the Russian Federation had violated the Energy Charter Treaty when it expropriated the assets of the Yukos Oil Company after fabricating tax charges and put its founder and chairman, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, in prison. Mr. Khodorkovsky's former holding company, GML, rightly brought the case to the Hague and received a ruling in their favor that exceeded $50 billion. I have been following this case for the past ten years because I am personally acquainted with Mr. Khodorkovsky and was greatly concerned when the Russian government confiscated his company and then had him arrested. At the time, a top aide to President Putin, Igor Sechin, maneuvered the government takeover of Yukos and eventually created Rosneft, a company he now heads, without any compensation to the Yukos Oil Company investors and shareholders. I am pleased that Mr. Khodorkovsky was eventually released from prison and that the Hague's Arbitration Court, after seven years of litigation, has finally brought justice to a case where one of the world's largest countries seized the assets of its largest company, thus violating all the principles associated with the rule of law. But as the extensive news accounts reveal, it is unlikely that the Russian Federation under the guidance of Mr. Putin will honor the court's decision that awarded the GML shareholders about half of the original $114 billion claim. Undoubtedly, Russia will exhaust all means to contest the ruling and avoid payment, but ultimately justice will prevail even if it results in the seizure of assets outside Russia. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that President Vladimir Putin's authoritarianism and nationalistic policies are moving our bilateral relationship back to the Cold War days. The Russian leader has to recognize that in today's world he has to be held accountable for actions that are reprehensible, whether they are geopolitical in attempting to impose his will on other countries or internal when it involves the core tenets of democracy: rule of law, a free press and a viable opposition. Indeed he is taking Russia in the wrong direction.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. I think so too.

Mr. SALMON. Right. And, Mr. Chairman, I can't understand how any conservative in good conscience would not want to stop that hemorrhage and make sure that we are not spending those billions of dollars that should be going to pay down our Federal debt.

Mr. SALMON. Just to care for those kids.

Mr. SALMON. That is what I understand. I also understand that conservative estimates indicate it is going to cost $2.6 billion a year to care for just half of the nearly 60,000 that are already here. We are talking about billions and billions of dollars, not to mention the fact that these children are being sexually molested along the way, that they are being killed along the way, that they are being sold into slavery, and we can stop it.

Mr. SALMON. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. SALMON. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Secure the Southwest Border Act of 2014. This kind of came to light a few months ago when The Arizona Republic published a story that these families were being dropped at bus stations in Tucson and Phoenix. Then it highlighted the current administration's catch-and-release policies that are encouraging literally swarms of people to come across the 1,500-mile desert of Mexico into the United States, risking life, risking their happiness. And the fact is, we can't keep doing nothing. This bill will stop these waves and waves of people from coming across our border. As we went over to Guatemala and we went to Honduras and we talked with our State Department folks, that is exactly what they said: You have got to make it clear that we move from a catch-and-release policy to a detain-and-deport policy. And that is what this bill does. If we want to send a strong message to people that that $5,000 to $8,000 that they are paying to these thugs that are transporting across the border and hurting these young boys and girls along the way and then holding them for extra money, extorting their parents, that if we want to stop this from happening and stop the pain that is going on with these children, then the best thing that we can do is to send a clear message that in America, there are no permisos--permits, permissions; if you make that journey, you are going to be sent back to your country. That is the only thing that is going to make it happen. Now, our liberal friends, they want to just throw more money at the problem and perpetuate the problem. They want it to keep happening. I say that is not compassionate. I say continuing that pain and that harm to these children is not a good thing to do, and the way to stop it is to send a clear message. We have got folks on my side of the aisle that have problems with the bill. What do they have a problem with? Nothing inside the bill. Not putting the National Guard on the border, not stopping the catch-and- release programs, and not giving unfettered access to our Border Patrol. They can't come up with a good reason to vote against it. They are playing right into Harry Reid's hands.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3136, the Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration Project of 2014. I want to thank Chairman Kline and Chairwoman Foxx for their support and work on this legislation. I also want to thank Congressman Polis and Congresswoman Brooks for working with me on this legislation. College costs have risen dramatically over the last several years. To be exact, they have risen 500 percent since 1985. The average national tuition for this past school year was just over $30,000, which represents 62 percent of the median annual income for my home State of Arizona. Even so, a college degree is still viewed as essential for success to many students and employers. Throwing taxpayer dollars at the problem in the form of expanding loan forgiveness does not get at the heart of the problem or the solution of making college more affordable and is not a viable, long- term solution. Federal regulations continue to greatly impede efforts to reduce the cost of a degree. We need to implement policies that allow institutions to be innovative and try developing new models of education instead of continuing with the status quo. H.R. 3136 will set up a pilot project to allow institutions to more easily develop innovative models of delivering education to students. I have been told before that all teachers don't teach the same and all students don't learn the same. We need to recognize this. This legislation is a step in allowing students to earn a college degree and enter the job market sooner--far sooner, in many cases--based on their knowledge and skill set rather than the amount of time that they spend in the classroom. All students can benefit from such a program. However, this may be particularly beneficial to our Nation's veterans and nontraditional students. Our veterans return from duty with particular skills, and we should reward them for that by allowing them the ability to earn credits based on those skills and the learning that they have already received. Similarly, nontraditional students often go back to school to finish their degree to get a better job, and they should be allowed to use the knowledge that they gain from their job to be able to advance their education and their degree. Additionally, my legislation will incentivize students to work hard to accelerate their degree attainment, potentially cutting their overall education costs and allowing them to begin their careers sooner. This bipartisan legislation, which passed out of committee by voice vote, allows schools to explore more innovative ways to deliver education, measure quality, and disburse financial aid based on actual learning rather than seat time. My bill will direct the Secretary of Education to implement a demonstration project and to waive certain regulatory requirements that impede such innovations that would decrease costs. The program would allow colleges to provide academic credit to students who can prove competencies through their prior work and life experiences and hard work, rather than a specified amount of time in the classroom. This is a good first step to try to find ways to make a college education more affordable and more attainable for our Nation's students. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration Project of 2014.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 3136, the Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration Project of 2014. I would like to thank Chairman Kline and the subcommittee Chairwoman Foxx for their support and work on this legislation. I am really appreciative of Representative Polis and all of his fine work. This truly is a bipartisan bill. I would also like to state how proud I am to be part of a body that has actually taken its job very, very seriously for the hard times that most Americans have fallen upon, and I am proud that over the course of the last year and a half since I rejoined the Congress, that we passed over 320 bills--40 of them that would create jobs in this economy immediately--that are languishing in the Majority Leader of the Senate's drawer and have no action taken. A lot of the American public are frustrated, and they have gone to calling this the do-nothing Congress. Well, let me tell you, half the Congress--the House--is actually doing its work. When it comes to the appropriation bills, which we are required by our rules and our laws to do every year, the House will have done its duty by the end of this year in passing all the appropriation bills. I think we have done 10 of them so far. I believe the Senate hasn't done any. So I think that when it comes to dealing with the cost of higher education, this is a big step in the right direction. We are aware of the cost of higher education. It has grown by more than 500 percent since 1985 compared to an overall inflation rate of 121 percent. Federal regulations greatly impede the efforts to reduce the cost of a college degree. As a result, we have got to implement policies to allow institutions to be innovative in developing new models of education, instead of continuing with the status quo because the status quo is not working. That is why I introduced the Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration Project of 2014 with my colleagues Representative Polis and Representative Brooks. This important bipartisan legislation will set up a pilot project to allow institutions to more easily develop innovative ways to deliver education to their students. H.R. 3136 is the first step in allowing students to earn a degree and enter the job market sooner based on their knowledge and their skill set, rather than seat time in the classroom. My bill will direct the Secretary of Education to implement a demonstration project and to waive regulatory requirements that impede innovations that might decrease costs to students. The program would allow colleges to provide college credit to students who can prove competencies through prior work and life experience, rather than a specified amount of time in the classroom. In our field hearing that we held in Arizona, two of our college presidents from Arizona State University and the University of Arizona said that this will immensely help them to be able to get students through their degree programs quicker, based on their competency. They all agreed that the group of people that it will probably help more than anybody else in America are our returning veterans because they come with certain skill sets that they don't get credit for. I would like to just talk 1 minute about how that process works because I had it work in my life. I served a mission for my church to Taiwan when I was a young man, and I came back fluent in Mandarin and Chinese. It didn't make a lot of sense for me to go through Chinese 101 and learn how to say ``where is the bathroom'' with the other kids when I could already speak fluent Mandarin and Chinese. I was able to test out of that by demonstrating my competency of already being fluent in the language, and I got just about an entire semester's worth of credit. That is what we are talking about here. People who have been in the military, people who have been in other jobs that they have had, where they have been able to learn skills that don't necessarily translate into book work, but they are a lot more proficient at those skills than a lot of kids entering the classroom. This is going to cut through a lot of the garbage and allow people to be able to get those degrees earlier and, thereby, reducing their costs. This legislation passed out of the Education and the Workforce Committee by a voice vote, and it allows higher education institutions to explore more innovative ways to deliver education, measure quality, and disperse financial aid based on actual learning, again, rather than seat time. It provides flexibility to the schools looking to provide students a more personalized, cost-effective education, and I think that is what we are all here for. I thank the Speaker for entertaining my ideas, and I thank the gentlewoman for giving me the time.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. I will just say in summation, I think the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) said it very well, and that is: How in the world are we going to get to the serious cuts to try to get our budget balanced if we can't even cut a million dollars to give to China to see how China's tea is going to grow with climate change? This is ridiculous. If we can't do an easy thing like this, I fear for America. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to cut all funding for the National Science Foundation's program to study the climate effects on tea quality and socioeconomic responses in China and other locations. In fact, I find it deeply troubling that while our country is facing fiscal challenges of gigantic proportions, staring down over $17.5 trillion in debt, that I can quickly find programs such as this that are being funded on the back of the American taxpayer. To date, this program has already received about $1 million in funding. Regardless of whether or not you believe that we must get our national debt under control, I believe we can all agree that these are difficult times for American families. With this in mind, how can we seriously look our constituents in the face and assure them we are looking out for their best interest when we allow their money to be spent like this? While I certainly understand the value of predicting agricultural trends for tea, I believe that that is a task that ought to be left to the private sector, the ones that benefit from this kind of information. Now, amendments like this are a high watermark. If we can't make the easy choices to eliminate these kinds of programs, how are we going to do the tough cuts? In a time where things are tough enough for the average American family, we certainly don't need to add another burden such as programs like this. And I might just say, finally, that our history has shown us that government getting involved in tea policy, as Great Britain did, can lead to a very, very slippery slope. I think government needs to stay out of tea policy. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentlewoman from the Ninth Congressional District of Arizona, which is right adjacent to mine. She is my neighbor, and I am proud to cosponsor this with her to show a strong unity of bipartisanship for our veterans. And if there isn't a better cause here in Washington, D.C., to stand bipartisan with, I don't know what it is. I want to echo some of the things that Congresswoman Sinema has said. This is unconscionable. And since these allegations have come to light, we have received numerous phone calls in our district from other like- minded people that have said, I had a similar circumstance happen to me. So when Representative Sinema approached me about cosponsoring this amendment to allocate $1 million from the general fund of the Veterans Administration and appropriate it to the IG so that we can get a thorough investigation, it seems to me that this is the least we can do. Why is this important? You might remember just a few years ago that a gentleman named--I call him gentleman, I think that is a loose term-- Ken Lay, the CEO of Enron, went to prison for cooking the books. Now we have got some serious allegations about those that are entrusted with a sacred trust--our veterans' very livelihood--at stake. And I believe that this group of folks in the Veterans Administration has betrayed that trust. But we have got to get to the bottom of it. Why is it important? Because it is the integrity of the system. A lot of the folks in my district, the veterans, have said that they don't have the confidence to even be utilizing that system anymore, and so they are right now going out of network. They are paying out of their pocket. I have heard many of them say that, as well. So we, as a Congress, are required to provide oversight for these kinds of programs and ensure that they are getting the best--not the mediocre, and certainly not the worst, which I believe is happening right now in our own State in Arizona--and we demand justice. We demand some sunshine. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and we demand some sunshine on this process. That is why we want to investigate it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, as we throw all these numbers around, I guess they mean a lot on the floor debate, but to the real people that are suffering, they don't really mean anything. There is an old adage that says there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. We are throwing numbers around here like they matter, but the fact is there are real people's lives that are being hurt, being destroyed. In fact, I read an article just a few months ago that the community college where I met my wife is actually notifying 1,300 employees, 700 of them that were adjunct professors, that their hours are going to be reduced, and they are being reduced because of this law. They are being hurt. I guess we can quote them a statistic to tell them: go on your merry way. I know you can't pay for your mortgage. I know you can't make your car payment. You can't pay for your child's college education, but we got this great statistic that we just got out of Congress that ought to make you feel better about your life. The fact is we ought to be more concerned about individuals than we are throwing numbers around. I understand CBO also said that total implementation of ObamaCare would cost $2.1 trillion. The fact is we can use statistics to say just about whatever we want them to say, but real people's lives are being hurt; and we have a responsibility here in this body to do everything that we can to try to raise the lifestyle in this country, not degrade it. People are losing their jobs. My son lost his insurance because of ObamaCare. He was one of that small percentage--again, a statistic-- that we were quoted, but the fact is he lost his insurance. Now he just told us that he is having his third child. The first two children were delivered by a doctor that they know and trust, but because of ObamaCare, their doctor is not covered under their new policy. To add insult to injury, when he went on the exchange to sign up, after he was told that his policy was no longer covered because of ObamaCare, his premiums went up from $450 a month to $850 a month. That is hardly helping people. I think that it is safe to note, this law was passed without one Republican, and it is time that we stopped our high horse of statistics and actually care about people.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, due to a technical error on rollcall 38, my vote was inaccurately recorded as ``yea.'' I have always been a vocal and firm supporter of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) waivers, which save taxpayer dollars and decrease red tape by allowing federal agencies to approve the use of federal public land for recreational fishing, hunting, and shooting without needless process and paperwork that has no benefit to wildlife or wildlife habitat. I would like to state that my intended vote was ``nay'' for rollcall 38--On Agreeing to Amendment No. 6 by DeFazio of Oregon.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to the great progress being made in the use of clean, reliable solar energy across America and particularly in my home state of Arizona. I urge my colleagues to join me on January 24 for the national Shout Out for Solar Day. Arizona's solar industry employs almost 10,000 people at more than 250 companies. Not only are we the second-largest solar user in the country, solar in Arizona is growing faster than in every state besides California. There is now enough solar generation in Arizona to power almost 200,000 homes. 2013 was a record-shattering year for solar, in Arizona and across the Nation, and I am proud to lend my voice to supporting the continued success of solar energy. Please join me on January 24 and Shout Out for Solar.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. I appreciate that. When we talk about the rule of law, the rule of law means that it applies equally to everyone. Of course, today, we have talked a lot about how within ObamaCare the rule of law does not apply equally to everyone. Some people get waivers. Depending on what kind of company you work for, some companies get waivers. Some unions get waivers. When it comes to individual health care policies, some people get grandfathered and they get to keep their policy, and other people get letters saying their policy is canceled. We have exchanged, in this country, at this point under ObamaCare, the rule of law for the rule of man, where you have nameless, faceless bureaucrats that don't represent anybody and make decisions that change the law for individuals. That's not what was intended by the Founding Fathers. As the gentleman from Florida said, when you think about creditor rights and you think about the bailout for Chrysler, you have different classes of creditors. In the case of the Chrysler bailout, you had secured creditors. That means that in the hierarchy structure, they were superior to the shareholders. They were superior because they were lending the money. They weren't the owners of the company. They had rights that were above the shareholders. In the case of Chrysler, what happened is the President came in, like you said, and they got very involved. In fact, they changed the rule of law for the rule of man, where you had bureaucrats coming in and making a decision that the secured creditors would be wiped out. In fact, they were bullied. I think they received 30 cents on a dollar for investment, if I remember correctly. But the secured creditors would be bullied to give up their investment, and the people who actually came out ahead were the unions, who were not secured creditors. This is a violation of bankruptcy law. Again, the President's job is to faithfully execute the law, not change the law for political preference and not replace the rule of law with the rule of man, which is what they did in this case. Politically, they made a decision that the secured creditors would be wiped out, the unions would be made whole, and at the end of the day--here is the fallout from that: in the United States of America, all across this country, and in the world, people are making decisions about where they're going to invest money. If you look at the investment opportunities in the United States of America right now, if you're going to invest in Big Business, the whole too-big-to-fail mantra that we have heard over and over again, if you are going to invest in Big Business, you are going to have to take a risk, and that risk has nothing to do with the return on investment or whether or not the company is sound. That risk is now political risk. Because as an investor, politically you could be wiped out, even if you have a secured debt instrument. When you replace the rule of law with the rule of man, especially as it relates to business, people make decisions to invest elsewhere. And if you look at our country right now and you look at the capital investment in our country, we could be doing much better. Of course, if we had a President that adhered to the law, rather than changing the law based on political preference, we might see more investment in our country. Of course, investment is how businesses grow. It is how they raise money to open up a new plant or open up a new store, and capital investment is how new firms get created and it is how jobs get created and grow. So what we have right now is the replacement of the rule of law for the rule of man, and it is been detrimental for our economy as it relates to the securities industry.

Mr. SALMON. I thank the gentleman from Florida. Yes, I was right in the middle of all those debates. As a matter of fact, before I came to Congress, the Arizona Legislature, which I was part of, actually passed a bill called Workfare, which was very similar to what we passed in 1996. It recognizes the idea, I think the truth, and there is an old Chinese proverb: If I catch a fish for you, you'll have food for a day. If I teach you to fish, you'll have food for your life. That was the model we tried to employ, and that was that people have to work. They have to give something back for the welfare payments that they are given. It was called Workfare, and that is what we decided to do here in the Congress. And it did one other thing, Congressman, that no government program can or normally does really do, and that is help instill dignity in people. I think one of the things that has really broken our country is that we have become this welfare state, a bunch of dependents across the country. I think that giving somebody the opportunity to be able to give something back actually helps preserve, I think, the human spirit. We all want to feel like we have some worth, that we have some relevance to society. And the old traditional welfare program is almost like we'll pay you to stay out of society. We'll give you just barely enough to subsist, but you stay out of society. And that's the message, subliminally or otherwise, that it gives to those people. We don't really have much to offer you. You don't offer much value to society, so we will pay you to stay home. We thought of a different idea, I think a vastly more compassionate idea, and that is to have people be able to give something back so they didn't get something for nothing. Also, along the way, they actually got skills and abilities that they didn't otherwise have so that they could learn how to work, they could learn how to hold down a job. That was one of the key components of the welfare reform that we passed in 1996, that while we send that money out to the States, that there are work requirements. I think that's reasonable. You don't get something for nothing. You have got to get out and help pull the wagon instead of having everybody cart you around. That's reasonable. What did this President do the moment he got in office? He started through executive orders granting waivers to each of the States, getting rid of those work requirements. Again, that was a law that was passed in 1996, signed by President Clinton, and the President coming after changes the terms of those laws. To me, as far as I am concerned, not only is that lawless, it is foolish, because it is hurting the very people he purports to help. I believe that rather than helping them, it is keeping them down.

Mr. SALMON. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma. Yes, it has been something that we have been dealing with in a very up close and personal way. As a matter of fact, about a month and a half ago, I had the good fortune to meet with Arizona's adjunct general. He's over the National Guard for Arizona. He was finishing up his term in office, and I said, Sir, what is your biggest concern when it comes to possible terrorist activity here in Arizona? We don't have a lot of the national weather pattern problems like they do in other parts of the country, like hurricanes and tornadoes. We have some dust storms every now and then, and we have had some terrible fires. But I was truly interested, and I wasn't trying to lead him in any direction. But he said, without a doubt, the thing that keeps me up at night, the thing that worries me more than anything is the porousness of our border, and the fact that about 15 percent of the people that we apprehended last year were not from Mexico. Many of those people were from the Middle East. What I worry about is because it is so lax and so easy to get across our border, that some terrorist is going to be able to get across the border with a suitcase bomb and detonate it and a lot of people will be injured or killed. That was his big concern. So then I had an opportunity to sit down with some of our ICE people that are stationed in Arizona. They are the ones responsible for interior enforcement. I had a long conversation with them. You know what they told me? They said, You know, we don't need a lot more assets to get the border secured; what we need is for this administration to enforce the law. We need them to let us do our jobs. We are law enforcement people. We see the law very, very clearly. We know what the laws state, but our hands have been tied by this administration. They won't let us do our jobs. He then proceeded to tell me that we have done these surveys on a regular basis to try to determine where employee morale is at, and they said it's at an all-time low ever since they've been doing these surveys right now within ICE, especially in Arizona because they feel they are not empowered to do their jobs, and they wonder, what am I doing here. Many of them want to be transferred out or just kind of, you know, march in place and do their time and get out as soon as they can, but the morale is terrible. These are honorable, decent people who want to do their jobs. The other side would have you believe that no, this is just about some honest people who want to come across the border and get jobs in the United States and take care of their families. It's not just about that. As we saw with Brian Terry, with the gun smuggling, Fast and Furious, guns are being smuggled across the border, drugs are being smuggled across the border, and unsavory characters who have bad ideas on what they want in the United States are coming across the border, and one day the piper is going to have to be paid. So the border is far from being secure. We have the ability to do it, but this administration will not let them do their jobs.