September 14, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6051 

We’ll have an election in November. 

This country will choose which path it 

wants to go forward. Does it want to 

revisit the policy, the first 8 years of 

the 21st century? 

Does it want to look at what happened in the last decade of the 20th 

century, compare the results, and then 

assess in which direction we need to be 

going? 

The empirical evidence is there. The 

opportunity will be present on November 6 to choose which path this country 

will take. 

It’s clear, Madam speaker, that the 

path this Congress has been on, this 

112th Congress, is not the path that 

leads to a better, more prosperous future for our children and grandchildren. 

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. 

f 

A CHOICE OF TWO FUTURES 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. 

ELLMERS). Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 5, 2011, the 

gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 

WOODALL) is recognized for 60 minutes 

as the designee of the majority leader. 

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I 

appreciate the time. You know, you 

and I, Madam Speaker, are freshmen in 

this House. And I’ve a learned a few 

things about coming down to the floor 

from watching my colleagues, about 

how to make a good impression. You 

know, everybody’s back in their offices 

watching the proceedings on TV, or 

folks back in the district watching it 

on TV. And I see our colleagues come, 

and they’ll take the podium down to 

the very lowest level so that when they 

walk up to the podium they’ll be able 

to drag it all the way up to the top and 

look big and strong and powerful. 

You know, in the 18 months that you 

and I have served here, Madam Speaker, we’ve gotten a lot of advice about 

how to look good. We’ve gotten a lot of 

advice about how to tell the good 

story, how to spin the good tale. 

And as I listened to my friend from 

Virginia make his presentation earlier, 

I thought, you know what? He and I are 

looking at exactly the same set of facts 

and we are drawing exactly the opposite set of conclusions. And that makes 

it so hard to legislate here, Madam 

Speaker, because you and I, as part of 

this freshman class, we don’t care two 

hoots about what looks good. What we 

care about is what is good. 

We don’t care about trying to make 

people believe it’s the truth, we care 

about actually finding the truth, and 

that’s been the challenge up here in the 

18 months that you and I have had a 

voting card. 

I have beside me, Madam Speaker, a 

chart that has been down on this floor 

a number of times. It’s called A Choice 

of Two Futures, and you’ve seen it, 

Madam Speaker. It’s the one that 

shows the red line of current spending 

promises. It’s the one that goes all the 

way back to 1940, Madam Speaker. It 

shows debt as a percent of GDP. 

It shows back at the end of World 

War II when we were fighting the 

Nazis, we were fighting the Japanese, 

we were fighting to defend freedom and 

democracy around the global. In the 

name of ending that world war, we borrowed 100 percent of our economy. Our 

national debt grew to 100 percent the 

size of our economy. And that was an 

investment well made, Madam Speaker, having defended the liberty of citizens around the world. 

But we’re right back in that same 

place today, Madam Speaker. This 

chart goes from 1940 all the way out to 

2080. It’s 140 years of past policy and 

projected policy. And what it shows is 

that today, America is on the verge of 

carrying that same debt burden. 

We’re not in the middle of a world 

war to defend freedom and liberty. 

We’re not in the middle of fighting the 

Nazis and trying to prevent a hostile 

takeover of the world. But we’ve borrowed 100 percent the size of our economy. 

But that’s not even the most damning part of this chart, Madam Speaker. 

What we see is, represented by this red 

line, if we do nothing, Madam Speaker, 

if our freshman class had never come 

to this town, if we closed the Congress, 

if we closed the White House, if we 

never passed a new law and never made 

a new promise, this red line represents 

the promises already made. And what 

we see is debt rising to 200 percent, 300 

percent, 400 percent, 500 percent the 

size of our economy, levels that economists tell us will never be sustainable. 

And that’s if we don’t make one new 

promise on the floor of this House. 

My colleague from Virginia spoke 

passionately about the need for child 

care in this country; spoke eloquently 

about families at home struggling to 

balance the demands of work and the 

demands of child care. You see it in 

your district, Madam Speaker, I see it 

in my district. He’s absolutely right 

about the struggles that every single 

American family faces and, from his 

words, believes in his heart that the 

right way to address those challenges 

in my small town of Peachtree Corners, 

Georgia, is with a Federal program, a 

program that comes right down the 

street here, maybe from the Department of Health and Human Services, 

maybe from the Department of Education, but that somehow we can create a program here in Washington, 

D.C., that will be the absolute best and 

most efficient way to deal with my 

family’s challenges and my neighbors’ 

challenges back in Peachtree Corners, 

Georgia. 

Madam Speaker, what I’ve learned, I 

serve on the Budget Committee and the 

Rules Committee and, listening to my 

colleagues talk, I somehow thought 

that perhaps there were some dollars 

here in Washington, D.C., that came 

from somewhere other than my constituents’ pockets. But I’ve learned 

that’s not the case, that every single 

dollar that this institution spends, 

every single commitment that the administration makes, every single 

project that the Senate wants to fund, 

every single dollar comes out of the 

pockets of my constituents back home, 

and your constituents back home, 

Madam Speaker. 

So when we talk about—I think the 

phrase my friend from Virginia used 

was the anti-government forces on Capitol Hill. I don’t know who those forces 

are. I feel like he was talking about me 

and this freshman class. I don’t know 

of any anti-government forces. 

What I know about are folks who 

talk about what’s the right level of 

government to get the American taxpayer the absolute best value for their 

tax dollar. And who are those folks 

who honestly believe that the best 

value for their tax dollar, back in 

Peachtree Corners, Georgia, is to take 

that dollar out of the back pocket of a 

hardworking taxpayer in Peachtree 

Corners, move it through the Gwinnett 

County government, move it through 

the State of Georgia government, bring 

it up here to the Federal Government, 

then send it back down to Federal 

agency that’s going to send it back 

down to a State agency that’s going to 

send it back over to a county government in order to provide child care. 

Who believes that’s the absolute best 

and most efficient way to spend an 

American tax dollar? 

And that’s the battle that we have 

here in this House. It’s not about government and anti-government. It’s 

about good government and bad government. 

You know, we’re here in the Federal 

Government, Madam Speaker, the Federal Government, and there are responsibilities that we have, making war, 

one of our responsibilities, defending 

our border, one of our responsibilities, 

maintaining the postal roads, one of 

our responsibilities. 

b 1410 

But there are so many other levels of 

government—State government, county government, local government—that 

can fulfill some of these needs that my 

colleagues seem to believe only the 

Federal Government is right to fulfill. 

I want to go back to this chart, 

Madam Speaker. This is the chart of 

promises already made. 

So often I pick up the newspaper, and 

it sounds like everybody is just complaining up here in Washington, D.C.— 

that it’s all about pointing fingers and 

that it’s not about solving problems. 

What I am so proud of in the 18 months 

you and I have been here under the 

leadership of some senior members, 

like the gentleman from Indiana, is 

that we have not only identified the 

problem, which is a crushing debt burden that threatens the economic security, not just of our children and of our 

grandchildren, but of our very Republic, but that we’ve promulgated a solution. It’s represented here on the chart 

by this green line that’s labeled ‘‘the 

path to prosperity.’’ 

I’m just so proud I serve on the Budget Committee. My chairman is PAUL


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6052 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 14, 2012 

RYAN. This House came together—and 

you don’t hear that a lot on the front 

pages of newspapers. This House came 

together in a bipartisan way to pass a 

budget not just once—we passed it for 

the first time in 2011—but again in this 

year, 2012, and we’ve been waiting on 

the Senate to act. It’s our constitutional obligation to pass that budget 

each and every year. The President has 

offered one each and every year, the 

House has passed one each and every 

year, but the Senate has failed to act. 

We laid out line item by line item as 

to how we would prevent this most certain destruction of economic liberty 

and security in our land. It’s represented by this green line. It stretches 

out from 2012 all the way out to 2051. 

You don’t run up trillion-dollar debts 

like we’re running up and solve it overnight. You just can’t. You can’t run up 

100 percent of your GDP in debt and 

solve it overnight. We don’t have that 

kind of money. We can’t levy that kind 

of tax burden on the American people, 

but we can solve it over time. We can 

keep it from getting worse today, and 

we can make it better tomorrow. 

That’s what our plan is. I think that’s 

so important, Madam Speaker. 

Again, when I listen to it and when I 

read about it in the newspaper, it’s finger-pointing. It’s who’s to blame and 

whose fault is it and why didn’t they do 

better. I don’t care whose fault it was. 

I don’t care who got us here. My 

knowledge of history tells me there is 

a lot of blame to go around. I care 

about who is going to get us out of 

here, about who is going to solve these 

problems, about who is going to move 

us from the precipice of economic disaster back to the robust American 

economy for which we are known 

around the globe. This House has 

passed that plan, Madam Speaker, not 

once but twice. 

What I show here is the budget that 

the President has introduced. I want to 

give this President his due. I come 

down here—and we saw it with the rule 

that I managed yesterday, and we see 

it in some of the presentations on the 

other side of the aisle. You come down 

here, and it’s as if the other side is just 

evil and that’s why nothing works. 

That’s just not true at all. There are 

honest, hardworking men and women 

on both sides of this aisle who represent constituents back home who 

just have very different understandings 

of who we are as a people, some of 

whom have different hopes and dreams 

about where we will go as a people, 

some of whom have different needs 

that they’re asking the government to 

meet. 

This President got more done in the 

first 2 years of his term than most 

Presidents get done in eight. He was incredibly effective. Now, I would argue 

that he was incredibly effective in 

doing things that are destroying the 

very fabric of freedom in this country, 

but he was incredibly effective. Of 

course, he won with a majority of the 

vote here in this Nation, Madam 

Speaker, and he is campaigning to win 

again this fall—a smart guy, an effective guy, with a completely different 

understanding of who we are as a people and where we should go as a Nation 

than the one that I have, but he is a 

talented politician nonetheless. 

He has honored his legal requirement 

to submit a budget to this Congress 

each and every year that he has been in 

office, and that’s important because 

that distinguishes him from the United 

States Senate, which also has a legal 

obligation to submit a budget and has 

refused to do so for the last 3 years. 

You wonder why it is we can’t come together on funding priorities, Madam 

Speaker. For 3 years, the Senate has 

said, We’re not going to tell you what 

we’re interested in doing. We’re not 

going to provide you with any ideas, 

and because we won’t move it, the 

House product can’t move, and the 

President doesn’t have anything to 

work with. So you see the kind of economic turmoil that we’re in today, but 

the President, to his credit, has submitted a budget each and every year 

with his priorities. 

This is the budget that he submitted 

for 2012. This was just last February. 

The law required it and he complied 

with it, but he’s running for reelection. 

He has got his fingers on the pulse of 

the American people for what they 

need and what they desire and what 

they want from the United States Government—again, all attuned towards 

the election in November—but the 

budget that he submitted raises taxes, 

as the gentleman from Virginia advocated, by $2 trillion on the American 

people. 

Now, if you want to know how much 

a trillion is, Madam Speaker, I speak 

to a lot of school groups back home, 

and we try to break those zeros into 

things that matter. If you began on the 

day that Jesus Christ was born and if 

you wasted $1 million a day, 7 days a 

week from the day Jesus Christ was 

born through today, you would have to 

throw away $1 million a day every day, 

7 days a week for another 734 years to 

throw away your first $1 trillion—your 

first. The President proposes to raise 

taxes on the American people by $2 

trillion. 

Folks say, ROB, we have debts. We 

have bills to pay. We may have to raise 

taxes to do it, they say. He raises taxes 

by $2 trillion, but raises spending by 

even more. That’s what we’re talking 

about here, Madam Speaker. 

Here is the chart of the promises 

we’ve already made, the unsustainable 

path of spending that we have already 

committed to as a Nation. It is spending that has to be reduced. It is spending that has to be cut. They are priorities that have to be reset and reorganized. The President in his budget this 

year said, not only are we going to 

spend all of that, but we’re going to 

spend $2 trillion more such that we’re 

going to tax the American people an 

additional $2 trillion, but we’re going 

to raise the debt faster than if we 

hadn’t passed a budget at all. 

There are 2 trillion new dollars coming into the Treasury but so much 

more new spending going out the door 

that the debt actually rises faster 

under the President’s plan for 2013 and 

’14 and ’15 and ’16. It rises faster under 

the President’s plan in 2017 and ’18 and 

’19 and ’20. You have to go all the way 

out to 2021. I blew it up here on the 

chart because I know folks won’t be 

able to see it back in their offices. Here 

is 2021, which is represented by this 

sliver of green way out there at the end 

of this chart. It says, if we agree to the 

President’s budget and if we raise taxes 

by $2 trillion on the American people— 

with all of this new spending that he 

would like to do as well way out in 

2021—we’ll borrow just a little bit less 

money than if we’d done nothing at all. 

I say that, Madam Speaker, because 

folks aren’t here bickering over nothing. Folks are up here advocating at 

the top of their lungs for their vision of 

America. It’s the greatest experiment 

in the history of the world, where people would govern themselves, a Republic as never before seen in world history. We started that Republic here. 

We are maintaining that Republic here. 

I would tell you we are dutybound to 

pass that Republic on, not just to our 

children and to our grandchildren, but 

for generations to come; but we have 

come to a nexus in our history where 

we disagree on who we are as a people. 

The President—incredibly effective, 

incredibly talented in running for reelection, in trying to enunciate those 

hopes and dreams that the American 

people will respond to and endorse and 

reelect him based on—believes and advocates, even with this crushing burden of debt which every single economist agrees is unsustainable going into 

the future, that over the next 10 years 

we do not one thing about it. In fact, 

we raise taxes by $2 trillion. We exacerbate it and we make it worse. 

That’s not who this House is, Madam 

Speaker. That’s not why you and I ran 

for Congress. That’s not why folks left 

their families. That’s not why folks got 

off the sidelines and said, I’ve got to 

stay at home and complain about it or 

I can run for Congress and do something about it. We elected 99 new Members in this House last fall—99 new 

Members, Republicans and Democrats, 

coming from all walks of life—to say 

that we can do better, that we can be a 

part of the solution. We don’t have to 

point the finger of blame. We can actually put forward solutions—and we 

have. Again, you don’t read that in the 

newspaper, Madam Speaker. It’s no 

wonder folks are so disgusted with 

what happens in this town because, 

when you read about what’s happening 

in this town, it’s pretty disgusting. 

b 1420 

I want to talk about some of the good 

news. I have four bars here, Madam 

Speaker. Fiscal year 2010, Federal Government discretionary spending, fiscal 

year 2011, fiscal year 2012, and fiscal 

year 2013. This fiscal year 2010, Madam 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 14, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6053 

Speaker, that was money that was 

spent before you and I came to Congress. That was money that was spent 

while my Republican colleagues were 

in the minority, while we had Democrats running the White House and the 

U.S. House and the U.S. Senate. There 

was one-party control. We had oneparty Republican control from 2000 to 

2006. We had one-party Democratic control from 2008 to 2010. Spending levels, 

discretionary spending—folks say, 

‘‘Rob, doesn’t all spending begin in the 

House?’’ No, it does not. For the most 

part, two-thirds of the budget is comprised of mandatory spending, spending 

that does not come through the House 

each and every year, but discretionary 

spending comes through the House. 

This $1.27 trillion comes through the 

House for us to make a decision on 

each and every year. 

Mr. Speaker, you know the story, the 

decisions we’ve been making. When you 

and I arrived, we joined our senior Republican colleagues here, we created a 

new Republican majority here in this 

House. For FY 2011, the first year in 

which you and I served, we reduced 

spending. I’m not talking about Washington, D.C., funny math. I’m not talking about where you raise spending by 

$10 and call it a cut. I’m talking about 

actual U.S. dollars going out the door 

in discretionary spending. 

When we came into this Congress and 

we took on FY 2011 appropriations, we 

reduced it from $1.27 trillion to $1.21 

trillion, $64 billion less—not inflation 

adjusted, actual dollars—$64 billion 

less in 2011 than in 2012. You say, ‘‘Rob, 

that’s not enough.’’ You’re absolutely 

right, it’s not enough. We only have a 

small amount of control over the budget here. We’re going to do what we can, 

when we can. We went on to 2012, reduced it again down to $1.18 trillion. 

That’s another $31 billion reduction, 

and $31 billion is not enough. No, of 

course it’s not enough. Is the history in 

the country that we raise it and raise 

it and raise it? Yes, it is. Have we 

changed that history for the first time 

since World War II, Madam Speaker? 

You better believe it. 

It has not happened in this land since 

the end of World War II that a Congress 

year after year after year, and now 

after year, reduces the discretionary 

spending going out the door because it 

wasn’t just that we spent less in 2011 

than we spent in 2010, we spent less in 

2012 than we spent in 2011, and with the 

bill that we passed on the floor of this 

House yesterday, we are now on track 

to spend less in 2013 than we spent in 

2012. 

Just to be clear, Madam Speaker, we 

talked so much about what goes on 

here on the House floor. When I show 

you the path of fiscal despair that is 

ahead of us with this redline, the current path if we do nothing, and I show 

you the green line, the solution that 

we proposed in this House, it’s important to note that the green line is just 

what we’ve proposed. We’ve passed it in 

a bipartisan way. We’ve passed it twice 

in a bipartisan way, but the Senate has 

never taken it up. The President has 

promised he would never implement it. 

It is something that we see as a vision 

of prosperity for this country, but we 

cannot get agreement from the Senate 

or the White House to implement. 

That idea is distinguished from what 

we’ve done with discretionary spending, where these bills have passed the 

House, have passed sometimes a kicking and screaming Senate, and have 

been signed into law by the President 

of the United States. This is not an aspirational goal that I have here, 

Madam Speaker. This is the law of the 

land. 

Madam Speaker, all the easy choices 

are gone. They were gone before you 

and I got here. They may well have 

been gone before my colleague from Indiana got here. The easy choices have 

all been made already. The only thing 

that is left are the hard choices. 

Madam Speaker, you know as well as 

I do when we talk about cutting spending, when we talk about reducing the 

size and scope of the Federal Government, every dollar we spend comes 

from back home. Every dollar we spend 

comes out of the wallets of our constituents back home. We get to choose 

where we want to spend that money. As 

a voter back home, I can choose to 

send it to my city government, I can 

send it to my county government, I can 

send it to my State government, I can 

send it to my Federal Government. But 

who back home around the water cooler or the coffee pot says, Golly, what 

we need in this country is efficiency 

and thrift? We want it done really well 

and really fast, and we want it done for 

the lowest possible price. Let’s see. 

Let’s send it to Washington, D.C., let 

them do it, and I bet they’ll get it 

right. Who says that? Nobody says 

that. Here we are trying to nationalize 

the entire health care system in this 

country in the name of efficiency and 

lower costs. No, we’re not going to get 

it right. I say let’s keep it in the hands 

of the private sector. Some folks may 

say give it to our city government, 

some folks may say give it to our county government. Nobody says let’s send 

it to Washington, D.C. 

So when we’re making these reductions, when we’re trying to be thrifty 

with the dollars that we have seized 

from American taxpayers out of their 

paychecks each and every month, 

there’s not one anti-government advocate in this town, but there are good 

government advocates in this town. 

Whether you sit on the Republican side 

of the aisle or the Democratic side of 

the aisle, one thing on which we can all 

agree is that the Federal Government 

has let us down. 

The gentleman from Virginia made a 

passionate case for why it is we need to 

fund green energy. I happen to have the 

largest manufacturer of high-efficiency 

solar panels in America in my district, 

and I believe in green energy. What I 

don’t believe in is crony capitalism. 

That’s what we saw in Solyndra, crony 

capitalism where the political contributors get the taxpayer dollars, where 

hundreds of millions of dollars can be 

wasted with no accountability whatsoever. That’s not good for anyone. 

That’s not good for the left, that’s not 

good for the right, and that is not good 

for a single American taxpayer. We’re 

talking about good government here. 

Madam Speaker, I daresay as I look 

at this chart to my left of decreasing 

Federal spending, actual dollars going 

down, not just for 1 year, not just for 2 

years, but now for 3 years in a row, 

that that would not have happened but 

for the American people speaking out 

in the 2010 election and sending 99 new 

Members to this Congress. We had lots 

of Members here who believe in thrift, 

who believe in efficiency, who believe 

in making sure the taxpayer gets their 

maximum value out of every tax dollar, but there were not enough. There 

were not enough. I can’t tell you how 

many times from back home I watched 

the gentleman from Indiana alone as 

he advocated for good government, 

alone on the floor of the House trying 

to make a difference. The American 

people sent 99 new faces here, new 

minds, new ideas, and it’s made this 

difference. 

Madam Speaker, I don’t have any 

idea how the next election is going to 

turn out, but I’m absolutely certain 

with every fiber of my being that we’re 

going to have the largest voter turnout 

in American history come November 6. 

I know this: If there’s one thing I trust 

in this country beyond the United 

States Constitution and the King 

James Bible, it’s the American people. 

When more Americans turn out in November than ever before to make a decision about who we are as a Nation, 

where we’re going as a Nation, and who 

shall lead this Nation, we’re going to 

get it right. I don’t have any idea 

which direction that’s going to go, but 

I trust the American people. 

Madam Speaker, Newt Gingrich said 

it best when he was down in Georgia 

speaking during the presidential campaign. He said: 

This year, we do not need a presidential 

candidate we can believe in. We need candidates who believe in us. 

It’s one of the distinguishing features 

on the floor of this House, Madam 

Speaker. Do you believe in the American people? Do you trust the American people? Do you know in your 

heart that the American people left to 

their own devices will get it right 

every time? Or do you believe they just 

can’t handle it, and it’s up to Washington, D.C., to solve those issues for 

them? 

We’re going to find out on November 

6 where the hearts and minds of the 

American people are, Madam Speaker. 

But you see on these charts behind us 

the kind of success that we can have as 

a Nation, as a people in turning the 

good ship America when the American 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6054 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 14, 2012 

people turn out to the polls and send 

back to Washington those folks who 

care more about the future of this 

country than they care about themselves. 

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

f 

b 1430 

FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 

the Speaker’s announced policy of January 5, 2011, the Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Indiana (Mr. BURTON) 

for the remainder of the hour as the 

designee of the majority leader. 

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam 

Speaker, I have been in this Congress 

for a long, long time, and I have been 

frustrated a lot. I think maybe I have 

learned a little bit. For any of my colleagues who are in their offices watching on television, I thought I would 

make a few comments about some of 

the things that I hope that they will 

take as a little bit of a lesson for them 

down the road. 

I have been on the Foreign Affairs 

Committee for 30 years, and the first 

thing I have learned is you can’t make 

the world over in our image no matter 

how hard we try. There are different 

cultures, different people, different religions, tribal, all kinds of things. 

When we go into another part of the 

world and try to make them like us, we 

cause a lot of problems, we cost a lot of 

lives, and we lose a lot of money. We 

should always realize, in the back of 

our minds, that we should do what’s in 

the interest of the United States of 

America first, last, and always and not 

try to make the world look like us. 

The second thing that I think my 

colleagues, I hope they realize is that 

we’re going to have to work with some 

pretty unsavory persons sometimes. 

Muammar Qadhafi was a terrible, 

terrible tyrant in Libya. When Ronald 

Reagan had to deal with him after he 

bombed a nightclub that killed a lot of 

Americans in Germany, Ronald Reagan 

flew the planes over and bombed Qadhafi, and Qadhafi wasn’t a problem 

any more. A lot of people were killed, 

he was almost killed, and he realized 

that terrorism from his country was 

not going to stand. 

Qadhafi was not a problem for the 

United States from then on. Now, he 

was a problem in his country. He killed 

a lot of people, and there might have 

been some more carnage, but it was in 

his country. 

Because of that, we went into Libya, 

spent billions of dollars of our money. 

We drove him out of office and had him 

killed. Now there’s chaos over there, 

and they killed our Ambassador. They 

tortured him, I understand—I won’t go 

into details, but it was pretty bad. 

They killed three other people, they 

burned our flag, and the place is in 

chaos. 

What did we get when we got rid of 

Qadhafi? He was a bad guy. He was terrible to his own people. But what we 

have now is a complete chaotic situation in that part of Africa. The same 

thing is true in Tunisia. Then, of 

course, our President went over to 

Egypt, and he gave a speech talking 

about how we had to all get along, and 

how there ought to be democracy in 

Egypt. 

Now, Mubarak, who was the dictator 

over there, was a bad guy; but he had 

lived up to what we call the Camp 

David accords. The United States and 

Egypt worked together to make sure 

there was peace in the Middle East, and 

there wasn’t any war going on involving Israel or anything else. 

But we led the fight to get rid of Mubarak. We did it, along with some help, 

and now Mubarak is gone and we have 

the Muslim Brotherhood. A lot of people don’t know much about the Muslim 

Brotherhood, but they have been 

judged a terrorist organization in the 

past. I was told, and everybody else 

was told, when the Muslim Brotherhood left that there was going to be democracy, freedom, and human rights in 

Egypt. We had 78 Coptic Christians just 

murdered recently. 

As you know, they came over, and a 

mob—and it was planned, everybody 

knows about it—it wasn’t because of 

that movie. They came over, and they 

scaled the walls of the U.S. Embassy, 

they burned the American flag, and 

they ran around waving the radical 

Muslim flag. They touted their radical 

leaders as the future leaders of that 

area. Osama bin Laden, they were carrying his picture around saying, we 

support Osama bin Laden. 

Now, this is a country that we just 

gave $1.5 billion to, our money. The 

reason we gave them that money is because we’ve been paying them for years 

and years to make sure that they lived 

with the Camp David Peace Accords, 

which meant that there would be peace 

between Egypt and Israel and throughout the Middle East. Mubarak is gone, 

the Muslim Brotherhood’s in charge, 

and there’s chaos in Egypt, and the entire Middle East is threatened further. 

When you look across the northern 

tier of Africa, I hope my colleagues 

will realize, we’ve tried to create governments that agree with us and look 

like us and that will be tokens of the 

United States of America. Instead of 

leaving them alone, we have helped 

create chaos. 

Now, I just got back from the Persian 

Gulf recently. I was in Bahrain, and 

Bahrain is a friend of ours. We have the 

Fifth Fleet there, which patrols the entire Persian Gulf, protecting those waterways, and we get about 35 percent of 

our energy from that part of the world. 

Iran is sending people into that country to undermine that government and 

stir up the people. It’s the same thing 

that happened in Libya, the same thing 

happened in Egypt, and now it’s happening in the Persian Gulf states. We 

get a third of our energy from there. If 

we don’t get that energy, if we don’t 

become energy independent, we are 

going to have the lights off one of these 

days, and we’re going to be paying 

about $5 or $6, $7, $8 a gallon for gasoline. It will hurt the entire economy. 

Now, this isn’t baloney; this is fact. 

The radicals are working that entire 

region to take over, and we’re trying to 

help these radicals or have helped these 

radicals or have helped these radicals 

in a number of countries, and now 

we’ve got a real chaotic mess on our 

hands. 

Yesterday, my colleagues overwhelmingly passed a continuing resolution. Most people don’t know what that 

is, but it’s a spending bill that takes us 

from now until March of next year. I 

came down to the floor when the discussion was going on the recommittal 

motion, and I said, tell me, is any of 

that money going to Libya or Egypt? 

Nobody would answer me. I can tell 

you right now additional monies are 

going to go to Libya, additional money 

is going to go to Egypt, and both of 

those countries are not friends of the 

United States. 

A gentlewoman from Congress told 

me yesterday she was in Egypt not 

long ago, and she talked to one of the 

members of the Muslim Brotherhood. 

She said, What are the goals that you 

have? He said, Our goal is the Muslim 

Brotherhood is to have the al Qaeda 

flag, the Muslim Brotherhood flag, fly 

over the White House in the United 

States. 

He may have been exaggerating a little, but if you look at what the Muslim 

Brotherhood has said just recently, and 

their new president, they said they 

weren’t going to involve themselves so 

deeply in government over there. They 

took over the legislative branch, they 

have taken over the presidency. Their 

president recently said he wanted to 

model their government after Iran. 

Egypt is the biggest country in the 

Middle East, but we went in there. Our 

President went in there and gave a 

speech. We said we wanted to change 

that and get rid of the dictator, Mubarak, who was not a good guy. At least 

he supported the Camp David Peace 

Accords, which Jimmy Carter worked 

on, all the way up to now, and now 

we’ve got a chaotic situation over 

there. We can’t make the world over in 

our image. 

We should not try to nation-build. 

You know, I supported it. I supported 

our efforts when we went into Iraq because I thought we had to get rid of 

Saddam Hussein, and I thought we had 

to stop the movement of radical Islam 

in its tracks. I thought democracy 

would be a good thing there. 

If you look at what’s happened, the 

democracy there is, although it’s a 

fledgling democracy, is very rocky, and 

they are very close to Iran. They have 

met with the Iranian leaders, 

Ahmadinejad, and so this nation-building we did in Iraq right now I think is 

still tenuous. 

b 1440 

I’m not sure it’s going to work out. 

And we spent billions and billions and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE