Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's always an honor to be recognized here on the floor of the United States House. I want to follow up on what my dear friend Mr. Woodall was pointing out. With the amount of red ink that we've had, there is no person, there is no business, there is no charity, there is no family that could continue to spend like this government is spending. The trouble is, yes, this administration is driving this truck right toward and off the cliff. They are so fond of talking about cliffs. We've been heading for a big one. The one at the first of the year was just a bump. It was nothing compared to the overall collapse we're headed for, along the lines that the Soviet Union faced back in the late eighties. There are stories about how they were trying to borrow money, but they had continued to spend, of course, in trying to catch up with our missile defense. They knew they had to match that if they were going to remain a superpower. The great vision of Ronald Reagan had pushed that. He understood that continuing to push a doctrine of MAD, mutually assured destruction, really was mad. It was nuts. Why not develop defensive weapons so that, if there were a mistake, there would at least be a chance to stop it? The Soviet Union, the Soviet system, is where you're rewarded not by how well you work, not by how productive you are, but because you exist. It's a very noble system, a very noble idea, but it doesn't work--it always goes bankrupt--and the SDI, the missile defense, just helped push them there a whole lot faster. So they got to the point, because they had spent so much, that they couldn't borrow any more money. They owed so much that they knew there was no way they could ever print money fast enough unless they went back to the pre-World War II days when people used wheelbarrows, figuratively speaking, to get a loaf of bread. They knew that they couldn't do that. Then when there was no other way, they finally had to announce: the Soviet Union is now out of business. It's so ironic. A free market system never collapses. It only fails when people who are not well-educated enough--and they can have all kinds of degrees. They could be like the late Mrs. Milam in my hometown when I was growing up, who used to say, He may have a Ph.D., but he's a P-H-U-L fool. She probably had a third grade education, but she was absolutely brilliant. So we have a lot of people like Mrs. Milam who talk about those who have Ph.D.'s, but they're P-H-U-L fools, and they don't understand that socialism doesn't work, it won't work, it can't work in this world. So the Soviet Union went bankrupt. If people think it cannot happen here, well, I can assure everyone, Mr. Speaker, it will happen here unless we get responsible, and a pox on the Republican's House for not doing everything we possibly could to stop the Democrats in the Senate and the Democratic President from heading faster and faster toward that cliff. Fortunately, in recent days, because we have taken a great stand, we slowed this truck down. We're still heading there. Then we have people basically throwing a temper tantrum because they didn't get every dime that they wanted. Yes, government has increased 20 percent. Their entire budgets have increased 20 or so percent. Oh, they're getting more money than they've ever gotten in history, but try to, not cut them, but just slow that big rate of growth down. If we just slow it a little bit, we get a temper tantrum: Oh, yeah? So what if it's going to bankrupt us? If you're not going to give us all the money, well, we're going to let law enforcement go so they won't be there to protect you. And do you know what? Kids who need vaccinations to keep from being diseased--we're going to spend the money elsewhere, and we're going to let them go without vaccinations so they can get disease. Do you know what? For the kids that need education, we're going to prioritize money elsewhere so they don't have teachers; Now we found out that the administration official who stood up and said, Yeah, they're getting pink slips, that he didn't know what he was talking about. Unfortunately, there is far too much of that going on these days; We were also told, Well, we don't know who in this administration is responsible. This stuff just happens. Doors magically opened. Some of us believe that an act of God opened the jail during New Testament times for the Apostle Paul and Silas, but the administration has not given any indication of an act of God that opened jail cells, and they're not sure who opened them. Maybe it was an act of God, because they can't account for how all of these people who were in jail just all of a sudden got released; But isn't it interesting it just happened to coincide with the administration's threat: give us all the money or else. Disease will take over because we're not going to let people have their vaccinations. We're going to let law enforcement go so crime will take over unless you give us all the money. Not only that, criminals will magically be released. Give us all the money or else. When all of those things didn't work and when the sequestration was moving forward, Oh, yeah? Well, we told you the American people were going to hurt, so now you don't get to come through the White House anymore. How petty. Now, I did file an amendment to try to bring home the point and try to snap people at the administration out of whatever stupor they were in to think, Oh, we'll just hurt the kids, the veterans, the seniors, those who are coming, maybe, for most of them, for the only time they'll ever come to tour the White House. We'll just let them suffer. We won't let them in. Then that will make them mad, and we'll tell them it's all the Republicans' fault. They don't understand, because we haven't done a good enough job of messaging it. But here in Congress, for the last 2 years--not the Senate, as they weren't going to allow their budgets to be cut at all. But here in the House, where the Republicans have been in charge, I've been quite critical of our Speaker--I continue to be so--but it was his order, and we cut our own budgets over 2 years about 11.5 percent. I think it was a good thing to do, but it shouldn't have stopped there. We needed to use that for moral authority to make sure that every government agency did the same thing. So, in the last 2 years, the 435 people in this body--all of us, every single one of the 435 Members of the House--have lost about 11.5 percent of our budgets that we don't have to spend. So, in our case, if you lose somebody, you just don't replace him, and you just get by. I am so grateful I have staff who, at least not to me, don't seem to fuss about 50-hour, 60-hour weeks and about getting emails at all hours of the day and night. I think I stopped emailing them this morning about 4:30 or so. I don't expect them to answer my emails in the wee hours of the morning, but they're hard workers. This is a tough, very difficult, stressful environment. And in this environment where we're doing battle with the Senate to try to get them to do their job, to have a budget, to be responsible, to have a responsible budget, to do no more harm to the American economy, American rights, it's often a battle, legislative battle. And yet we have been going into the battle for the last two years as we cut our budgets about 11\1/2\ percent. And we did it. And we still provide every single constituent service that we did before the 11\1/2\ percent was cut, and we will continue to do that. That's part of our job. Because of the sequester, we're going to lose another 8 percent or so, a little over 8 percent, as I understand. So, in effect, around 20 percent over 3 years we will have lost of our budget. One night this week I had so many individuals from my district. I think it was originally going to be about 120: one group of 16, one group of 25, one group of 3, one group of 2, one group of 8, on and on. All these groups. It added up to 120, 130 people. And most of them were so brokenhearted. The big school groups, one school group of 81 people was coming up here. They were not part of that group Tuesday night, but I have another group of 81 coming up. They were so excited about getting to see the White House. So I'm doing all I can to make sure that the people from my district who have come to Washington, who are brokenhearted over the little temper tantrum, whoever had it, that decided, No more, no, you can't come to our house anymore. Yes, it's your house. Yes, you're paying for all of it, but we're not going to let you in the house you're paying for, because we're mad because we had a 2 percent cut from the billion or so dollars that we had to spend. I understand the disappointment. And one of the things that I hope when my time is done in Congress, is I will have inspired someone during one of our night tours through the Capitol to do something far greater than I could have ever done. I was inspired in high school. It didn't inspire me to want to be in Congress. But I was just so inspired by history going all over the Capitol. Back then you didn't need a Representative to take you around the Capitol. You just needed to come into the Capitol. There were no metal detectors. You just came into the Capitol and walked around. It seemed like there was more that you could read about what went on here. On Tuesday night we had a tour, and I told the group when we started we can stop at any time, I'll stop telling these historical stories about the history of this place, but they didn't want to stop. It went on and on, about a 3\1/2\ hour tour. I think we finished around 11:30, something like that. But I push to do that for folks, not because our budget hadn't been cut 20 percent as it's being cut, but because this is the people's House. Down Pennsylvania Avenue that way, that's the people's house. And they deserve to have that opportunity. Now, the reason we know that I'm not breaking the rule--I'm not saying the President had a temper tantrum because he said he's not the one that called off the tour, so we don't know who had it. Somebody did. He said that was a Secret Service decision. Well, then we find out it wasn't a Secret Service decision. They don't have the power to make that kind of call. It has to come from somebody in the White House. Mr. Speaker, I hope--it's nice to be around the President, he's a likable man, beautiful family--whoever, Mr. Speaker, is making these decisions, having their little temper tantrum, shutting off tours, things like that, whoever is doing all that, I wish they would step up over to the White House and let the President know, ``Mr. President, I'm the one who had the temper tantrum and shut down the tours; I'm the one that's making these decisions over here; I know you didn't do it, Mr. President. I wish whoever it was would step up so we can know who's making the decisions at the White House. We would like to get to the bottom of Benghazi so we can find out who's making the decisions. Secretary Clinton said the buck stopped with her; and then after a hearing, it turns out she couldn't really remember where the buck was. And it would be a comedy of error, except there are dead Americans. And it didn't stop there. It bled over into Algeria, and more Americans were killed. It continues today, and we still can't get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi. Some like our former Secretary of State would say, What difference does it make? Well, it makes a difference to the families of those who were killed in the service of their country; it makes a difference to the families of those who will be killed in the future in the service of the United States because we can't get someone to come forward and explain exactly what happened. Now we get a story here dated March 15--that would be today--from Catherine Herridge at Fox News, who does a terrific job of digging out facts, and she reports on information that should have come out months ago, 6 months ago. But we can't get straight answers so we don't know how to go about preventing future Americans from being killed so that their families don't have to suffer. And Catherine Herridge points out that three diplomatic security agents were among the Americans injured during the terrorist attack last September on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, according to a State Department official speaking exclusively to Fox News. According to the official who confirmed Fox's reporting on the condition of anonymity, two were injured, including one seriously, at the CIA facility known as the ``annex,'' and a third suffered smoke inhalation at the Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed. Now, somebody is reporting on the condition of anonymity, and unfortunately this ought to be reported publicly. And we've long since given up on this administration being anything but in last place when it comes to transparency. But the hope that springs internal in the human breast causes us the hope that surely at some point a light will go on and someone will say, You know, we promised for years that we would be the most transparent, just like Jimmy Carter promised. And, really, we prosecuted more people for trying to be transparent in government than any other administration. We have shut off more information. This administration has gone further than that. They turned over boxes and boxes of documents that prove and are relevant to American individuals and American groups funding terrorism; but when Members of Congress asked to see those documents, we're told we can't have them, there's a problem. And as I pointed out to the Attorney General, you gave them to the terrorists, don't you think you could give them to Members of Congress? Where does your allegiance lie? Let Members of Congress see the evidence so we can know who has been supporting terrorism. Obviously, this administration made the decision not to pursue the 200-plus named coconspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial. But the Constitution envisioned that there would be oversight by Members of Congress, that we would come in and we'd have a chance to have hearings and demand information come forward, and when that information didn't come forward, we could just cut off funding to that department. It's called accountability, and there is not being any. And that's why you have to have someone give information to a trusted news reporter like Catherine Herridge on the condition of anonymity, because this administration has fought transparency, not been a part of making it happen. The story says: Four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador, were killed in the attack, and the Obama administration faced intense criticism from Republicans-- Of course, the story should have said, it faced intense criticism from Americans from all parties and from all of the mainstream media, but it doesn't because they have to report accurately; it was only Republicans. --in the aftermath over security problems and apparent inconsistencies in officials explanation of what happened. Lately, however, the focus has turned to the attack's survivors, who still have not been named, 6 months later. Separately, a diplomatic security source told Fox News the State Department's diplomatic security agent who was in the most serious condition suffered a severe head injury during the second wave of the attack at the annex from mortar and rocket-propelled grenades. The story goes on, but the real story is this administration continues to stonewall, as it did and has and continues, on the American individuals and organizations that have helped support terrorism, that are working against the interests of the United States of America here in America, on our soil. This administration has even befriended many of those people who were named as coconspirators. So I'm sure they don't want all that information coming out about their contacts and ties with terrorist organizations or potentially funding terrorist activity, because then it makes the country and the world know the administration has actually been working with people who at least support those who support terrorism. More news, too. This was reported on 3/7: The chief of the U.S. Africa Command is telling Congress that thousands of shoulder-fired antiaircraft weapons from the arsenal of deposed Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi remain unaccounted for in Africa and beyond. We've got rocket-propelled grenades that are unaccounted for, and this administration will not help us get to the bottom. I know, I realize it may be embarrassing, but Americans have shown over and over, whether it was with Eisenhower when he came forward, during the Eisenhower administration when Nixon came forward and gave the Checker the Puppy speech and apologized, and he goes up in the polls, unfortunately. After the Bay of Pigs horrible atrocity where people, in 1961, had been promised air cover by the Kennedy administration, and it was pulled within 24 hours of the attack, when it was too late to let folks know that the Kennedy administration was not going to provide air support, and so people were slaughtered there in the Bay of Pigs. But President Kennedy did a noble thing at that point, though he'd made a huge mistake. He came on national television and said, This was my fault. And the American people loved him for his honesty in taking responsibility, and he went up in the polls. It was Eisenhower who told the American people, We do not have any U- 2 planes flying over the Soviet Union, when it turned out we did. And when he was caught, Gary Powers was shot down, he came forward and said, I'm so sorry. I should have been totally honest with the American people, and I wasn't. Eisenhower went up in the polls. If Nixon had learned something from his 1950s episode of apologizing and going up in the American people's esteem, he would have gotten to the root of Watergate and may have been able to finish his term; but, instead, he tried to cover up. But in this administration, Fast and Furious continues to be covered, Benghazi continues to be covered. So many things that are going on continue to be covered up. We can't get to the bottom of things, and it does not speak well nor bode well for the future of this country. Army General Carter Ham tells the Senate Armed Services Committee some of those weapons, as well as explosives and other arms once under Qadhafi's control, have fallen into the hands of extremists in northern Mali. He says others have spread to rebel groups in Syria. The Qadhafi regime was overthrown in 2011. Of course, General Ham doesn't go on and mention that the Qadhafi administration fell because this administration, without the consent or advice of Congress, only the request from Organization of Islamic Council and some NATO countries, not in the U.S. interest, he goes and starts bombing so that these al Qaeda-supported rebels could take over from Qadhafi, leading to, ultimately, the death of Americans. Anyway, Ham said at the hearing on Thursday he could not discuss details in public, but he did say a U.S. Government effort to buy back portable antiaircraft weapons from Libya has had only modest success. Well, I hope and pray that somebody who is more effective than those who've been at work for the U.S. and Libya will be able to get those weapons before more Americans die. One other thing. The President's going to Israel, and something this administration and those advising our great President do not understand is, when you meet with terrorists, when you meet with those who support terrorism, you not only give credibility to them, you devastate the morale of those who are opposing terrorists. So when you beg the Taliban, Please, please sit down with us and talk, no preconditions; we'll buy you an office in Qatar; we'll let your bloodthirsty thugs loose from our confinement if you'll just sit down with us, when you do that, you not only encourage the terrorists, you devastate the morale of those trying to stand against them. It's happened in Iran, when people who were wanting a different, a more freedom-loving administration in Iran, Iranian people who liked the United States, wanted help. They got no encouragement from this administration, not even verbal encouragement that would have meant so much. No, they were devastated as we continue to indicate, Look, you know, we can work something out, Iran. When this administration meets with members of terrorist organizations in the White House, even though our Homeland Security Secretary was totally ignorant of what was going on as we found out in answer to my questions in our committee hearing, you devastate those in Egypt, people that we can talk to around here, and we have, who don't want these crazies in control in Egypt who hate America and want to annihilate America and Israel. You devastate those who want to be on our side and help us. And I talked to one just this week who said, What are you doing when you encourage or even talk to those people who hate you, who've made that very clear? You hurt the rest of us who really want a fair and open democratic form of government in Egypt. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope and prayer that somebody who's making the decisions at the White House learns from history so we don't keep repeating it. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, the sequestration has taken place that we were told a year and a half ago would not. The President said during the debates last fall it would not, but it has taken place, as the President traveled around the country demonizing those of us back here that were hoping for a better way to cut, hoping that something could be reached in the way of an agreement that would have given more flexibility, but that didn't happen. People were too busy going off doing other things to be here in Washington with us and work out some kind of an agreement. One bit of good news, though: We had heard from the Secretary of Homeland Security that the lines would be long in the airport, there would be delays and there would be all kinds of problems. Initially, it was announced that FAA officials would be pulled from between 150 to 200 airports. They were going to make America feel as much pain as possible. But with all the tough news for travelers, we can all be comforted. This is dated March 5, a story by Elizabeth Harrington: The TSA was able to seal a $50-million sequester-eve deal to buy new uniforms. So the lines will be longer traveling. We are told by Homeland Security they are going to make America feel pain because we managed to cut less than 2 percent of government spending when it's increased over 20 percent over the last 4 years, when every American who works and pays taxes had their taxes go up 2 percent on January 1. This was merely taxes going up 2 percent, giving basically a tax on government for 2 percent, the same one America suffered. That is the same amount basically, and yet we have officials in this administration who say, Oh, no. We can't stand a 2 percent cut. Heck, here at the House itself, our budgets have been cut 11\1/2\ percent over the last 2 years. We did it. And you've got TSA, you've got FAA, you've got Homeland Security, you've got people being released from custody that will put American citizens in jeopardy all to make the point that we can't live with a 2 percent cut like every hardworking American taxpayer has. At least we know that TSA will have new uniforms while the lines are getting longer. It also is worth noting a story here by Terence Jeffrey March 4 of this year, that President Obama borrowed nearly six times as much in February as the sequester cuts all year. I recall in 2006, the last year Republicans were in the majority before Speaker Pelosi took the gavel, Democrats on this side of the aisle appropriately beat up Republicans because we had a budget, an appropriations that year that spent $160 billion more than we brought in, and we should have gotten it balanced. They were right. I would never have dreamed that within a few years and with a Democrat in the White House, with a Democratic majority in the House and a Democratic majority in the Senate, that they wouldn't spend $160 billion more than we took in; they'd spend $1.6 trillion more than we took in. And here, with all the gloom and doom and claims of how bad it's going to be--oh, it's going to be horrible--we find out that the President borrowed $253.5 billion in one month, the shortest month of the year, February, six times more than the sequester was with all the complaints. I have an interesting story here in Townhall.com by Heather Ginsberg: ``President Obama's Golf Trip Could Have Saved 341 Furloughed Jobs.'' She goes on to outline the millions of dollars it cost for the last golf outing. That's pretty tragic. I think we have one of the most gracious and graceful First Ladies that we've ever had. She made a wonderful quote previously. She said: This is really what the White House is all about. It's the people's house. It's a place that is steeped in history, but it's also a place where everyone should feel welcome. And that's why my husband and I have made it our mission to open up the house to as many people as we can. That was our First Lady, and that was a wonderful position to take. So I'm sure she was not consulted today when the White House in its frustration that all of us in Congress--heck, the cut we are having in Congress is going to put us around a 20 percent cut of our budget in the House. The Senate hadn't cut themselves 11\1/2\ percent like we have, but we will have cut our own budget in the House of Representatives in every office at least 20 percent in 3 years' time. The President, even though his government has grown about 20 percent in 4 years, could not live with just pulling back 2 percent of that 20 percent increase. So, today, as the story indicates from today--this is from the Washington Examiner: Never say the White House isn't affected by sequestration. The Visitors Office just notified Congress that tours of the White House are canceled until further notice. Due to staffing reductions resulting from sequestration, we regret to inform you that White House Tours will be canceled effective Saturday, March 9, 2013 until further notice, the White House email to legislative offices explains. Unfortunately, we will not be able to reschedule affected tours. We very much regret having to take this action, particularly during the popular spring touring season. Well, knowing that, as the story reports here, we could have had 341 Federal employees that could have kept their jobs and not been furloughed if the President had not taken his last golf outing. It seems to me that since there are so many people coming to Washington-- it appears to me as many Democrats as Republicans, possibly more--they have wanted, they have counted on the quote from the first lady. They were so looking forward to touring the White House. I filed an amendment with the Rules Committee this afternoon so that we can work together. The amendment to the continuing resolution of funds--and I'm hoping and begging and pleading that the Rules Committee will make this amendment in order. It's an amendment to H.R. 933 offered by Mr. Gohmert of Texas: At the end of division C (before the short title), insert the following: None of the funds made available by a division of this act may be used to transport the President to or from a golf course until public tours of the White House resume. That way we will both work together so the President will not be able to take a golf outing that causes 341 more Federal officials to be furloughed and lose their job, at least temporarily. Then perhaps by avoiding furloughing all these Federal employees, we'll be able to get the Democrats and Republicans across America, people that didn't even have a party because they're just Americans, they'll be able to get their tour of the White House, and all it will cost is one or two golf trips less. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend from Georgia hosting this hour and also yielding. This is a very important topic, and people need to understand what's going on. Now, as someone who was totally opposed to the deficit ceiling bill back in July, 1\1/2\ years ago, I told our conference the Democrats and the President are never going to allow the supercommittee to reach an agreement because they want to blame cuts to Medicare on Republicans, when the fact is that ObamaCare cuts $700 billion from Medicare, and it has been and it's starting to be and it's going to get really much worse because of those cuts from ObamaCare. To ourselves here in the House, over the last 2 years we have cut our own budgets--the Senate hasn't, but we've cut our own budgets here in the House over a 2-year period by over 11 percent, about 11.5 percent. This sequester is going to cut us another 11 percent. We're going to have cut nearly 23 percent of our own budgets. How did we do that? Did we lay off all our staffs and have a big press conference and talk about how terrible it was going to be? No. I know in my office we basically have what you'd call a hiring freeze. If we lost somebody, we haven't replaced them. Tom Coburn first raised this point in a letter to the Deputy Director of Management for the White House, with all this gloom and doom about all the people that the President's going to have to fire because of the sequestration, because of a cut of about 2 percent of the budget, they're going to be firing all these people or furloughing all these people. At the same time, you can go online, you can order books, and you can see all the Federal jobs that this administration is still offering. So an easy suggestion is how about instead of firing and furloughing all these people, just hold up on hiring some folks for a while. Across America, people know how to do that in business. Instead of firing everybody that's been with you for years, that's counting on that salary, if you have to cut the budget, the first thing you do is you maybe wait to hire somebody for a bit. That would be more caring-- unless of course this administration is more concerned with showing that they hired somebody instead of just maintaining what they have. We will have cut our ownselves here in the House, our own budgets 23 percent, approximately, over a 3-year period. If we can do it and still get the job done, then I feel sure the people in the White House, the people in the executive departments and all those people at the EPA that are trying to shut down our own energy production and put those people out of work, heck, maybe if they just shut down EPA for a little bit and let the States continue, like Texas has, to get their water cleaner and their air cleaner, maybe the jobs would increase. The President could take credit for that just by slowing the amount of regulation this President has been throwing on the American economy. Another thing we hear today is that the President is now saying that on Friday, after the sequestrations have started and the military is having all these massive layoffs--and actually, the truth be known, after the President will have gotten what he had been hoping and trying to get for years, even as a U.S. Senator, and that is big cuts to the Defense Department--after the Defense Department cuts kick in, then, and only then, is he going to sit down and talk to congressional leaders. Well, that's not hard to figure out. What a great political ploy, what a great political plan. A year and a half ago, the President and the White House came up with the idea of this massive sequester, and the biggest loser would be the Defense Department. Reluctantly, some people like me said, let's don't do this, let's have other cuts, let's don't let the President's plan, with all his massive cuts to defense and basically 2 percent cuts to other entities, let's don't let that happen. Let's really cut departments, cut things we really don't need. But we ended up going along with the President's idea for sequester. Then after he gets the cuts to defense that he's been pushing for years and years, going back to his days as a U.S. Senator, he gets to come forward and spend millions and millions of dollars running around on Air Force One condemning Republicans in the House for cutting defense. What a great thing. He cuts defense as he's been wanting to do for years, forces the Republicans to go along with it, and a year and a half later blames the Republicans for cutting defense and says, I wouldn't have done that, but now that defense is cut, now let's talk about restoring some of that money to groups, the Acorn-like groups out there that are going to suffer because they're not going to have money to spend on electing Democrats in the next election if we don't return the sequestered money. The thing is, it's about $85 billion in cuts from a $3.6-trillion budget--not that we've passed a budget. That's just how much money will likely be spent, approximately. And it doesn't have to be that way. One of the things that The Wall Street Journal pointed out in an editorial February 19 was they said that Americans need to understand that Mr. Obama is threatening that if he doesn't get what he wants, he's ready to inflict maximum pain on everybody else. He won't force government agencies to shave spending on travel, conferences, excessive pay, and staffing. He won't demand that agencies cut the lowest priority spending, as any half-competent middle manager would do. Then they go on to talk about things. One of the things we find out today is that the administration has released people charged with felonies and said, look, if you don't restore the money to my agencies that I'm demanding, then I'm going to end up releasing more criminals on the American public. That is incredible. But he knows the mainstream media will give him cover. I hope and pray the American people will not give him cover, that we will demand what we've been telling the American public we were going to do, we made cuts. The cuts will be made. Now let's look for better ways after this to make cuts to other programs that need it. With that, I yield back to my friend from Georgia.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend, a former judge as well. It is an honor to be here and to be part of this Special Order to honor our friend Sam Johnson. Sam and Shirley are public servants in every sense of the word. There were the 29 years in the Air Force. The United States service was what he was. It's what he did. There were the 7 years in Hanoi Hilton--one of the worst prisons ever concocted in the imagination of sick minds-- and he spent 42 months of that in solitary confinement. There are people running around the world saying that you can't put people in solitary confinement, but they were not around to help Sam Johnson during that horrible time in Hanoi. This is the 40th anniversary of his release, and America has been better for Sam Johnson's living and serving and for Shirley's being his partner even though, for 7 years, they were apart. I know, on the first day I was sworn in, I was sitting right over here on the aisle, talking to another Republican, and Sam came down the aisle. His body still shows the torture and the broken bones that never healed properly and the bones that grew around nerves that they were never able to fix. When he got even with me, I stood up and shook his hand and said, Sam, it is such an honor to serve with you in this body. Sam has always been a man of honesty and integrity, a man whose judgment I could trust. He said, Well, it's an honor serving with you--which was a stretch-- but then he said, But don't trust that fella next to you. I found out after that that Sam Johnson's advice was always good and always advice that could be well taken. After some of the revelations in the Middle East of a U.S. prison camp, I said, Sam, did you hear about the torture of making people strip down and put panties on their heads? And he said, Yeah. I said, Was that ever a choice that you were given? He said, If it had been, I'd be naked, wearing panties still today. That was nothing compared to the hell that that man was put through in Hanoi. Then I found out that in our U.S. prisons--it's open information-- that we provide not only a Koran, which has never been touched by American hands, but also an arrow on the floor that points in the direction that the Islamic prisoner would want to pray, and we give him a prayer rug. I asked Sam, When you were in Hanoi, did you have a prayer rug and a Bible, as that was part of your faith? And he said, No. Actually, what we had was a tiny, little rod that was placed on the floor--our feet in shackles. We would be beaten on the back until we dropped, and my knees would hit that tiny rod. It doesn't sound like much, but when you spend hours or days with your knees and all your weight on a tiny, little rod on the floor, it gets pretty unbearable. And that was some of the less torturous stuff this man went through on our behalf. Part of his service to this country are his children and his grandchildren, and it is with great sadness that I know Sam and Shirley and this country lost Bob Johnson--Plano High School to Texas A&M. His children and grandchildren. Sam, our hearts are with you. You have sacrificed more than anybody I know on behalf of this country, and it is an honor to serve with you.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to my friend from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer). Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on what my friend from Arizona (Mr. Franks) was talking about with regard to Iran. It should be pretty clear to most people that Iran is a threat to any group of people who believe that we do not need a religious zealot telling us how we have to live; that we do not need someone taking over, arising out of the chaos to create a one-world caliphate under which we have to live with a ruling religious zealot making sure that we do not get involved in any type of self-government that they believe inevitably leads to depravity. So some of us don't think it's a good idea to give Iran more power to carry out the threats of wiping out Israel, which they refer to as the ``little Satan,'' or to wipe out the United States, which their leaders refer to as the ``big Satan.'' Yet we have nominated by the President of the United States a man who thinks we need to cozy up to Iran. His idea of national security is cozying up to a country who's made very clear they want to destroy Israel and they want to destroy us. So for those yesterday who saw that the Senate did not move forward, was not able to get the votes to move forward on a confirmation vote on former Senator Hagel, they must be very upset if they think cozying up to Iran and betraying Israel further than this administration already has is a good idea--get closer to Iran, further betray Israel, yesterday was a bad day, and you should be very angry with most of the Senate Republicans, and especially my friend, Senator Ted Cruz. Because they have to be concerned about our ally, Israel. They have to be concerned about the threats of madmen running the country of Iran. So look, though, at the speeches that have belatedly come out after all the things were made public. And then this stuff keeps trickling out. Another speech saying, Hey, let's put a consulate in Iran--while they're trying to destroy us. Apparently, some people just cannot remember past 10 or 12 years. I think it's very important to remember our history. In 1979, I was at Fort Benning, Georgia, in the United States Army, and we were paying attention to what was happening. Some of us haven't forgotten what was happening. As we have seen new things arise, as we have seen the horrors of what is going on in the Middle East, it is just heartbreaking to see people proposed as leaders who absolutely refuse to learn from history: a man proposed for Secretary of Defense who cannot recall what those of us who were in the military in 1979 recall, and that is that we had a President in Jimmy Carter who thought it was a good idea for the Shah of Iran to be gone--not a nice man, had not treated well the people of Iran, but had been able to hold down the radical Islamic jihadists that want to terrorize everybody who don't believe exactly like they do. In fact, it was President Carter that, as Ayatollah Khomeini came back from exile and took over control of Iran, it was President Carter that hailed him as a man of peace, not realizing that what President Carter, by his actions and inactions, had allowed to happen was the arising of the radical Islamic jihadists that would bring about, for over 30 years to come, the deaths of thousands and thousands of Americans, some civilians, some from foreign countries, but all innocent; some military; some having to fight the people that President Carter, in his naivete--he had no ill will, he wanted what was best for America, but he was just ignorant of what he was doing. He was a President about whom could have been said, Forgive him, Lord, he knows not what he has done, and he led to the consequences we're suffering still today. Radical Islam is not our friend. They want to eliminate us from the map. They think that moral depravity is the rule in this Western Civilization and that we need a grand imam. They're anticipating the 12th imam to come and establish the global caliphate. Now we have a Secretary of Defense proposed who wants to repeat the same errors that led to the deaths of so many Americans. He wants to put a consulate in Tehran. He thinks that would be a grand idea to help our relations. I don't personally understand how it will help the United States' relations to put a consulate back in Tehran, with leaders of Iran saying they want to wipe out infidels like those that would be put at the consulate, like those who were at the consulate in Benghazi, only to have that horrible chapter and nightmare for over a year replayed before new generations. Yet there are people like Majority Leader Harry Reid, who say it's games being played, schoolboy games being played by people who have a genuine interest in not repeating the errors of our recent history. Is 34 years ago so far away that we cannot remember, that we want a Secretary of Defense that thinks it's a good idea to try to placate radical jihadists? About the only thing that Senator Hagel hadn't done is repeat the phrase ``man of peace,'' talking about the leader of Iran. So I am very grateful to all of those, like Ted Cruz, who stood up yesterday and said there's too much information we do not know and what we know causes concern. Now, we have some Senators that say we have to have information about Benghazi and what really happened before we can go forward in voting on this nomination. Some say: What does that have to do with defense, and, therefore, what does it have to do with the Secretary of Defense? There are some that might be tempted to repeat Secretary Clinton's question of: What difference does it make? As a history major in college who continues to read and study all the history I can--history in the making now--I would like for the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense to be able to recall 34 years and note the mistakes that have been made that got Americans killed. 1979 was an act of war against the United States. Instead of defending ourselves and putting down what had occurred in the attack on our Embassy--which under everybody's definition of international law is an act of war--instead of doing that, we had a weak administration that simply begged the Iranians to let our people go--please. That is seen as weakness when you're dealing with terrorists, when you're dealing with people who promote terrorism, when you're dealing with people who pay for terrorism and encourage terrorism. That is what we have reigning in Iran. So it's a legitimate concern about who the Secretary of Defense will be, and will it be a throwback to the Carter years of thinking the best way to deal with radical Islamic jihadists is to give them whatever they want. That's been tried; it doesn't work. Heck, this administration is still trying to buy off the radical Islamic jihadists that make up the Taliban. This administration has gone so far as to say, look, you don't even have to agree to quit killing Americans if you'll just agree to sit down with us and negotiate. If you'll just do that, you can keep killing American soldiers. That's okay, if you'll just agree to sit down with us. And while you're killing American soldiers, we'll show our good will. We'll buy you an incredibly nice office in Qatar that will give you an international presence and will give you credibility around the world as you keep trying to kill Americans and continue to actually kill Americans. About 3 years ago, Dana Rohrabacher asked me to go with him to meet with Northern Alliance leaders, and we met with them. These were leaders who put their lives on the line to fight with and for America. They're Muslims, but they did not like the idea of radical Islamic jihadists being in control of Afghanistan. They were and are the enemy of our enemy. So with less than 500 people, 500 Americans put into Afghanistan--after we figured out that's where the attacks emanated because that's where the training occurred, that's where the terrorist camps were--less than 500 Americans, Special Ops and intelligence, those 4 months that followed should be hailed as one of the greatest days for American Special Ops and intelligence. The intelligence community has made plenty of mistakes-- continues to make some--but that was a great time in their history and our history. Without a single loss of American lives, the Northern Alliance, these tribal groups that this administration now refers to as war criminals because they defeated our enemies for us, they fought and defeated the Taliban. By early 2002, the Taliban had been routed. Some people forget nowadays that during the course of the Iraq war, they would refer back to Afghanistan and say, now, that's how you fight in a foreign country like Afghanistan. You let their patriots who know the country, know the terrain and know the tactics of our enemy, let them fight them. We gave them arms, we gave them aerial support, and they defeated the Taliban for us. Then, as our Northern Alliance allies told Dana and me--Steve King was there for the first meeting--they told us, Look, then, after we had defeated the Taliban for you, then you tell us we've got to turn back in the arms that gave us the ability to defeat the Taliban because you told us, Look, we're the United States. Now that the Taliban has been defeated, we've got you covered. There won't be any more problems. We're in charge. Then we added tens of thousands of people to Afghanistan and became occupiers in Afghanistan. Then, again, those who know history, and I do mean distant and more recent history, you know that occupiers really don't do well in that part of the world. Someone said, Well, Alexander the Great conquered the Afghanistan area. And my reply would be, He died on the way out. I don't consider that a real great victory. But we had a grand strategy letting the enemy of our enemies, the Northern Alliance, defeat the Taliban for us. And, now, 11 years later, we have been occupying Afghanistan, and we forced a constitution on them that required a centralized government in a place where centralized governments have not done well. We forced that on them, and we included the provision that made Afghanistan all under shari'a law. The results of that grand victory in early 2002 and our ominous occupation for the 11 years since has been that the last Christian public worship service has happened. There are no more public Christian worship services in the country where we have lost so many valiant American heroes. The last person who admits to being Jewish in Afghanistan has left--that's what we've been advised--all under our watch and what we have done in that country. The President announced right here just Tuesday night of this week about his plans to draw down American troops and to be all out within the next couple of years. I would humbly submit that if he had a better plan, and it is very simple, we could be out of there within the next 6 months. It would be far more effective. As our Northern Alliance friends, former Vice President Massoud, who knows about losing loved ones having lost his brother, the Lion of Panjshir, great hero of Afghanistan, he knows about losing his father-in-law to the Taliban to a man, a Taliban member who was invited to sit down with Massoud's father-in-law to talk about potential peace. Karzai had appointed Massoud's father-in-law to be his peace emissary to deal with, sit down and negotiate with the Taliban to try to work out an agreement. So the Taliban emissary for peace came in to sit down with Massoud's father-in-law and blew himself and Massoud's father-in-law to pieces-- great gesture of peace. That's the kind of people we're dealing with. That's the same kind of people that are in leadership in Iran that Chuck Hagel wants to go have better relationships with. I would submit that whoever he was willing to see in Tehran as our emissary there, as our ambassador there, would have a high probability of suffering the same consequences that Massoud's father-in-law did, the same that his brother did. His brother, such a great warrior, political figure, great charisma, in his case, he was asked if he would give an interview to a television crew. He consented, not being aware that the television camera was full of explosives and that the cameraman and the reporter were willing to blow themselves up so they could kill such a great Afghani hero. So they did, and he's gone. How many Americans are we going to have to continue to lose in Afghanistan? I talked to Billy and Karen Vaughn, the parents of great American patriot Aaron Vaughn, a SEAL Team Six member, one of the SEAL teams that went after Osama bin Laden. They don't want publicity while they are SEAL members actively. They don't seek it, don't want it, and there's always been the agreement that no administration will out who goes in and does the kind of actions that SEAL Team Six did, taking out Osama bin Laden. That's classified information, who went and got him, and then we have the Vice President of the United States stand up in front of a crowd and congratulate the SEAL team for taking him out. One SEAL team member, his father, he's deceased now, but his father said that his daughter-in-law called and said within an hour of the Vice President's outing SEAL Team Six, they had a marine guard outside her quarters because they knew this administration just put a big red target on his entire family. Billy and Karen say after that happened, Aaron called and said, Mom and Dad, there's been chatter. You're not safe. Take any reference to me off Facebook, off any e-mail, off anything. You cannot have references that you're connected with me, or you will be a target. These people are ruthless. So after SEAL Team Six was outed and having visited Afghanistan, I was surprised, as widespread as Taliban reach has become again in Afghanistan, missions were run through the Afghan Government so that the Afghans would have known exactly where SEAL Team Six was and where they were being sent. When one of the surviving parents of one of our heroic SEAL Team Six members asked at the briefing as to what had happened to their loved ones in the Afghanistan ambush of our troops, of our SEAL Team Six members, one of the parents asked, Look, since you knew this was such a hot spot, since you knew this information had been cleared through the Afghan Government, which has Taliban running through it, since you knew all these things about how desperate the situation was in that space, why didn't you just send in a drone? And the admiral briefing the family members said, Because we're trying to win their hearts and minds. Now, that sounds like something the new Secretary of Defense might say, since he's all for buddying back up to Iran while they want to destroy our way of life and all Americans: Yeah, we're trying to win their hearts and minds, so let's send more people into Tehran. That's the proposal, or was the proposal, of Secretary of Defense nominee Hagel: Let's send some people, yeah, maybe they'll get blown up. That's what he should have said, because there's a good chance they will. Some of us warned about the dangers of helping the revolutionaries in Libya. Qadhafi had blood on his hands. But ever since 2003, he had helped suppress radical Islamic jihadist activities. He had become an ally. His own son had been here negotiating with this White House. Yet the White House has no problem, as they did with our Northern Alliance allies, throwing them under the bus, throwing Mubarak under the bus, throwing Qadhafi under the bus, and even our own Ambassador was a sacrificial lamb. They should have known. Some of us pointed out, look, this is not a good idea to be helping revolutionaries in Libya when we already know there are al Qaeda involved in this revolution. We don't know how widespread it is, but you can't be helping people that want to destroy us. You're going to give them more arms, you're going to give them more power, they'll have a greater reach to wipe out Israel, or try--and to wipe out us, or to try. But this President didn't listen. His Cabinet members didn't listen. We were told he didn't care what Congress thought. He was listening more to European members who wanted help protecting their oil they were buying from Libya, and because of the OIC, the 57 states that make up the OIC. I'm like the President. I get mixed up. He said he had been to all 57 States, our President had, and I get confused. Do we have 57 States and the OIC have 50? Or they have 57, we have 50? It's confusing. I understand the President having that problem, but apparently they have 57 States because they count Palestine. They don't learn from history. And as a result we helped--we provided weapons--those are the latest reports--and some of those weapons then found their way to Algeria where more Americans were killed even more recently than 9/11 of last year--with people that we helped empower so they could go about killing more people. I like President Obama as a person. He's a good family man. I was hoping that with all the disclosures that have come out since 9/11 of last year and since we now know from former Secretary Panetta and from other witnesses that after the President learned that our Ambassador was under attack, he may have known that he had already been abducted and that a long battle was being undertaken by radicals against our Americans in Benghazi. We now know the President did nothing else. He said, well, do what you can, in essence, and went home. Or maybe he was home when he talked to them. And did nothing else. I have no idea if the President required a sleep aid that night; but if he did, anybody else in America that has trouble sleeping, you better get what he had, because it works well--how the President of the United States could sleep that night as the Ambassador that he put in place, that he put in harm's way, was either under attack, had already been kidnapped, being brutalized, unspeakable things being done to his person, his body. I remember Senator Clinton running a commercial back in 2008 that asked the question, Who do you want to take that phone call at 3 a.m.? This would have been exactly the kind of situation, except there was no phone call at 3 a.m. The phone call had been at 5-or-so in the afternoon. And there was no effort to find out, by the way, what happened to Ambassador Stevens that I put in harm's way, considered the equivalent of a four-star general in the civilian service, to awake to find out the next day that it had been over 7 hours of attacks, that our last American that we know of killed was killed in the last hour of that 7-hour attack. And I can appreciate the loyalty of Cabinet members, Joint Chiefs, trying to protect the President, coming forward and saying, well, you know, we didn't have planes. They would have had to be refueled; they would have had to be armed. Well, I would submit if we can't get a jet that will fly 600 miles or 700 miles an hour, 600 miles or so to Libya, if we can't get them there in an hour, an hour and a half, then it's time to clean house at the top of our Defense Department and get people that can get planes to help our embattled American civilians and Ambassador, get them some help. I mean, I would think that if you're concerned enough to sit and watch footage of the hurricane coverage, people that you didn't put in the harm's way they were in, that you would at least be concerned about the people you did put in harm's way. And certainly the President and Secretary Clinton and Secretary Panetta, certainly those people did not want them hurt. But it's important to learn from history. It's important to understand what difference it makes as to what happens about fiascoes that get Americans killed. It is important. It does make a difference. We've read reports that Secretary--Ambassador now--Rice may have been involved with the decision not to send more security to our Embassy that was attacked back in the nineties that got Americans killed. And apparently no one learned from that, because if someone in the nineties after our Embassy had been attacked had had adequate hearings and gotten to the bottom of that, they would have learned, uh-oh, what difference does it make? Well, it makes a difference because now we know when an Embassy requests more security and we refuse to provide it, there's a good chance it's going to get hit and they're going to get killed. And that would have been very helpful to have had that conventional wisdom and that institutional knowledge on 9/10 of 2011 when in Egypt we were hearing that, gee, if you don't release the Blind Sheikh, you're going to get attacked, your Embassy and Embassies may get attacked. And if we had had people in this administration with institutional knowledge from the nineties, and from '79, they would have said, you know what, on 9/9 of 2011, they're giving us a warning, you're about to be attacked unless you release the Blind Sheikh. We weren't releasing the Blind Sheikh and I hope and pray we don't. He is a killer and will kill again. He doesn't carry them out. He plots and plans them and gives instructions. And under all criminal law in the U.S. or abroad, you plan it, you instruct on it and if your instructions are followed and people are killed, then you committed murder as well. So the Blind Sheikh is a murderer. If we'd learned from those lessons of the past, the difference it would have made is Ambassador Stevens should still be alive today, and he could be coming before Congress and explaining what goes wrong so that we'd know the difference that would make, which is that, in the future, we could save other Ambassadors and other consulate workers. Now, I've read accounts that, apparently, the former SEAL team members--the two who responded--had been advised, Don't go. So it has to be a little bit hurtful for their families to know that their sons, their husbands, their brothers had been ordered not to go help at Benghazi and that they disobeyed their instructions and went and helped anyway and that, as people came before Congress to testify, the military, having given them the instructions not to go--the civilian service giving them instructions not to go--took credit for their disregarding their instructions and going and trying to save lives anyway. How ironic. American lives are still at stake in North Africa, in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, around the world, and here at home. If we continue to put people in place in decisionmaking positions who do not understand that you cannot buy off a schoolyard bully and that you cannot buy off radical Islamic jihadists who want to destroy you, we're going to continue to have Americans lose their lives. I've mentioned on this floor before what one American soldier in Afghanistan told me over there. He said, Look, I don't mind laying down my life for my country, but please don't waste it. We have such heroes in the service of the United States, and they're asking, Please, we'll follow orders. Just don't waste our willingness to lay down our lives for others. But that's the American tradition. We were talking about some people this week even going back to Hawaii's statue just in the hallway directly below where I am right here, directly below. Father Damien was a Catholic priest who'd heard about the lepers being thrown off ships, being put on an island in Hawaii to die, having no quality of life--horrors of existence. So he went to give them a quality of life, to give them a society so they could live out their last diseased years. Eventually, as he knew he would, he acquired leprosy and died. The words that are at the top of the plaque on Father Damien's statue, which is right below me, apply to our military members, apply to those in our U.S. service, because the words on those top two lines of that plaque say: Greater love hath no one than this: that a man lay down his life for his friends, John 15:13. We've got people willing to lay down their lives for their country. We would beg the President to appoint a Secretary of Defense who will not waste American lives in trying to buddy up to radical Islamic jihadists in control in Iran, who will not demonize any further than former Senator Hagel already has the Israelis and the Jewish members of an administration who just want to protect our country, because we find out in prior speeches, in prior comments from the Secretary of Defense nominee Hagel, that he has complained before that one of the big problems is that the State Department is controlled by Jews. That's fine by me--they're Americans. They care about America, but that's a problem for him. It's not a problem for me as long as any Jewish or any Caucasian or any minority serving his country understands Israel is our friend--they're our ally--and they're the greatest democracy anywhere in that area. So let's don't disparage our ally. Let's don't think we can throw Israel under the bus as we did Mubarak, as we did Qadhafi, as we did the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, as this administration has done with others. Don't throw Israel under the bus. Let's stop doing that to our friends, and let's recognize the real enemy. I hope and pray the President will withdraw this nomination and, if he doesn't, that we will continue to have Senators to say, you can't have somebody serve as a Cabinet-level position, like former Senator Hagel, who thinks Israel is the problem and that Jews in the State Department are the problem and that Iran has a group of leaders in it that we need to buddy up to. If the President will do that, he will see a welcoming of bipartisanship. He will see it explode on both sides of the aisle, welcoming the President's doing the right thing by our friend Israel. If the President refuses to do that, I still hope and pray that the people will stand as firmly as did the Republicans who voted against bringing Chuck Hagel to the floor for a vote for a nomination. I hope they'll stand firm. I'm so proud of the new Senator, Ted Cruz. He's doing great. Lindsey Graham made some great points yesterday, and I hope he'll stand by those. He's a good man. He just needs to stand by what he said yesterday. If we do that, we will help make the world a better place, and we'll show the country true bipartisanship. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 15, 113th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, and I thank my dear friend from Texas for having this time and for honoring such a great American hero. Chris Kyle clearly loved his country. He loved his family, he loved those with whom he served and was willing to lay down his life for his friends. Every time he was committed to hostile theater, he knew he might be laying down his life for his friends. He also knew that the ultimate authority on love, Jesus, is quoted in John 15:13 saying: Greater love hath no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. Chris had that commitment every time he was in a hostile area. He was willing to do that. And the fact that he gave up his life trying to help another servicemember who was suffering from a mental problem still is an act of laying down his life in service for others. He did it for this country, he did it for his friends, and he did it for those, including the gunman that took his own life. Now, it was a very moving service. I don't believe it was broadcast. But for all of us who were there, we were deeply moved. The show of support, love, and affection for an American hero was deeply touching. Chad Littlefield, the same situation, a man that was willing to lay down his life for his friends, and he did. I think most people, Mr. Neugebauer, have heard and read about this extraordinary man, Chris Kyle, his service to the country, three Silver Stars and five Bronze Stars. What an incredible, incredible service to his country. He deserves the tribute being brought and much, much more. I would like to say a little bit about the sacrifice of some American heroes who don't always get recognized as heroes. In Chris' case, it's his wife, Taya, and their two children--sweet little notes on the bulletin at the funeral that they had written. His parents--it was an honor to meet Chris' parents. But we don't often think of the families and what they have laid down. They have lost father, husband, friend, confidante, a man who would do anything for them. They have paid an ultimate sacrifice. I was reading some years back in--actually it's a journal basically that C.S. Lewis had written after his wife died. In one of the entries, he was talking about how much he missed his wife, how much he wished he had her back, and then he realized how selfish that was because she was in paradise, and his act of selfishness was to want a loved one to come back into a world where that loved one would only have to some day again die before they could return to paradise. I believe with all my heart that Chris, as a Christian, is in paradise. He's greatly missed, and especially by those closest to him that paid that ultimate price. We wish he were back, but then he would have to go through that process again. C.S. Lewis said, We've always heard that Stephen was the first martyr, but didn't Lazarus get the rawer deal? I never thought about it before. We're told Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. You can't find any reference in scripture of Lazarus saying anything ever because he might have said something like, I was in paradise, and you're bringing me back here now? Nonetheless, Chris has served honorably and well. He's greatly missed. And we should not forget the family members of those who have lost loved ones in service to this country. They have paid the ultimate price: his parents, his wife, his kids, his brother. Obviously, his brother sorely missed Chris. So let's pay tribute to Chris, to those who have sacrificed in giving their loved one Chris for our country.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, at this time, the first thing I would like to do is yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis). Paying Tribute to Cardiss Collins, Former Member of Congress

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Davis. It's my pleasure to have had the opportunity to yield to you. It's one of the things that's good if we do more of, and that is recognizing people for their great contributions to this country. At this time, I want to pick up where my friend, Mr. Franks, left off and follow up on the issue of who will be the next CIA Director. This is an important matter. Some think, well, what difference does the past make? Today is a new day. Every day is a new day. But those of us who majored in history, studied history, know that our history is the best indication of future performance. So with regard to Mr. Brennan, I think it's worth noting that Secretary of State--former Secretary of State now--Hillary Clinton warned on her way out as Secretary of State of the danger of what she called the ``global jihadist threat.'' I am greatly appreciative to Secretary Clinton for calling this administration's attention to that, as well as the American public. Secretary Clinton should know. We had at least four Americans killed at Benghazi during her watch as Secretary of State. The question might be: Where is John Brennan today on this central challenge of our time for Western civilization? And by ``Western civilization,'' I mean the idea that the Founders of this Nation had, many of them depicted in the great mural just outside this floor, 56 signers of the Declaration in the mural that John Trumble did down in the Rotunda. Their idea, when you read their writings, was of a people who would have the chance to govern themselves. They all knew that prayer was important. That's why as Ben Franklin said during the Constitutional Convention--his own handwriting, he wrote out his speech, but he mentioned that during the revolution, in his words: We had daily prayer in this room. Our prayers, sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. They understood that. They prayed for wisdom. They prayed for guidance. They prayed for help in setting up this experiment in democracy. Yes, Rome had had a Senate. Yes, Greece had had a Senate; England had had a Parliament. But they had rulers who could just disband, kill, dismiss. This was going to be different. This was going to be a people who would have the chance to actually govern themselves, a revolutionary idea. There was still such a class system in so many areas of the world in the 1700s that so many considered that people who were not of the upper crust would not have the ability to govern themselves. That's not what the Founders believed after they prayed each day during the revolution, after they prayed and struggled and argued over the way forward to reaching that goal. But there is a threat, as Secretary Clinton said, the global jihadist threat, of people who think that the Founders' dream is totally inappropriate, that it leads to degradation; it leads to moral depravity, in their minds. The Founders knew that was a possibility, but it was worth the risk to give people the freedom of choice as they believed their creator had given all of us, to make decisions for good or bad, and normally to have to live with the consequences of those decisions. The global jihadist threat that Secretary Clinton pointed out does not have the belief that a democracy is a good idea, that a people electing representatives in a republican form of government is a good idea. They believe that we need some religious leader, like the Ayatollah Khomeini, or now Khamenei in Iran, we need a religious leader like that, that tells us what we can do, that makes all his decisions under shari'a law. Now, all of those who met during the revolution, they believed in the power of prayer to God, and that's why they prayed during that time. But they wanted everyone to have the chance to worship as they chose, be they Muslim, Hindu, but especially Judeo-Christian beliefs where Jews and Christians had traditionally suffered persecution. They wanted the chance for people to worship as they please, or not worship. But they knew to make that possible they had to pray to God. And that's why we are observing, once again, tomorrow the National Prayer Breakfast where our President will speak, where we will have a fantastic testimony from one of the great leaders in our country, who earlier in his life, when his life was going astray, dropped to his knees and prayed for help and got it. We will hear about that tomorrow. But if we don't know the history of this country, if we don't know the dream of the Founders, if we don't understand the Constitution, then we lose it. And people need to understand when there is a global jihadist threat, not of moderate Muslims, like our friends, the Northern Alliance, who fought and defeated the Taliban on our behalf, not the enemy of our enemies, but these are radical Islamic jihadists who want a caliphate in which the United States is subjugated to a religious ruler. And they're willing to use violence, if necessary. Although the Muslim Brotherhood now seems to indicate that here in America they've made so much progress in infiltrating and getting positions of power in our government, in our State Department, in our Homeland Security Department, in our Justice Department, at the White House directly, direct lines to the President, they have made so much progress in moving toward that goal of a caliphate here in the United States, under shari'a law, not under the Constitution, that they're thinking maybe violence is not the way forward in America to achieve their goal of making this a shari'a compliant caliphate. But the Muslim Brotherhood around the world believes in many places violence is the way forward in those areas. But we've got to understand who we are facing and what they want to do. And Secretary Clinton, unfortunately it is on her way out that she notes this, instead of being able to spend the last four years with the clarity she had when she said that we face this danger of a global jihadist threat. It is a threat. She now acknowledges it on her way out. And the question now is, since Secretary of State Kerry will now be carrying that mantle, for heaven's sake we have got to have somebody in intelligence directing intelligence who understands the threat against us and will ensure that we are protected and understands the global jihadist threat. The Obama administration has focused almost entirely on al Qaeda, believing people when they came in and said, ``Look, the only people who can actually give you advice on dealing with these radical folks are Islamic believers, so you must get advice from us, form partnerships with us, let us give you advice, let us tell you how to deal with this threat.'' And they made great inroads in this administration in that approach. But the blindness of the larger jihadist threat, the enterprise that is being pursued by the Muslim Brotherhood abroad, has resulted in the practice of drone-delivered assassinations of al Qaeda figures, with what many are questioning or arguing is due process without that, and this administration's repeated declaration that al Qaeda is being defeated. They know not of what they speak. The idea that al Qaeda is being defeated is helping recruit others who are radical jihadists, because they're able to point to a United States administration that is so blind and so uninformed of what really is going on, that they think al Qaeda is on the decline when radical jihad is on its way up. The drone technique of killing American citizens and killing radical jihadists is apparently thought by this administration to be a very advanced and practical approach. Well, it does avoid putting Americans at risk right now. But those same people in this administration that talked about the danger of waterboarding because, yes, some acknowledge we got very critical information by using that, even though there was no threat to their health, you had doctors there, there was no intention to do any harm. The intent was to perform a procedure that did not harm but would gather information. Well, this administration ran against John McCain, and even though John McCain agreed, yeah, we don't want to waterboard, we don't want to do anything that somebody might someday call torture, they complained, gee, this is allowing radicals to be recruited against the United States because of the unjust nature of doing a procedure that is not harmful to someone's health to gather information to save American lives, which it did. So here we are now with this administration that thought waterboarding helped jihadists recruit more radicals, using a process of having a high administration official think to himself or herself, ``I don't think this may be enough, yeah, blow them up,'' without giving adequate consideration to civilians who will be killed, to family members who will be upset, to the ability of our enemies to use that to recruit other radicals many times over to replace those that have been killed with a drone strike. This administration's systemic failure to understand what the Muslim Brotherhood calls ``civilization jihad'' is putting this country in severe jeopardy. That's why I appreciate Secretary Clinton, on her way out, unfortunately, pointing back to the danger of this global jihadist threat. According to the--and this is the name of the document--``Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America,'' the mission of the Muslim Brotherhood is this: ``A civilization-jihadist process--a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their,'' i.e. Americans', ``hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions.'' The mission statement I've just quoted translates into a comprehensive effort to penetrate, to influence, and otherwise subvert our American civil society, our form of government, our governing institutions. And that explanatory memorandum that I just quoted from was written on May 19, 1991 by a top Muslim Brotherhood operative, Mohamed Akram. Though the Justice Department established in Federal court during the Holy Land Foundation trials in Dallas, Texas, that the groups identified by the Muslim Brotherhood in their memo are ``their organizations,'' a number of them and their successors have been treated by the Obama administration as key interlocutors in dealing with radical jihad, and this administration believes that these Muslim Brotherhood front organizations are legitimate representatives of the Muslim American community. They have enabled the Muslim Brotherhood to recruit and to show others, Look, we're the ones that the White House trusts. We can call the White House. We can call and tell them there are three people who are giving a seminar at Langley--CIA headquarters--to law officers, hundreds of them, and we believe they will be teaching them things that are offensive to us. Well, yeah, because they call them what they are. They read from their own documents. These individuals, who have spent their careers learning and teaching about the threat of what Secretary Clinton called the global jihadist threat, were stopped in August a year and a half ago by a call to the White House. That call also was instrumental in prompting this administration through the intelligence department, the Justice Department, the FBI, all these departments, into purging documents, purging words, purging things from our materials that someone who wants to destroy our way of life and take us over and make us a caliphate may be offended by. I can't go into what has been purged because they decided to declare it a classified setting when Michele Bachmann and I--and for a while Lynn Westmoreland--went through documents to see what had been purged, documents that we knew before we went in had supposedly been purged because someone who wants to destroy our way of life might be offended. Well, I am offended, every American should be offended, and every Muslim should be offended that a governing administration put the feelings of people who want to destroy us ahead of their oath to protect this Nation and preserve the Constitution. It doesn't mean anything to preserve the Constitution if you preserve the document but you do not preserve the enumerated powers and laws set out in that document. Last June, four of my colleagues and I wrote to five different departments in this administration. In each separate letter--each was different--we wrote to the inspector general of each department, and we pointed out in each letter specific facts about that department that should give rise to an investigation into the influence of people who have embraced the idea of civilization jihad and taking this country over and subjugating us to sharia law and a religious leader who could tell us how to avoid moral depravity. There was such an uproar, even by some Republicans--by a few of them, anyway. But some in the media went ballistic. Instead of doing their own investigation, they start blaming the messenger. But I don't hear any of those people attacking Secretary Clinton on her way out for saying, By the way, there is a global jihadist threat. It's what we've been trying to tell people for a couple of years, at least. There is a global jihadist threat. Thank you, Secretary Clinton. You're right. Now, for this administration to bring people into top positions who do not understand the threat to this country and think that ignoring due process of our Constitution and killing American citizens with drone bombs is somehow preserving the Constitution, it requires another look. It requires oversight. There may be circumstances where that's what needs to be done. But I do find it interesting that this administration and certain leaders here on the Hill had no problem with al Awlaki leading prayers here at the Capitol, here on Capitol Hill, prayers by al Awlaki that were videotaped, that you can still find. He led prayers on Capitol Hill, and then he goes to Yemen, and this administration thinks we better kill him with a drone without due process. What were they afraid of? Maybe that he would come back and lead prayers on Capitol Hill, or maybe he would be captured and talk about who all he led prayers with on Capitol Hill? What was the need for taking this man out? We're told he had blood on his hands, and so it does seem. But there seems to be a problem when leaders of this country will say you cannot waterboard to get information, even though it's not a threat to the health of the individual--it scares them--but we will take an American citizen out who not so long before was leading prayers of Muslim staff members here at this Capitol on Capitol Hill. It would be a grave mistake for our Senate to confirm John Brennan as the chief architect that he has been for his failure to understand and comprehend the global jihadist threat that Secretary Clinton has noted going out. There was an article today, February 6, by Jim Geraghty, and I'm quoting from the article: Let me throw you a curveball by quoting Adam Serwer of Mother Jones, reacting to the administration's release of its legal justification to kill Americans believed to be involved with terror without a trial, by drone. Let me parenthetically note here that I'm not someone who comes to the table without an understanding about trials, about evidence, about due process, about constitutional rights, and about a death sentence. I've signed death sentences. It's a heavy, weighty matter, and as someone who has believed in capital punishment in the right circumstances, it's still a challenging moment when you watch your hand sign an order to have someone put to death. I've done it twice. In both cases, the evidence was overwhelming beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence was also overwhelming beyond a reasonable doubt that those two individuals murdered an individual or more, knew what they were doing when they murdered one or more individuals, were complicit in actually either murdering or participating in the murder, and that there was no evidence. The question put to the jury: Is there any evidence that mitigates against the imposition of the death penalty as the Supreme Court has found? Any evidence. It's a ``no evidence'' question. Is there any evidence that mitigates against the death penalty? That's one of the three questions, and that's the standard. That's what juries in States that allow capital punishment have had to wrestle with, but I'd like to know who is considering those weighty issues in this administration. So we go back to Geraghty's article. He quotes from Mother Jones: The Obama administration claims that the secret judgment of a single ``well-informed, high-level administration official'' meets the demands of due process and is sufficient justification to kill an American citizen suspected of working with terrorists. That procedure is entirely secret. Thus, it's impossible to know which rules the administration has established to protect due process and to determine how closely those rules are followed. The government needs the approval of a judge to detain a suspected terrorist. To kill one, however, it need only give itself permission. Of course, the hypocrisy of most liberals doesn't get us off the hook on the need to have a coherent view on this. Okay, conservatives. Big question now: If this were President Romney, would we be shrugging, concerned, complaining or screaming? I think ``concerned.'' At the very least, you would want another set of eyes--the House or Senate Intelligence Committees or some independent judges--taking a look at the Presidential ``kill list''--right?--at least for the American citizens. Our Charles C.W. Cooke said, ``In case my position isn't obvious, I am appalled by any President processing the unilateral power to kill American citizens extrajudicially.'' Senator Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, puts it rather bluntly: ``Every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them.'' Geraghty finishes his article by saying, ``That doesn't seem like too much to ask.'' The article in Mother Jones is worth considering. It's dated Tuesday, February 5, posted at 8:53 a.m. Pacific Standard Time by Adam Serwer. It takes a good look at this issue. So what is the result of this administration's deciding secretly or some bureaucrat's deciding, ``Yeah, we've got enough. We'll kill this man. Yeah, we've got enough. We'll kill this person, this American citizen''? How is that working out? There was an article published on January 31, 2013, by Catherine Herridge. Catherine has a great book out on radical Islam. This article Catherine has entitled, ``Al Qaeda affiliate in Africa looking to strike more Western targets, intelligence officials say.'' She says in her article, quoting Secretary Clinton: ``Yes, we now face a spreading jihadist threat. We have driven a lot of the al Qaeda operatives out of . . . Afghanistan, Pakistan. Killed a lot of them, including, of course, bin Laden, but we have to recognize this is a global movement.'' My comment: It's not a movement that is simply attacking overseas in some foreign country. Anyway, it's a good article by Catherine Herridge. She understands the threat. Let me read a quote directly from White House counterterrorism adviser and nominee for Director of the CIA, Mr. John Brennan. He said: Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early eighties and has evolved significantly over time, and now it has members of parliament in the cabinet. There are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization . . . and so, quite frankly, I'm pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are, in fact, renouncing that type of terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process in Lebanon in a very legitimate fashion. They have not sworn off violence in Lebanon. They have not sworn off violence in Egypt, in Syria and, as we well know, in Libya, Albania, Tunisia, even in African nations further south. I've said before and have expressed my concern of this administration in its helping people we didn't know for sure of their identities and in encouraging them to overthrow this Nation's ally, President Mubarak. I expressed concerns before it was done about giving military assistance to people that we knew included al Qaeda to overthrow a man who had blood on his hands but, since 2003, had been this Nation's and this administration's ally, Qadhafi. They participated in taking him out--gave military aid to do so--to protect al Qaeda and other revolutionaries in setting up a government, a situation, that naturally was going to get Americans killed and which happened. So I applaud Secretary Clinton for noting the global jihadist threat on her way out, but I come back to her question that will ring in people's ears for years to come when Senators were trying to get to the heart of the matter: What happened at Benghazi? Please just tell us what happened. We're not going to prosecute anybody here at the Senate. We just need to know what happened. Of her question, those words will ring: What difference does it make? What difference does it make? Americans got killed. I was inquiring: Does anybody know has a fifth person died of his wounds in Benghazi? What's going on? What's happening to those people who were wounded? Who can tell us what really happened? What difference does it make? So we can avoid Americans being killed like that in the future. What if we'd have had an adequate investigation about security at our Embassy back when Susan Rice was involved back in the nineties? Did they ask for extra security? Did you deny them that security? Did we have enough security? What happened to allow our Embassy to be bombed and Americans to be killed? What difference does it make? Because if we'd known in the nineties what went wrong, maybe we could have avoided Chris Stevens, our SEALS, those four Americans that we know of being killed. What difference does it make? It makes a difference to their families if they're alive today or dead because we were not properly secured. What difference does it make? It makes a difference to future families who lose loved ones in the service of their country because people stonewalled and would not give us the information as to what went wrong, what happened. Just tell us. We're supposed to trust the administration? Not only with a bureaucratic decision by one person that he think he's got enough information to go kill an American citizen without a trial, now we have to say, oh, well, we will trust them to make sure that nobody gets killed again, but it has already happened. And then by the stonewalling, we don't know enough about where the weapons came from. We don't know enough about what went wrong to know how those weapons that we may have provided in a country where we provided the revolutionary help, now has resulted in Americans and others being killed in Algeria. What difference does it make? I'm sure the people who died in Algeria would like to have their family members back. That makes a difference. What difference does it make? It doesn't make any difference if you don't care who lives or dies. But if you want to protect Americans in the service of their country, it makes a real difference. And it's our duty to try to protect them. The New York Times had an article by Gregory Johnsen back in November titled ``The Wrong Man for the CIA.'' He said: With the resignation of David H. Petraeus, President Obama now has a chance to appoint a new CIA director. Unfortunately, one of the leading candidates for the job is John O. Brennan, who is largely responsible for America's current flawed counterterrorism strategy, which relies too heavy on drone strikes that frequently kills civilians and provide al Qaeda with countless new recruits. Rather than keeping us safe, this strategy is putting the United States at greater risk. For all of the Obama administration's foreign policy successes--from ending the war in Iraq to killing Osama bin Laden--the most enduring policy legacy of the past 4 years may well turn out to be an approach to counterterrorism that American officials call the Yemen model, a mixture of drone strikes and Special Forces raids targeting al Qaeda leaders. Mr. Brennan is the President's chief counterterrorism adviser and the architect of this model. In a recent speech, he claimed that there was ``little evidence that these actions are generating widespread anti-American sentiment or recruits for AQAP,'' referring to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Perhaps the initials ought to be, instead of AQAP, the initials the administration, the government likes to use, instead of AQAP, maybe it ought to be MBCH, the Muslim Brotherhood on Capitol Hill, where al Awlaki that this administration killed with a drone strike led prayers. Back to the article: Mr. Brennan's assertion was either shockingly naive or deliberately misleading. Testimonies from al Qaeda fighters and interviews I and local journalists have conducted across Yemen attest to the centrality of civilian casualties in explaining al Qaeda's rapid growth there. Rapid growth there needs to be noted. People that have actually done an objective analysis have found al Qaeda is not diminished. Radicals are growing to the point that Secretary Clinton would note the jihadist threat as she leaves. The article says: The United States is killing women, children and members of key tribes. ``Each time they kill a tribesman, they create more fighters for al Qaeda,'' one Yemeni explained to me over tea in Sana, the capital, last month. Another told CNN, after a failed strike, ``I would not be surprised if 100 tribesmen joined al Qaeda as a result of the latest drone mistake.'' Rather than promote the author of a failing strategy, we need a CIA director who will halt the agency's creeping militarization and restore it to what it does best: collecting human intelligence. It is an intelligence agency, not a lightweight version of Joint Special Operations Command. And until America wins the intelligence war, missiles will continue to hit the wrong targets, kill too many civilians and drive young men into the waiting arms of our enemies. Without accurate on-the-ground intelligence, our policies will fail. George W. Bush launched two major ground invasions, and Mr. Obama has tried several smaller wars. Neither strategy has worked. In Yemen, which has been the laboratory for Mr. Obama's shadow wars, AQAP has more than tripled in size after 3 years of drone strikes. When the United States started bombing Yemen in 2009, AQAP had just 200 to 300 fighters. Today, the State Department estimates it has a few thousand. Since 2009, the group has attempted to attack America on three occasions, coming closest on December 25, 2009, when a would-be suicide bomber narrowly failed to bring down an airliner over Detroit. When it tries again--and it will--the organization will be available to draw upon much deeper ranks. Not surprisingly, American officials reject the claim that current policy is exacerbating the problem. In June 2011, Mr. Brennan declared that ``there hasn't been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities we've been able to develop.'' This came almost exactly a year after a botched drone attack in Yemen killed a deputy governor and four of his bodyguards instead of the intended target. Under Mr. Brennan's guidance, the United States has also adopted a controversial method for determining how many civilians it has killed, counting all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants. This means that Abdulrahman al Awlaki, a 16-year-old American citizen killed by a drone in October, was classified as a militant despite evidence that he was simply a shy teenager whose father happened to be Anwar al Awlaki, who had been killed by American missiles 2 weeks earlier. The strikes Mr. Brennan asks the President to approve frequently lead to civilian casualties. Indeed, the first strike Mr. Obama ordered on Yemen, in December 2009, destroyed a Bedouin village that was mistaken for a terrorist training camp. American missiles killed more than 50 people, including 35 women and children. Watching that strike live on a grainy feed the military calls Kill TV, Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon's top lawyer, later admitted, ``if I were Catholic, I'd have to go to confession.'' Mr. Petraeus's departure presents Mr. Obama with an opportunity to halt the CIA's drift toward becoming a paramilitary organization and put it back on course. For all of the technological advances America has made in a decade of fighting al Qaeda, it still needs all of the old tricks it learned in the days before spy satellites and drones. More and better intelligence from sources on the ground would result in more accurate targeting and fewer civilian casualties. That would be a Yemen model that actually worked and a lasting and effective counterterrorism legacy for Mr. Obama's second term. That's Gregory Johnson from The New York Times. Another good article by Patrick Poole on June 6 of 2012, ``Meet John Brennan, Obama's Assassination Czar.'' A relatively unnoticed article by Associated Press reporter Kimberly Dozier 2 weeks ago outlined new Obama administration policy changes which consolidated power for authorizing drone attacks and assassinations under political appointees within the White House. The article identifies White House Counterterrorism Chief John Brennan as the official assuming the role of Obama's de facto assassination czar, raising concerns even within the Obama administration that the White House is increasingly turning into ``a pseudo-military headquarters'' under the direction of just a few senior Obama administration officials. Adding to these concerns are serious questions about Brennan's qualification for this role. Even before the 2008 election, eyebrows were raised over Brennan's role in the Obama campaign. An employee of The Analysis Corporation, of which Brennan was CEO, had improperly accessed passport information for Hillary Clinton, Obama's Democratic primary challenger at the time, and GOP nominee John McCain. At the time, Brennan was a top adviser to the Obama campaign, and Brennan's employee was not fired. One of the key witnesses in the case was found murdered in his car outside his church while the investigation was still ongoing. Brennan was involved in administration intrigue related to the release of convicted Libyan Pan Am Flight 103 bomber from a Scottish jail in August 2009. At the time of Megrahi's release, when he returned to Libya to a national hero's welcome, Brennan described the release as ``unfortunate, inappropriate, and wrong'' and called for his reimprisonment. However, Obama administration documents obtained by The Sunday Times revealed that the White House had secretly informed Scottish authorities that they found compassionate release more palatable than the reimprisonment of Megrahi in Libya. Brennan also came under fire after would-be underwear bomber Umar Farouk--and I won't try that last name--nearly brought down a U.S.-bound Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day 2009. British intelligence authorities had notified their U.S. counterparts of an ``Umar Farouk'' meeting with al Qaeda cleric Anwar al Awlaki in Yemen, and Umar Farouk's father had warned of his son's increasing extremism to CIA officials at the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria. However, Umar Farouk was never added to the U.S. no-fly list, nor was his U.S. visa revoked. And but for, as I understand it, him sweating too much around his posterior that helped defuse the bomb and then the work of some heroic passengers to stop him once he tried, the crew was--the passengers were saved. But it was certainly no thanks to the Obama administration or Mr. Brennan. Now, back to the article. Patrick Poole says: Following this stunning and nearly fatal intelligence failure which prompted members of both the House and Senate Intelligence oversight committees to call for his resignation, Brennan lashed out at the Obama administration's critics in a USA Today editorial. He claimed that the ``politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear- mongering only serve the goals of al Qaeda.'' Let me insert here, if he thinks, Mr. Brennan thinks that questioning failures of the Obama administration is contributing to al Qaeda, what must bombing innocent people with drones be doing for al Qaeda? Back to the article. It says: Brennan also defended treating Umar Farouk as a criminal by having his rights read to him upon arrest and trying him in civilian court, rather than transferring the would-be bomber to military custody as an enemy combatant. Just days later, Brennan gave a speech to Islamic law students at New York University, where he was introduced by Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America, at that time. Mattson, who had been involved with the Obama inaugural prayer service, had come under fire then for her organization's longstanding terrorist support. During his New York University speech, Brennan defended the administration's highly unpopular move to try al Qaeda operations chief Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Federal court, which the administration eventually backed away from. He claimed that terrorists are the real victims of ``political, economic and social forces.'' Mr. Speaker, it's important people understand. John Brennan claimed that the terrorists killing Americans, over 3,000 on 9/11, were the real victims of a political, economic, and social force. Brennan said that Islamic terrorists are not jihadists, referenced ``Al-Quds'' instead of Jerusalem, and described the 20 percent of former Guantanamo detainees returning to terrorist activities as ``not that bad'' when compared to ordinary criminal recidivism. The thousands of people that have likely been killed by the 20 percent of our detainees being returned to terrorist activities probably would not consider Mr. Brennan's assessment as not that bad. They wouldn't consider that all that accurate. Patrick writes a great article. He has another one January 7, 2013, entitled, ``Revisiting 'Jihad' John Brennan.'' Another, by my friend, Andrew McCarthy, on February 4, opposed Brennan for CIA Director. I will include these articles in the Record. It is time we took a real objective look at people who say their goal is civilization jihad and the elimination of our freedom to choose as we please and to choose our public servants. [From the PJ Tatler, Jan. 7, 2013] Revisiting ``Jihad'' John Brennan (By Patrick Poole) This afternoon at a White House ceremony, Obama announced that his nominee for CIA Director will be `Jihad' John Brennan, his current counterterrorism adviser. Back in June, I profiled Brennan here at PJ Media. Some of `Jihad' John's recent highlights include: March 2008: John McCain's passport information leaked from John Brennan's company during presidential campaign (key witness murdered during investigation) April 2008: Brennan tells the New York Times that US government official must stop ``Iran-bashing'' Feb 2010: Brennan attacks critics of Obama Admin's handling of ``underwear bomber'' Abdulmutallab as a criminal, not a terrorist, saying that critics are ``serving the goals of Al- Qaeda'' May 2010: Brennan says he wants to build up ``Hezbollah moderates'' May 2010: Brennan defends `Jihad' as a `legitimate tenet of Islam' June 2010: Washington Times editorial slams Brennan, saying, ``President Obama's top counterterrorism adviser knows very little about terrorism, and that's scary for America.'' Aug 2010: Brennan storms out of meeting with Washington Times editorial staff after he claims he was misquoted by newspaper and editor begins reading Brennan's own quotes back to him out loud Sept 2010: Known HAMAS operative given escorted tour of National Counterterrorism Center May 2012: Brennan implicated in major White House intelligence breach involving UK/Saudi Al-Qaeda infiltrator Aug 2012: Brennan attacks critics of politically-driven White House intelligence leaks Sept 2012: House Intel Committee Chairman Mike Rogers says changes in CIA's Benghazi attack talking points blaming Mohammed video happened under deputies committee chaired by Brennan Again, these are just some of John Brennan's highlights. We could also add his laughable claims of no collateral casualties from his drone assassination program or his defense of trying Al-Qaeda operations chief Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court or his role in the White House back-door dealing with the UK on the release of Libyan Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi or his reference to Jerusalem as ``Al-Quds'' in a NYU speech or his claims that the 20 percent recidivism rate for GITMO detainees (those who returned to terrorism) was ``not that bad''. But that would be piling on. What should be clear is that John Brennan's role in Barack Obama's disastrous first term should preclude him from any further service in the second term, let alone a promotion.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Virginia for having this time tonight. There's no better occasion than the National Prayer Breakfast. My dear friend from Virginia leads each week when we're in session the first night of the week with bipartisan prayer. There is so much disagreement on this floor. I know my good friend from Texas, Al Green, and I have disagreement on issues, but he is my Christian brother and we prayed together tonight. It's a great honor to do that. There's so much misinformation out there about the starting of this country, and there are always plenty of mistakes made. When you look back to the very beginning, after the rocky start with the Articles of Confederation, 4 years later they talked Washington into coming back and coming to Philadelphia and presiding over a convention. He was very reluctant to do that. He thought he had done his part. But after 4 or 5 weeks of nothing but rancor and a lot of yelling, very difficult times within Independence Hall, finally 80-year-old Benjamin Franklin stood up and was recognized by the president of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. Franklin had enjoyed life a great deal, but at that point he was overweight, had arthritis, gout. He was in a lot of trouble, but his mind was quite sharp. He was 2 to 3 years away from meeting his Maker. But he pointed out, we've been going for nearly 4 or 5 weeks, and we have more noes than ayes on virtually every vote. Then he says these words. Now Madison entered notes to what he said, but Franklin wrote out his whole speech, and that is part of our archives. He said in his own words: How has it happened, Sir, that we have not once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding? In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. And he goes on to point out that all of them should be able to remember specific prayers that they had prayed that were answered. Then he said these words, his words, his handwriting we have, as he spoke to the convention: I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that unless the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it. He urged his colleagues to believe it as he did, and he made a motion that they begin each session with prayer, as they had during the Constitutional Convention. Mr. Sherman seconded it. There was a lot of debate. I heard someone call in to Sean Hannity's show a few months ago, and they were saying, Well, gee, prayer meant nothing in the early days. In essence it was his point that that motion was defeated. If you go back and look at the history, during the Constitutional Convention, they had money and they hired a chaplain. They agreed on the chaplain, and the chaplain led the prayer. During the Constitutional Convention, as was pointed out after Franklin's motion, they didn't have any money to hire a chaplain. They had no money. So they ended up not passing it because they didn't have money to hire a chaplain; and if they didn't hire a chaplain, they didn't see how they could agree on who would do the prayer. They ultimately went together to hear a sermon on the anniversary of our independence. They prayed together; they worshiped together; and they came back. Ultimately, the result was our Constitution. When the Congress began to meet, they did have money; they did hire a chaplain; and they did start each session with prayer. It was interesting when, back a few years ago, we were called into session on a Sunday to vote on the President's health care bill. Well, it was the first time I'd been called into session on a Sunday, and I greatly appreciated my friend from Virginia's leadership. We had a discussion: if we're going to be forced to come to Congress, called into session on a Sunday--what many of us call the Lord's day--then it doesn't seem like there should be a problem reviving a tradition that spanned most of the 1800s, and that was to have church right down the hall here--in Statuary Hall as it's called now--but in what was the House of Representatives for most of the 1800s, until around 1858, when they moved into this Chamber, although it did not look like this. During those years, they had church service every Sunday. It was the largest Christian church service--nondenominational--in Washington, D.C. Now, those who know the Constitution know there is no mention of the words ``separation of church and State,'' ``wall of separation.'' That was in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists. It had nothing to do with whether or not there should be discrimination against a Christian church as we often see now by the government. It seems that Christians are the only group that is politically expedient to be prejudiced against anymore--too often. The man who used the words ``separation of church and State,'' Thomas Jefferson, we had verified by the research that the Congressional Research Service did. When I just glanced at the report they provided, I saw that Madison didn't do this, and I thought, gee, that's weird. I thought Jefferson and Madison as President both went to church in the House of Representatives down the hall, so I looked more intently at the report. It said that Thomas Jefferson did go to church, and, in fact, Jefferson would often bring the Marine Band to play the hymns for the church service down the hall. That's a little different definition of the ``separation of church and State'' that's often given now. Just down the hall, they had open prayer and they had open worship, and nothing about any of that offended their sense of the First Amendment. It turns out what the report said was Jefferson would normally ride to church each Sunday that he was President up to Capitol Hill on horse, on horseback. It pointed out that Madison didn't do this. Madison normally came to church every Sunday here in the House of Representatives in a horse-drawn carriage--he didn't ride a horse; he rode in a carriage--but the man who is given the most credit for the most work of our Constitution, James Madison, was not at all offended, and he didn't think the Constitution was offended by having church down the hall. So I'll always be grateful to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) for suggesting let's have church, and we came together. They set it up, and it just reminded us of what it must have been like except they wouldn't have had steel and plastic chairs, but we had a worship service. What was particularly great, I thought, was that the prayers, both from Democrats and Republicans, were historic prayers that had been prayed in this Capitol many, many years ago as part of our history. It was a historical service, but there it was in the same place that the voice of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would have echoed in song and in verse and in prayer. Such a rich history we have. I'm sure my friend from Virginia has heard people call and write nasty notes, saying, Keep your religion at home. This is when I have read historical prayers, historical proclamations by George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and all in between--Adams, John Quincy Adams--by all of these historical heavyweights in our past. People write, Keep that stuff out of government, not realizing, because of their lack of proper education, that those were part of our history. They were part of what made this country the greatest country in the world. It was part of what inspired John Quincy Adams, who Abraham Lincoln credited as having such an impact on him for that brief year they overlapped in the House of Representatives, to ultimately come back and become President--to end that blot, that blight, on this country's history called ``slavery.'' Of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose statue is just down the hall in the Rotunda, the man was an ordained Christian minister. He spent his life, I've heard some say, in order to have all races created equal, and I would go one further as a young Christian white boy: he freed young Christian white boys to treat Christian brothers and sisters like Christian brothers and sisters. He did a great service for all of America. So I thank my friend from Virginia for hosting this time to talk about the historical importance of prayer. I look forward to this Thursday's prayer breakfast. It's an honor to be the Republican co- chair on the House side, and I look forward to the breakfast on Thursday. Mr. Speaker, I hope you and all within the sound of the voice of the Members of Congress will be there with us this Thursday morning.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, just very briefly, we had a vote today. There's some wonderfully fine Members of Congress that I have deep respect for who voted ``yes,'' and 32 voted ``no'' from the Republican side. It's not because we don't all hold the same belief that we have to cut spending to be responsible, to avoid continuing to add debt to our children and grandchildren, but a matter of difference in strategy. It is a mistake to suspend the debt ceiling increase, just as it would be to raise the debt ceiling without any meaningful cuts, just as Senator Phil Gramm got back in 1985, I believe it was, with Gramm- Rudman and so many of the debt ceiling increases that were accompanied as part of the deal with restrictions on spending. There're so many things going on in the world today that are just staggering. We know we had Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifying today. One report here today says that Secretary Clinton interrupted one Senator to contradict him and stress that she did not see requests for additional security to protect the Benghazi mission. That's extremely unfortunate that people in our State Department, committed to helping this country, would make cries for help over a period of months, over a period of years, even going back to when Ambassador Rice was with the State Department and people were killed at an American embassy and a request had been made for extra security that went unheeded. Here it came again; and apparently there were a number of people who made requests, including one of the security officials that I met and talked to personally. They could see that we were sitting ducks. And apparently former Senator Clinton, now Secretary Clinton, is saying she never saw the request. The bucks would have stopped with her if they'd ever made it to her. What it says is something has got to be done so that when people who have dedicated their lives to helping and protecting this country cry for help, that months, years after the cries, we don't again come back and say: never heard the cries; never got to me. Tragic. Tragic. Senator, now-Secretary, Clinton said that the administration's response to the assault was to be defended, and an independent investigation found that the State's actions saved American lives in real-time. Well, from what I've seen on the House side and in the news, without going into anything that might be classified, just from the public information we've discerned, the actions of the State Department in failing and ignoring the requests for help did not save lives. It ended up costing lives. The failure of this President to either receive information when a United States Ambassador he put in harm's way was begging, was under fire and people were begging for help on his behalf, we've had people indicate, gee, that immediately gets to the President himself or someone directly around the President who can get the President's immediate attention. We have an Ambassador under attack; that goes straight to the President or somebody right around him. And just like Secretary Clinton apparently has testified today: I never saw or heard the cries for help. I didn't know. Well, since this President is going to be in office for 4 more years as of Monday, it is imperative that he clean house and set up new procedures so that even if he's out golfing, even if he's on vacation, body surfing in Hawaii, wherever he is, doing fund-raising in Las Vegas, no matter where he is, that when somebody says Mr. President, people that you put in harm's way are begging for help, they're under attack, they're begging for your help, and I feel sure, you know, he would take time off of one of the greens or body surfing. He would surely take time. I know he would. If somebody would get him the information, your Ambassador is about to be killed, I know he would walk off the green and give some order to protect him, surely. But he's got to get the information. And since I travel around the world meeting with our military, Special Forces, different branches of our military, from Afghanistan to the very far reaches in the southern part of the Philippines, wherever, Iraq--and I won't be going back to Iraq. Prime Minister Maliki didn't like Dana Rohrabacher and me questioning him about repaying some of the U.S. money that we spent to give him the opportunity to be elected, especially since they now have all that oil revenue, and he also didn't like us bringing up the fact that they promised the United States when they took over the government that they would protect the people at Camp Ashraf, the refugees from Iran, and that actually the military had gone in and killed some of those people that he and the U.S. had pledged would be safe. And he didn't like that and apparently sent word that we were not welcome in his country anymore. We're okay with Americans dying so I can get elected here in Iraq, but we don't want anybody making us keep our promises here in Iraq. I've seen our military in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq, all around the world. I was in the Army for 4 years. And one thing that they are very concerned about that they can't talk about publicly, but especially after we had two former SEALs killed trying to protect the Ambassador, when it wasn't their job to do that, they did it because they're American heroes, American patriots. But our military sees those things. You know, when I was in the military, President Carter was President. We knew we had a President who did not have our back, who was more concerned about other things than the military. And there was a lot of unrest, but it's a crime in the United States military to say anything derogatory about anyone in your chain of command, including the top person, the President, and it needs to be that way. When you're in the military, you take orders and you follow your orders, and you don't castigate whoever is up your chain of command, even if they don't have a clue what they're doing. It has to be for the good order and discipline of the military. But we were not stupid. We knew when the President was not protecting us, was not protecting Americans. We knew when the President was not providing the equipment and what we needed to protect Americans. We knew that. And as I go around the world and talk to different of our military, they notice that we have officials in this administration who, after Americans dedicated to protecting this country are killed, will come forward from the White House down and say, gee, I had no idea that they were in that kind of trouble. I had no idea that our policies subjected them to being killed. I had no idea. I wish somebody had let me know they were in this kind of trouble. The military knows that. And as I've mentioned, one soldier in Afghanistan said, please let others in Washington know I don't mind laying down my life for my country, but please don't waste it. That's not much of an ask for those who are committed to protecting the rest of us. And yet this administration still prevents us from getting to the real facts, the real truth. To have someone come forward and say, I really didn't know there was trouble; I didn't know about the request for help, that does not answer the question that this body is demanding answers to and, that is, well, who did know. Who made the decisions not to protect Americans in harm's way? Who made that call? Who was it that gave orders, because surely there was somebody out there who said, an American Ambassador is under attack. We're going to go protect him. To attack a consulate is an act of war under anybody's interpretation of international law. It's an act of war. And when somebody commits an act of war against the United States, against a U.S. Ambassador, against our people, they need to know that there's a Commander in Chief, or if he doesn't know because he's busy, somebody that will give the order to protect those that were put in that bad situation. Our military needs to know that their Commander cares. Our military needs to know that they're not going to lay down their life for nothing. This is not the kind of testimony that we need. We want the truth. If this is the truth, so be it. Of course, we'd heard from her doctors after the fall that, gee, it turns out this could be the kind of thing that would result in memory loss. And I'm glad she's well enough to get along. My late mother, with a brain tumor, had balance problems. We constantly had to be on the alert for her falling, maybe tripping over a curb and hurting herself. It breaks your heart when you see somebody with bruises from falling. So I'm glad Secretary Clinton's okay. But we have an Ambassador and other Americans who died. So instead of sending witnesses to say, I don't know what happened, I'll take the blame. I have no clue what happened, but I'm responsible, instead of that, please, Mr. Speaker, we need to be provided with testimony and evidence how did these irresponsible decisions get made, and who made them. Because, as I say, our military gets it. They see what's going on. Despite some that might say, yeah, if you don't finish high school or don't get an education, you may end up in the military, if you actually spend enough time with the military, instead of being a 90-day wonder and get your Purple Heart and be on your way, if you actually spend substantial time with true military heroes that are dedicated to protecting our way of life, you spend time with them, you know these are smart people. You spend time with SEALs, as I have, and you find out these are not only incredibly trained people. They're smart people. You spend time with Special Forces, as I have there at Fort Benning where I spent 4 years, that's where the Rangers are trained. They're smart people, and they're smart enough to know when people in their chain of command do not have their back, they do not take actions that make it appear they care. I know the President cares. I know he does. I know Secretary Clinton cares. But it's not enough to say, ``I had no idea that I put people in harm's way and that they were begging for help and I got them killed.'' You know, let's find out where the problem is. How come they didn't know that was what was going on and the failure to provide security was going to get them killed? Why didn't they know? Those are the kinds of things we need to find out. Then we find out that there were Americans killed in the attack in Algeria. How could it be that these people in Algeria had the weapons to carry out this attack? Well, some of the reports indicate that these weapons probably came from Libya. Well, where would the Libyans have gotten weapons? Could it be that those were American-provided weapons, just like this administration forced the sale of guns that would go to kill at least one American and hundreds of Mexicans before it started claiming we've got to go after entirely, with our full force of the law, anybody that sells guns to criminals? It's a shame they didn't start with the Department of Justice; but I guess if you're the Department of Justice and you're responsible for forcing the sale of guns for criminals, then you're not exactly interested in looking at whose actions in your Department caused the death of hundreds of Mexicans and one or two Americans. But it needs to be looked at. That's how you avoid mistakes in the future. You find out what caused the mistakes. The three Americans were among 38 workers killed in the siege of an Algerian gas plant in which Islamic terrorists used hostages as human shields after their attempted mass kidnapping for ransom went awry. Some Algerian attackers are placed in Benghazi. This story is from Algeria, in The New York Times, dated January 22, by Adam Nossiter: Several Egyptian members of the squad of militants that lay bloody siege to an Algerian gas complex last week also took part in the deadly attack on the United States mission in Libya in September, a senior Algerian official said Tuesday. Months and months after a U.S. ambassador was killed, we finally have our FBI director go over to check into it himself. After FBI agents went and did some checking, we had reporters go over there and find actual evidence that somehow the FBI missed or did not bother with. Mistakes that get the United States public servants who have committed their lives to the U.S., and get them killed, requires scrutiny. And this administration, since they will have 4 more years, will, hopefully, be concerned enough about not getting other members of their State Department, their embassies, their consulates, their soldiers, killed for nothing. Now I know the soldiers. I've been to far too many funerals. And having known so many in harm's way, even if they're sent to the Valley of Death riding with the 600, figuratively speaking, they know they didn't die for nothing. They died devoted to the belief in the things that are set out in the Declaration of Independence--that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. And just like inheritance, if you're going to keep it, you're probably going to have to fight for it. Again, our military begs, If I'm going to lay down my life for my country, don't waste it. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope and pray this administration will stop obfuscating, will stop the hiding of documents, preventing us from getting them, so we can find out what mistakes were made so that we can prevent them in the future. And the great news for this administration, Mr. Speaker, is that gee, it doesn't have to run for reelection again. So there should be no excuse whatsoever for not bringing the facts forward. May I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. GOHMERT. Since the President doesn't have to run for reelection, there is no reason not to bring out the facts of Fast and Furious and what happened in Benghazi, that has now spilled over and cost American lives in Algeria. Let's get to the bottom of it. And if Secretary Clinton does not know what happened, if she doesn't have a clue, bless her heart, let's get somebody that does. Let's find out how these mistakes were made so we can prevent future lives being lost when they don't have to be. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude today, since this week marks the 40th anniversary of the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, and those of us who have been involved as a lawyer trying cases such as Roe v. Wade, which was a civil case, those of us that have been involved as a judge, as I was also a chief justice, we know that in order for a case to be ripe, that it can be heard in court, there must be a justiciable issue, as there was in Roe v. Wade. But the person bringing the case actually has standing to bring the case. It took years, but we ultimately find out that at the time there was no standing. We find out from the person who was Roe, a fictitious name, that she deeply regrets what had happened. And that case has been responsible for the killing of millions of lives. I have so many dear friends on the Democratic side of the aisle. I know their hearts. They don't want people to get killed. They care about life. And so many on both sides of the aisle talk about trying to protect ``the most vulnerable among us.'' I would humbly submit there is no one more vulnerable than an unborn child. There is that cord through which nourishment and oxygen flow as that baby grows and develops. There is a desire in the human heart to live. There is a desire to live. And those precious, innocent children want to live. It's who they are. It's part of their genetic makeup to want to live. There's no baby, born or unborn, who is capable mentally or physically of taking their own lives intentionally. It can't happen. It doesn't happen. They want to live. So our heart breaks as a Nation, thinking about the spilled blood of innocent, vulnerable children all put to death because someone did not understand what was going on and they were led to believe it's not a life, it's a choice. The children want to live. When our first-born was born, she came 8 to 10 weeks prematurely. Back then, it was uncertain whether she was going to live. We were encouraged at first, but the doctor said, She's in trouble. Her lungs were not developed. And I knew from cases that I had been involved in that if too much oxygen is given to a preemie, there's a chance they'll go blind. So doctors avoided that, if at all possible. And I saw them go from 20 to 40 to 60 to 80 to 100 percent oxygen. When they got to 100 percent, I knew Katy was in big trouble or they wouldn't risk her blindness. They said we needed to ship her to either Dallas or Shreveport, where she could get the top-rated neonatal ICU. Shreveport was a little closer. I was torn--my wife was suffering, having given birth prematurely--whether to stay with her or go with the baby. She said, Go with Katy. Do anything you can to help her. So I followed the ambulance to Shreveport. A man named Dr. Tsing was the neonatologist. He cared so deeply for those babies. And I began to understand why the doctor said they seemed to have the best survival rate there in Shreveport. He had a policy that if you went by a child, you had to observe proper sanitization procedures, but you touched those children, you talked to those children. They hear you. They know you. When I got there, they sat me on a stool and said you can stay no more than 2 hours, but talk to this child, she knows your voice. She has heard your voice for maybe 7 months. She knows your voice. Talk to her. Caress her arms. Talk to her. Caress her little face. And I did. The monitors were going so fast, so erratic was the heart rate, so erratic was the breathing, the lungs so undeveloped. As I had been there for a couple of hours, Dr. Tsing came back over. Katie had a grip on my finger, that tiny little hand of hers around the very end of my finger, and she wouldn't let go. He came over after a while and he said, have you looked at the monitors? I looked up. She still had such undeveloped lungs, but her breathing had stabilized. Her heart rate had stabilized. And Dr. Tsing said, she is drawing life, she is drawing strength from you. I couldn't leave. I sat there for 8 hours before they forced me to take a break, but I learned, born or unborn, a child wants to live. I hope and pray we will not continue to allow the killing of 40, 50, 60 million more precious babies like Katie. Katie is alive today. She is a joy, she is brilliant. There are other children that wanted to live as well. We need to stop deceiving pregnant women that it's not a life. It is a life, and it's endowed by our Creator. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to get to know you better all the time and to be serving with you. I enjoyed hearing my friends talking about the economy and things that are going on. So I wanted to address a few things. I didn't come over here and plan to address what they had, but they were mentioning their hope for us, bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. And having been there a few times, having talked to the former allies that this administration has thrown under the bus that initially defeated the Taliban for us with less than 500, possibly less than 300 embedded Special Forces, special ops, and intelligence personnel embedded with the Northern Alliance, they defeated the Taliban in about 3 or 4 months. Then we added troops and became occupiers. Occupiers in that part of the world don't do well. Someone reminded me of what I already knew, that Alexander the Great conquered that area around Afghanistan, and I had to remind them that he died on his way out of the area. I don't consider that a great victory. Nonetheless, we helped give the Afghans a government and sharia law, making it difficult for Jews and Christians to reside in a country where they once had. Under this administration's watch, like I say, we've thrown our allies under the bus, and the Taliban has come back almost strong as ever, not quite. Some of my Northern Alliance friends told me in one of our visits over there that on national television last year, the Taliban leader that this administration released for humanitarian purposes from Gitmo didn't seem to be having health problems and was on national television and was making clear that the U.S. would be withdrawing in the next year or two, and that when they did the Taliban would be back in charge as they were before. So it was time to come beg forgiveness from the Taliban and ask for their protection under sharia law. That doesn't sound like we're going to be in a whole lot better position after all the losses of life, all of the servicemembers who have laid down their lives in Afghanistan, who continue to do that as we speak because the Commander in Chief has them there without any real mission laying down their lives. As one of our troops told me, ``I don't mind laying down my life for my country, but please don't waste it.'' They're not laying down their lives for a wishy-washy government that can't figure out what it wants to do, that leaves our military without a clear mission, that allows the Taliban to come back stronger than ever, supplied and funded in part from Pakistan. They deserve better. They deserve much better. Our Commander in Chief was on television yesterday talking about the debt limit, the debt ceiling. He's talked about our economy. I think it's worth noting that since 1923, the President was required to furnish a budget and a time deadline given for furnishing that budget. Ninety years. Ninety years, the President is required by law to furnish a budget. Since 1923, those ensuing 90 years, there have apparently been 11 times when presidents have been unable to get the budget to Congress as required by law. For some of those 11, there were very good reasons. But it's interesting to note in the last 90 years, out of the 11 times that the budget from the President has been late, 4 of those 11 have been under the Obama administration. We're also informed that there is a chance once again, as there was a year and a half ago, that our credit rating of the U.S. could be lowered again by another credit rating agency. Some have tried to paint it as a different story, a different picture. But for those of us who recall what happened, S&P made it clear that they didn't believe that the United States was serious about dealing with this dramatic overspending problem, where we were spending $1.5 trillion, $1.6 trillion, over a trillion dollars more than the 2-plus trillion dollars that we had coming in. And that if we didn't at least reduce the massive overspending annually by at least $400 billion for 10 years, a total of $4 trillion over a 10-year period, then it would make it pretty clear that we were not serious about dealing with our debt. I know the Obama administration went on the warpath after the S&P credit rating was lowered. Personally, I think it's to S&P's credit that they did what they said. We came in with a debt ceiling bill that was agreed to with the administration. It had some sequestration in it with the supercommittee that some of us knew wasn't going to work because the Democrats had made it clear they didn't want a supercommittee to work because they wanted to be able to campaign and say, Gee, cuts are coming to Medicare because the Republicans were trying to protect their rich friends. It worked very well. They wouldn't reach an agreement. Even after somebody like a Republican Senator had a proposal to raise new revenue, a couple of Democrats were reported as saying that this was going to be the breakthrough that allowed an agreement. After consulting with the President, to Harry Reid it apparently was made clear we don't want to deal. No, no deal, so there was no deal, and now the sequestrations are about to take place. Mr. Speaker, what time did I start?

Mr. GOHMERT. So we had a debt ceiling bill that was undermined from the beginning. No deal was reached. Sequestration--massive cuts to our national security, to our national defense--would be inflicted and massive cuts to Medicare. Our leaders responded to me that, Gee, the Democrats will never allow the cuts to Medicare, the sequestration to Medicare, $300 billion or so. They'll never allow that. That's why we know the supercommittee will reach an agreement. I advised them that that would not happen, that there would be no agreement, that of course they're willing to have a $300 billion or so cut to Medicare, because ObamaCare cut $700 billion from Medicare from our seniors' care without a single Republican vote. So the only way that Democrats would run a commercial last year, in 2012, with any sincerity at all was in saying, Gee, Republicans are cutting Medicare. If they were to prevent Republicans from reaching an agreement with the President and Democrats, then they could run commercials in 2012, and they'd blame the Republicans and say, See, they didn't reach an agreement. They wanted to cut seniors and help their rich friends. As some of us made clear, we weren't nearly as concerned at all about protecting anybody as we were future generations. How embarrassing that our generation is the first generation in American history that has said by our actions that we are not concerned with leaving our children and our grandchildren--future generations--a better country than we found. We're more concerned with lavishing money on the here and now that we can't pay for and that future generations will pay for because we can't stop spending on ourselves. We had a vote today on relief for Hurricane Sandy, and we know something about the pain that comes from hurricanes. In my district in east Texas, not only did we face consequences from Hurricane Katrina and the hundreds of thousands of people who came through--and many stayed in east Texas--and from the onslaught of weather that hit east Texas, but it was immediately followed by Hurricane Rita, which swept straight up through east Texas, through my district. We know about suffering. We saw how Louisiana was helped so much more than east Texas even though, at the very time we were hit with Hurricane Rita, we were taking care of victims from Hurricane Katrina. We understand about that, but there is a lot of misinformation about Hurricane Katrina. For Hurricane Katrina, we did offset spending when Republicans were in the majority. We actually then turned money back that was not spent. Our hearts go out to the victims of Hurricane Sandy, especially those who understand what that kind of suffering is. I was all over my district. A Democratic sheriff told his county once that he'll never forget midnight after Hurricane Rita hit--no power. There in the county, there was no power at the sheriff's office. There was a generator that had kicked on, and the lights were flickering. After midnight, his U.S. Congressman came walking through his door and said, What can I do to help? To get there to San Augustine, I had to cut down trees that were across the road and over to Hemphill. It's tough when dealing with the consequences of a hurricane. People are hurt. Buildings, homes are destroyed. We understand that. We wanted to help the victims of Hurricane Sandy, but what we didn't want to do and what we'd hoped there would be plenty of responsibility in dealing with was pork that was placed in this bill for emergency purposes. It just seems a bit immoral that you would take advantage of the suffering of people during a hurricane to get one last big plug of money. I mean, it's all so pretty discouraging to see that there is money being captured, taking advantage of the victims of a hurricane to enrich and engorge themselves. There ought to be a law against it, but there isn't because this Chamber, led by the Senate down the hall, is still putting pork in these bills to go to things that have nothing to do with the hurricane, and they're not offset. We have no problem on both sides of the aisle in helping victims who can't help themselves, but we ought to pay for it now. When a former Member of Congress and one of the greatest heroes Texas history has, named Davy Crockett--he was a U.S. Congressman from Tennessee--stood before the House of Representatives, right down the hall here in the old House Chamber, he explained what he was lectured to by a constituent: Don't take my money. Take your own money to help charitable causes. Not only do we not do that, but we take other people's money to help, and they get all this pork added in order to get enough votes to pass it. Then it ought to be the biggest regret of this generation that we don't even pay for it. How in the world could this body fail to pass a bill that would pay for helping the victims of Hurricane Sandy? But we don't have the money to do it, so we're going to borrow between 40 and 50 cents of every dollar of money both for the pork and for the help for Hurricane Sandy because this body got sweet talked into refusing to pay for helping this generation. We'll let our children and our children's children and maybe their children pay for this. We will load them up with debt because we will not pay our own way. We're too narcissistic. We're too self-indulgent. We are not going to pay our way, and that kind of attitude is a tragedy. It brings countries down. What brings a country to the peak of their greatness is when generation after generation does not fail to honor the God that has blessed that country and they have a commitment that we were taught in Boy Scouts that you leave a place better than you found it, and you leave better for those coming behind you. And it's embarrassing that this White House and the Senate and this House are comfortable enough to leave a country massively more in debt than when this generation came to leadership. It's heartbreaking. And one of the reasons we are not effectively dealing with this problem is because not enough people know the truth. They don't know the history of this country. Apparently, the President thinks it's perfectly okay to just forget about the rule of law. Oh, there's a law that says I have to provide a budget. Well, I'm not doing it. I'll get around to it. But the law says he must. Is he above the law? Apparently so. Because of the 11 times in the last 90 years when the budget was late, four of them were this President. You know, when you talk to economists and you read what economists are saying, and you're concerned about the downgrade in the credit rating because of how much more money that will put us in debt that future generations will have to pay, when you talk to them, you look at what they're saying, there are a couple of things that they point out. Well, one of the things that helped this country is our belief and support for the rule of law, that no one is above the law. And yet you look at what this White House is doing: ah, we'll get around to the budget eventually. More insensitive to following the law than any Presidency that I can find in history. We have a President who says, you know, yeah, I get it, the Defense of Marriage Act was duly passed into law and signed into law by a former Democratic President, but I don't like that law and I realize Congress is not going to change it, so I'm going to ignore the law. I'm going to instruct my Attorney General to ignore the law. That kind of thinking means there's no support at the highest level of this country for the rule of law. When we have a President who makes speeches and an Attorney General who makes speeches about how they're going to go after illegal gun sales, and yet there is blood on the hands of people in this administration, and we can't even find out who they are because they are being obscured, for the death of hundreds of human beings who died because this administration forced gun dealers to sell guns that they knew and they reported should not be sold, and they were told by their Federal Government, their executive branch, you do it anyway because we're going to follow the guns, in effect. The guns were not followed. They made their way into criminals' hands, as was intended, but they weren't followed. And now the administration says they want to support the rule of law and go after these illegal gun sales? Well, they have to start with their own administration. And then we have a President that instead of coming to Capitol Hill where most of the elected representatives of the country are, there's one down Pennsylvania Avenue, actually two, the Vice President, and there are 535 down here, and sitting down and working out a comprehensive immigration bill, instead of doing that, the President announces, you know, I don't like the laws that were duly passed by prior Congresses, Democrats, signed into law by Democrats and Republican Presidents. I realize what the law is, I don't like the law, so as I speak, so shall the new law be. And the mainstream just laps it up because they're too ignorant of what the rule of law means, that you don't have a monarch at the end of Pennsylvania Avenue that just espouses law as he gets ready to, because he doesn't like the law that was duly passed. Come down here and work with us and if we can secure the border so that we can make sure that people won't get in that want to destroy our way of life, the drug cartels, the radical Islamists across the border that are working with the drug cartels now that want to destroy our way of life, we've got to make sure that we have people coming in that will continue to make the country great. And I have great hope for what the Hispanic community can do for this country because, generally speaking, those I know have strong faith in God, devotion to family, and hard work ethic. That's what made America great, in my opinion. We need that kind of input, but it's got to be legal. The Immigration Service is an embarrassment, one of the worst in the world. You can get a visa quicker to other countries than you can here. It's embarrassing the snafus in this government. But if we are going to get on track, we have to get back to a President and a Congress that believes the rule of law. And when the President will not follow the law, there have to be consequences. I've talked to Democratic and Republican individuals who were part of prior Presidential administrations and I've said at different times, different individuals: tell me, when you were in the administration, when you were in the White House, is it true what I've heard that individuals would come together, both parties, both ends of the Capitol and talk to the President and say, look, you are usurping control that was given to the Congress in the Constitution, and we're going to have to shut you down if you don't get back and acting within the Constitution? That doesn't happen under this administration, and it's time that it must. We owe it to the country. We owe it to future generations. The President has said: If Congress in any way suggests they're going to tie negotiation to debt ceiling votes--which, by the way, we have never done in our history until we did it last year--I will not play that game. The President needs to have someone around him that knows the truth. That poor man is being lied to. All you have to do is look back in our history. Every time there was a cut in spending, it was often tied to the debt ceiling negotiations. Go back to 1985, to 1990, 1993, 1997, 2010. Speaker Pelosi in 2010, with President Obama, tied a PAYGO provision. She did it. Why is it so wrong that the Republicans want to do that in the House like Speaker Pelosi did. Let's get responsible. But the President doesn't even remember 2 years ago when Speaker Pelosi did that. Somebody has got to help this poor man understand recent and distant history before the rating agencies say, you know what, we used to think that the rule of law was going to help the U.S. economy and help the Federal Government get around to taking care of its debts, but these guys don't even follow the rule of law anymore. And as far as what economists say, yeah, but we have economic dynamism. Well, look what ObamaCare is doing to that. Look at what overregulation is doing to that. It is hurting our economy. The economy is sitting waiting to take off if the President and the Senate, that is bogging down bills that would free up the economy to go, if they would get out of the way, this economy could go. People could get back to work. They wouldn't need unemployment. They wouldn't need to be begging to the master government. They could do it on their own as free people. It's time to get back to following the rule of law. It's time to get back to having a government that doesn't put off the current debt on future generations because if we don't, our names will not be called blessed by future generations. Our names will be cursed. Mr. Speaker, it is my prayer and desire that we can finally get to be responsible in the coming months. And the only way we can really get there is if people are honest about our history. I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Amendment XXII: Section 1: ``No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.'' Section 2: ``This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.''

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I just wanted to thank so many on the other side after all these years for finally acknowledging publicly that 98 percent of the Bush tax cuts helped the middle class.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Last night was the first time in my life that I've sat at my desk as we went into a new year, but it gave me a chance to contemplate what we're about. We're going into a new year as the first generation who did not ask the question: What can we do? What can we sacrifice to make future generations have a better life than we have? Instead, we asked: How much can we eke up taxes a little bit so that we can keep spending 58 cents to get a dollar's worth of wasteful, bloated government so that our children and grandchildren can pay 42 cents of every dollar that we waste on ourselves? Is that any way to start the new year? We're taking up a bill that will not do anything to cut spending. I am embarrassed for this generation. The future generations deserve better.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, on September 18, 2001, 7 days after the worst attack in American history, the authorized use of military force was passed. And I've come to understand how legislation can be hurriedly thrown together, and it was. We were in a crisis. In those days I was a judge. When I got to Congress and the NDAA came up to extend, reauthorize the AUMF, this issue of whether American citizens were protected came up. Some mistakenly thought the NDAA did some granting of power to the President that he shouldn't have, but actually it was in the original AUMF. It said the President could basically go after any nation, organization, or person that he thought was a threat or may have participated. That needed to be reined in. I've worked with some of my colleagues, with professors, with legal experts. Even though one professor went to Harvard, they've been immensely helpful, and we've crafted language. And I even appreciate Senator Levin working with us and Chairman McKeon being willing to look at these different issues. Our original amendment included a 30-day requirement. Within 30 days there had to be a writ of habeas corpus hearing. Yet we got criticized, saying you're restricting to only 30 days, so we took that out. The language in here, as Mr. Nadler pointed out, does not protect American citizens in foreign countries. That will have to be done another day. But it does go beyond what I originally wanted to do and protects people that are in the United States, if they are authorized under our Constitution to have those protections. I am grateful that these things have been done. I'm grateful this language is in there to restrict the President's power back to what I think was appropriate under the Constitution. I will be voting for the NDAA and appreciate the chairman's indulgence in my push to get this done.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, first I think it's important to let the people of Connecticut who have suffered so and lost loved ones know that they will continue to be in our thoughts and prayers. It is such a difficult time, and they need our support. It is a difficult time. I think so often when we look for wisdom in different places, I believe what Proverbs said, Solomon should have known: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. In the early days of our country, people sought wisdom through prayer. The Constitutional Convention, when they could not reach an agreement after nearly 5 weeks, 80-year-old Ben Franklin stood up and the contentiousness stopped. Someone wrote that George Washington looked like he had a very much relieved look on his face. 80-year-old Ben Franklin was overweight, suffering not only from gout but from arthritis, had a cane, had to have help getting up and down sometimes; but his mind was still brilliant. That's when he pointed out why we have not once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding. We have his whole recorded speech because he recorded it. He wrote it in his own handwriting. Madison was taking notes, but we have Ben Franklin's speech, and it has provided such solace to me. He pointed out to his friends that there were times when every one of them could remember back during the Revolution when they asked God for specific things and God answered their prayers. That was all part of the Constitutional Convention, and he said these words: Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it possible an empire could rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that, unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. Then he went on. He said: I also firmly believe, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in our political building no better than the builders of Babel: We shall be confounded by our local partial interests, and we, ourselves, shall become a byword down through the ages. Then he went on to make a motion that just as they had during the Revolution with the Continental Congress that this Constitutional Convention Congress should begin every day with prayer. So he made the motion and there was great discussion; but unlike the Revolutionary days, they didn't have money. This was a Constitutional Convention that had just convened. These people came together to write a Constitution. They didn't have money as a body. They had no chaplain. They couldn't afford to hire a chaplain, and they figured only with an independent chaplain that they could agree on could they have somebody come in and lead each day with prayer as they had during the Revolution. So that was put off until such time as they could hire a chaplain, which happened as soon as we became a Nation and the Constitution was ratified. But Randolph from Virginia followed up Ben Franklin's motion. He said, Okay. Basically, they're saying we don't have money to hire a chaplain, but one thing we can do: Here we are at the end of June 1787. We're about to celebrate our country's birthday again, our anniversary; so why don't we just agree to all go to church together--listen to the same pastor, hear the same sermon, worship God all together as a Constitutional Convention? They all went to the Reformed-Calvinistic Church, and the pastor apparently did an excellent job because, when they came back, there was a new spirit. They had their disagreements, but there was a spirit of cooperation. I heard some of the comments of my friends earlier across the aisle, and I know their hearts. I know Donna Christensen has been extremely gracious to me, personally. Good people. Good people with the best of intentions. I think the world of Joe Lieberman. I was visiting with him on Sunday morning of his ideas to have a commission come together and not just jump quickly to some politically correct solution. Let's do the right thing by America, not a knee-jerk, which like the assault weapon ban did nothing. In fact, Columbine occurred during the middle of the so-called ``assault weapon ban.'' Every gun is an assault weapon. The machetes in Rwanda--the worst genocide that we know of in human history. 800,000 or so with machetes? Of course, we know during World War II that the genocide wasn't just 800,000, that it was millions--6 million Jews. They were killed by all kinds of means. So we need to be smart about the way we deal with this issue of mass murders and violence in our society, and everything should be on the table. As we continue to remember the loved ones of those who were victims of the tragedy at Newtown, Connecticut, things go on here in this town. This body tomorrow, we've been alerted, will vote on what's being called ``Plan B.'' Plan A was to try to reach an agreement with the President. From my experience as an attorney, I've negotiated small deals, multimillion-dollar deals. I was a district judge, a chief justice, a certified mediator. I don't know if there is anybody else in the congressional body who has been through the training and process of becoming an international arbitrator. I have a lot of experience in negotiating from all sides when you see Speaker Boehner go beyond what anybody I'm aware of and our conference really wanted him to do initially. He said, Okay. We will come up with $800 billion of revenue, Mr. President, because that's where you had gotten up to. $800 billion is what you were demanding before, so we'll cut to the chase. We'll just quit negotiating, and we'll give you what you want--$800 billion in new revenue. The President responded by saying, No, no, no, no. Now I'm at $1.6 trillion. Now that you're at $800 billion, I'm at $1.6 trillion of new revenue wanting. What most people who really look at our problem in this town realize is that it really isn't a tax problem, that it's a spending problem. When we went from the Speaker Pelosi-Harry Reid budget of 2008 that ended on September 30 of 2008, I heard no one that year complain that the Federal Government is not spending enough money. We were spending more money than we had then. Yet in January of '09, after President Obama comes in and the Speaker is Pelosi and the majority leader in the Senate is Harry Reid, we began spending about $1.6 trillion more than we had coming in. We had 2.3 or so trillion dollars coming in in Federal revenue, and we were spending about $1.6 trillion more than that? That's one of the reasons 2 weeks ago I couldn't believe that we were voting to eliminate the use of the word ``lunatic,'' because it seems to me only a lunatic body would come up with the idea of, gee, we're in financial trouble; let's spend more than $1 trillion more than we have coming in. That's financially irresponsible. As my friend Randy Neugebauer pointed out again this week: A vote over taxes that doesn't deal with the massive spending is a vote to defer taxes in order to let our children and grandchildren and future generations pay the tax because we don't have the moral consistency to take care of our own debts. We're going to lay it on future generations. So, in seeking wisdom, it's part of my belief that you pray; you seek wise counsel and read scripture. In doing that, I find as an old history major--I went to Texas A&M. I knew I was going into the Army for 4 years. I loved history, so why not major in history? You learn so much from history. I thought I remembered these words, and I was able to find them. So, Madam Speaker, I want to finish the evening tonight with these words. These are brilliant words. These are words of wisdom from a man named John Boehner. This is an article. It's basically a transcript that was done by Major Garrett, October 25, 2010. This was 8 days before the 2010 election, which turned out to be the largest conservative-wave election in American history. So I will just read basically the transcript. It's an article, but it's really a transcript. It says that Representative John Boehner is interviewed in his Capitol Hill office March 10, 2010, but the article is dated October 25, 2010. The National Journal representative said: About 3 weeks before the 1994 elections, I asked you if House Republicans were ready to win the majority and ready to govern the House. You said then that sometimes the wave takes you into power whether you're ready or not. It did then. It may now. What is similar to you about the 1994 cycle? And more important, are you ready to lead now and will you lead differently if you win? Minority Leader Boehner said: Well, all kinds of things have changed, and there are a lot of differences. But maybe the biggest thing that's different now is near 10 percent unemployment. I mean, we're going to have to start making tough choices on spending to give our economy a chance to start moving and creating jobs again. As for me personally, you know I had a front row seat to what worked and what didn't in 1994. And I like to think that I learned a thing or two. National Journal: If you become Speaker, you will be the first since Tom Foley to have previously chaired a committee. (Foley chaired the Agriculture Committee.) How will your past as chairman and legislator with many bills--No Child Left Behind chief among them--influence your approach to allowing committees to set the agenda and give signals instead of receive them from leadership? Minority Leader Boehner said: We need to stop writing bills in the Speaker's office and let Members of Congress be legislators again. Too often in the House right now we don't have legislators, we just have voters. Under Speaker Pelosi, 430 out of 435 Members are just here to vote and raise money. That's it. That's not right. We were each elected to uphold the Constitution and represent 600,000-odd people in our districts. We need to open this place up, let some air in. We have nothing to fear from letting the House work its will. Nothing to fear from the battle of ideas. That starts with committees. The result will be more scrutiny and better legislation. The National Journal: Related to this it has often been said by those closest to you that you respect and admire and believe in regular order. What does that mean to you and how much institutional value do you place on placing regular order at the center of House procedures and House reforms? Minority Leader Boehner: Yes, I do, absolutely. The House is the body closest to the people. That's by design. We're the crucible, the testing ground for new ideas and new policies, and the institutions of the House that have grown up over 200 years of trial and error are the best way to test those ideas and policies. We don't need five Members sitting behind a closed door writing a bill like they did with the stimulus or ObamaCare. It's nuts. National Journal: If you are Speaker, will you ever bring a bill to the floor that hasn't been true to the 3-day rule? Minority Leader Boehner: No. National Journal: That's it? Just no? Minority Leader Boehner: Right. I can see a scenario like right after 9/11 when we would have to act immediately in a true national emergency, I guess, maybe, but this is a serious commitment. I know it's going to be a pain in the neck, but we're going to do it. National Journal: Enough about procedure. How worried are you about facing a government shutdown fight with President Obama over cutting spending as much as the Pledge to America promises? Minority Leader Boehner: Look, Major, our goal is to cut the size of government, not to shut it down. If we take the majority, the President is going to have to realize that he can't keep ignoring the American people. They're out there looking at what the President and Pelosi and Harry Reid are doing, and they're shouting ``stop'' at the top of their lungs. We're going to listen to them, and the President better, too. National Journal: Deputy Whip Eric Cantor has virtually ruled out a government shutdown. Do you rule it out as a negotiating tactic or as a possible outcome of a budget disagreement? Minority Leader Boehner: I've said the same thing as Eric. Our goal is to make government smaller, not to shut it down. Jeb Hensarling has a bill that would prevent a government shutdown in the event of a budget standoff. We're going to stay focused on doing what the American people want, and what they want is less spending. National Journal: Do you anticipate a resolution of the Bush tax cut issue or a lengthy congressional issue in the lame duck session? Or are you girding your Members to deal with both issues as soon as the 111th Congress convenes? Minority Leader Boehner: Hell, I don't think we need to wait until after the election. Let's come back right now and stop this tax hike and cut spending. That's what we put in the pledge that we want to do right now. National Journal: A reauthorization of the highway bill is due in the next Congress. Will you, as the GOP leadership, support any increase in the Federal gasoline tax to finance additional road, bridge or highway construction? Minority Leader Boehner: I've never supported a tax increase of any kind. National Journal: Will you extend into the 111th Congress the current House GOP moratorium on earmarks? Related to that, if you win the majority, will you seek any change to the Appropriations Committee's professional staff or other reforms to signal that, in your words, ``business as usual'' is over when it comes to discretionary spending? Minority Leader Boehner: Look, I've always had a no earmarks policy. I helped get the conference into a place where we have a current moratorium. And I think it's perfectly clear that going back to business as usual is not an option. That's the case with earmarking specifically, and with spending in general. Change is never easy, but change is necessary. It's what the American people are demanding of us. National Journal: You've said you are open to having spending-cut legislation come to the House floor each week or, at a minimum, regularly. How do you intend for this to work? Minority Leader Boehner: Well, I think a model for that particular proposal may be the YouCut project that Eric and the other members of our economic recovery solutions group have been doing all year. They've got a ton of specific cuts, chosen by the American people in an online poll. I also said in my speech in September at AEI that I think we need to look at breaking up all these massive spending bills--break them into smaller bills that are more conducive to scrutiny and debate. We said in the pledge that we need to set up a process that makes it easier to cut spending. In my mind that means, among other things, if a Member has an amendment that would cut spending, it should get a vote. Period. Skipping down. National Journal: How much longer do you envision staying in Congress? And, related to that, did you learn anything valuable from the speakership of Nancy Pelosi? Minority Leader Boehner: Hell, I've already stayed here a lot longer than I ever thought I would. We'll see. I think the current majority has reinforced what I already knew. You can't run this place, at least not well, by shutting out the American people, shutting out the other party, and even shutting out your own members. You can twist arms and crack heads and cut deals for a while, but it just won't work in the long term. Madam Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Woodall. I know it's time to honor Jay Pierson, but it's really a sad time for me. Over my 8 years, I don't know of anybody I've spent more time with all these evenings on the floor. Of course, for the last 2 years, we were going until midnight most nights and I was usually here with Jay Pierson. I know Jay was not a Boy Scout, but as someone who is an Eagle Scout, I know that we're taught that the ultimate in life is to be trustworthy. I don't know of anybody on Capitol Hill that is more trustworthy than Jay Pierson, loyal and yet courteous and kind. Jay Pierson has been a true friend. And to have somebody who knows what goes on, knows the rules, we can disagree about the rules, but I can come to him and know I have the institutional memory right there with me. That has been such a huge help, just knowing when I did need information, I could call Jay and I would have whatever I needed. So, Jay, I know that you're going to be better off without us, but we're certainly not going to be better off without Jay Pierson. I also know that nobody serves in Congress without loved ones missing and suffering because of an absence of time with them. So we know it's kind of like when I was in the military: my wife knew well that it's not just one person who serves. So as Jay Pierson served all these years in Congress, there's no question his wife served as well. We'll be forever grateful to her and very thankful for the sacrifice that she's made all those nights when Jay would rather have been at home, would rather have been with her, and instead he's with some bald-headed goose down at the Capitol. To Jay Pierson, there's not enough words, not enough times that we can say thank you that will cover all that you have done for us. Nonetheless, that's the word we come down to: thank you. May God bless you for blessing all the rest of us.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. As most anyone can tell you, it's important to know who your friends are and who your enemies are. That's absolutely true when it comes to knowing who to deal with favorably and unfavorably when it comes to foreign relations, when it comes to gifts to foreign nations. An article from December 11, by Maxim Lott says the following: Key lawmakers are expressing concerns about the Obama administration's plan to send 20 F-16 fighter jets to Egypt, where new President Mohamed Morsi's allegiances are as uncertain as his grip on power. Under a foreign aid deal signed in 2010, when Morsi's U.S.- friendly predecessor Hosni Mubarak was in charge, the U.S. is giving the planes to Egypt's air force, which already has more than 200 of the aircraft. The first four jets are to be delivered beginning January 22, a source at the naval air base in Fort Worth, where the planes have been undergoing testing, told FoxNews.com. But the $213 million gift is raising questions on Capitol Hill as Morsi is under fire for trying to seize dictatorial powers and allegedly siccing thugs and rapists on protesters. That's the allegation. The article goes on: Florida Representative Vern Buchanan, who recently called for ending foreign aid to Egypt altogether, said the Muslim Brotherhood-backed Morsi government has been sending increasingly troubling signals to Washington, and giving it state-of-the-art fighter jets is a dangerous idea. It quotes Vern as saying: American tax dollars must not be used to aid and abet any dictatorial regime that stands with terrorists. Representative Mac Thornberry from Texas, vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee told FoxNews.com Egypt is a wildcard under Morsi. At this point: We don't know where Egypt is headed, Thornberry said. We should be cautious about driving them away, but we should also be cautious about the arms we provide. The article says: Just last week, vigilante supporters of Morsi captured dozens of protesters, detaining and beating them before handing them over to police. According to human rights advocates, Morsi-backed groups have also been accused of using rape to intimidate female protesters who have gathered in Cairo's Tahrir Square to protest a sharia-based constitution and Morsi's neutering of the nation's legal system. The U.S. Government ordered and paid for the fighter jets for Egypt's military back in 2010. But since Mubarak's ouster, the democratically elected Morsi has sent mixed signals about whether he wants an alliance with Washington, even meeting with leaders in Iran earlier this year. The Morsi-led Muslim Brotherhood government has not proven to be a partner for democracy, as they had promised, given the recent attempted power grab, a senior Republican congressional aid told FoxNews.com. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida, who chairs the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, recently criticized U.S. military aid to Egypt. She said: The Obama administration wants to simply throw money at an Egyptian Government that the President cannot even clearly state is an ally of the United States. The package had to be approved by lawmakers in Washington. While the basic F-16 has been a military workhorse for top Air Forces for more than 25 years, the cockpit electronics are constantly updated and the models Egypt is getting are the best defense contractor Lockheed Martin makes. This is a great day for Lockheed Martin and a testament to the enduring partnership and commitment we've made to the government of Egypt, said John Larson, vice president, Lockheed Martin F-16 programs. We remain committed to providing our customer with a proven, advanced fourth generation multirole fighter. In an air combat role, the F-16's maneuverability and combat radius exceed that of all potential threat fighter aircraft, the U.S. Air Force description of the plane reads. The F-16 can fly more than 500 miles, deliver its weapons with superior accuracy, defend itself against enemy aircraft, and return to its starting point. An all-weather capability allows it to accurately deliver ordnance during nonvisual bombing conditions. A Pentagon spokesman said the United States and Egypt have had an important alliance that is furthered by the transfer: The U.S.-Egypt defense relationship has served as the cornerstone of our broader strategic partnership for over 30 years, said Lieutenant Colonel Wesley Miller. The delivery of the first set of F-16s in January 2013 reflects the U.S. commitment to supporting the Egyptian military's modernization efforts. Egyptian acquisition of F-16s will increase our military's interoperability and enhance Egypt's capacity to contribute to regional mission sets. But Malou Innocent, a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute, warned that Egypt's murky intentions could lead to the prospect of U.S. ally Israel facing an air assault from even more U.S. made planes. Should an overreaction by Egypt spiral into a broader conflict between Egypt and Israel, such a scenario would put U.S. officials in an embarrassing position of having supplied massive amounts of military hardware to both belligerents. Given Washington's fiscal woes, American taxpayers should no longer be Egypt's major arms supplier. There was an article that came out in September of 2012 after the 9/ 11 horrific killing--murdering--of our Ambassador and three other Americans and of the wounding of other Americans who, apparently, this administration is keeping under wraps so that Members of Congress cannot interview them and find out what really went on. Even after the administration sent out Ambassador Rice with false talking points, we can't find out who created the false talking points. It apparently started out being more correct, but it became false in the way they were used, so they provided such false information to numerous networks and to people in America and around the world. One thing we do know is that we have the President on video and accurately quoted with this quote. He gave an interview with Telemundo on September 16, 2012, during which President Obama said and, I believe, used the pronoun ``them'': I don't think we would consider Egypt an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy. They are a new government that is trying to find its way. Yet we've still got people in our Air Force at the incredibly able Lockheed Martin facility who are not aware that Egypt is no longer an ally or that the Muslim Brotherhood won the election and that they are about to push through a sharia-based constitution that will further persecute Christians and Jews. You have a leader in Morsi who, yes, helped to temporarily suspend the altercation in the Gaza Strip with the massive number of rockets that were being flown out of the Gaza Strip into Israel--a constant death threat hanging over Israel. We haven't learned of anything that would indicate that he is slowing the growing importation, through tunnels and otherwise, into the Gaza Strip of more and bigger rockets that threaten Israel, and the President of the United States does not know if Egypt is an ally. He wouldn't say they're an enemy yet, even though they didn't stop the protesters, as they are required to do, from climbing up on our Embassy walls, which is American property, or stop them from bringing down the American flag and running up the Muslim Brotherhood flag. Mr. Speaker, I'd humbly submit that, until we know for sure that Egypt is not an enemy, we should not be sending 20 F-16s--the most advanced generation of F-16s--to a country which many of its leaders have made clear they want Israel gone off the face of the Earth. Now, Lockheed Martin relied on the representations of the United States Government that we were going to buy these planes and give them to our ally Egypt. Perhaps it would have been good if this administration had remembered that the Mubarak administration in Egypt was an ally. They were an ally according to the agreement that this administration made with their friend and ally Hosni Mubarak, as the head of Egypt, to send them a gift of 20 F-16s; but they forgot that, and they supported the removal of Mubarak, who at least made some pretense of trying to keep the peace there on the border of Israel. Morsi, on the other hand, in coming from the Muslim Brotherhood, doesn't seem so inclined. Simply engaging Gaza in asking them to hold up on sending rockets in to mock, hit, potentially kill Israelis was a nice gesture; but it's hardly evidence of a substantial nature that this is an ally. That's why the President hasn't made clear we're absolutely certain now that they're our ally. Until we are absolutely certain they're an ally, we don't need to be sending them the means and methods to kill Israeli friends. The Israelis are suffering enough and, in part, due to bad judgment here in the United States. When others outside the United States asked us to go in and get rid of Qadhafi, despite this administration's alliances and relationship with Qadhafi, this administration decided to provide air cover and enable al Qaeda-backed revolutionaries to take out Qadhafi. Qadhafi was not a good man; he had blood on his hands. But after 2003, the Bush administration, followed by the Obama administration, was working with Qadhafi, and he was completely transparent about all the weapons he had. Not so with what's going on in Libya today. At some point, instead of the President of the United States trying to nullify the Constitution and saying, You know what, I disagree with that marriage law that Congress did, so we're going to ignore it, and as I speak, so it shall be the new law--that's what kings do and that's what pharaohs do. So it would seem a little bit hypocritical if you have someone from an administration who said, You know what, we don't like the immigration law, and so, as I speak it, so shall it be. I will make--I will pronounce--new law because I don't like what was duly passed by Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate and was signed by a prior President. So, as I speak new law, so shall it be. It just seems a little hypocritical if an administration like that were to turn around and say, You know, Morsi is just suspending civil rights in Egypt, and we're not sure that he's a good guy for doing that. That's very interesting because what you have in Egypt is a leader who is taking away civil rights, who is ignoring the existing law. He has backed off of some of the abuses of the law, but he just makes law as he sees fit. It's time that the people in America, Mr. Speaker, made it clear to the White House that it's the United States that your allegiance is owed to. It's not to NATO. It's not to the OIC. Yes, we have alliances with them. It's not with the U.N., though we have agreements with them. Your number one alliance is to the people of the United States of America. When anyone is not a supporter--is not an ally--or is someone we're not sure of their ally status, it should not be a country that we start giving planes to even when the alliances are made with a prior administration, because this administration had a good working relationship with Mubarak sufficient to cause President Obama to work this deal with Hosni Mubarak, the leader of Egypt, and sufficient to make them want to just give Egypt under the leadership of Mubarak 20 F- 16s. Once that leadership changes and we no longer know whether they're an ally, it is outrageous to send them, or to even contemplate sending them, planes. What you do with those 20 planes that we already agreed to buy as the U.S. Government and give away is you give them to someone you know is an ally. If you want to give them to somebody, give them to Israel. Israel believes in the same value of life as we do here in the United States. They believe in the equality of women. They believe in the value of children. They do not believe women and children are the property of some man. They have our values and they have had our back, so the best defense money we can spend is in providing a defense to Israel because any nation--look it up--any nation that has said they want to destroy the little Satan of Israel normally follows it up by wanting to destroy the big Satan, the United States. So, according to these wild-eyed radical terrorists, if they see Israel as the little Satan and want to hit Israel, we will be next. We're next on their agenda. So it is good defense for the United States when we help protect our friend Israel. And the thought that this administration would even still entertain the possibility of sending 20 F-16s to Egypt after we supported the deposing of our ally, President Mubarak, is outrageous. And what I would hope is that somebody in the administration would say, Mr. President, we're going to look pretty stupid if we send 20 F-16s of the most advanced generation to Egypt when they're making waves about and some of their leadership thinks they ought to go ahead and get rid of Israel. And so maybe we'd better hold up on that. And you've got people like Congressman Gohmert over on the Hill who's talking about how stupid it would be to give 20 F-16s to a potential renegade government if they continue to abuse the civil rights of people in Egypt, he's talking about how stupid it would be, why don't we go forward and say we can't believe that anybody would think for a moment that we're going to send 20 F-16s to a country when the President has said we don't even know if they're an ally. I would hope that somebody would tell the President: Let's go out and say people like Gohmert need to calm down because we're not going to send them. And I would welcome that news. But until that happens, people need to be speaking up and letting the White House know this is outrageous. You don't send advanced aircraft as a gift to a country that has been less than helpful, and we're not even sure if they won't take out Israel or try when they get a chance. It's a different government. It's not the same country, not the same administration with whom we made an agreement. It hasn't continued under the same constitution or laws. We have to make sure that we have an ally, and we don't know that. In fact, the indications are constantly to the contrary. So as soon as Clinton goes out after Morsi, goes into Gaza, expresses great sympathy for the people in Gaza, despite the fact they took over a Gaza strip from Israel that Israel unilaterally gave away, hoping it would buy them a semblance of peace, and fully equipped with greenhouses and businesses and ways to make a living and ways to live in great sustenance there on the Gaza strip, they walked away from it, gave it away, and immediately the greenhouses were destroyed. The people are living there in poverty, and they could keep stirring up the venom of hatred among the people, although the people of Israel had just done an incredibly unilateral and generous thing, hoping to buy peace. But what we see over and over, whether it's in southern Lebanon, whether it's in the Gaza strip, going back historically, any time Israel has given away land hoping to buy some peace, not only have they not bought peace, that land they gave away has ultimately at some point been used as a staging area from which to attack it. How sad would that be that Israel's incredibly generous gift of the Gaza strip, with ways to make a living and have full sustenance, plenty to eat, they gave that as a gift. They took the land and destroyed their ways of sustenance. And then, the ultimate irony, on top of the irony of that being used as a staging area to launch rockets on a continuous basis into Israel, how ironic if that ends up being the flyover area for new F-16s that we give to Egypt, that Egypt uses in an effort to attack Israel once again. We cannot allow the continued attacks on our allies. Israel has been an ally. Israel is an ally. Israel is operating under the same rules of government that they have when they have been our close ally. They've made mistakes. So have we. But they're our friend. And friends, as I saw when I was down in Florida not long ago, a billboard said, ``Friends don't let friends get nuked.'' We need to take that to heart. It is done a bit tongue-in-cheek, of course. But this article from back in September, the day after 9/11, the President said in this article, September 12, from NBC's Shawna Thomas: President Barack Obama said on Wednesday that while he does not believe Egypt is an ally of the United States, he also doesn't consider the country an enemy. `I think that we are going to have to see how they respond to this incident,' Obama said in an interview with Telemundo anchor Jose Diaz- Balart, host of Noticiero Telemundo. He was referring to Tuesday's protests in Egypt, during which demonstrators, angered by a movie trailer parodying Prophet Muhammad, breached the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. The President continued: Certainly in this situation, what we're going to expect is that (the Egyptian government is) responsive to our insistence that our embassy is protected, our personnel is protected, and if they take actions that they're not taking those responsibilities, as all countries do where we have embassies, I think that's going to be a real big problem. The President is also quoted as saying: Libya is a government that is very friendly towards us. The vast majority of Libyans welcomed the United States' involvement. They understand that it's because of us that they got rid of a dictator who had crushed their spirits for 40 years. Those are quotes from President Obama. The article says President Obama expressed confidence. ``Our hope is to be able to capture them,''--talking about the people that attacked us in Libya--``but we're going to have to obviously cooperate with the Libyan government. And you know, I have confidence that we will stay on this relentlessly, because Chris Stevens, he's somebody who actually advised me and Secretary Clinton during the original Libyan uprising. He was somebody who Libyans recognize as being on the side of the people. And we're going to get help. We're going to get cooperation on this.'' Well, that's what the President said in September. Now he said we were going to pursue the killers of Ambassador Stevens and the three others ``relentlessly,'' is his term. We will stay on this relentlessly. And yet what we've seen, we find out that they may have the instigator, and there is no outrage that this man has not been provided, turned over to the United States. There's no outrage that this man has not been brought to justice. Friends don't let other friends get nuked, and friends don't send 20 F-16s to the enemies of their friends. It's time that this administration began to understand history to the point that when you reward your enemies, your enemies get stronger, and they get more abusive and more threatening. The best thing this administration can do is reward friendship and punish our enemies, and then our enemies cower, and our friends are emboldened, instead of what this administration has done the other way around. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.