Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from Minnesota, my very, very dear friend. This is an important day, Priests for Life marking 20 years. As a Christian, as a Southern Baptist, it is an honor to pay tribute to the Catholic priests who have stood strong, stood for life, that precious one of the trilogy that was set out in the Declaration of Independence. But first life. Only if you have life can you then go to liberty and have a chance at a pursuit of happiness. For those of us who believe the scripture written in the Old Testament, as did our founders, most all of them--in fact a third of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, over a third, were ordained Christian ministers--but certainly George Washington and even Ben Franklin, even though some history teachers mislead their students these days. They all believed in those scriptures. When you look at the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel, it's a little scary, because, as I've read, one of the things that God was angry over was that people had fallen into such incredible idol worship that they were willing to sacrifice their own children. That is so abominable. How could anybody love such idols and idol worship such that they would sacrifice their own child and allow the taking of their own child's life? And then I thought about abortion in this country, and we have no room to talk. For 20 years, Priests for Life have known that, and they have stood firm that the most essential right of our Creator is life, and you can't get to liberty until you start with life. And then the irony of all ironies, today, the first day that the Catholic church and really all of us who are Christians, all of us who believe in freedom of religion, all of us that in fact actually believe the Constitution means what it says have been slapped down by this administration. Regardless of what the Supreme Court says, the First Amendment makes clear, as my friend from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. And we have friends, Christian friends, who believe with all their heart it is a right to practice their religion, and they have these religious beliefs, and this administration has demeaned them to the point that it would release a quote as was pointed out by Amy Payne with the Heritage Foundation today, when quoting the Health and Human Services Department: The Obama administration will continue to work with all employers to give them the flexibility and resources they need to implement the health care law in a way that protects women's health while making commonsense accommodations for values like religious liberty. Values nothing. It's a constitutional right that this administration is trodding on and trampling and stomping on. And if it will take this right, what's next? Can Jews not worship on the Sabbath because it's inconvenient? But maybe this administration will help try to accommodate that value. Or how about communion? Maybe this administration will find at some point it's really not healthy, and so they'll try to accommodate the religious conviction, the freedom of religion, as a value. They'll try to work with people who believe this to the core of their hearts. You go back to the founding. We didn't even have a Constitution. Ben Franklin sat for 5 weeks, virtually, listening to all the rancor back and forth. He finally rises, 80 years old, gout, trouble getting up, overweight, a couple of years or so from meeting his Judge, and he points out, We've been going for nearly 5 weeks. We've got more noes than ayes on virtually everything, and he asks: How has it happened, sir, that we've not once thought of humbly applying to the Father of Lights to illuminate our understanding? In the beginning 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. Now that's not a deist, and it's someone who does not believe in the accommodation of a religious value. He believed in religious freedom. Not only that, he believed in the power of prayer because in that same speech that we know is his speech, because he wrote it out in his own hand, he says: I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it possible that an empire could rise without His aid? Ben Franklin said: We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writing-- Not that we're accommodating, but that we believe in-- We've been assured in the sacred writing that unless the Lord build it, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe without His, God's, concurring aid, we will succeed in our political building no better than the builders of Babel. Now, here we are over 200 years later trying to accommodate what Ben Franklin said that stirred the hearts of those and even stirred Randolph to say, You know what: Let's take a break. Let's go listen to a preacher preach the word all together as a constitutional convention and then come back. And they did and they came back with a new spirit and they gave us a Constitution that this administration is now trodding and trampling upon. God, the God of which Ben Franklin spoke, without whom we will succeed in our political building no better than the builders of Babel, is now being told by this administration that they'll accommodate as best they can, but make no mistake, they're trampling on the rights that Priests for Life have been preaching about for 20 years. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, with due deference to my friend from New York and my friend from Utah--and I do mean that literally--I rise in opposition to this bill. What we've seen over the last year and a half is a Presidency that had the most disdain for Congress in the confirmation process of any President I'm aware of, and I'm quite familiar with the history of the United States. Not only has this President made recess appointments when there was no recess, not only has this President appointed czars that were beyond the reach of Congress--although we could have made it within our reach; we could have just cut off every dime for anything that did not come before congressional approval--but with this latest tactic of having a recess appointment when there wasn't a recess, all of the talk across the country about the appointing of czars with no accountability to the Senate, I really did expect some of my conservative friends in the Senate at some point to move a bill on this subject. I expected it to be a bill that would send a loud and clear message to the President that, if you feel like some of these don't need to be appointed, you come talk to us about it, and let's talk about no more recess appointments. Let's talk about some of these others. Instead, it's almost a pat on the back to the President to say, Look, you've ignored us; you've made us irrelevant. You've done all of these things, as you've said, Congress won't act so you're going to act. The President has gone out and made speeches like the king or Caesar: as I speak, so it is the law. And even though Congress has duly passed immigration laws that the President has stood up, and as he spoke, he made law and ignored Congress completely. The message we're sending back here is: Mr. President--as in some old movie--thank you, may I have another. Look, you just keep ignoring us, and we'll keep making ourselves more and more irrelevant. I would like to make one other point, too. Here we are in a desperate situation where our military, our very national security is at risk for being cut to the extent that we will no longer be secure. I would humbly submit that a better bill would be, Mr. President, if these are not all that important, let's get rid of all of these. There are board members. There's commissions. I mean, there's things in here, there's a director of the Women's Bureau. I don't see one for the Men's Bureau. There's director of all kinds of things here that it just seems like are redundant, that could be done away with. If they're not important enough for the Senate to take a look at them, Mr. Speaker, I would humbly suggest that maybe they're irrelevant and immaterial enough that we just do away with the positions. And accordingly, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this provision.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing like being vilified to get your senses acutely attuned. We had a hearing in Judiciary last week--on July 19, actually--in which Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano appeared. During the exchange that I had with Secretary Napolitano, I said these words. They're from the transcript: And this administration seems to have a hard time recognizing members of terrorist groups who are allowed into the White House. You're aware of that happening, aren't you? Secretary Napolitano: Absolutely not. This week, apparently, somebody brought her back into the loop when she testified before Pete King's committee. There are a couple of articles here about it that are rather interesting. One is from The Hill, by Jordy Yager, apparently posted today, July 26: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told lawmakers on Wednesday that a member of an Egyptian militant group labeled by the United States as a terrorist organization was vetted by three U.S. agencies before visiting the White House. Napolitano said the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the Secret Service all thoroughly examined the Egyptian man, Hani Nour Eldin, before his visit to Washington, D.C., where he met with Members of Congress and senior administration officials. Then there is a quote in the article from Secretary Napolitano that says: ``As we move forward, we are going to continue to have visitors to this country that the State Department and others feel are useful to bring to the country, to have discussions moving forward, who say they're members of a political party that in the past has been so designated.'' Another quote: ``He was vetted before he got a visa against all known terrorists and other databases for derogatory information. None was found. As he entered the United States, we, too, vetted him against all of our holdings, including terrorists and information from a variety of sources, and no derogatory information was found. Before he entered the White House, he was vetted a third time by the Secret Service. No derogatory information was found. So then we can have some confidence that this was not a security breach in that sense.'' Napolitano said she knew ``of no such intention'' by U.S. officials to release Abdel-Rahman, the Blind Sheikh. Chairman King said, ``The administration, whether it's this administration or another administration, may feel that some of these people can be dealt with, can be worked with, but if that's to be done, to me, it would seem it would have to be an open process, a transparent process, where Congress and the people would know who was being let into this country.'' Napolitano, according to the article, conceded that King made a ``fair point'' and that she would look into whether efforts were taken to notify Members of Congress. It's a little pesky detail. There do happen to be laws on the books that were apparently ignored in that process. The problem is, when the Secretary of Homeland Security says there is no derogatory information, when the information we have indicates he is a member of a group that we have named as a terrorist organization, then it would seem that the obvious thing would be the fact that he is a member of a known terrorist organization, which would, to most of us, or at least to many of us, be considered derogatory information. The fact that we can't dig up minute details of specific acts of misconduct, nonetheless, should not be necessary when someone is a known member of a terrorist organization, an organization designated by this government to be ``terrorist.'' It's an amazing thing. But then we're told in an article by Joel Gehrke from The Washington Examiner on July 25: Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Congress today to expect more members of designated foreign terrorist organizations to visit the United States. ``I think you are right in pointing out that as we move forward we are going to continue to have visitors to this country that the State Department and others feel are useful to bring to the country to have discussions moving forward who say they are members of the political party that in the past have been so designated,'' Napolitano told House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Pete King during a committee hearing this morning. Napolitano was defending the decision to host Hani Nour Eldin--a member of Egyptian Parliament elected on the political party platform of the Islamic Group, which the State Department has designated a foreign terrorist organization--at the White House. Just as a reminder, Mr. Speaker, in our hearing, I said these words: This administration seems to have a hard time recognizing members of terrorist groups who are allowed in the White House. You're aware of that happening, aren't you? Her answer: Absolutely not. So the evidence seems to be pretty clear. He was a member of a known terrorist group. He was allowed into the White House, but the answer by the Secretary of Homeland Security to that happening was: Absolutely not. She didn't say that we had vetted him many times and that, even though he was a member of what we in the State Department had designated as a terrorist organization, we still thought he was safe. She said it just absolutely did not happen. Absolutely not. The article goes on from The Washington Examiner: ``I think we have to add more nuance to that,'' she said, when King mentioned that Eldin is part of a designated foreign terrorist organization. ``We have to know what the group was. Is it now a political party that is running the government of a country that has strong ties to the United States?'' She added that he went through three stages of vetting, and ``everyone who looked at this person felt confident that he was not a security risk to the White House or to the United States.'' King charged the Obama administration with violating a law in hosting Eldin at the White House. ``It appears as if the law was not complied with in that he did not apply for a waiver, and Congress was not notified, which is also required. It does not appear that either the letter or the spirit of the law was complied with.'' When King reiterated that complaint about the process by which Eldin was allowed into the country, Napolitano conceded, ``On the process, that's a fair point to make.'' There is a reason we have laws, and you would hope that someone who is a Cabinet official in the top position of our Homeland Security would think that it is important to comply with the law. Just as we've seen massive amounts of money go to places that have leaders who say they want to eliminate Israel and the United States, we see this kind of conduct from this administration. And I have reporters asking me if I want to apologize for five separate letters that were written to five separate inspectors general of five different departments with different facts pertaining to that department in each letter, and the facts in the letter are true. The simple question was not an accusation or allegation, because it's pretty obvious there is influence by the Muslim Brotherhood in America. The question is: How much influence is there, and where is it coming from? It is an amazing thing to see all of this transpire. Obviously, it's great fun and sport to attack a messenger that is not liked by certain people in the media, but what we keep seeing that is amazing and that is happening with what was once the proud tradition of journalism in America is our national security being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Why isn't the mainstream media making a big deal about a Secretary of Homeland Security who one week says, Absolutely not, it was not a member of a known terrorist organization that got in the White House, and a week later she admits, It did happen, but we properly vetted him three different times? I hear about what apparently is being grossly overlooked also that I get as I speak to Muslims in other parts of the world who are our friends, who have fought with us, who have buried family members and loved ones because they want to live in freedom like we do. They don't want a strict group like the Taliban dictating their lives. They're moderate Muslims who want to live in peace. What they keep bringing home to me is what this administration misses entirely. When the President of the United States, when the leaders of this country, this administration, meet with members of known terrorist organizations and will not meet with our Muslim friends who have fought with us instead of against us from other parts of the world, the message has a chilling effect on our friends wanting to continue to be our friends because it appears to be the most dangerous place in the world to be, in the category of ``friends'' with the United States, because it means this administration is one step away from abandoning them in favor of ties and relationships with groups that we know have been terrorist organizations. It's not just the meeting with. It's not just a danger or lack of danger of someone coming into the White House. Of course they can check them with the metal detectors to make sure they're not carrying anything. It goes beyond that. It devastates our friends. It destroys hope around the world for people who are hoping that we'll stand up as we once have, not for the Muslim Brotherhood who want an international caliphate which includes the United States and the United States to be added to the 57 Muslim states that comprise the OIC; it's what we're doing to our friends. I hope and pray that people in the mainstream media will get past the enjoyment of vilifying and trying to destroy the messenger and look at the message, that they'll get beyond the lazy tactics of calling someone, getting with someone and saying, ``What's your opinion about these allegations?'' and getting a response of, ``Well, gee, we don't think there is anything to them,'' instead of digging the facts out and presenting them as the once proud journalist tradition was here in America. There are still journalists doing it, but I hope that that practice will be extended. We're hurting ourselves, but unfortunately we also hurt our friends when we do that. Mr. Speaker, for those who say there is no evidence of any Muslim Brotherhood influence in America, I would urge them to go back and review the evidence in the convictions of the Holy Land Foundation trial obtained in November of 2008 before this administration began embracing the named coconspirators like CAIR and ISNA, when they were named as coconspirators of supporting terrorism. I would hope they would go back to the 1995 trial where Andrew McCarthy did a stellar job, and the Clinton administration awarded him for his incredible work in proving that there are people in America who want to establish shari'a law as the law of the land and subvert our Constitution. He proved it beyond a reasonable doubt among some wonderful New York citizens in New York City. And as Andrew McCarthy has asked: ``What's happened since 1995 to make that evidence no longer true?'' It was true then; it's true today. With that, 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, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, there's been a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth, it seems lately, in response to a letter that five of us signed to five different inspectors general, five different departments of the U.S. Government. Despite the effort to distract, despite the wild accusations that have come about five separate letters that were quite factual, set out things that were footnoted, documented as true, we were simply asking inspectors general of the different departments if they would investigate about potential Muslim Brotherhood effects within those departments. I have been amazed. Out of five letters to five different departments, each one of them different, each one of them dealing with facts that were in each particular department, we have been met with this frenzy from some quarters, including some of the mainstream media, to demonize people that are just simply asking questions. Actually, we used to have a mainstream media that would ask questions. Also, when you look at the fact that in 1995, the defendants charged with involvement in the 1993 first World Trade Center bombing were tried, and as the prosecutor, the Federal prosecutor in that case, a brilliant guy named Andrew McCarthy has set out in one of his articles, we proved, we introduced evidence and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the intention of these people, these radical Islamist groups, was to bring down this country. As Andy has properly asked, since we proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a great group of jurors in New York about the effort of these radical Islamists, Islamic jihadists, to bring down America, what's happened since 1995 that all of a sudden this administration says, oh, no, forget what was proved beyond a reasonable doubt to New Yorkers in 1995 and been upheld, you can't believe that? Don't look at the factual evidence behind the curtain, for heaven's sake; just look at what we're telling you, and we're telling you there is no Muslim Brotherhood involvement in America, and there's no Muslim Brotherhood effect or influence in this administration. But that is deeply troubling because we know from the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas, that was well tried in 2008, and convictions on over 100 different charges, and they established, they named defendants, proved beyond a reasonable doubt about the charges of their support for terrorism, and they also named numerous parties as co-conspirators in support of terrorism, and the Justice Department was involved in that, the Attorney General's Office was involved, and they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there were Muslim Brotherhood groups who were supporting terrorism in America. At least they proved beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants were involved in supporting terrorism, and then basically--it might be deemed or called a preponderance of the evidence--that others who were not indicted, but were named, such as CAIR and ISNA, the Islamic Society of North America, in that case, the evidence was produced to establish that the Islamic Society of North America is the largest Muslim Brotherhood front group in America. And some of us who simply signed a letter asking questions? Look, how about doing an investigation to see what the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood is in this administration? Because previously, including through the prosecution in November of 2008 of the largest terrorism support allegations in American history, it was established the Muslim Brotherhood is alive and well and having influence in America. Yet, the Islamic Society of North America's President, Imam Magid, has been a guest at the White House, and, in fact, if someone, I guess because they regularly don't do their homework, were to check, as I have in the past, I don't know if it's still there, there were a couple of times I checked in the past couple of years, but if you were to check with the White House Web site, you would find that the number two person in the National Security Administration, the Deputy National Security Adviser, Denis McDonough, was giving a speech to a group called ADAMS--I'm sure John Adams appreciated the reference--but ADAMS, the All Dulles Area Muslim Society, and there is the transcript of his speech. I don't know if it's still up. Like I said, it's on the White House Web site. And Denis McDonough, the number two guy, the deputy national security adviser, thanks President Imam Magid, the president of ISNA, the named co-conspirator for supporting terrorism, for the wonderful prayers he gave at the Iftar celebration in the White House the August before, Iftar being the celebration that concludes Ramadan. So we know the President of the largest, according to evidence in the Holy Land Foundation, the largest Muslim Brotherhood front trial, the president gets invited to the White House to do prayers for their Iftar celebration. And we also know Denis McDonough thanked Iman Magid for the wonderful introduction there at the All Dulles Area Muslim Society. So it's a little troubling not only that this influence is there, but then when five Members of Congress raise a question, how about an investigation to see what this influence is? Because we know minds are changing, although the evidence has not changed that was introduced in 1995 and 2008. Our good friend down the Hall, Senator McCain, chastised us. Yet, if you believe quotes, and sometimes you can't, but he was quoted as saying at the beginning of the trouble in Egypt that he was, and he used the word, according to the article, unalterably opposed to any support for the Muslim Brotherhood. Well, if that was the word then, the word now is altered unalterability because it appears that he sees no problem with what's going forward. If he does, then my apologies if he now objects to any assistance to the Muslim Brotherhood. But it's my impression that he didn't have a problem with this administration's help to Egypt now. So when we see the things that have gone on--the things that have been introduced and proven in court and the Fifth Circuit saying, no, you cannot strike those names from the pleading because there's sufficient evidence to establish that they were supporting terrorism, so, no, you can't strike those named co-conspirators from the pleadings--and somehow five Members of Congress are the bad guys for saying let's investigate. What influence has this group had--and I know from back in my questioning of the Secretary of Homeland Security last October, when I was asking if it was true that there were some members of the Muslim Brotherhood who were part of her Countering Violent Extremism Working Group that advises Homeland Security on how to deal with what some of us would call ``radical Islamic jihad,'' but which Homeland Security now calls ``violent extremism''--apparently not wanting to offend people who are wanting to commit radical Islamic jihad on our country. But I asked her in that hearing in October last year about that, and she points out that actually she has another individual in charge of the Countering Violent Extremism Working Group, so she doesn't really know if they have Muslim Brotherhood members as a part of that. I asked her this question: All right. Are you aware that the president of ISNA, Imam Magid, is a member of that working group. Correct? Secretary Napolitano: I can't answer that that is an accurate statement. So she doesn't know whether the president of what's been established in court as the largest Muslim Brotherhood front group in America is part of her advisory group at Homeland Security. Of course it was interesting in our hearing last week, she also indicated that there had not been a terrorist that had been allowed into the White House with the Egyptian recent group, when we had been reading in the paper that there had--of course, that may not be a good source because they were mainstream papers--but we had been reading that there was a member of a known terrorist group that was allowed into the White House and that he used that platform to lobby for the release of the blind sheik who had assisted in planning the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. So I thought it might be helpful, Mr. Speaker, tonight to just touch base regarding the timeline that Investors Business Daily sponsored. It was an editorial. It was dated July 19, 2012, posted at 6:46 p.m. eastern time. And it can be found at investors.com, Mr. Speaker. But it's entitled, ``How Obama Engineered Mideast Radicalization.'' And then it goes through, and after preliminary paragraphs, it just sets out a timeline for things that have happened. I hope my friends, who have been so quick to condemn and ridicule, and even people who are on committees who should know about these things and should know about the evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial where Muslim Brotherhood ties were established, and they should know about the proof in 1995 at the World Trade Center first trial of the defendants that did that. I would think they would be welcoming, since there are many people who are not aware of what the evidence was in those. They would welcome input from someone as well versed as the prosecutor from the 1995 World Trade Center trial. So this is from Investors Business Daily, an editorial. It says: The Obama record: After angry Egyptians pelted her motorcade with shoes chanting ``Leave!,'' Secretary of State Clinton insisted the U.S. wasn't there to take sides. Too late. ``I want to be clear that the United States is not in the business, in Egypt, of choosing winners and losers, even if we could, which of course we cannot,'' Hillary Clinton intoned earlier this week. Of course, the administration could, and it did, picking and even colluding with the Muslim Brotherhood. And one of its hardliners, Mohammed Morsif, now sits in the presidential palace, where he refused to shake unveiled Clinton's hand. This administration favored Islamists over secularists and helped them overthrow Hosni Mubarak, the reliable U.S. ally who had outlawed the terrorist Brotherhood and honored the peace pact with Israel for three decades. The Brotherhood, in contrast, has backed Hamas and called for the destruction of Israel. Now the administration is dealing with the consequences of its misguided king-making. Officials fear the new regime could invite al Qaeda, now run by an Egyptian exile, back into Egypt and open up a front with Israel along the Sinai. Result: more terrorists and higher gas prices. In fact, it was Hillary's own Department that helped train Brotherhood leaders for the Egyptian elections. Behind the scenes, she and the White House made a calculated decision and took step-by-step actions to effectively sell out Israel and U.S. interests in the Mideast to the Islamists. The untold story of the ``Arab Spring'' is that the Obama administration secretly helped bring Islamofascists to power. Consider this timeline: 2009: The Brotherhood's spiritual leader--Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi--writes an open letter to Obama arguing terrorism is a direct response to U.S. foreign policy. 2009: Obama travels to Cairo to deliver apologetic speech to Muslims and infuriates the Mubarak regime by inviting banned Brotherhood leaders to attend. Obama deliberately snubs Mubarak, who was neither present nor mentioned. He also snubs Israel during Mideast trip. 2009: Obama appoints a Brotherhood-tied Islamist--Rashad Hussain--as U.S. envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which supports the Brotherhood. The Organization of Islamic Conference, by the way, the OIC, it isn't in the article, but it is composed of 57 states. Fifty-seven Muslim states make up the OIC, and that's what is being referred to there. 2010: State Department lifts visa ban on Tariq Ramadan, suspected terrorist and Egyptian-born grandson of Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. 2010: Hussein meets with Ramadan at American-sponsored conference attended by U.S. and Brotherhood officials. 2010: Hussein meets with the Brotherhood's grand mufti in Egypt. 2010: Obama meets one-on-one with Egypt's foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, who later remarks on Nile TV: ``The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim.'' 2010: The Brotherhood's supreme guide calls for jihad against the U.S. 2011: Qaradawi calls for ``days of rage'' against Mubarak and other pro-Western regimes throughout Mideast. 2011: Riots erupt in Cairo's Tahrir Square. Crowds organized by the Brotherhood demand Mubarak's ouster, storm buildings. 2011: The White House fails to back longtime ally Mubarak, who flees Cairo. 2011: White House sends intelligence czar, James Clapper, to Capitol Hill to whitewash the Brotherhood's extremism. Clapper testifies the group is moderate, ``largely secular.'' 2011: Qaradawi, exiled from Egypt for 30 years, is given a hero's welcome in Tahrir Square, where he raises the banner of jihad. 2011: Through his State Department office, William Taylor-- Clinton's special coordinator for Middle East transitions and a longtime associate of Brotherhood apologists--gives Brotherhood and other Egyptian Islamists special training to prepare for the post-Mubarak elections. 2011: The Brotherhood wins control of Egyptian Parliament, vows to tear up Egypt's 30-year peace treaty with Israel and reestablishes ties with Hamas, Hezbollah. 2011: Obama gives Mideast speech demanding Israel relinquish land to Palestinians, while still refusing to visit Israel. And parenthetically, we know that the administration has now said if we'll just give him another term, then the next 4 years he will go see Israel. Back to the article: 2011: Justice Department pulls plug on further prosecution of U.S.-based Brotherhood front groups identified as collaborators in conspiracy to funnel millions to Hamas. 2011: In a shocking first, the State Department formalizes ties with Egypt's Brotherhood, letting diplomats deal directly with Brotherhood party officials in Cairo. April 2012: The administration quietly releases $1.5 billion in foreign aid to the new Egyptian regime. June 2012: Morsi wins presidency amid widespread reports of electoral fraud and voter intimidation by gun-toting Brotherhood thugs, including blockades of entire streets to prevent Christians from going to the polls. The Obama administration turns a blind eye, recognizes Morsi as victor. June 2012: In a victory speech, Morsi vows to instate shari'ah law, turning Egypt into an Islamic theocracy, and also promises to free jailed terrorists. He also demands Obama free World Trade Center terrorist and Brotherhood leader, Omar Abdel-Rahman, aka the Blind Sheik, from U.S. prison. June 2012: State grants visa to banned Egyptian terrorists who joins a delegation of Brotherhood officials from Egypt. They're all invited to the White House to meet with Obama's deputy national security adviser, who listens to their demands for the release of the blind sheik. By the way, in the hearing last week, when I asked our Secretary of Homeland Security about that incident, widely reported, even the mainstream media was reporting it, that a member of a known terrorist organization was given access to the White House, she indicated that it just wasn't true, apparently, not knowing the news that was happening just across town from her Department. In any event, back to the article: July 2012: Obama invites Morsi to visit the White House this September. The Muslim Brotherhood's sudden ascendancy in the Mideast didn't happen organically. It was helped along by a U.S. President sympathetic to its interests over those of Israel and his own country. Now, that's the Investor's Business Daily editorial from July 19 of 2012. I was shocked to previously find out that it was not until 2009 that our FBI sent a letter saying they were suspending their relationship, one place it referred, I believe the word ``partner'' with CAIR, CAIR being a named co-defendant related to Muslim Brotherhood activity and related to support for terrorism abroad. It referred to the convictions in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial and the evidence that was introduced at the trial, but what shocked me is that they waited till after a conviction, when the Justice Department was the one that was gathering this evidence. They'd been gathering it for years. And I was amazed that they seemed surprised--or whether or not they were surprised, they didn't do anything to sever ties with CAIR, which seems to be, with the ACLU, the most influential in getting this administration to purge its training documents for the people that are supposed to protect us, of anything that might be considered offensive to someone who was a Muslim Brotherhood member or Islamist. Now, I've visited with Muslims abroad. A man named Massoud, whose brother was assassinated just within 36 hours of 9/11, I consider him a friend. He knows about sacrifice. The State Department said they simply could not spare the security to get me and anyone else to a meeting with our Muslim friends who have fought with Americans, buried their loved ones like Americans have from fighting in Afghanistan, these are our friends. And I told our State Department, that's fine; I talked to Massoud, and he's sending a security vehicle, and I am certainly willing to put my life in his hands because I trust him. He's a Muslim friend. I told them I was going, after we finished meeting with our troops. And after we met with our troops, I was advised, we've arranged for an American security vehicle to take you, and we have contacted Mr. Massoud to let him know we would get you to the meeting. We should never be afraid of Muslims, but we should be afraid of Muslim extremists that want to take over our country and destroy our way of life. It is critical that our intelligence, our Justice Department, those who are supposed to be protecting us, even in the White House, that they know the difference between our Muslim friends and those who want to subvert the democracy in America. I make no apologies for that. I can't. I took an oath to defend this Constitution. I can't apologize for loving America enough that I will recognize those who are Muslim friends and those who are not. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mark Helprin is an author who was educated at Harvard, Oxford, Princeton, Columbia, having also served in the British Merchant Navy and Israeli Military. I will simply convey his words in an article first printed in Hillsdale College's Imprimis 3 years before 9/11 propelled us into the realization that we had been at war for over 20 years, but only the other side knew it was a war, and also before we knew how crushing and debilitating our enormous debt would be and has become. I've shortened the words a bit and provided them here as they express my heart more exquisitely than my own written words could: When letters took a month by sea and the records of the United States Government could be moved in a single wagon pulled by two horses, we had great statesmanship. We had men of integrity and genius: Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Monroe. These were men who were in love with principle, as if it were an art, which in their practice they made it. They studied empires that had fallen for the sake of doing what was right in a small country that had barely risen and were able to see things so clearly that they surpassed in greatness each and every one of the classical models that they had approached in awe. Now, lost in the sins and complexity of a Xanadu, when we desperately need their high qualities of thought, their patience of deliberation and their unerring sense of balance, we have only what we have, which is a political class that in the main has abandoned the essential qualities of statesmanship with the excuse that these are inappropriate to our age. They are wrong. Not only do they fail to honor the principles of statesmanship, they fail to recognize them, having failed to learn them, having failed to want to learn them. In the main, they are in it for themselves. Were they not, they would have a higher rate of attrition, falling with the colors of what they believe rather than always landing on their feet--adroitly, but in dishonor. In light of their vows and responsibilities, this constitutes not merely a failure, but a betrayal. And it is a betrayal of not only statesmanship and principle, but of country and kin. Why is that? It is because things matter. Even though it be played like a game by men who excel at making it a game, our life in this country, our history in this country, the sacrifices that have been made for this country, the lives that have been given to this country, are not a game. My life is not a game. My children's lives are not a game. My parents' lives were not a game. Your life is not a game. Yes, it's true, we do have accumulated great stores of power, of wealth, and decency against which those who pretend to lead us can draw when, as a result of their vanities and ineptitudes, they waste and expend the gifts of previous generations. The margin of error bequeathed to them allows them to present their failures as successes. They say, as we are still standing, and a chicken is in the pot, What does it matter if I break the links between action and consequence, work and reward, crime and punishment, merit and advancement? I myself cannot imagine a military threat and never could. So what does it matter if I weld shut the silo hatches on our ballistic missile submarines? What does it matter if I weld shut my eyes to the weapons of mass destruction in the hands of lunatics who are building long- range missiles? Our jurisprudence is the envy of the world, so what does it matter if now and then I perjure myself a little? What is an oath? What is a pledge? What is a sacred trust? Are not these things the province of the kinds of people who were foolish enough to do without all of their lives, to wear ruts in the Oregon Trail, to brave the seas, to die on the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima, and on the battlefields of Shiloh and Antietam for me so that I can draw from America's great accounts and look good, and be Presidential, and have fun in all kinds of ways? That is what they say--if not in words, then indelibly in actions. They who, in robbing Peter to pay Paul, present themselves as payers and forget that they are also robbers. They who, with studied compassion, minister to some of us at the expense of others. They who make goodness and charity a public profession, depending on their election upon a well- mannered embrace of these things and the power to move them not from within themselves or by their own sacrifices but, by compulsion, from others. They who, knowing very little or next to nothing, take pride in eagerly telling everyone else what to do. They who believe absolutely in their recitation of pieties, not because they believe in the pieties, but because they believe in themselves. Nearly 400 years of America's hard-earned accounts, the principles we established, the battles we fought, the morals we upheld for century after century, our very humility before God, now flow promiscuously through our hands like blood onto sand, squandered and laid waste by a generation that imagines history to have been but a prelude for what it would accomplish. More than a pity, more than a shame, it is despicable. And yet this parlous condition, this agony of weak men, this betrayal, and this disgusting show are not the end of things. Principles are eternal. They stem not from our resolution or lack of it, but from elsewhere where, in patient and infinite ranks, they simply wait to be called. They can be read in history. They arise as if of their own accord when, in the face of danger, natural courage comes into play and honor and defiance are born. Things such as courage and honor are the mortal equivalent of certain laws written throughout the universe. The rules of symmetry and proportion, the laws of physics, the perfection of mathematics, human will, that not only natural law but our own best aspirations have a life of their own. They have lasted through far greater abuse than abuses them now. They can be neglected, but they cannot be lost. They can be thrown down, but they cannot be broken. Each of them is a different expression of a single quality, from which each arises in its hour of need. Some come to the fore as others stay back, and then, with changing circumstance, those that have gone unnoticed rise to the occasion. Rise to the occasion. The principle suggests itself from a phrase, and such principles suggest easily and flow generously. You can grab them out of the air from phrases, from memories, from images. A statesman must rise to the occasion. Democrats can do this. Harry Truman had the discipline of plowing a straight row 10, 12, and 14 hours a day, of rising and retiring with the sun, of struggling with temperamental machinery, of suffering heat and cold and one injury after another. After a short time on a farm, presumptions about ruling others tend to vanish. It is as if you are pulled to earth and held there. The man who works the land is hard put to think that he would direct armies and nations. Truman understood the grave responsibility of being President of the United States, and that it was a task too great for him or anyone else to accomplish without doing a great deal of injury--if not to some, then to others. He understood that, therefore, he had to transcend himself. There would be little enjoyment of the job, because he had to be always aware of the enormous consequences of everything he did. Contrast this with the unspeakably vulgar pleasure in office of President Clinton. Truman, absolutely certain that the mantle he assumed was far greater than he could ever be, was continually and deliberately aware of the weight of history, the accomplishments of his predecessors, and, by humble and imaginative projection, his own inadequacy. The sobriety and care that derived from this allowed him a rare privilege for modern Presidents to give to the Presidency more than he took from it. It is not possible to occupy the Oval Office without arrogantly looting its assets or nobly adding to them. May God bless the President who adds to them, and may God condemn the President who loots them. America would not have come out of the Civil War as it did had it not been led by Lincoln and Lee. The battles raged for 5 years, but for 100 years in the country, both North and South, modeled itself on their character. They exemplified most perfectly Churchill's statement, ``Public men charged with the conduct of the war should live in a continual stress of soul.'' The continual stress of soul is necessary as well in peacetime, because for every good deed in public life, there is a counterbalance. Benefits are given only after taxes are taken. That is part of governance. The statesman, who represents the whole Nation, sees in the equilibrium for which he strives a continual tension between victory and defeat. If he did not understand this, he would have no stress of soul, he would merely be happy--about money showered upon the orphan, taken from the widow; about children sent to day care, so that they may be long absent from their parents; about merciful parole of criminals, who kill again. Whereas a statesman knows continual stress of soul, a politician is happy, for he knows not what he does. It is difficult for individuals or nations to recognize that war and peace alternate, but they do. No matter how long peace may last, it will end in war. Though most people cannot believe at this moment that the United States of America will ever actually fight for its survival, history guarantees that it will. And, when it does, most people will not know what to do. They will believe of war, as they did of peace, that it is everlasting. The statesman, who is different from everyone else, will, in the midst of common despair, see the end of war, just as during the peace he was alive to the inevitability of war, and saw it coming in the far distance, as if it were a gray wave moving quietly across a dark sea. The politician will revel with his people and enjoy their enjoyments. The statesman, in continual stress of soul, will think of destruction. As others move in the light, he will move in the darkness, so that as others move in darkness, he may move in the light. This tenacity, that is given to those of long and insistent vision, is what saves nations. A statesman must have a temperament that is suited for the Medal of Honor, in a soul that is unafraid to die. Electorates rightly favor those who have endured combat, not as a matter of reward for service, as is commonly believed, but because the willingness of the soldier to give his life is a strong sign of his correct priorities, and that in the future he will truly understand that statesmen are not rulers but are servants. It seems clear, even in these years of squalid degradation, that having risked death for the sake of honor is better than having risked dishonor for the sake of life. No matter what you're told by the sophisticated classes that see virtue in every form of corruption and corruption in every form of virtue, I think you know, as I do, that the American people hunger for acts of integrity and courage. The American people hunger for a statesman magnetized by the truth, unwilling to give up his good name, uninterested in calculation only for the sake of victory, unable to put his interests before those of the Nation. What this means in practical terms is no focus groups, no polls, no triangulation, no evasion, no broken promises, and no lies. These are the tools of the chameleon. They are employed to cheat the American people of honest answers to direct questions. If the average politician, for fear that he may lose something, is incapable of even a genuine ``yes'' or ``no,'' how is he supposed to rise to the great occasions of state? How is he supposed to face a destructive and implacable enemy? How is he supposed to understand the rightful destiny of his country and lead it there? At the coronation of an English monarch, he is given a sword. Elizabeth II took it last, and as she held it before the altar, she heard these words: ``Receive this kingly sword, brought now from the altar of God and delivered to you by us, the Bishops and servants of God, though unworthy. With this sword do justice, stop the growth of iniquity, protect the holy Church of God, help and defend widows and orphans, restore the things that are gone to decay, maintain the things that are restored, punish and reform what is amiss, and confirm what is in good order; that doing these things may be glorious in all virtue; and so faithfully serve our Lord.'' Would that we in America come once again to understand that statesmanship is not the appetite for power but--because things matter--a holy calling of self-abnegation and self- sacrifice. We have made it something else. Nonetheless, after and despite its betrayal, statesmanship remains the manifestation, in political terms of beauty, and balance, and truth. It is the courage to tell the truth, and thus discern what is ahead. It is a mastery of symmetry of forces, illuminated by the genius of speaking to the heart of things. Statesmanship is a quality that, though it may be betrayed, is always ready to be taken up again merely by honest subscription to its great themes. Have confidence that even in idleness its strengths are growing, for it is a providential gift given to us in times of need. Evidently we do not need it now, but as the world is forever interesting, the time will surely come when we do. And then, so help me God, I believe that, solely by the grace of God, the corrupt will be thrown down and the virtuous will rise up. Slavery was an abomination, but statesmen arose and fought until its demise. But 13 years after the foregoing words were first said, we do so desperately need that statesmanship, and God's unmitigated grace, so that His providential gift of this Nation to us may endure for additional generations and, in the process, may God resume blessing these United States of America. 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. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have had a number of people ask, Why would we have a vote today to repeal ObamaCare when it has been done before? There had not been a vote taken since the United States Supreme Court said that the administration misrepresented what was really in this bill. It was a tax. We know there have been misrepresentations about different things, but this bill creates a massive tax for the people who can least afford it. So run the numbers: If you make $14,856 or more and if you're a single individual, then the chances are you're probably not going to be able to pay for a $12,000 health insurance policy, which is the estimated cost of the insurance policy that is being mandated by the ObamaCare law. If you cannot and if you make more than $14,856--let's say you make $20,000-- and you can't afford the $12,000 for the insurance policy, then you will have an extra annual tax of $371 when the 2\1/2\ percent extra income tax kicks in. If you only make $14,856 and if that's before taxes--take away a hunk of that for income tax, Medicare tax, Social Security tax--then that $371 means a lot. It may mean the difference between being able to fill up a worker's car enough times to get to and from work so he doesn't lose his job. If you're a family of two and if you make $20,123 or more--if you make $30,000 or anything over $20,123--then you will have an extra 2\1/ 2\ percent tax of $503. But the more you make over $20,123, the more the tax is. But it's a minimum of $503. If you make $30,657 and you're a family of four, four people living off $30,657 under ObamaCare, if you still cannot afford the $12,000 or so policy that the government mandates under this law, then you will have an additional $766 with which you will not be able to buy food for your family. You'll not be able to buy gas for your car with that extra $766. I don't mean people who make $30,000 and have a family of four have an extra $766. The people I talk to that make that kind of money and have a family of four don't have any extra money, and especially not to pay the extra $766 Obama tax on these individuals. If you make $41,190 or more and you're a family of six, you will have a minimum $1,030 extra income tax that you will have to pay in order to meet the requirements of ObamaCare and to keep the Obama tax IRS agents off your doorstep. There are thousands and thousands of new IRS agents who will find jobs, even though there's hundreds of thousands in net loss of jobs since this President has taken over. We've lost four more jobs than we've picked up. At least one piece of good news is that the government has gotten bigger. That's good news for those who love big government. I don't happen to. There's good news for those who love more IRS agents because we're adding thousands and thousands of those who will make sure that if you make $41,190 and you're a family of six, they'll make sure that not only do you have to pay your regular income tax, you will have an added tax, an Obama tax in ObamaCare of $1,030 minimum. Anything you make above $41,190 and you're a family of six or fewer, then you will keep paying more tax the more you make. And that is if you're not able to afford the $12,000 or so average cost that is estimated that the Obama health insurance that's dictated in the ObamaCare bill will require. If you're a family of eight or more and you make $51,724 or more, you will have a minimum tax of $1,293 on top of regular income tax. Congratulations, that's a gift from the Obama administration and all of those--not a single Republican--on the Democratic side of the aisle that voted to cram down ObamaCare on a Nation where it was clear poll after poll after poll what the people wanted. The American people got it. They did not want the government dictating their health care. Now we have Chief Justice John Roberts abandoning intellectual integrity with his opinion in pages 11 through 15 and saying clearly this is not a tax, it's a penalty. It's the Obama administration penalizing everybody in America that doesn't buy exactly what the administration says. It's a penalty. Chief Roberts makes it clear the best evidence he says of what it is is Congress' own language. Congress calls it a ``penalty.'' It really is. It just penalizes those who don't do what the Obama administration says. Then at about the middle of page 15 of the Supreme Court opinion, Chief Justice Roberts says since it's a penalty and not a tax, the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply. So the Supreme Court does have jurisdiction because, as he makes clear, if this were really a tax, the Anti-Injunction Act would apply, and no one could file suit over the ObamaCare bill until 2014. But he says since it's a penalty and not a tax, then we do have jurisdiction, we can proceed now, and we don't have to wait until 2014. Then he proceeds through the rest of his opinion, after talking about the Commerce Clause, to say that no matter what Congress called it, this is really a tax. Then, of course, he has to also justify why he calls it a penalty for one thing and a tax for another. It is one of the worst written opinions that I've seen. At least when the liberals on the Supreme Court have written opinions, they've at least been more intellectually consistent than that tragic opinion as written by our Chief Justice. He's a good man. He lost his way. I feel sure that at some point he will find his way back when he realizes what has really occurred. Today, the ObamaCare bill was debated somewhat further; but yesterday during the debate I heard people on the Democratic side of the aisle who kept saying, No one has lost their insurance. No one will lose their insurance. If you like your insurance, you're not going to lose it. There were people that I have great respect for saying that, and I know they would never intentionally tell something that's false, the key being intentionally. What it told me is they really don't know; they honestly don't know that people across America have already been losing their insurance that they liked and wanted to keep. They don't know that. So I'm hopeful that people across America, when they've heard over the last few days people saying nobody will lose their insurance, nobody has lost their insurance, that as people continue to and have already lost their insurance, that they will make sure to drop a line or give a call or something and make sure that people here know that, Yes, we have lost our insurance and we liked it. We were okay with it. It was ObamaCare that caused the loss. We heard people who kept saying we ought to be talking about jobs. I know they're sincere about that. What they don't understand is that this bill is killing jobs. As so many people have said that I've talked to, We are right there at the 50-employee limit under ObamaCare. We don't want to have 50. We're keeping things small. We're not going to hire some folks. We're doing other things because we simply cannot afford to pay that extra $2,000 an employee tax that we get hit with the minute we go over that 50-employee limit. There are people not being hired. There are people that are losing jobs. Others are saying, We're downscaling. We don't want to be over that 50-employee number so that we can maybe stay competitive in a down economy. But the trouble is, people are hurting these days. The economy is difficult. And I've been intrigued, as have people on both sides of the aisle, who let me know that during this time when we have a chance--Democrats for a time, Republicans for a time, back and forth--have a chance to bring things to the floor to get into the Congressional Record and to make public things that others may have missed. I constantly have people say, I had no idea about that until I heard you talking about it on the floor. I was watching C-SPAN. And I've been told before, Gee, we love it when you're on TV because then we can finally turn you off. Then I have been told by others in some offices here on Capitol Hill that they actually turn up the sound when they see me on. Whatever the case, Mr. Speaker, this is a wonderful chance to make sure people get information that they don't have time to get otherwise. We have been hearing a great deal about the photo ID. In the District of Columbia Federal court here, we have been having a suit between our so-called Department of Justice and Texas over whether Texas can do as Indiana did and require a photo ID in order to vote. Texas pretty well tracked the Indiana law. It looks like a good law. I read it. I read the Supreme Court opinion that addressed the issue and upheld the law as being a legitimate law. I don't know that, from reports I heard today, whether or not Texas is trying the case properly, but if they put on the evidence that's available and is quite convincing and clear, there should be no reason for Texas to lose this case that requires a photo ID. If someone cannot afford a photo ID, they can't afford the few dollars for that, then under the Texas law, as the Indiana law, they can simply make that indication, and if you can't pay for it, then you're going to get it free. There are groups in Texas that have made clear if you can't get to where you need to go to get a photo ID, we'll take you there. In fact, if this Justice Department had spent a tiny, tiny fraction of the money it has spent on this litigation against Texas, against Florida, and against these other States on just helping people get photo IDs, there wouldn't have been a problem in the world with everybody having a photo ID that needed one. This article, a July 11, 2012, publication, Katie Pavlich, News Editor, writes: Earlier today, Attorney General Eric Holder addressed the NAACP National Convention at the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston, Texas. What did media need in order to attend? That's right, government issued photo identification (and a second form of identification too!), something both Holder and the NAACP stand firmly against when it comes to voting. Wow, the NAACP and the Attorney General have just disenfranchised a slew of people that probably would have liked to have heard the Attorney General. But they disenfranchised them, said you can't come into the NAACP convention unless you've got a photo ID. You can't come in. Yet the Attorney General was in court saying that what Texas is doing is wrong, and if it's wrong, why are the NAACP and the Attorney General doing it? The article says: All media must present government-issued photo ID (such as a driver's license) as well as valid media credentials. Members of the media must RSVP to receive press credentials. And it gives the website. Then it says: For security purposes, media check-in and equipment setup must be completed by 7:45 a.m. CDT for an 8:00 a.m. CDT security sweep. Once the security sweep is completed, additional media equipment will NOT be permitted to enter and swept equipment will NOT be permitted to exit. But what's sad is these so-called folks that can't get a photo ID that the NAACP and the Attorney General are complaining about, not being able to get one, they can't even get into the convention. So how is it that these people who say we're out for those that don't have a photo ID really care about those without a photo ID if they won't even let them into their convention? Continuing: Ironically, NAACP President Ben Jealous railed against voter ID just before Holder took the stage. In the convention they are railing against it, but the people without photo IDs, if there are those who can't get them that really want them, they couldn't get in to hear the speech. Going on: The head of the NAACP on Monday likened the group's fight against conservative-backed voter ID laws that have been passed in several States to the great civil rights battles of the 1960s. Benjamin Todd Jealous, the CEO and president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said these are ``Selma and Montgomery times,'' referring to historic Alabama civil rights confrontations. He challenged those attending the NAACP's annual convention to redouble their efforts to get out the vote in November. ``We must overwhelm the rising tide of voting suppression with the high tide of registration and mobilization and motivation and protection,'' he said. ``Simply put, the NAACP will never stand by as any State tries to encode discrimination into law,'' Jealous said. Well, obviously he doesn't have a chance to get out and see the real news. But in Georgia they passed a photo ID requirement for voters and have had two elections since, and in both those elections minorities have increased greater than before, and actually increased greater than Anglo voters. There has been no disenfranchisement in Georgia. So, actually, it turns out that the photo ID has engaged minority voters. The fact is the Voting Rights Amendment is a violation of our United States Constitution until it is applied, section 5 is applied, to every State in the Union. There were southern States that were guilty of racial suppression in the sixties and prior, and it is an abomination to this Nation that such occurred, not nearly as much as slavery, but it's still an abomination. It still should not have been happening. The Voting Rights Act has done a great deal toward eliminating that. But, unfortunately, under the Voting Rights Act, atypical of most things in America, once you improve your State to the place where there is no problem, you still are not out from under punishment, the penalty of section 5, because of what happened in the 1960s and before. So, States have complained, look, you know, we fix things. We're doing good. In fact, we are doing better than so many districts in other parts of the country that are not under section 5 that's so punitive. Some of us couldn't help but wonder, when a big majority on both sides of the aisle voted to extend the Voting Rights Act, including section 5 that got even tougher for another 25 years, why they wouldn't have supported the Gohmert amendment. The Gohmert amendment said, look, section 5, punitive provisions ought to apply to every district, every State in the country. Failure to do so is a violation of equal protection. Why is it that districts in other parts of the country, north, east, west, are allowed to grow into racial disparity and suppression of minority vote but they're not treated with section 5, whereas States that have been under that punitive provision can't ever get out from under it even though they are better off than other parts of the country? Well, the reason, it seems to be--you wonder, why would people vote? Why not vote to do it across the country? If it's good for these States that have proved better than our own State, why should it not apply to everyone? And I still ask that question. The only thing you wonder is we had the power to ram this down on these States punitively, so we did. The last thing we wanted was any of those punitive provisions applying to our States or our districts where disparity is more a problem than those original areas. So, I don't know. I wonder if at some point we're going to have a rush of the bipartisan leadership that pushed that through to come back and say, You know what, Louie, you're right. If it applies to southern States, it ought to apply to everybody. It ought to apply to those districts that have more of a racial problem than there has been or exists now in those States that are treated punitively. Well, we'll see. We've also heard about the loving relationship, as this administration says, with such a great ally as Israel. And it defies explanation. This is from Breitbart, William Bigelow, dated 10 July 2012: How much does Barack Obama hate Israel and want to throw her under the bus? Here's how much: the Obama administration not only excluded Israel from a new counterterrorism forum in Spain; it didn't even mention Israel in its remarks. If there were ever a country that has dealt with murderous terrorist attacks over and over again, that country would have to be Israel. Here's what Marie Otero, the State Department's Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy and Human Rights, said: ``Last September at the official launch of the Global Counterterrorism Forum, I had the privilege to introduce the premiere of a film `Hear Their Voices,' which tells the stories of 11 survivors of terrorist attacks from Pakistan, Jordan, Northern Ireland, Uganda, Turkey, Indonesia, India, Spain, Colombia, and the United States. The film, which was produced by the Global Survivors Network, is a powerful plea for audiences around the world, especially those sympathetic to the grievances expressed by extremists, to recognize the human cost of terrorism, and I am delighted that our Spanish hosts are planning on showing this film here later this afternoon.'' When Secretary of State Clinton announced the coalition's formation in June, she didn't include Israel on her list of countries that suffer from terrorist attacks. How could Secretary Clinton not immediately think of Israel as a country that suffers from terrorist attacks when they have bombs, they have rockets flying into Israel every day? Defenders of Israel were furious, even those who were Democrats. Josh Block, a Democratic strategist and a former spokesman for AIPAC, said, ``When the administration promised to include Israel in the counterterrorism forum that the United States founded--after Jerusalem's inexplicable exclusion from the initial meeting a month ago--one would think that they would be true to their word. Clearly, someone failed here. How Israel could be excluded from another meeting of an anti-terror forum that we in the United States chair is beyond comprehension, especially one that focuses on victims of terrorism. At a time when Romney is challenging the administration's record on U.S.-Israel relations, this error stands out.'' First of all, Mr. Block, no one failed here. Obama succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. Later in the article: Jonathan Schanzer, vice president for research at the Foundation of Defense of Democracies, said, ``What we're seeing is a trend of Israel being left out of the global discussion on terrorism, while Israel was extremely helpful during the beginning stages of this conversation. The Obama administration is downplaying the struggle that Israel has been enduring. I believe to a certain extent this is due to regional politics, and it's disconcerting to see this change. It just looks like a quiet effort to downplay the issue.'' The State Department would not answer questions about the matter. Pretty tragic how this State Department, how this administration could continue to exclude Israel from counterterrorism discussions about countries who have been victims of terrorism. Here is an interesting additional article. We had another hearing today in one of our Judiciary Committees. It caused us to think again about Fast and Furious, never far from your mind when you know there are guns out there still being used to kill innocent people that were put there, forced there, by this administration. This article, dated July 6 from Deroy Murdock, National Review Online--and I'm not going to read the whole article, but a significant part is important to note. Mr. Murdock writes: While Brian Terry is the most visible victim of this notorious policy, he is not its sole casualty. On February 15, 2011, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jaime Zapata, 32, was shot mortally in San Luis Potosi, Mexico. Members of Los Zetas drug gang also hit ICE agent Victor Avila in that ambush, although not fatally. This assault involved a rifle purchased in Dallas in another Obama administration ``gunwalking'' escapade. Largely overlooked is this plan's calamitous impact on Mexico, its people, and U.S.-Mexican relations. Fast and Furious has spilled American blood. But south of the border, it has made blood gush like an oil strike. ``One of the things that's so offensive about this case is that our Federal Government knowingly, willfully, purposefully, gave the drug cartels nearly 2,000 weapons-- mainly AK-47s--and allowed them to walk,'' Representative Jason Chaffetz told NBC News. These arms were supplied to lead Federal agents in Phoenix to the Mexican thugs who acquired them. Instead, Fast and Furious guns melted into Mexico without a trace. And I add, parenthetically, because they were never intended to be followed. And that was clear. Back to the article: These weapons became invisible, but not silent. The 300 Mexicans or so that have died as a result of this also deserve attention and what it's done to our American-Mexican relations needs great sympathy and heartfelt apologies. 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. I can verify that there are people who have already lost their insurance because of ObamaCare. It has happened. It was not and is not true that if you like your insurance, you can keep it. People have already lost doctors who were assured if you like your doctor, you can keep him. That was simply not true. We were told there would be no tax. And we know from the Supreme Court that's not true. And in fact, in the bill itself one of the most devastating things coming from people who say they want to help the working poor, if you're a single individual and you're making 133 percent of the poverty level, if you're making $14,000 and you can't afford a $12,000 health insurance policy, you're going to be fined 2.5 percent over the next 3 years. It will build to 2.5 percent. It is a tax. It will devastate. If you make $40,000, a family of four, five or six, $1,000 fine because you can't afford a $12,000 policy. That, on top of the government running everything in this $2,500 bill. That's why we've got to repeal it--for the good of the people.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letter. Office of the Governor, July 9, 2012. Hon. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Sebelius: In the ObamaCare plan, the federal government sought to force the states to expand their Medicaid programs by in the words of the Supreme Court putting a gun to their heads. Now that the ``gun to the head'' has been removed, please relay this message to the President: I oppose both the expansion of Medicaid as provided in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the creation of a so-called ``state'' insurance exchange, because both represent brazen intrusions into the sovereignty of our state. I stand proudly with the growing chorus of governors who reject the PPACA power grab. Thank God and our nation's founders that we have the right to do so. Neither a ``state'' exchange nor the expansion of Medicaid under the Orwellian-named PPACA would result in a better ``patient protection'' or in more ``affordable care.'' What they would do is make Texas a mere appendage of the federal government when it comes to health care. The PPACA does not truly allow states to create and operate their own exchanges. Instead, it gives the federal government the final say as to which insurance plans can operate in a so-called ``state'' exchange, what benefits those plans must provide, and what price controls and cost limits will apply. It leaves many questions to be answered later through federal ``future rulemaking.'' In short, it essentially treats the states like subcontractors through which the federal government can control the insurance markets and pursue federal priorities rather than those of the individual states. Through its proposed expansion of Medicaid, the PPACA would simply enlarge a broken system that is already financially unsustainable. Medicaid is a system of inflexible mandates, one-size-fits-all requirements, and wasteful, bureaucratic inefficiencies. Expanding it as the PPACA provides would only exacerbate the failure of the current system, and would threaten even Texas with financial ruin. I look forward to implementing health care solutions that are right for the people of Texas. I urge you to support me in that effort. In the meantime, the PPACA's unsound encroachments will find no foothold here. Sincerely, Rick Perry, Governor.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These can be the best of times and the worst of times. There is still so much potential. This country has so much in the way of assets. It is interesting to hear my friends across the aisle talk about the wonders of ObamaCare, but I know this President has said before: if you make more than $250,000, you won't ever have your taxes raised. I won't ever raise your taxes. He has said it a lot of different ways. Yet, when I read his version of the American Jobs Act, which he, himself, pushed for, promulgated, demanded be passed, it actually raised taxes on everybody who made more than $125,000. So he broke the promise there. In ObamaCare, it's very clear that, if you make just above the poverty line and if you can't afford the kind of Cadillac insurance that is demanded that you purchase, you're going to get hammered with a tax, and it will ultimately be 2\1/2\ percent in extra income tax. He basically has pushed through a bill that makes war with those who can least afford to buy health insurance--adding a 2\1/2\ percent tax to the people who are the most vulnerable and hardworking folks. They're just trying to get by, and they're going to have to pay an extra 2\1/2\ percent in income tax? Now, the enlightened Chief Justice explains through pages 11 through 15 of his opinion that it's actually not a tax, that it's clearly a penalty because, if you don't buy the insurance at the high level the government will dictate, then it will be necessary for you to pay an extra hunk of income tax--those who are the hardworking, least able to afford it. I don't see how anybody can say, It's great, and a happy day for you. If you go through the rest of his opinion, of course he says the Commerce Clause doesn't make the ObamaCare bill constitutional; but then he gets around to saying, Well, regardless of what Congress called it--you know, they called it a penalty--we'll just say it's a penalty for the purposes of jurisdiction so that it allows us to take up the case; but for purposes of whether or not it's constitutional, we'll call it what it is--a tax. It's one of the worst decisions this Chief Justice has ever made, and it's one of the worst I've ever read--poorly written by a man who should have known better. But this administration has broken so many promises. It had negotiations with Egyptian leader Mubarak. We are certainly ready to throw him under the bus just as they have our allies, the Northern Alliance, that successfully fought and defeated the Taliban within a matter of months with our assistance but with less than 500 U.S. military in country. Now, after the President added troops and we had over 100,000 troops, this administration is ready to turn the country over to President Karzai and the Taliban. The Taliban has been on national television, saying, Hey, obviously, by virtue of the Obama administration's begging us to come to the table, promising they'll release some of our murdering thugs from confinement and that they'll buy us first-class offices in Qatar, well, gee, it's obvious to the world, they've said, that the United States has lost the war in Afghanistan. Congratulations, President Barack Obama, for making it clear to the Taliban that you have lost the war for us. Now we are advised the President has invited Egypt's Islamist leader to the United States. Past administrations have recognized the Muslim Brotherhood's end goal of a giant, worldwide caliphate where we all fall prey under sharia law and where we all have freedom, but that freedom is to only worship Allah and where we have justice but that justice is only under sharia; and this administration is embracing them wholeheartedly. In this article of July 8, Sunday, from Business and Financial News, it headlines: ``Obama Invites Egypt's Islamist Leader to U.S.'' It talks about how President Barack Obama has invited Egypt's newly elected Islamist President, Mohamed Morsi, to visit the United States in September. It reads: Washington, long weary of Islamists and an ally of ousted President Hosni Mubarak, shifted policy last year to open formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood, the group behind Morsi's win. It reads: Morsi formally resigned from the group after his victory, but nowhere is there an indication that Egypt's new President has disavowed the effort to make the United States, which they've called the Great Satan, subservient to sharia law. In fact, as to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's leader as posted yesterday in The Blaze: Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood chairman, Muhammad Badi, also known as the group's ``Supreme Guide''--this would be the Supreme Guide over the newly elected Egyptian leader--said last week that waging jihad against Israel is an imperative for every Muslim. Middle East watcher Raymond Ibrahim, who scours the Arabic press and translates it to English for Western eyes, posted this revelation on his blog. Then it sets out this quote: According to last Thursday's edition of Al Wafd, during his weekly sermon, ``Muhammad Badi, the Muslim Brotherhood's Supreme Guide, confirmed the necessity for every Muslim to strive to save al-Quds--and that's Jerusalem--from the hands of the rapists--Israelis--and to cleanse Palestine from the clutches of the occupation, deeming this an individual duty for all Muslims.'' More specifically, he ``called on all Muslims to wage jihad with their money and their selves to free al-Quds''--or Jerusalem--the same, exact language one finds in al Qaeda's tracts. The article goes on that earlier this year the Middle East Research Institute translated a sermon of bodies in which he called for ``gradually establishing a global Islamic caliphate leading to `mastership of the world.' '' ``Mastership of the world'' is what's in quotes. It is interesting, because it hasn't been that long ago. This was posted by my friend Patrick Poole, July 5, 2012. It says, ``Rewind-- 2010: Egypt's prez Morsi called for expulsion of U.S. ambassadors across Middle East.'' Patrick Poole says: While doing a bit of filing in the office yesterday, I came across a September 2010 Reuters article of more recent interest. You might recall that was the time when Terry Jones, in Florida, was threatening to burn a Koran on the 9/11 anniversary and had the whole Muslim world in an uproar-- before he had even committed the act (which happened several months later). In the mere contemplation of such an action by Terry Jones, the Muslim Brotherhood was calling on all Muslim countries to expel all U.S. Ambassadors. And who was making this call? According to Reuters: Mohammad Mursi, spokesman for Egypt's influential Muslim Brotherhood, said the organization was calling for pressure on all Muslim governments to expel U.S. Ambassadors. Yes, this is what we want to encourage, this type of leader. We want to tell the world by this President's open arms at the White House--not with the ill treatment previously of Prime Minister Netanyahu--but with open arms, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood who never disclaimed the desire to make us subservient to shari'a law, bringing him to the White House. As some of us travel around and speak to different people around the world, those who are truly fighting for freedom--and not the freedom the Muslim Brotherhood talks about, where it is freedom only to worship Allah; freedom truly to make choices about who one worships or whether one worships at all. They say when the United States invites someone and shows hospitality to people in the world, the rest of the world gets the message that the conduct of those individuals they are inviting and embracing and having smiling pictures with, that their conduct is a good thing. When this country's leaders embrace leaders of other countries, it tells the world this is what we think in America is the way to act, the way to be, the thing to do. That it is very deflating. Having talked to Iranian refuges in northern Iraq, they just get devastated when they see an American leader being so chummy with people they know embrace terrorism, that have no problem with terrorist activities to promote Islam spreading around the world. This President should be far more careful about who he encourages and who he discourages, because the true friends of liberty around the world, who stood up to Syria's leader, they were not embraced by this President. There was no statement from this President of: Let's do for the protesters and the rebels in Syria what I demanded we did in Libya. There was nothing like that. We've sent Secretary of State Clinton over to the Middle East. There have been statements that we don't like what you're doing, but nothing like what this White House did when they cut the legs out from Mubarak who at least tried to keep the peace with Israel to some extent and what he did in actually providing bombs and air cover to take out Qadhafi in Libya. We knew at the time the Muslim Brotherhood will probably take over Egypt, that they have called us the great Satan. We knew in Libya that there were even al Qaeda who want to bring about this Nation's end violently, and yet this President embraced those al Qaeda rebels, along with the other rebels in Libya, dropped bombs, and provided air cover. None of that has been done for Syria. It's a little bit strange because much of the world considers Syria's leader to be a mere puppet of the Iranian terrorist leaders. Certainly Russia, who has shown great hostility to some of the things we deem to be appropriate liberty, they embrace the actions of the Syrian leader. Where was this President when there were true freedom seekers stepping up and being killed? Was he giving a pretty speech? Another article that was in The Blaze, July 8, says: The Jerusalem Post explains: Washington, long wary of Islamists and a former ally of ousted President Hosni Mubarak, shifted policy last year to open formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood, the group behind Mursi's win. Mursi's success at the polls mirrors the rising influence of Islamists in countries across the Middle East and North Africa in the wake of revolts and protests against autocratic rulers who have led the region for decades. But the Obama administration has invited Egypt's new Islamist leader, Mohammed Mursi, to visit the United States in September, according to an Egyptian official, clearly reflecting Washington's changing view of Islamists and the Muslim Brotherhood. Here is another article, posted April 26 of this year, from The Blaze. It is entitled, ``Want to Know Just How Close the Muslim Brotherhood is to the Obama Administration?'' It says: On Wednesday evening, GBTV unveiled a powerful documentary, ``Rumors of War III,'' exposing how radical Islamists, including the Muslim Brotherhood, are infiltrating American Government at its highest levels. Above is a video clip from the program outlining some of the key players involved. It goes on: Arif Alikahn, Former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Policy Development: Now a Distinguished Visiting Professor of DHS and Counterterrorism at the National Defense University, Alikahn also served as Deputy Mayor for Public Safety for the City of Los Angeles, where he reportedly derailed the LAPD's efforts to monitor the city's Muslim community--particularly its radical mosques and madrassas where certain 9/11 hijackers were said to have received support. He is affiliated with MPAC, which has called the terrorist group Hezbollah a ``liberation movement.'' It goes on to establish some of the ties of this administration with members of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was intriguing to me, when I asked our own Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, how many members of the Muslim Brotherhood were on her countering violent terrorism--violent extremism--sorry. She can't use the word ``terrorism.'' She couldn't tell me whether 10 were Muslim Brotherhood or not. She didn't know. Some of these things for some of us bring back memories of occurrences back from the late seventies when our own President Jimmy Carter, who has to be encouraged by this President's administration-- because many people have said they thought he had the worst Presidency in history and did so much damage to international affairs--when you look at what this administration has done. I mean, to the extent that an African from West Africa, elderly gentleman, but full of wisdom, wanted to meet me and visit when I was there a couple of years ago. He said, we were very excited that you elected a black man as your President, but we have seen America appear to grow weaker and weaker in the eyes of most people. He asked that I come back and convey--and I have on more than one occasion--that you must not allow the United States to grow weak. Those of us who are Christian in foreign countries rely on the United States' strength to keep us somewhat safe. If you let the world think that the United States is weak, or become weak, then many of us have no hope of being safe in this life. This country has to stand strong, and we have seen it grow weaker and weaker in the eyes of the world. There's an article that's reprinted July 9, today, in Human Events, which was originally by Robert Spencer back February 14 of this year. He said: Last week the Egyptian government announced that it intends to put 19 Americans on trial for fomenting antigovernment protests, a charge they deny. Protests from the Obama administration have so far been futile, met with sneers of contempt. If you're of a certain age, this should sound familiar. On November 4, 1979, Iranian thugs stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took 52 Americans hostage. Jimmy Carter's government wrung its hands in futility for the next 14 months, until finally the Islamist Republic released the hostages January 20, 1981, the day Ronald Reagan took office as President of the United States. The bitter irony in all that was that Carter had betrayed the Shah of Iran, a longtime U.S. ally, and thereby paved the way for the ascent to power of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian mullahcracy that has ruled Iran ever since. Rather than feel gratitude toward Carter, however, Khomeini viewed his abandonment of the Shah as a sign of weakness and pressed forward with his jihad against the Great Satan. Iran has been hostile towards the United States since then, including gleeful predictions of our Nation's imminent demise. Just days ago, Iran's Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, declared to an enthusiastic Tehran crowd, that ``in light of the realization of the divine promise by almighty God, the Zionists and the Great Satan (America) will soon be defeated. Allah's promises will be delivered, and Islam will be victorious.'' The original Ayatollah Khomeini, not Khamenei, was said by Jimmy Carter to be a man, a fellow man of faith. Well, he has a different kind of faith, and we have soldiers still dying today because the United States of America allowed some Iranian thugs, terrorists, to commit an act of war by attacking an American embassy, taking Americans hostage, and did nothing to defend our territory. I was at Fort Benning at the time. We were put on alert. Nobody wanted to go to Iran, but everybody expected, surely we will do something to show these Islamist jihadists, these thugs, that you cannot commit an act of war against the United States and not pay a price. Because as the United States Government, we have a duty to provide for the common defense. We have a duty to protect American property. When American property is attacked, and under everybody's interpretation of international, an embassy is that country's own property, we let it go without anything but weak-kneed responses, and we are paying the price today. But we see this President who thinks a wonderful speech--and he's good at them, he reads them so well and throwing in constant apologies to people who want to destroy us and see us wiped off the map--will somehow engender love and devotion from people who want to destroy us. It doesn't work that way internationally. We have a duty to protect this Constitution, and we are not doing so in embracing enemies of this country who still have not disclaimed the pledge, the effort to see this country overthrown. There was a time when Presidents would view people who have made such claims and pledges or been part of terrorist organizations, we would not embrace such individuals, because we know the harm it does to our allies. One article from a guy named Michael D. Evans says: Carter viewed Khomeini as a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution, rather than a founding father of modern terrorism who introduced the Islamofascist ideology we are fighting today in the world war on terrorism. As Henry Kissinger said, ``Carter has managed the extraordinary feat of having, at one and the same time, the worst relations with our allies, the worst relations with our adversaries, and the most serious upheavals in the developing world since the end of the Second World War.'' That was then, and now we have another President doing the very same thing. There was an article from The New York Times back in June of 2001: Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel will meet with President Bush at the White House next week, the second time the two have held face-to-face discussions since Mr. Sharon's election. In contrast, Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, has not been invited to Washington by the Bush administration, and officials made clear today that they had no plans to do so in the near future. So far the administration has kept Mr. Arafat at arm's length, a stark difference from President Clinton, who brought the Palestinian leader to the White House more than any other foreign leader. Those messages are not missed by allies and enemies alike around the world. There is another article, this is from The New York Times, posted today: In his first major speech last month, Mohamed Morsi, the new Egyptian president, pledged to seek the release of a notorious Egyptian terrorist from a North Carolina prison. Not long before that, a member of a designated terrorist organization, Gamaa al-Islamiyya--who also happens to be a recently elected member of the Egyptian Parliament--was welcomed to Washington as part of an official delegation sponsored by the State Department. ``Obama administration officials made no public comment on Mr. Morsi's promise and struggled to explain why the Egyptian Parliament member, Hani Nour Eldin, got a visa''--since after all he was a member of a designated terrorist organization. But he got not only a visa, he got entrance into our most secure administration dwellings. The article says that the administration cited privacy rules, ``declining to say whether he had been granted a waiver from the ban on such visitors or whether his affiliation simply escaped notice.'' Pressed by reporters after the visa quickly became a congressional controversy, a State Department spokeswoman, Victoria J. Nuland, said Mr. Eldin had been judged to pose no threat to the United States. ``It's a new day in Egypt,'' she added. ``It's a new day in a lot of countries across the Middle East and North Africa.'' And I might add, it was a new day in Iran when the Ayatollah Khomeini took over and President Carter welcomed him as a fellow man of faith. This article from the Times goes on: For the Obama administration, as it navigates the tumultuous effects of the Arab spring, it's a complicated day as well. Long-held assumptions about who is a friend of the United States and who is not have been upset, leaving Americans confused. Well, it's leaving not only Americans confused; it's leaving our allies confused. We have people around the world who have fought with us, they have fought for us, and this administration has turned its back on them. You can go to the country of Afghanistan and some terrible killings have once again occurred. We know that Pakistan, according to the people I've talked to traveling around Afghanistan, Pakistan is basically the biggest source of supplies, reinforcement, or help to the Taliban. And what do we do? We have our Secretary of State apologize to the country who kept our country's biggest enemy, the mastermind behind the killing of more Americans than any other attack in our history on our soil, and they protected him. And they kept him protected. And we are supposed to apologize to Pakistan? Well, this administration did. And when our soldiers, our military suffered attacks from a certain area there adjoining Pakistan, and apparently in Pakistan, they finally responded to protect themselves, and we have to apologize for people dying who were in the area where attacks were emanating against our own soldiers. We have to apologize to a country who is supplying and funding the Taliban that's killing American soldiers. Yeah, it's confusing to Americans and it's confusing to our allies. And that's why, when a handful of us were in Afghanistan in April, we were a little surprised that this administration did not want us to meet with our Northern Alliance friends, among them General Dostum. Instead, this administration prefers to address them as war criminals. Yeah, they fight tough. They defeated the Taliban. They fight like the Taliban. And they have no interest in losing because they know it means they lose their lives, they lose their homes, they lose their country. So they fight viciously. And we were able to take out the Taliban initially with a few hundred soldiers. Less than 500 Americans. We had intelligence. We had special ops. We provided air cover, provided some weapons. And the Taliban was routed. We had a hundred thousand or so military into Afghanistan. We've become occupiers. Occupiers don't do well in that part of the world. Yet this administration continually throws our allies under the bus, thinking if we just embrace our enemies, if we make a great speech, maybe if I read from the teleprompters effectively enough, then they'll see how wonderful I am and America is and they'll come fall and embrace us and just want to provide us nothing but love and affection. It's an unrealistic view of the world. And yes, I'm a Christian and I believe everyone should be free to worship or not worship as they please. But that is not the case in Egypt right now. It's not the case in Libya right now. It's not the case in Afghanistan right now. It's not the case anywhere in any country where sharia is the law. We want Muslims, we want atheists to be free to worship, not worship. This is America. But any group, whether atheists or any other religion in the world that attempts to force us to comply with their religious laws, should not be tolerated. Some say you've got a bunch of xenophobes and Islamaphobes. It's interesting that the term Islamaphobe basically was generated by the Organization of Islamic Council, the OIC, that has 50 States--no, wait. They've got 57 States and we've got 50; or we've got 57 and they've got 50. I get confused. Somebody on CNN said, Well, the only reason the President said the U.S. had 57 States is he was tired. So maybe I'm just tired. I can't remember who has 57, who has 50. Some people don't understand sarcasm either. But the OIC promulgated that term and they've given millions and millions and millions of dollars to universities in America, including some Ivy League schools. They're not Islamaphobes. They have sold their soul for money. Sure, if you will give us millions, you bet you-- hundreds of thousands even--we'll teach a course on Islamaphobia. We'll denigrate other religions. We'll denigrate the Founders. We'll denigrate those who would lay down their lives for this country's freedom, and we'll call them Islamaphobes. Well, there's no Islamaphobia here. That's why I told the security detail at the American Embassy in Afghanistan's capital, when I was told I was not going to be able to go meet our allies at the Massoud residence, our friend Massoud knows something about sacrifice. His brother possibly could have united Afghanistan, but was assassinated a day or so before 9/11 because the Taliban knew that he might be able to unite the country. And if the United States figured out this is where the attack emanated, training emanated from, then they may come. So they assassinated my friend's brother. General Dostum, who led that gallant charge uphill against the Taliban in the face of RPGs and bullets flying, offered to take me on horseback to reenact that internationally famous battle uphill against all odds. What courage on our behalf and on behalf of people who want freedom in Afghanistan. I was certainly willing--I have grown up riding horses--until the interpreter told me, You do understand, they don't have leather saddles. They're all wood. That kind of changed my desire to do that. But General Dostum, Massoud, these great Northern Alliance leaders that fought for us, who lost friends and family fighting with us and for us, have been thrown under the bus. But as I told the head of the security detail there, I was going to meet our friends at the Massoud residence. And after I was told we couldn't go, I let them know that I had talked to my friend Mr. Massoud and that they were sending secured vehicles to pick me up and at least two or three other Members of Congress that would go. And when I was told that would not be secure, we couldn't do that, I made clear that they would have to take me down before I got to the gate of the Embassy compound, because I was going, and that I would do that after our next meeting with our soldiers-- American soldiers. After the meeting, I was told, We've arranged security for you to go to the meeting so you don't have to ride with the Massoud security folks. We had a good meeting. It was great to see them. They have trouble understanding why this administration has forsaken them, our allies. I don't hear anybody here calling this administration Islamophobes because they have thrown our Muslim friends under the bus. But they are the enemy of our enemy, the Taliban. And this administration, this President, has made clear to this corrupt regime over there that, look, we're going to be out on this day certain; you'll be on your own for the military. Well, now, they're negotiating some kind of deal where we may provide some help. But Karzai, for all the things he is, he is not totally stupid. He is not a stupid man. And he knows if all our soldiers are gone, and with all the support that Pakistan has given the Taliban, then the Taliban is going to be there. They will be as vicious as they have in the past, and he'd better make some peace with the Taliban. That's why they've been allowed such freedom in the Afghan capital to the point that the Taliban leader would tell and proclaim, yes, we all can see because the U.S., because the Obama administration is begging them to come negotiate and we'll buy them things, we'll release their thugs that have killed Americans, killed innocents, but we'll release them, we'll do whatever. You just come talk to us. It's obvious to the world that we've lost. This administration is sending dangerous signals to our allies that you cannot trust this country as an ally of this country. You'd better watch your back. So when this administration says, we've got your back, you better be wearing something that will stop a knife because it could be forthcoming. As President Mubarak found, as the Northern Alliance found, as freedom lovers in Iran have found, as freedom desirers at Camp Ashraf have found, and as some of our allies in Israel have found, this administration is the first American administration to vote with Israel's enemies a couple of years ago when we voted with Israel's enemies to require them to disclose their weaponry. So it's confusing to people around the world. Should we take a chance on being a friend to America because a year or two later they may embrace our enemies and throw us under the bus? I do believe in the teachings of Jesus. I do believe in the teachings and have been there where they say it's pretty certain this is where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount and told us who it was who was blessed. So some say, well, shouldn't our government turn the other cheek? Blessed are those who mourn. Shouldn't we be the peacemakers? Yes, we should be the peacemakers. But as a government, we have a different obligation. Ours is to protect our people. We are to protect those who live in America, who have trusted us to be their public servants so that they can live out the beatitudes if they choose, so that they can live out and follow the teachings of whatever religious leader they choose. But they can't do that unless we keep them safe. I'm reading a book that I started yesterday called ``The Harbinger.'' It indicates God withdrew His hand from our protection on 9/11. There are interesting things in that book. It's time we look at the signs and we understand from world history that you don't turn on your allies and embrace your enemies and expect to save your country. You convince others who might be tempted to be your allies not to be. You teach your enemies that you are weak in the same way individuals on a school playground do not convince a bully that they are strong when they start giving gifts to the bully and try to buy the bully's kindness and respect because what it buys is not respect, it is contempt. And that is the way this country is now viewed around the world. If you are evil in the world, just as Romans 13 points out, if you do evil, you should be afraid because this government does not have the sword in vain. We owe a duty to freedom-loving people around the world not to become weak but to protect freedom here so others can enjoy freedom other places knowing that the United States of America does not embrace and fall in love with terrorists or terrorist organizations or leaders of terrorist groups. We fight them, and we embrace those who love peace, not terrorism; and we make the world and this country safer in so doing. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will include in the Record a letter. This is Act for America. I brought this up before, but because we have rules that don't allow things that include too many pages, we had to revisit the issue because there are so many thousands and thousands of signatures. It can be found at this Web site for Act for America. This is a petition and a letter sent to the Honorable Joseph Lieberman, the Honorable Patrick Leahy, the Honorable Dianne Feinstein, the Honorable Peter King, the Honorable Lamar Smith, and the Honorable Mike Rogers. It's signed online by thousands and thousands of verified signatures, and those can be found from Act for America, Pensacola, Florida. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. ACT! for America, Pensacola, FL, July 9, 2012. Hon. Louie Gohmert, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Gohmert: Attached, please find an ACT! for America Open Letter to targeted members of the U.S. Congress. The letter has been signed by over 21,000 Americans--all of whom are very concerned with ongoing actions by the FBI related to the language of the agency's counterterrorism training materials. ACT! for America shares the concerns of some Members of Congress, yourself included, that the ongoing purge of counterterrorism training materials used by the FBI as well as state and local law enforcement is a danger to our nation. Further, we see these actions as a continuation of concerted efforts to manipulate, if not altogether eliminate, a clear definition of the threat that radical Islam poses to our nation. We hope this letter will serve as a useful token of the concern the American people have for this issue as well. It also may be found on our website: http://www.act foramerica.com/index.php/fbi-petition. Thank you very much for all of your efforts in the United States Congress. The 240,000 members of ACT! for America stand with you every step of the way. With warm regards, Lisa Piraneo, Director of Government Relations, ACT! for America. Enclosure. ACT! for America, Pensacola, FL.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank and greatly appreciate my friend, Mr. Clarke. That is obviously an important announcement. I didn't realize that the United Way had been around 125 years. They do great work, and I appreciate my friend, and I do mean my friend, calling that to our attention. The Obama administration had an agenda item, getting ObamaCare passed. Elena Kagan was Solicitor General, and she continued to be Solicitor General even up until after the time when the first lawsuits were filed against ObamaCare. Now, she gave testimony before the Senate that satisfied them at the time that she was pure as the driven snow and she would in no way compromise integrity. That was the feeling that was gotten. She got the votes that she needed to be confirmed, and then went on to the U.S. Supreme Court. But since that time, more questions have arisen. Wait a minute, she was there during this, that, and the other. When ObamaCare was being drafted, when it was being prepared, and even after it passed and it became law, she was the Solicitor General. And so now that we see all of these things in perspective, we go, wait a minute, could she have been the worst Solicitor General in American history that she would never advise the President, her boss-- never advise him--on the litigation that would surely be coming when his prize legislation got passed, if it got passed? Because a legitimate lawyer, an adviser, a counselor, will tell the client--in this case, the President--Look, if you want to have this pass constitutional muster, here's what you need to do. Let's get this verbiage in one place, let's get this in another. Could she have foreseen that perhaps a weakness of the brilliant John Roberts would be, if you call something a penalty in a bill and then later call it a tax after it's passed, that maybe the Supreme Court would buy it? I don't even think that Solicitor General Kagan could have foreseen that John Roberts would totally abandon intellectual consistency. No matter how intelligent, I don't think she could have seen that coming. I certainly didn't. But the law regarding judges, Federal judges, is not just a matter of ethics--gee, you can have an ethics complaint filed against you as you can if you're a practicing attorney or a judge. The law is 28 U.S.C., section 455, and it says: Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself--that's generic for him and her--in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Well, it is absolutely clear that her impartiality is certainly questionable in her boss's most prized legislation: ObamaCare. My friend from Alabama, one of the great Senators over at the other end of the hall, Jeff Sessions, had extended eight questions to Attorney General Holder asking for answers, and they were submitted timely under the rules so they were part of the hearing and would require answers from our Attorney General Holder. And three of them in particular were these. These were questions for Attorney General Holder, because as 28 U.S.C., section 455 is the law and Justice Kagan's impartiality has reasonably been questioned, there is potential here for a law violation by Justice Kagan, and we need to know more. Since this is with regard to the law that the Attorney General is supposed to uphold, fair questions. From Jeff Sessions to Attorney General Holder: Are you aware of any instances during Justice Kagan's tenure as Solicitor General of the United States in which information related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and/or litigation related thereto was relayed or provided to her? Another question from U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions to Attorney General Holder that required an answer: When did your staff begin ``removing'' Solicitor General Kagan from meetings in this matter? On what basis did you take this action? In what other matters was such action taken? Clearly, Solicitor General Kagan was on the email list for people who were talking about the laws that were coming up that the administration wanted to get passed, including ObamaCare, so it's a legitimate question to know at what point did she stop getting emails regarding ObamaCare. It's also important to know what she said in those emails, because the one email they slipped and let us get a glimpse of was when ObamaCare passed. She sent an email something along the lines of: Can you believe they got the votes? Sounds like an excited utterance. And it's worth noting that under 28 U.S.C., section 455 the law is very clear, this is the law. It's not an ethics, an encouraged rule. This is the law. ``Where he or she has served in government employment''--as Solicitor General Kagan had--``and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy, she shall disqualify herself.'' So, clearly, she is already disqualified because her impartiality is certainly reasonably being questioned. But is there even another law-- not rule, but law--in which her impartiality can be questioned? But it makes it very clear, if she ever, ever expressed an opinion concerning the merits of ObamaCare, she should not have been allowed to sit on this case. I think history is going to judge this case in a way that Justice Roberts never dreamed. He is so brilliant. There's no question that he was able to rationalize that coming as part of the majority as he did was the thing to do. He has gotten accolades, just as Chief Justice Taney did when he came out with the Dred Scott decision. Justice Taney got accolades from people, you know, wow. Yes, he got criticism, just as Chief Justice Roberts has, but he got some of the same accolades he's got: wow, what a brilliant man. He has removed politics from the Supreme Court when the truth is just the opposite of what occurred. The politics of the White House prevailed. It was pure politics; it was nothing but politics. And anyone who honestly reads this opinion from an entirely objective standpoint will not be able to say this is a beautiful piece of well-reasoned legal logic because it is not. It is a hodgepodge of poorly written, poorly thought-out, poorly pieced- together opinion; and it's an embarrassment. And one day, history will record that this Court was possessed of four individuals who had political agendas and could not set them aside, and that a Chief Justice, who knew better, decided he would try to make the Court look less than political, and in doing so became very political. We need answers to these questions. The third one was: Did you ever have a conversation with Justice Kagan regarding her recusal from the matters before the Supreme Court related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? If so, please describe the circumstances and substance of those conversations. Real easy. Now, we know that this Attorney General has significant recollection problems. He recalled, under penalty of perjury before our Judiciary Committee that he had only learned about Fast and Furious a few weeks, he said, a few weeks before the hearing. Within months, we found documentation showing that that was a lie. It had been months before, at a minimum, that he had learned. Then, when he had that presented to him, he said a few weeks, months, what's the difference? Highest Justice official in America sees no difference between a few weeks and months. These questions need to be answered. It's already embarrassing enough that a Justice hid behind the refusal to answer questions, the avoidance of questions, to be able to sit on this case and participate in one of the worst thought-out and thought-through and expressed opinions that I've read from the U.S. Supreme Court. And it's worth looking at some of them. If you go to the opinion itself, first of all, the Supreme Court has to deal with the issue of whether the Supreme Court can consider the case because the Anti- Injunction Act basically, in essence, says: if Congress passes a tax, then the Supreme Court does not have any jurisdiction to consider the case. No one can file such case in Federal court until the tax is actually levied and the individual filing suit has actually had it levied on them. Then that individual has standing, can file a lawsuit, and the Supreme Court can consider it. But until the Supreme Court could decide and determine whether or not the penalty for not buying health care insurance was a penalty or a tax--even though the language in the act clearly said it was a penalty--well, the Court couldn't go forward. So that was the first thing they had to wrestle with. You see it particularly highlighted from pages 11 through 15. But it's worth noting--this is page 11--the Court says: before turning to the merits, we need to be sure we have authority to do so. That's Justice Roberts, before turning to the merits, we've got to be sure we have authority. He said the Anti-Injunction Act provides: No suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed. Can't bring the lawsuit, the Supreme Court can't consider it if it's a tax, because it won't be 2014 or so before that happens. So you look at this decision, page 12, our brilliant Chief Justice-- and he really is brilliant, he just compromised it here: Congress's decision to label this exaction a ``penalty'' rather than a ``tax'' is significant because the Affordable Care Act describes many other exactions it creates as ``taxes.'' Because there are taxes. There are, clearly. There's the medical device tax that ObamaCare adds. All these other taxes, they call themselves taxes. This doesn't. And Justice Roberts points out, it's a penalty. They call it that. Justice Roberts says, and this is page 13 of his opinion: The Anti-Injunction Act and the Affordable Care Act, however, are creatures of Congress's own creation. How they relate to each other is up to Congress and the best evidence of Congress's intent. Get that: best evidence of Congress's intent is the statutory text. That's why he goes through and says the text calls it a penalty. On page 15, he says: The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti- Injunction Act therefore does not apply to this suit, and we may proceed to the merits. It's not a tax; it's a penalty. All right. So, page 15, all this legal reasoning, it's not a tax, it's a penalty, best evidence of what it is is what Congress calls it, Congress calls it a penalty, ergo it's a penalty and we can move on. And now we're entitled to consider the merits. Now, he also adds--this is over at page 39: The joint dissenters argue that we cannot uphold section 5000A as a tax because Congress did not frame it as such. Now, in fact, the four intellectually honest dissenters have pointed out to the Chief Justice--they called it a penalty. You said the best evidence of what it was was what Congress called it. Congress calls it a penalty, they treat it as a penalty, and that's the best evidence. So you can't uphold 5000A as a tax because it was not intended to be one. If you look, page 39 is where--and the full sentence says: ``An example may illustrate why labels should not control here.'' This is the Chief Justice saying these lines. Labels should not control here. He just said, in page 11 through 15, labels should control. Congress puts the label on what they mean it to be: that should control. Now he's saying labels don't control here. He goes on to say, and this is at page 44: The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a ``tax.'' I called it a penalty so I'd have jurisdiction to write this opinion, but now that I have jurisdiction to write this opinion, now, page 44, I'm calling it a tax. Also on 44 he says: The statute reads more naturally as a command to buy insurance than as a tax, and I would uphold it as a command if the Constitution allowed it. Well, that is the point I guess, that is really strange in an opinion because that's in a paragraph marked Capital D that starts with: Justice Ginsberg questions the necessity of rejecting the government's commerce power. You never put that in, you're not supposed to. In good writing of judicial opinions, you don't put that in a majority opinion. You don't attack another co-majority signer, and yet he does that a few times in his majority opinion. But then to add first person, the first person pronoun ``I'' and then follow that with a conditional future tense verb ``would'' uphold it as a command if the Constitution allowed it, why is that there? That looks like that should have been part of a dissenting opinion, not, for heaven's sake, the majority opinion by one of the smartest lawyers in the country. He sacrificed not only his intellectual consistency, he sacrificed his intellectual ability to write as one of the best writers we ever had. It's really tragic. But the statute reads more naturally as a command to buy insurance. I would have allowed it. It makes no sense there in that context. One other quote we have down here, it's found at page 57. He says: We are confident that Congress would have wanted to preserve the rest of the Act. He knows that's not true. He knows that the House version of ObamaCare had the severability clause. And the severability clause, every good lawyer, even every bad lawyer knows, if you want the whole document to be preserved, even if one line is struck out, you better put that Mother Hubbard clause in there so that it's all protected. You lose one line, you don't lose the whole document. And that was in the House version, but the Senate chose to strike it out. They didn't want it in there to say, if any of these parts get struck down by the Court, it all has to fall. They didn't want that. They wanted the bill without the severability clause because if anything got struck, everything had to go. That's the way they looked at it. In fact, that debate was even made. If we don't get this part, we don't get that part, then there's no sense even having any of it. Well, it's pretty tragic, pretty tragic. But there's been so much sacrifice. I'm very grateful to Justice Kennedy, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito for maintaining their consistency. The dissent is very well-written, very consistent. They not only didn't sacrifice their intellectual integrity, they did not compromise their writing ability. It's a dangerous time, and now we know, because of this Supreme Court decision, talking to my friend, Allen West this morning, he brought this up. I didn't know he'd brought it up already in an interview. But since we now know that bringing down the cost of government function is a legitimate interest that justifies intrusive legislation, and you can now have a tax on people if they don't participate, then we know everywhere that concealed guns have been made legal, the crime rates have gone down. When the crime rates go down, the costs go down. So we need a bill that will require everybody in America to buy a gun, and if you don't, you'll be taxed. And this Supreme Court, in their intellectual lack of integrity, will sustain that bill. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. It's always an honor to speak before the House of Representatives, a great storied history here, just as the Supreme Court has a great storied history. There's some moments in time with regard to the United States Supreme Court which show it to have consisted of a bastion of strong-willed, determined, principled, constitutionally minded Justices. There are other times when the Supreme Court has shown itself to consist of some great judges and some who are more interested in politics, more interested in feathering their friends' nests than they are in doing what was right under the Constitution, even though it was easy enough for them to rationalize that, gee, if they did what helped their friends, then obviously that would make it better for the whole country. I think we get some of that rationalization from this administration. Gee, if they just throw billions or hundreds of billions of dollars at friends, then their friends will do better. And if their friends are doing better, surely the rest of the country would. We have also found that to be true with regard to things like Solyndra and the massive number of other cronies of the administration that have received hundreds of billions of dollars over time and also at a time when this country is sorely hurting from overspending and running up debt. In fact, today we had a bill regarding transportation and a conference report. I know my friend John Mica from Florida worked exceedingly hard, as had other members of Transportation, trying to reach an agreement with the conference report. It looked like the Senate got the better end of the deal. But I know these people, I know their hearts, and I know they try to do what is right for America when it comes to Chairman Mica and those who are assisting him. But, nonetheless, we heard our friends across the aisle over and over today talk about how critically important infrastructure is, how we ought to be spending money, and how just $1 billion added to the transportation budget could really make a tremendous difference. I hearken back to a year-and-a-half ago when the President of the United States, Barack Obama, had told people that if you will give me basically a trillion--whether it's $800 billion, $900 billion, apparently it looked more like a trillion dollars by the time it was finished--you just hand me over a trillion bucks and we'll get this economy going. If you don't give it to me, then it will turn out that we may see as high as 8.5 percent unemployment. But if you do give it to me, we'll never see 8. Of course, he was wrong that we would never see 8 percent unemployment. We've gone for many months--I guess that was 3\1/2\ years ago now--that he was telling us about his big stimulus. How quickly time flies. As the transportation proponents were pushing their bill today and talking about what the good infrastructure will do, many of us believed that was true back in January of 2009, that it would be good. If we're going to spend money on anything, spend it on the things that we really need to do: bridges, roads, all these things that need construction, need renovation. So the President sold America largely on his stimulus because we're going to fix all the infrastructure in America. But the last 3\1/2\ years have borne out that the President did not spend $800 billion, $900 billion on infrastructure. He spent maybe 6 percent of the largest giveaway in American history. He surpassed the terrible mistake that TARP was--$700 billion. And we haven't been able to get an exact number, but of the $700 billion, it may be $450 billion-or-so that his administration inherited. So when you get the $800 billion, $900 billion, trillion-dollar stimulus giveaway--porkulus, as some called it--and you combine that with $400 billion, $450 billion, $500 billion that he was able to inherit from the TARP fund, you think maybe a trillion and a trillion-and-a-half dollars he had to give away. And we hear debate over what difference $1 billion would make. He was talking about a thousand times that for infrastructure. And he spent a tiny fraction on infrastructure, preferring instead to have massive grants and giveaways to programs that were his cronies, his pets, that are now producing no dividends and in fact are increasing further debt. So we hear those things, how wonderful infrastructure would be, and yet we know when we as a Congress provided this administration with massive amounts of money for infrastructure, they diverted it. They did more damage to the country than they did good. And we look at the people that this President has surrounded himself with. He had a Solicitor General named Elena Kagan. The Solicitor General's job is to assist the White House, assist the administration with potential legislation that may come to litigation, assist them with litigation. As I know from working 30 years ago in the private sector, you can't advise people about existing litigation and do your job without advising them about the way to avoid future litigation problems that you run into. So we know that the biggest legislative agenda item for this administration was the complete takeover of health care. And as most thinking people would understand, if you could control all health care, you can pretty well control all people. You get to decide who gets what treatments, who can have a new hip, who can have a new knee, who can have radiation therapy, who can have the surgery. And as one secretary in my hometown pointed out, her mother acquired breast cancer in England, and since the English Government's wonderful health care system decided how long you had to wait before you could get to have diagnostic tests done, before you could have therapeutic activity occur, her mother didn't get the diagnostic tests in time to find out she had it for sure, didn't get the surgery in time, didn't get the treatment in time and she said, My mother died of breast cancer because she lived in England and the government was in charge of health care. She said I have been found to have cancer since I've been here in the U.S., and because the government was not in charge of my health care, I got it diagnosed in time. I got treatment in time. I didn't have to live by any preconceived requirements of the government. So I'm alive because I was in America. My mother is dead because her health care was in England. Some think the great panacea is government being charged with health care. We've heard over and over again that this is for the good of the children. At this point I would be delighted to yield to my friend from Michigan. United Way Celebrates 125 Years

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I sure do appreciate my friend from Georgia. He is an absolute patriot, standing for truth, justice, and what used to be the American way. It is, according to the Supreme Court, not so much anymore. And I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. I've been going through this decision, and having been an attorney-- and I've been a prosecutor and a judge and a chief justice. It was a small, three-judge court, but you learn things--you go to judicial conferences--about how to write opinions and things, never to the level of the United States Supreme Court. But as a certified member of the United States Supreme Court Bar, you follow the holdings of the courts. So it's been with great interest, after I got my wind back from having found that Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion for the five- person majority, okay, so we start going through the opinion. Let's see how in the world he came to this conclusion. Well, I'll be very brief in jumping through, even though it's a very long opinion, including the dissents. But the first thing that the Court had to consider is the Anti-Injunction Act that was passed by Congress years ago that makes very clear that the Supreme Court cannot take up any issue regarding a tax unless the tax has actually been levied and someone required to pay the tax, and then someone against whom the tax has been levied--required to pay that tax--files suit, that person then has standing. Well, under ObamaCare, if the mandate is a tax, the penalty is a tax, then the Anti-Injunction Act would kick in and no one would be allowed to have standing before the Federal district court, court of appeals, and certainly not the U.S. Supreme Court. So the first thing the Supreme Court had to get past was the issue of: Is this penalty a tax? Because if it's a tax, then the Supreme Court must throw this case out, announce that the plaintiffs in these cases have no standing--and will not until around 2014--until such time as the tax is levied. So the Court goes through, and if anybody prints out the decision, you can look at pages 11 through 15 specifically where they discuss the Anti-Injunction Act. They point out just, in essence, what I have hopefully clarified: If it's a penalty, then the Court can take it up. If the penalty that you must pay for not buying the insurance is a tax, then this case goes out, no Supreme Court decision for at least 2 to 4 years. So Chief Justice Roberts--brilliant man, there's no question he's a very brilliant intellectual--he indicates this and says: Congress's decision to label this exaction a penalty rather than a tax is significant because the Affordable Care Act describes many other exactions it creates that are taxes. And he says this: Where Congress uses certain language in one part of a statute and different language in another, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally. So he goes on and he says: The Anti-Injunction Act and the Affordable Care Act are creatures of Congress' own creation. How they relate to each other is up to Congress, and the best evidence--the Supreme Court's words, Justice Roberts' words--the best evidence of Congress' intent is the statutory language, the statutory text. So he goes on to conclude that since Congress says in ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act--boy, is that a misnomer, the Affordable Care Act-- since Congress calls it a penalty, then Justice Roberts and the majority say it's not a tax; it is a penalty. So around page 15 or so, 15, 16, they come around and say--I guess, 15, okay: Congress made clear that the penalty is what it is--not a tax. Therefore, the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply, so our Court has jurisdiction. As he says, the Anti-Injunction Act, therefore, does not apply to this suit since it's a penalty and not a tax. Therefore, as he says, we may proceed to the merits. Okay. So he clears it's a penalty; it's not a tax. Because if it's a tax, they can't do anything; they've got to throw it out. Okay. So it's a penalty, not a tax. So then he goes on, after page 16, he goes on in the majority opinion to discuss this issue of whether or not it violates the Commerce Clause, this penalty. He comes to the proper conclusion that if Congress can mandate a penalty for not buying a product, there's nothing to stop Congress from intruding in every area of individual Americans' lives. It's mentioned in this opinion that the main purpose--one of the two main purposes is to bring down the cost of health care. The Supreme Court thinks that's a legitimate reason to pass an act, bring down the cost of health care. But Justice Roberts and the majority decide it would violate the Commerce Clause, because if you can force individual Americans to buy a particular product in order to bring down the cost of health care, you can order anything. You and I can be ordered to join a gym and to start exercising X number of hours a week. We're told that the Federal Government does not monitor debit card and credit card purchases--although, supposedly it could. Well, if it has a duty to bring down health care costs and it has the ability to watch your purchases, and, under ObamaCare, the Federal Government, through their relationship with General Electric--sweetheart deal they did with GE--they're going to hold everybody's medical records. So if they're holding everybody's medical records, then I don't know why they wouldn't go ahead and monitor everybody's cholesterol rate, blood pressure, things like that. And so it could conceivably get to the point where, gee, you get a letter from the government that says, we notice your cholesterol rate's up to 250 or so and we notice you bought bacon this weekend. What were you thinking? You know, you've got to take that back. You can't keep bacon. Anyway, there's no limit to what Congress can do to intrude in people's lives. And I'd point out to my friend from Georgia, liberals are constantly on the protection of bedroom privacy rights. I really thought that once they fully examined the potential effect of ObamaCare, they would be standing down here with you and me and my other friends hear, Louisiana, Georgia, they'd be out here saying, wait a minute. If the government has the right to order us to do or not do acts or buy or not buy products for the sole purpose of bringing down the costs of health care, there are studies that say some certain relational activities create more risk for health care problems than others, so if this is true, the Federal Government would have the right not only to invade the kitchen and the bathroom, but head straight to the bedroom and dictate people's rights. I didn't want to go there, and I felt like once we found out that Chief Justice Roberts makes clear, this is a penalty, not a tax, it violates the Commerce Clause to force people to buy a product like this, you would think that would be the end of it. But then Chief Justice Roberts goes on, and it doesn't make sense because then he begins to say, well, it violates the Commerce Clause, but does it violate the Tax-and-Spend Clause? And then he goes through and makes a case for saying, it's not a penalty, it's a tax. And he's already told us that the best way to tell what it is is to look what Congress called it. And I think, in this case, not only look what Congress called it, look at what the President called it. I just happen to have a partial excerpt or an excerpt from the transcript of a show the President did with his friend, George Stephanopolous. And Stephanopolous is asking him about it and said, you know, under this mandate, the government's forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax? Well, President Obama goes on and he lays out all this weak gibberish, and eventually gets--Stephanopolous interrupts him and says, okay, that may be, but it's still a tax increase. And the President said, that's not true, George. For us to say that you've got to take responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. The President also says, nobody considers that a tax increase. He's not done making clear the will of the Congress and of the President, who pushed this bill to make it his shining bill that he had passed through Congress. Stephanopolous goes on and says, I want to check for myself, but your critics say it's a tax increase. President Obama says, my critics say everything is a tax increase. Stephanopolous: But you reject that it's a tax increase. President Obama says, I absolutely reject that notion. Not a tax increase. So you would think that if Chief Justice Roberts and the majority, the other four, are going to uphold the President's prize bill, he might accept what the President said he's done in this bill. But oh, no. After finding that it's not a tax, it's a penalty, then Chief Justice Roberts comes over to page 39 and he says, the joint dissenters argue that we cannot uphold section 5000(a) as a tax because Congress did not ``frame it'' as such. And then he goes on and he says, labels should not control here. What? He just said before, Congress' own expressed written intent is the best evidence of what their intent is. And yet, now he comes over here, page 39 and says, wait, wait, wait. We have to look at what the intent is, but labels should not control. So then he goes through and makes this ridiculous argument that it is a tax. And he says over here, page 44, the Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may be reasonably considered as a tax because the Constitution permits such tax. It's not our role to forbid it or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness. But then, one of the big mysteries in this brilliant man's opinion for the majority uses the first person pronoun, I. Now, you know, anybody that's been a judge, normally you go to judicial conferences, you have seminars, you have training in writing style. If it's an individual judge, sole court opinion, then you'll write it one way. If it's a multiple justice opinion you write it another way. You see first person pronoun I in dissents, even though it's really not the best grammar to use pronouns in dissents. But you don't see them in well-written majority opinions. And Chief Justice Roberts is one of the best linguists we've had on the Court. And he takes Justice Ginsberg to task a few different places in the majority opinion, and yet, she is one of his voting justices to support the majority. That doesn't make sense. You don't normally see one justice writing the majority opinion take off and criticize someone who's voting with him. That doesn't make sense. But here at page 44 he says, Justice Ginsberg questions the necessity of rejecting the government's commerce power argument, given that section 5000(a) can be upheld under the taxing power. He says, Chief Justice Roberts, majority opinion, but the statute reads more naturally as a command to buy insurance than as a tax. So now he's back to what he originally said before he says it is a tax. And then he says this: And I, Chief Justice Roberts, would uphold it, talking basically of future perfect tense. I would uphold it as a command if the Constitution allowed it. I would uphold it. He's writing for the majority. There's no reason for him to have the first person pronoun ``I'' there. It doesn't make sense. I don't know. Maybe this part he was writing as a dissent, and all of a sudden found himself in the majority, and amazingly, nobody caught this problem of style in writing the opinion. It doesn't make sense that a man that smart would have a product this poor, using first person, criticizing another justice in the majority with him, then saying what he would do. Well, he is doing, he's writing the majority opinion. He has no business saying that. And then he goes through, it says the States also can end Medicaid, expansion exceeds authority under the spending clause. But basically he comes back and upholds it, and then strikes down that you can't force the States to do these things. But, I remind my friends, the President says it's absolutely not a tax. The only way this bill gets upheld is if the Supreme Court finds it is a tax after they find jurisdiction by saying it's not a tax. But this is the same President who said, if you like your health insurance, you're going to keep it. He said, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. We found those were lies. He said, it's going to bring down the cost of health care. In every indication we've seen, insurance has dramatically gone up. And I get tired of hearing people say, because their memories are poor in here across the aisle, well, look at the good things in here. Twenty-six year olds can be on their own parents' insurance. Gee, you can buy insurance across State lines because of us. We've taken care of the unfairness that some insurance used with preexisting conditions as an exclusion. But I would encourage my friends, I know my colleagues here remember, back when they had the House, they had the Senate majority, they had the White House, Republicans, many of us begged them, let us do some bipartisan bills together because we can agree. It's not a problem to let 26-year olds stay on your parents' insurance. Heck, the insurance companies love that because they are usually healthy. It's not a big cost. So we were going to be able to agree on that. It was a Republican, heck, John Shadegg is the first one I ever heard saying you've got to sell insurance across State lines. That was a Republican idea, so of course most of us supported that. As for the preexisting conditions, most of us are aware of circumstances in which insurance companies have been grossly unfair in using that exclusion. We were prepared to reach some agreements and have bipartisan, standalone bills. I know that my friend Dr. Price out here had some concern about health care, his having devoted his life to it before government, trying to fix what government had done to health care. People have been concerned about it. We were willing to agree on these things, but they would not have it. So to say without ObamaCare we don't have these other things is simply not true, and it forgets current history. We were ready to agree on standalone bills. They didn't want a bipartisan agreement. They wanted the whole brass ring and to shove it around our heads, around our necks, and eventually down our throats, and that is what has happened. I've been amazed at how many people have picked up laws and started reading them, and I would encourage them to read this opinion. It's a very, very strange opinion. It contradicts itself on so many levels. ObamaCare takes away religious freedom. I'm Baptist. I see what they're doing to the Catholics, and I don't want to someday say, ``I saw what they did to the Catholics, and I remained silent,'' and eventually there was nobody to object when they did it to me. We all have to stand together, and I'm grateful to stand with my friends. One other comment. I heard my Democrat friends before we spoke say, without this ObamaCare bill, these clinics will die. There have been clinics before the ObamaCare bill that helped. We have some in my district, and they're doing wonderful work. They need more help. The best are, really, charitable institutions. The clinics are not going to die. What came from the President's mouth and was also in his town hall was when a woman in the White House, as part of the town hall, said, Mr. President, at an advanced age, my mother got a pacemaker. If the doctor had not met her, the cardiologist was not going to let her have a pacemaker. After he met her, he said, absolutely, and she has lived years beyond that since she has had a pacemaker. So would you consider someone's quality of life under your panels--we know they don't want to call them ``death panels,'' but whatever you want to call them--will they be able to consider the quality of life that people have before they agree or disagree to let them have a procedure? The President beat around the bush as he did with Stephanopoulos--and you can find the transcript. It's available on the Net--and ultimately said, You know, maybe we're just better off telling your mother to take a pain pill. You don't get a pacemaker. You don't get these additional years of life. You get a pain pill. So, when our friends across the aisle tonight say that the clinics will die, I would humbly submit that, based on the President's own words, it's not the clinics that will die under this bill. I thank you so much for your generous yielding of so much time. It's a bad opinion, and I appreciate having the time to walk through some of it.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my friend from Texas. We do have some disagreements, but I want to go back to the issue of jobs. People are hurting. Without jobs, the unemployment has been higher than the President said it would ever get if we would just simply give him about a trillion dollars to give away to his friends, that that would make it all better. Well, it didn't. What we've seen over and over from this administration is a complete disregard for the rule of law. When you look at all the people who have been drawn into this country illegally, in violation of our immigration laws--even though there is no country in the world that allows the immigration that this country does and the wide open gates that we do. But we do have parameters. We've been told there may be a billion, billion and a half people who want to come to this country. If they did all at once, they would overwhelm us, and there would be no country for others to come to. Why do so many want to come here? It's because we've always had regard for the rule of law. When there were those who would ignore the rule of law and put partisan and personal benefit above the law, eventually they had to account. Some have gotten away, but this country has done a better job of being fair across the board than any other country in history. That's why so many want to come here, because we've had more jobs, a better economy, and made more advancements than any country in history. Yet, on the issue of immigration, this President stands up and announces we're going to ignore the law, just as he did on marriage. There is a proper law that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, enacted by Congress, upheld, and he says we're going to ignore that because we don't like it. There goes the rule of law. When it comes to ObamaCare, we've passed this law. But you know what? So many of the people that pushed this through and rammed it down the throats of America, they're asking for waivers and they're good friends, so we're going to give them waivers so they can ignore the rule of law. How about the auto bailout? Ignored. The bankruptcy law? It ignored the Constitution and took away dealerships and gave them to others. This was a place where the rule of law was completely ignored. Then this President stands up and says: Not only are we going to ignore the rule of law, duly passed law, but as I speak, I will create law. I now speak into effect new work visas and work permits that have never existed. But just as the ancient pharaohs or the leaders of the ancient world, as I speak, so it must be. I'm speaking into effect new work permits. I'm speaking into effect an ignoring of the laws that were duly passed. I'm speaking into effect a chance to give them jobs that Americans are hurting and trying to get. We also have an Attorney General who was not only asked about Fast and Furious, he was asked about Justice Kagan on the Supreme Court: Are you aware of any instances during Justice Kagan's tenure as Solicitor General of the United States in which information related to patient protection and affordable care and/or litigation related thereto was related or provided? He refused to answer. When did your staff begin removing Solicitor General Kagan from meetings in this matter? On what basis did you take this action? On what other matters was such action taken? Look, the rule of law required that when it turned out there were possibly thousands of abuses of the national security letter in a Republican administration, I picked up the phone, called the chief of staff of my President, and said, This is unforgivable. We need a new Attorney General. Where is my friend across the aisle who will step up and say, the rule of law is too important? We have Justice Kagan, who is ignoring law 28 U.S.C. 455 that says, You must disqualify yourself in any case in which your impartiality might reasonably be questioned. It must be reasonably expected that either she ignored the law, did not do her job as Solicitor General, was totally negligent, or she did her job, and she should not have sat on this case. She should have disqualified. I beg and plead for my colleagues across the aisle to step up, as I did when the Attorney General was responsible for presiding over an injustice, and call for her resignation. It is contemptuous of Congress.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is with enormous pride that I recognize and congratulate the Hudson Lady Hornets on an amazing 2012 softball season in which they captured the Texas State Class 3A Softball Championship. These tenacious Lady Hornets have reached the pinnacle of success in Texas softball with their first state championship. The Lady Hornets demonstrated just how powerful they were as a team, playing as one well-tuned machine. The final game saw the Hudson Lady Hornets defeat an outstanding Henderson Lady Lions team with an 8-4 win. The championship game showed the strength of each team as they both played scoreless for the first half of the game. They then unloaded the sticks and went at it in the final innings. Henderson represented themselves very well, but Hudson came out triumphant as an outstanding example of a great east Texas Champion. There is no doubt that player, coach, and supporting person involved with the success of the Lady Hornets was inspired to experience the amazing outcome when they give absolutely all the effort that have to their team and to achieve a mutual goal. Clearly a team does not get to such a level of excellence without a coaching staff that knows its players, what they can accomplish and just how far they can be pushed. This tribute goes out to all of the athletic staff including Coach Jimmy Eby, and Assistant Coaches Wes Capps and Amanda Malone. The team members achieving this memorable accomplishment included Freshmen Madison Jeffrey, Adrianna Mosley, Bryli Lee and Marie Mireles; Sophomores Kaylee Parker, Ashley Davis and Madison Selman; Juniors Cassidy Brasuell, Alyssa Dotson, Kayla Caldwell and Kelsee Selman; and Seniors Lauren Gilcrease, Kelsey Moulder, Elizabeth Pierce, Marlee Guidry, and Jade Havard. No athletic team ever becomes a champion without unwavering support, and that is exactly what the Lady Hornets experienced from the Hudson Independent School District staff and the entire community. That is why congratulations go to all who contributed in any way to the success of the Lady Hornets during the 2012 season. Throughout the season, they were empowered by the scripture as revealed in Philippians 4:13 which reads, ``I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.'' May God continue to bless all of their efforts both in school and as they one day finish high school and use that same drive and determination to make this country even stronger. Congratulations to the State Champion Hudson Lady Hornets, as their legacy is now recorded in the Congressional Record that will endure as long as there is a United States of America.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it's always an honor to speak here on the House floor, and there's been a lot of interesting attention that's been given to an issue of whether or not the Obama administration supports Israel, doesn't support Israel, is more supportive of its enemies, and apparently, according to an article in the Weekly Standard this week, May 30, 2012, by Daniel Halper, and I'm quoting from the article here, it says: ``Obama stressed he probably knows about Judaism more than any other President because he read about it,'' Haaretz reports. ``He wondered how come no one asks Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner or Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell about their support to Israel.'' Similarly, he said to the group, ``I am not going to tell you again how I even feel about Israel, but why are we still talking about it?'' He then suggested that he should not be questioned about his commitment to the Jewish state because ``all his friends in Chicago were Jewish.'' I think there's a lot to be learned when we read people's comments or learn of people's comments that were not scripted, that were said just off the top of the head. Nobody put it in the teleprompter. It's not somebody else's words; it's words directly from the individual in question. So I've got to say, you know, the President says all his friends in Chicago were Jewish. I learned a lot from that. I didn't know that Jeremiah Wright was Jewish. I mean, I meet people all the time and it never crosses my mind, you know, what descent is this person. So it's fascinating for me to find out from the President that apparently Jeremiah Wright was Jewish; Tony Rezko that got the lot right next to the President and got them a sweetheart deal of some kind, that real estate deal, even though Rezko's gone to prison, I didn't know Tony Rezko was Jewish. And Bill Ayers who unashamedly blew up a bomb hoping that he would kill people back in the seventies, the man that gave Barack Obama his first fund-raiser at his home, I didn't know what lineage Bill Ayers was, but according to the President's comment, all his friends in Chicago were Jewish. Apparently Bill Ayers must have been Jewish as well. So it's interesting to find out about people's friends and who they are and what their background really is. My background, having been at one time early on a prosecutor--I've been a judge, I've been a chief justice. It helps me, some of us that are a little slower, to work through and plod through material methodically. It helps me to make a chart. I know, having collected the notes of jurors after they had heard long cases--I guess the longest case I tried was about 10 weeks long, a murder case, as a judge. But it was always interesting to read notes that jurors had left. So, often they would take evidence and they would make notes of evidence and try to decide what category that evidence fit into--did it support what the prosecution was saying, since they had the burden of proof, or did it support a defense contention or an affirmative defense, that kind of thing? So I found this week, since I read that article about the President's defensiveness, that it would be interesting to take and just run through some evidence so that we could try to decide, since the President says he's not even going to comment how he feels about Israel anymore, I think it would be helpful to go through and look at the evidence and decide whether it supports the notion that the President is very pro-Israel or that he's not. When the President said that he wondered why no one asked Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner about his support for Israel, well, I know that Speaker Boehner and I have had some rather profound disagreements--and that, I'm sure, will continue--but when it came to the issue of Israel, I couldn't come up with anything that indicated any lack of complete support for the Nation of Israel. In fact, 2 years ago, I started pushing to get Prime Minister Netanyahu invited to address a joint session of Congress here in this very Hall. I know when I approached Speaker Pelosi about it--this was June of 2010--she thought it was a nice idea but there just wasn't going to be time to get that done before the end of the year, we just had so much on our plate. And I think we did have a lot of courthouses we hadn't named yet, so we got those done. Then, when the Republicans took the majority in 2011, I redid a letter and got lots of Republicans to sign on. The Speaker asked Prime Minister Netanyahu to come and address the House here, and as best I understand it, got the majority leader down the hall, Harry Reid, to go in on it so that it would be a joint session. So all the evidence indicates complete support by Speaker Boehner for Israel. I really haven't been able to find anything to the contrary. But, again, since the President says he's not going to comment anymore about how he feels about Israel, I thought it would be good-- and it sure helps me--to go through and just chart out evidence and which notion it supports. So I went through, and we took points from stories--whether on television, in the news media, on the Internet-- that appeared to have a good basis for being factual and just decided to chart out: Is this evidence that President Obama is for or against Israel? Does he love Israel or does he love Israel not? We know that back in 2011, most of us heard the comments--apparently they didn't know that microphone was live--when Prime Minister Netanyahu came up in the comments by President Sarkozy of France, when he made a comment something about what a problem Netanyahu was, and President Obama made comments to the effect that, Oh, yeah, well, I have to deal with him every day. It was clearly belittling of Prime Minister Netanyahu. I know people that heard the comment thought, Ooh, if you're Prime Minister Netanyahu, that's got to hurt to hear the guy that you may talk to quite a bit agreeing with another leader that Netanyahu is just a real pain to deal with. So it really doesn't show a love for Israel really. That was more of a loves Israel not. Then, the comments in 2011, when Prime Minister Netanyahu last year was on his way, coming to the United States--he was going to speak to an AIPAC convention here--and it seemed to be rather short notice. The President hurriedly consulted with people that he trusted. Imam Magid, who is president of the Islamic Society of North America. Of course, they are a named coconspirator in the Holy Land Foundation prosecution for supporting terrorism. ISNA, Islamic Society of North America, he's the president of that organization. And we heard on the news that Imam Magid had been consulted. In fact, Imam Magid, the president of this coconspirator supporting terrorism, was even invited to the inner sanctum of the State Department to hear the speech that he had apparently, according to sources, had helped give advice to President Obama on. So, during his comments, President Obama says that Israel should return to its 1967 borders. And people that are familiar with Israel and know the history of that area, including going back to 1000 or so B.C. when King David was the ruler in that land--1,500, 1,600 years or so before a man named Muhammad came to Earth. Anyway, he's suggesting that Israel, in those comments, should return to those borders, which military people indicate make Israel indefensible. That's why they were so subject to attack in 1967. So that really was not a comment suggestive of a love for Israel. That's really more of a loves Israel not. Then the Obama administration, they have wholly failed to condemn any of the Palestinians' building of illegal settlements. Here the Palestinians keep building and building in areas they're not authorized, that are illegal settlements being built, and we hear not one single word from the Obama administration about the illegal settlements being constructed by Palestinians. That also included his criticism of Israeli housing plans for East Jerusalem. So that's really a loves Israel not on that one as well. You've got the Obama administration's decision to eradicate missile defense programs that would have helped Israel. There are articles and information about that. Obviously, since it didn't help Israel to have eradicated missile defense programs that would have helped Israel, despite some that would, that actually is an act that indicates loves Israel not. Now, I think it was a wonderful thing that Prime Minister Netanyahu, in 2010, was invited to the White House. That was a great thing, very good of the President to invite him. But all of the reference to that visit seemed to make very clear that when the President intentionally snubbed the Prime Minister who had traveled all this way to meet with the President, and he was left waiting for an hour or so while the President went off with his family--they knew that Prime Minister Netanyahu was coming, he came by invitation, and yet the President created an intentional snub, unless his staff, of course, is so incompetent they didn't let him know that the leader of our dear ally Israel was waiting in the White House to visit. But anyway, he went and dined with his family. Also, it was considered by most who know about internal relations to be quite a snub that, although the President's been pictured with all kinds of folks in the Middle East that would just as soon Israel be eliminated from the map, to refuse to have a picture with him, which was the norm, really was an indication of loves Israel not. Now, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the Obama administration planned to send $147 million to the West Bank and to the Hamas-run Gaza Strip. Well, Congress had made very clear, since we have the purse strings under the Constitution, that there should not be money being sent to any organization that is supportive of terrorism. Hamas is a named organization that supports terrorism. And yet, this administration has decided to send a group who has made very clear they want to see Israel eliminated, wiped off the map--sending them $147 million is not really evidence of a love for Israel, so that would go in that category. Over here, you also have President Obama stating that all his friends in Chicago were Jewish, and that he was sometimes accused of being a Jewish puppet. Well, for those people who accused the President, according to the President only, of being a Jewish puppet, and that always his friends in Chicago were Jewish, well, that is some indication of a love for the Jewish Nation of Israel. The President's administration though, earlier this year, leaked to The Washington Post of the time window in which Israel would take out Iran's nuclear program. Well, any ally is supposed to know that if you go leaking information, putting it out there in public, that damages an effort of your close ally to defend itself, that's not a good thing. It's not a sign of love and affection for an ally when you leak information that would prevent or harm the efforts of that ally in defending itself. So that was not a good indication of a love for Israel; more of a ``Loves Israel Not.'' And then also, the Obama administration had a leak to the media that Israel was going to use the Azerbaijan airspace to take out Iran's nuclear program. Well, if that's the kind of thing you do for friends, America's not going to have a lot of friends for very long because our friends will know, wow, Israel is said to be one of America's closest allies, and yet they're leaking information about private deals that their so-called ally has made to try to defend themselves. That surely would fall into the category of ``Loves Israel Not.'' And then also, you have the immense pressure that was placed by this administration on Israel not to defend itself without the United States' permission. Does a friend really do that? I thought we believed in the sovereignty of our friends, our nation friends, so they could make their own decisions about self-defense. I thought that's the case. And yet, we keep hearing reports, reading reports about pressure by this administration on Israel not to take action to defend itself. So that's really in that category as well, ``Loves Israel Not.'' Then also, the Obama administration has never rejected or condemned the racist, hateful teachings about Jewish people going on in the Palestinian schools in the Middle East, and in some Muslim schools here in the United States. No condemnation or rejection at all could be found anywhere. And yet, anyone that cares to see the kind of hateful, biased, nasty things that are being said about Jewish and Israeli people just need let our office know. There are people in Israel, there are Web sites that can provide that information. They've gotten copies of textbooks. There are commercials that are run. There are great events that Palestinian areas, in fact-- that are even named for Palestinian terrorists, Islamic jihadists that blew themselves up and killed a lot of Israelis. And yet, we have no condemnation from this administration of any of that type activity. Israel, of course is repeatedly warned by this administration to be nicer to the Palestinians, and we can't find any evidence that this administration has ever warned the Palestinians, quit inciting hatred in your children for Jewish or Israeli people. And the list goes on, helping us assess the evidence of whether President Obama is for or really against Israel. Since his comment this week, he's not going to tell us any more how he feels about Israel. We'll just look at the evidence. Continuing, we remember not long after President Obama came into office he traveled to Turkey, to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, apologized to them on behalf of the United States. Somebody uses really good word choices, a beautiful group of words about the United States being divisive and dismissive. Anyway, really nice words in what many dubbed as the apology tour. That really was not a strong sign of love and affection for Israel. And then we have the fact that this President, although he went on an apology tour all around our so-called ally, Israel, he never actually went to Israel. I don't know, you can't blame him. Maybe he'd be concerned that Prime Minister Netanyahu would leave him sitting around twiddling his thumbs while Prime Minister Netanyahu went and had dinner with his family. But I've met with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I'm not anybody, and yet he took time and was very punctual in his meeting, so I really don't think the President should have to worry that Prime Minister Netanyahu might try to snub him the same way. I think President Obama would find Prime Minister Netanyahu to be very congenial, as he normally is. Although again, we go back to the President's comments when he didn't know the mic was open indicating he didn't have a lot of love for having to deal with Prime Minister Netanyahu every day. So as for now, until we actually have a visit from President Obama to Israel, that really has to go into the ``Loves Israel Not'' category. And then of course, we have the Obama administration's support for the Muslim Brotherhood's rise to power in Egypt. This administration was encouraging Mubarak to step down, get out of the way, and actually made quite interesting quotes about the radical Islamist protesters in Egypt. But anyway, they supported the Muslim Brotherhood's rise to power in Egypt and have reached out in numerous ways to the Muslim Brotherhood, thinking that this may really be a good thing, indicating a great thing for the Middle East. Well, it may be a good thing for the Muslim Brotherhood, but we have the documentation, the quotes are easily accessible, about what the Muslim Brotherhood truly stands for, and they want to see Israel gone. So some would say, well, it's a good thing when any administration reaches out to a people. But if that people, if the leaders of a group are demanding that a dear, close, friendly ally be wiped off of the map and have to live under a caliphate, not Judaism, which the President says he knows more about than any other President, apparently--but live under a caliphate, which, of course, as Ahmadinejad believes, the 12th imam, the Mahdi, will be coming back. Anyway, that really wasn't showing a lot of love for Israel. Of course, Israel expressed a great deal of concern. They had concerns about what was going on in Egypt. Mubarak was a problematic man, a problematic leader, but at least he was trying to keep up the agreement, the treaty with Israel. He at least made some pretense that he was trying to protect the Egyptian-Israeli border. Now we have the Muslim Brotherhood, who has no such intention, and it didn't take an intelligence department to advise this administration of that. It certainly should have been clear. Yet, in 2011, President Obama was calling the radical Islamist protesters in Egypt ``an inspiration to people around the world,'' and he stated he supported a new regime in Egypt. Well, you had radical Islamists; you had the Muslim Brotherhood; and as we see in these elections as they go forward, the Muslim Brotherhood is taking charge, and they have no interest in agreeing to the treaties that have long since been made with Israel. Although they have come back and said, Well, we might put it up to a vote, the same people who are voting the Muslim Brotherhood into power, because they know the Muslim Brotherhood wants to see Israel gone, will obviously not be supporting a treaty. So those kinds of comments that put Israel at such extreme risk on their border just cannot be deemed to be an indication of a loves Israel. It's more a loves Israel not. Then we have the fact that, though Syrian leader Assad has been ruthless in killing and abusing his people and has not been helpful to Israel to the extent Egyptian leader Mubarak was, this administration, the Obama administration, has failed to support the Syrian rebels the way it did the Egyptian rebels. That has really been interesting to see how that developed. For example, in Libya, gosh, the President says he didn't need support from Congress because there were people like NATO and the Muslim Brotherhood. There were folks who wanted us to help get rid of Qadhafi. Well, Qadhafi was sure no angel, and he certainly had blood on his hands, but Qadhafi was not a threat to Israel, and this administration militarily--militarily--supported the people who are a threat to Israel, unapologetically. Now, there were some games, some wordsmanship games--wordsmithing went on by this administration-- saying, Look, look, this is really a NATO action. Guess who makes up 60 percent or more of the NATO military. Guess who gives more to NATO than anybody else. It's the United States. So it was a little bit of sleight of hand to say, You know, Libya really is more of a NATO action. It's not really us. It is very clear. This administration has not demanded the ouster of a leader with blood on his hands, who continues to abuse and kill Syrians who want some freedom. This administration hasn't supported those rebels the way they did in Libya and the way the administration called for Mubarak to be gone--forcefully. So that's also a loves Israel not. Then you've got to note that the Obama administration's support for giving Israel's enemies money and weapons has been at the same time Israel has been given assistance. That's not showing a lot of love for Israel, but the Obama administration has supported providing Israel financial aid that they can use to buy U.S. weapons for Israel's defense. Well, now, there's a good one to show some love for Israel. So this administration has shown some love for Israel by pushing to provide them with financial aid to buy U.S. weapons for their own defense. Unfortunately, that comes at the same time the administration keeps supporting Israel's enemies--giving them money, pushing to give them money and weapons--at the same time Israel is getting that same assistance. Then there is one other thing that I think is worthy of note. I believe it was 2 years ago--in May 2 years ago, I believe--that the Obama administration voted with Israel's enemies to require Israel to disclose any and all nuclear capabilities or weapons. Israel is a tiny country in the middle of a number of countries and of hostile peoples that want to see Israel gone, and nobody has made that more clear than Ahmadinejad. It is certainly worthy of note that it was right after this administration parted from decades of tradition of support for Israel--and their very tenuous situation there in the Middle East--that it sided with all of Israel's enemies and voted to require them to disclose all they really had that could protect them. It brought to mind that story from the Old Testament about King Hezekiah and how King Hezekiah was confronted by Isaiah. Those of us who believe what's printed there believe that God sent the prophet to confront Hezekiah, and he basically said, What have you done with these people from Babylon, with these leaders that came over from Babylon? This is a Texas paraphrase, but basically, King Hezekiah said, Oh, I took these Babylonian leaders around, and I showed them all our treasure, and I showed them all the defenses we have in the armory. In essence, Hezekiah was told by Isaiah, You fool. Because you have done this, you're going to lose your country. And he did. Actually, he begged the Lord to let it not be on his watch, and it ends up being under his son's, but that's another story. The point here that came to mind, though, is we were demanding that Israel do what Hezekiah similarly did, which made their country vulnerable and caused them to lose their country--and we voted with Israel's enemies to demand that. This administration did. Congress would never have voted in the majority to do such a thing, but this Obama administration did. It's a dangerous time in the world, and it's time for America not to be stupid. Some have referred to Israel as being the free world's miner's canary, because as people know, in the old days, before sensitive electronic equipment, canaries were taken into mines so that if noxious, poisonous gas began to fill the air, the canary would die before the miners would, and if the canary keeled over dead, the miners would know they've got to get out or they could be next. Our assistance to Israel is as a democracy in the middle of a hostile world, a hostile area, with people who want to see our type of freedom and liberty gone, whose very definition of the word ``freedom'' means freedom to worship under a joint caliphate under shari'a law. But Israel's definition of ``freedom'' is like ours. We should be supporting Israel. We should not be supporting Israel's enemies. Those who have studied history, you know that when a nation's enemies see that nation's strongest ally pulling away from him, that's when their enemies move against them. So was it any surprise that after the Obama administration voted with Israel's enemies to make Israel more vulnerable, that all of a sudden here came a flotilla to challenge the lawful blockade of the Gaza Strip that Israel had to at least try to ensure their own protection? Of course, that was a disastrous and embarrassing time for Israel, but I can't help but believe it goes back to this administration telling Israel's enemies we're standing with you and not with Israel. Yes, this administration has gone back and issued statements to the contrary. But when you look at the evidence, look at the unguarded evidence, look at the leaks, look at the support for whom, it still keeps coming back that even though this President says, I'm not going to answer any more questions about whether or not I support Israel, the evidence is clear. I hope in the ensuing months between now and the next inauguration, that this administration will go out of its way to assure Israel's enemies that despite the overwhelming evidence that Israel is not loved by this administration from past actions and comments, that it will take action if for no other reason than to try to help this administration win some votes that it's been losing. I don't really care what the reason is. I care about supporting our allies, supporting those who stand for liberty, who will allow freedom of worship by Muslims, freedom of worship by Christians, freedom of worship by other groups in Israel that Jews and Christians are not afforded in other countries that this administration keeps sucking up to. The evidence seems pretty clear. It keeps coming back--despite some minor indications to the contrary--that this administration loves Israel not. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it's been quite an interesting day. Apparently it's already been misinterpreted by some in the media. I hope that, though so many publications have had to cut their research budgets and cut their staffing budgets, I hope that those that still are blessed to work for journalistic institutions will do their proper homework and have a better understanding about the Gohmert-Landry- Rigell amendment that passed today and the effect that it has on the underlying NDAA and, more particularly, the Authorization for Use of Military Force that was passed after 9/11 by both houses of Congress. I wasn't here, nor were any of the five cosponsors. Let's see: Mr. Duncan, freshman; Mr. Barletta, freshman. They weren't here, nor were Mr. Landry or Mr. Rigell. So besides me, we had four freshmen on the Gohmert-Landry-Rigell-Duncan-Barletta amendment. I felt compelled to make my amendment to deal with an issue that was raised--not in the National Defense Authorization Act that was passed some months back. Some people failed to understand, really, the NDAA that was passed previously did not give the President the power to indefinitely detain American citizens. And as we understand, a judge has ruled recently that any interpretation that it gave the President that power was unconstitutional. I don't know how that will come out. But I do know that after we were attacked in the worst attack on American soil ever, the country--I recall, I was a judge at the time-- the country was in a great deal of chaos. Planes were ordered not to take off all over the country. Those that were coming in couldn't come in. We had American citizens stranded at airports around the world. But what's worse, we had over 3,000 Americans who were dead, done by people who believed their radical interpretation of Islam dictated that they should go about killing innocent Americans and others who happened to be on American soil at the time. It didn't seem to bother them. Some of them could have even been Muslim. It didn't seem to bother them because they had this sordid belief that they would end up in paradise with dozens of virgins. Thank God most Muslims don't believe that. But the trouble is, there are radical Islamists that do. So the Congress, on September 18--a week after the worst attack on American soil--passed a joint resolution, Public Law 107 40. And it was to be cited, as it says in section 1, as the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force.'' Mr. Speaker, I'm going to go to the trouble to read section 2(a) because sometimes there are reporters who don't do their homework. They think that reporting means, rather than digging through, reading things for yourself, and getting the clear meaning of legislation for yourself, that that's not nearly as effective as lazily asking somebody, What do you think this does? So we get polls; we get surveys; we get opinions. But having been a judge and a chief justice, you didn't do that as a judge. You didn't do that as a justice on an appellate court. You had to look at the law and say, What does it say? And what do other laws, in which this may be in context, cause it to mean? And look at it for yourself. Most of these folks, they're educated, and so I hope they will take a look for themselves. Those that were most concerned months ago that the NDAA gave unbridled power to the President, what really concerned me as a former judge and chief justice was reading section 2(a), authorization for use of the United States Armed Forces. Again, it's hard to fault folks because it was a week after this horrible attack, and we weren't even sure who attacked us and why they attacked us. We had gotten a pretty good idea early on. So one week after September 11, 2001, this joint resolution is passed into law. Section 2(a) says, in general, that the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons. Now as I understand--I haven't read the opinion this week from the district court. The district court is not like it carries the weight of the Supreme Court or even a court of appeals. But Congress really appears to have given the President unbridled, unlimited, indefinite authority to just detain, arrest, do whatever had to be done to protect America from further attacks. And as we know from history, it's after such horrible attacks or incidents in other times in history when there is a temptation to overreact and to give too much power to one body or one person, and later on, when things are calmed down and the people are caught that perpetrated the horrible acts, we realize we lost a lot of our rights, we lost a lot of our powers because we placed them in one person. And this is what this section 2(a) did. That's the way it struck me when I first saw that after I got to Congress. And that was a matter of concern. And it wasn't until the NDAA--I'm not on Armed Services--it wasn't until the NDAA came up that I really started researching and seeing exactly what this said and did. I'm sure Speaker Boehner would be the first to tell people that he and I often do not see eye to eye; but he gave me the assurance that if the NDAA passed, he would let me come back with an amendment that would fix the AUMF so that a President did not have the power--unlimited power indefinitely--to detain American citizens on American soil. So that was the impetus for trying to prepare a proper amendment that would deal with the main problem, the unlimited power of the AUMF, but also dispel concerns that people may have with the National Defense Authorization Act, because that was going to have to be replaced, redone, reauthorized. And I'm glad to say the Speaker kept his word and we were allowed to bring forward a fix. My friend Justin Amash and I have many times in his year-and-a- quarter-or-so of being here have consoled each other as being one of only two, three, four, five who voted for or against a bill. And we're kind of out there by ourselves. So I was not surprised to see that Justin Amash was trying to work on an amendment that would fix this same concern that he and I had. I think his concern--and he can speak more accurately toward this--but I think his concern was more with the NDAA. Mine was more with the AUMF. This grant of power was far too unbridled. It needed restraint. We are blessed here in Congress to have people who have served in so many walks of life. We've been blessed in a number of different ways. And it's great to have such diversity--not just race, creed, religion, gender--but actually differences of opinions and divergent backgrounds. We have a prayer breakfast every Thursday morning on Capitol Hill, and it's really a blessing to hear other Members' stories, Democrats and Republicans. We take turns speaking at prayer breakfasts--one from the Democratic Party, one from the Republican Party--each week. And it is just incredible the way God has moved in lives and taken people, whether it's being a school teacher or being a ditch digger, all kinds of things, to propel them in life and ultimately land them here in Congress. It just happens that I have been blessed not with extraordinary intelligence but with having been around people with extraordinary intelligence, including brilliant people who have tremendous intellect and insight into our Constitution. I never expected to be in Congress. I just liked history and knew I owed the Army 4 years from a scholarship at Texas A&M, and I had the luxury of majoring in history. So I got to study under some incredible historians who gave a different perspective on our Constitution. Rather than a legal perspective, a historical perspective. And brilliant people on policy throughout the history of man. But when one reads this and one does not understand the Constitution and the powers that are granted to Congress under the Constitution, one can get the wrong impression. I have heard friends that I think a tremendous amount of here in Congress who have said such things publicly as ``every American citizen.'' Every person. The Bill of Rights talks about persons. Yes, in some places it does. But they have the idea it refers to persons in every place--it doesn't--every person in America is entitled to go through an article III court. And I appreciate and understand that misinterpretation. But when one reads article III, section 1, what it says is: The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. So the Congress has the authority never to even create a Federal district court. The Congress has the power to eliminate every Federal district court if it so chose. I am very grateful that Congress has not chosen to eliminate every Federal district court. But, nonetheless, the power is there to create or not create Federal district courts. The Supreme Court has even spoken on this issue before and has made clear that the power is entirely in Congress's hands. As my former constitutional law professor, David Guinn at Baylor Law School, used to say, there's only one court in the United States that owes its origin to the Constitution, and that is the Supreme Court. Every other court in the country that is a Federal court or tribunal or commission owes its existence to the Congress. Now, I have tremendous regard for President George W. Bush. He is a brilliant man, despite what some people think and jokes that were made at his expense. He's a brilliant man, and one of the wittiest people that you can be around privately and just a real joy to be around, but he got some bad advice. He had people who were lawyers who told him, Hey, Mr. President, let's just have the executive branch set up a military tribunal and let the military tribunal try terrorists, whether American citizens or whatever. Let's set up tribunals here in the executive branch. Well, they had failed to notice that in article I, section 8 of our Constitution, it says that Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, and it says, ``to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.'' So really, you could arguably have a Federal district court that is set up inferior to the Supreme Court under article I, section 8 just as you could under article III. I know there are some that say, no, those are article III courts. Well, article I, section 8 really seems to indicate you could call them Federal district tribunals. You could establish those inferior courts under the Supreme Court under article I, section 8. Congress is also immediately given the power, shall have the power, it says, ``to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.'' We've got the power to make those rules of anybody who's captured on land or water, the power to create the court. We've got the power, we shall have it, to establish uniform rules of naturalization. We have the power to dictate policy here in Congress by our legislation with regard to immigration. We have the power, under this Constitution, it's been determined over and over again, that we can say to immigrants, legally and illegally in this country, You don't get a hearing in front of a Federal district court. You must go to the court we have set up over here that's inferior to the Supreme Court, but we're calling it an immigration court. In other cases, somebody's broke, we're given the power to set up bankruptcy courts. And it's a sad testimonial for our country that a man that's sometimes referred to as the Revolution's financier--there are actually a few different sources. One was France. One was a Jewish gentleman without whom many say we could not have afforded the Revolution, and another one was a man from Philadelphia named Morris. Morris, if one goes down the hall to the Rotunda and looks up, one of the drawings, one of the paintings that's painted into the plaster, 189 feet up there at the top of the dome, is supposed to be a depiction of Morris with a money bag, depicting him loaning money to the Revolution to keep things going. Mr. Morris ended up, after the Revolution, doing well, worked out great for him. But because things were going so well in the country, it looked like they were going to--he had bought a lot of land and a lot of land in Virginia and up around this area, around where the District of Columbia would ultimately be, and he had gotten overextended and he was broke and he couldn't pay his bills. And so he ended up in a debtors' prison in Philadelphia, a man to whom we owe so much for having a successful Revolution so people, as our Founders said, for truly the first time would actually be able to govern themselves. And a principal financier ends up in debtors' prison in Philadelphia. And yet the Constitution, itself, it said Congress would have the power to create uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States. But it wasn't until after Morris got thrown in debtors' prison and he had been in there for long enough that it destroyed his health, it ruined him as a man, that he ended up believing all was lost, dejected, when someone in Congress realized, wait a minute, our Constitution gives us the power to create bankruptcy courts. Maybe we ought to do that. They created the bankruptcy system, and Mr. Morris was released from jail, but he was in such poor health he never really enjoyed the freedoms that he had financed. There are so many powers in this given to the Congress--creating courts, not creating courts; creating tribunals, not creating tribunals--and that's why, and I know there were friends of mine that were in the Bush administration that disagree with me, but I believe the Supreme Court got it totally right when they told the Bush administration, You don't have the right to create tribunals, to try terrorists; you don't. The Constitution, article I, section 8 says that the Congress shall have the power to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, not the President. That's not in article II under the executive powers. It's not in article III under judiciary power. The power to do that is in article I, section 8--You don't have it. So until Congress comes with military commissions or tribunals, they're not constitutional. And so in 2006, not long after I got here, people prepared, through our Judiciary Committee, prepared the Military Commission Act that was constitutional because Congress did this. My dear friend, and I mean that very sincerely, John Culberson from Houston, Texas, is here on the floor with me. Mr. Speaker, I would yield to Mr. Culberson.

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. And reclaiming my time, let me just say I'm awfully glad we have a conservative person who believes in the 10th Amendment as strongly as I do and States' rights as strongly as I do, and have you on the Appropriations Committee. I mean, what better place for a conservative, limited-Federal-power person to be than on the Appropriations Committee? Thank you. I'm grateful for the work of John Culberson there on our behalf. It is supposed to be a government limited. As I note, the President said previously--talking about that people interpret this Constitution as a bunch of negative powers, things the Congress can't do or the government can't do. We ought to focus on all they can do. Well, I like the fact that all that Congress, all that the Presidency, all that judiciary is supposed to be able to do is specified. Everything else, as my friend Mr. Culberson pointed out, is resolved to the States and the people. Congress has this power to create the courts, Federal courts. States take care of their own State system. It's one of the reasons, though, that I voted against a couple of bills recently, because medical malpractice reform was being dictated from here in Congress for every State in the country. I love what Texas did with medical malpractice reform in its State court system, but it's a State court system. I also know that if the Congress decides we need to start dictating to every State what their State court system can or can't do, then when a far more liberal Congress comes in they will be able to say, Look, you so-called ``conservative'' Republicans dictated to the States what their State tort law should be, so now we're going to dictate to the States what we think it should be, and it ends up being a Federal takeover of something that is entirely a State system. When it comes to the States' tort system, the State court system, it's none of our business unless there is an adequate Federal nexus. That's guided a couple of votes that may have surprised people that I made, but I simply could not support Federal takeover of State tort law. Here is a Supreme Court decision from 1922, never been overruled. In that, the Court said--it's at 260 U.S. 226, Klein v. Burke Construction Company. It says: Only the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is derived directly from the Constitution. Every other court created by the general government derives its jurisdiction wholly from the authority of Congress. That body may give, withhold, or restrict such jurisdiction at its discretion, provided it be not extended beyond the boundaries fixed by the Constitution. That's exactly what the Constitution intended. Congress can create Federal district courts, Federal commissions--whatever, drug court, immigration court, whatever we feel appropriate as an inferior court to the U.S. Supreme Court. We can do it under article I, section 8, or article III. In my amendment, to give people adequate feeling of protection, we wanted to ensure that people's rights would be adequately protected, and no President--whether it would be the prior Republican President, this Democratic President, or the next President--would have the power that should not be his were it not for an overyielding United States Congress. The amendment, the Gohmert-Landry original amendment--originally, the Landry original amendment--just said: Nothing in the authorization for use of military force or in the National Defense Authorization Act shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus. That was what came from the committee. I was very grateful to Jeff Landry and Scott Rigell for allowing me to discuss and negotiate and work with them, but that's what went to committee. I wasn't comfortable that that protected Americans' rights because we still had the provision in the authorized use of military force from September 18, 2001, that said the President still had all this power and he could detain people indefinitely. That is a reasonable interpretation of this AUMF--not the NDAA but the AUMF. That was a reasonable interpretation of the 2001 AUMF. And so to simply say someone would have the right to a writ of habeas corpus in a hearing on that habeas corpus proceeding was not adequate for me to gather back to the American people the rights that should be theirs if it were not for the AUMF. So the proceeding, without further amendment to that language, could have gone like this: An American citizen is ordered detained by the President of the United States. He is taken to military detention; he is placed therein. He would get a writ of habeas corpus hearing--habeas corpus meaning to surrender the body. You've got to bring the body forward. I've had writ of habeas corpus hearings as a judge many times. You have to determine: Is there sufficient evidence more likely than not that this person committed acts that justify the detention and the retaining of his body in that detention? If the courts give proper credence to the 2001 AUMF, then the court would have that hearing and say, okay, there is evidence that makes it more likely than not that this person, the writ applicant, committed acts that authorize the President, under the 2001 act, to place him in indefinite detention in a military facility. So there he would have had his writ hearing, but he's still in indefinite detention in a military facility. In my 4 years in the Army, I became very familiar with those military facilities. So I began checking with constitutional scholars I respected. I even got back with my old con law professor. I started running different language by. How about if we say this? How about if we say that? And others would make suggestions, and we would tweak the language. This has been going on for weeks. Well, let's change this word. Well, what if we add this phrase and that phrase. Well, that doesn't really do it because you've still got this problem. And so it was great talking with people who are really thinking and trying hard to come up with a solution. And the goal that I had, and in talking with Mr. Landry, Mr. Rigell, Mr. Duncan, and Mr. Barletta, the goal is very simple. The authorization for the use of military force from September 18, 2001, gave the President unbridled discretion in confining, detaining American citizens and others. We wanted to put American citizens--we wanted to put people who were lawfully in the United States in the same situation they were in before the unlimited gift of power from the legislative branch to the executive branch. I wasn't here, but I'm sure a week after 9/11, while we were still reeling, and those of us in other places had just been out on our courthouse square, holding hands, singing hymns, praying together, hoping, praying that our country would not be attacked again and so many people's lives lost, destroyed, so many losing hope, crushed to know they'd never see their family member, never even be able to have a legitimate funeral with their loved ones' remains. I'm sure, I know that people meant to do the best they could to protect the country. But 10 years later, 11 years later, almost, we can look back and we could restrain that power once again. So that was the goal. Let's get people back to the position they were in the day before this incredible extension of power to the President was given. So the language that, with the help of others smarter than I, we were able to put together to get us to that day before this incredible grant of power to the President, was that nothing in the Authorized Use of Military Force Act from 2001, nothing in the NDAA from months ago, nothing from the NDAA that we're taking up now, nothing was going to be construed to deny the availability of writ of habeas corpus, which were the Landry/Rigell words. And then here's the additional language: or to deny any constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is lawfully in the United States when detained pursuant to the Authorized Use of Military Force Act. And actually, and we looked at this a number of different ways, a lot of scholars. Just by referencing the Authorized Use of Military Force Act from 2001, it actually includes the subsequent amendment to that AUMF by the NDAA some months back, or the amendment that we voted on today. The NDAA is actually an amendment to the AUMF. Some had asked, Louie, why did you say, deny any constitutional rights in a court ordained or established under Article III constitute for any person--why didn't you just say American citizens? That's who we're most concerned about. And again, I come back to this: I wanted to get back to where we were before this incredible extension of power to the President occurred for people who were lawfully in the United States. I don't have any sympathy for people who may be sneaking across the board as we speak, through tunnels or over fences or through openings in fences or across rivers. I've got no sympathy for people coming in who want to destroy our way of life and are sneaking in illegally to destroy this life we have and the freedoms and liberties we have. So those who are not lawfully in the United States, who are trying to do us harm, killing Americans, destroying people, this is not for them. But for anyone who is lawfully in the United States, we want to return them to the same position of liberty they had before the unbridled extension of power to the President September 18, 2001. To do that, though--there are people who were lawfully here in the United States, not U.S. citizens, but people who were lawfully here, who committed acts, whether of violence or other things, who, before this extension of power to the President in 2001, had no right to go into a Federal district court. They had the right to go to an immigration court, and that's it. No right to go before an Article III court. And so we wanted to make sure that for those people who did not have a right to get a full jury trial--immigrants do not have that right. They're subject to the immigration courts. If they're going to be deported, they go to the immigration court. They don't have a right to go have a Federal trial in a United States district court over whether or not they get to stay in the United States. That's been ruled on many times. They don't get that kind of court. So we've added the language at the end of subparagraph A, ``who is otherwise entitled to the availability of such writ or such rights.'' So, we reestablished in the Gohmert/Landry/Rigell amendment, and Duncan and Barletta as well, in that amendment we reestablish that for any-- not just any American citizen, but anybody lawfully in the United States that is entitled to these rights before September 18 of 2001, you're entitled to them again. And nothing in the AUMF, nothing in the NDAA from months ago, nothing in the NDAA today, all amending the AUMF, nothing in this shall be construed to deny those rights to an individual. Now, my good friend, Justin Amash, he wanted to fix things. But actually his fix extended new rights that did not exist prior to September 18 of 2001. And I understand his intentions. And although I did not appreciate my friend Mr. Smith alluding to a smokescreen, you don't spend hours and hours and hours trying to perfect language to create a smokescreen. You do that to fix legislation. And that's what I believe we did. That's what I believe we've done today here on the House floor. But, having been in the military, and having continued, as a Member of Congress, to go to each funeral of people who, as Lincoln said, gave the last full measure of devotion for their country, having attended all of those in my district over the last 7 years, I know the price our military pays. I know the rights that you give up when you go into the military. And so people, without realizing the full scope of the different types of rights to different types of people in the Constitution, who say everybody's entitled to constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights, under the Constitution, yeah, but they're different rights and you're in the military. You don't have a right to freedom of speech. So we had a young man, a devoted member of the United States military, who said some very bad things about our President, unflattering things. Whether or not they're truthful is not the issue for a member of the military. It is under a matter of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that was created by Congress because Congress has that power under article I, section 8 to create that court system and to not give members of the military all of the rights that everybody else in America has. There were some mornings at 5 a.m. that I would love to have had the freedom of assembly and that I would have loved to have had the freedom of speech to tell my commander where he could go with his assembly at 5 a.m. and with the 25-mile march that was going to follow that. That was a time when we were not at war. Nonetheless, you have to have discipline in the military. Even though I may have totally agreed with the comments--I don't know what all of them were, but this individual is in the military--when you're in the military, you do not have the right to criticize anyone in the chain of command. And it has to be that way. In my heart, I was so deeply offended by the way in which President Carter was failing to do anything about our hostages and about the act of war that was perpetrated against our Embassy. Under everybody's interpretation of international law, an attack on a country's embassy is an act of war against that country. It should have provoked a response from this country that made so clear to all of those radical Islamists that attacked our Embassy in 1979 that when you attack the United States of America--in our Embassy or on our home soil, either one--they're both acts of war, and we will respond. You will not get away with an act of war like that against us. Because we failed to respond in any measurable manner, other than for so long just basically begging them to give us our people back, we appeared to be a paper tiger. We appeared to be a country that didn't have the guts to step up and protect itself. That fact is still being used to recruit people around the world to these radicalized groups of Islamists. Though I felt strongly about the impropriety of the way the President was handling those things in 1979 and 1980, it was not appropriate for a member of the military to publicly ever criticize a commander in his chain of command. That's what the Commander in Chief is. So whether or not any of us agrees with the soldier who criticized President Obama, you have to have discipline in the military, and that's not appropriate. So why shouldn't he have had the right to come before an article III court and say, Hey, I'm a member of the military. What happened to my freedom of speech rights? Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to set up the rules and the rights for the military, and you don't have that right because we've got to have a disciplined military. For immigrants, many have said, Why don't I have the right to go get a jury trial and prove my case? Why, your country should be forced to allow me to stay here. It's because you don't have that right under our Constitution. The right you have under our Constitution is to go to an immigration court. There are exceptions, of course, but that's the main right. We have the authorization and the power under the Constitution to create those systems; and as my friend Mr. Culberson pointed out, they're limited to what is prescribed in the Constitution. So that subparagraph (a) was the extent of the Gohmert-Landry-Rigell amendment originally, but there were others who were concerned--but look, look. What if the President does detain somebody? Even though he doesn't have the power to detain, if this subparagraph (a) passes and becomes part of the law, then the President won't have the power to detain an American citizen or an American lawfully in this court who he didn't have the power to detain before September 18 of 2001. But what if he does that anyway? And it has happened. People abuse their power. We know that. So what if it happens that a President abuses the power that he does not have? Let's get that right to a writ of habeas corpus hearing so that you can come forward and establish and bring out the Gohmert-Landry-Rigell amendment and say, Look, that authorized use of military force in 2001 that gave the President the power to just detain people indefinitely, including in a military confinement, got changed today in the House in 2012; therefore, at the writ hearing, that would be granted under subparagraph (c). The judge would have to say, You're right. I see that Gohmert-Landry-Rigell amendment. The President doesn't have the right to do that anymore, so we're going to have to let you go. But the key would be to get a writ hearing in order to advocate the proper position of the law as changed in subparagraph (a), because if you can't come before a judge, then nobody is going to have the power to order you released. So, I could understand that. Since I know extremely well that I sure don't have a corner on the market of best language, I realize--and our friend Bob Goodlatte was pushing this issue, and I know Bob to be a brilliant lawyer, just a great American patriot. I know, whether we agree or not on every issue, when Bob Goodlatte talks about an issue, I ought to listen because he's a smart, caring man. I realize he has got a point, which is that (a) does fix the problem, according to the people that I worked with and checked with, and we worked the language together to get it to work. But he's right, what if the President does detain somebody against what the law says in (a)? How do you get that heard? Okay. We added subparagraph (b) that says: Not later than 48 hours after the date on which a person who is lawfully in the United States is detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the President shall notify Congress of the detention of such person. So the President, if he does detain somebody against the law in section 103, subparagraph (a), has got to notify us. Then I'm sure there would be a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who would come forward and say, Hey, we've changed the law. The President can't do that. Under subparagraph (a), you don't have that power anymore. We took that away from you the way you had it since September 18 of 2001. That has changed. Now that you've notified us, we are going to help that person file for a writ of habeas corpus hearing in court as specified in subparagraph (a). It will be an article III U.S. Federal district court, and we know we will have a proper hearing. That's why subparagraph (c) says: A person who is lawfully in the United States when detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force shall be allowed to file an application for habeas corpus relief in an appropriate district court--not in an immigration court, not in a military tribunal, but in a Federal district court-- not later than 30 days after the date on which the person is placed in military custody. Now, there are some who've tried to say in the last couple of days that, actually, this Gohmert-Landry-Rigell amendment restricted the right of writs of habeas corpus. Hopefully, they meant well; but the truth is we're aware of writs of habeas corpus that happen long after 30 days. There is no requirement that if there is ever going to be a writ of habeas corpus hearing that it has to be within 30 days. So what we were doing was not restricting the right of writs of habeas corpus. We were actually making them stronger so that the President, unless he is going to break the law and act illegally by not notifying Congress within 48 hours--well, guess what? Things have a way of working the truth out. And if the President were to violate this kind of law, it might be the basis for an impeachment proceeding. To go around and to intentionally violate the law? This is serious stuff. We knew by putting it in the law, it would give that kind of ability to Congress, to enforce what we've done. With regard to my friend Justin Amash and Adam Smith's amendment, it appeared to be a choice. With their amendment, it was going to give new rights to terrorists that would be greater than any member of our United States military has; or under the Gohmert-Landry-Rigell amendment, it would return the power to people that they had before September 18, 2001, this unlimited ability of the President to detain people indefinitely in potentially a military detention facility. I appreciated the bipartisan support for our amendment today. We had Democrats that voted with us on this issue, people that care very deeply about this issue. We had Republicans that did not vote with us. I think 19 Republicans didn't vote with us, but I believe 243 people from both sides of the aisle voted for this amendment to fix this power. We needed to rein in the power of the Presidency, and we did that. I'm very grateful to Heritage for embracing the concept that was pursued here rather than a concept that would extend greater rights to terrorists on American soil than our own American soldiers would have. I think it's a good day. I think it's a good day. People have heard me, Mr. Speaker, talk about how we have messed up what's going on in Afghanistan. The Taliban was defeated; they were routed. We had less than 1,500 Americans in Afghanistan when the Taliban was defeated. And so many Americans have forgotten, but for so much of the Iraq war people were saying--now, the way the Taliban was defeated in Afghanistan, that's the way to fight a war on foreign soil. You empower the enemy of our enemy, give them support. We gave them aerial support, we gave them embedded Special Ops and intelligence people that were a tremendous help. I've heard that personally. The biggest hero of those battles, General Dostum, I met with again just last month. That was over in Afghanistan. They're our allies. For those that say you Republicans are a bunch of xenophobes or Islamaphobes, these are Muslim friends. They buried family and friends while Americans were burying family and friends because they had fought together. They initially defeated the Taliban, and they did it very effectively. Then we began to add troops by the tens of thousands, and we became occupiers in Afghanistan. We began to pour billions and billions and billions of dollars into Afghanistan. Then Pakistan began supporting the Taliban, and they continue to support the Taliban and we're continuing to support Pakistan. Another good thing today was amendments that said, Hey, Pakistan, if you're going to keep funding our enemies and helping our enemies, we're not going to keep giving you any funds. That was another good measure that got bipartisan support today. That was a good measure. But as long as we've got troops--I don't think President Obama has handled this very well in Afghanistan. I think he's gotten some bad advice. I think President Bush got some bad advice. But as long as we have troops on foreign soil, we should never again do what was done to our military in Vietnam, yank their feet out from under them and leave our allies to be killed. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chair, the issue here is, do you want to fix the possible problems with the Authorization for Use of Military Force back in 2001 when all of the cosponsors were not even here and possibly the NDAA? Or do you want to extend new rights that are not constitutionally required? Because those of us that have sponsored this amendment want to fix the possible problem of inappropriate detention. That's why this amendment was offered. I take a particular affront because I do not question the motivation of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith). I know the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash). We've stood alone on too many bills together. I know their intent is good. This is not a smokescreen. This is intended to fix a problem. In the underlying bill that came before the floor, it has a fix for habeas corpus in paragraph A. I added the provision that gets us to where we were before the AUMF. That's what I wanted to fix, not as a smokescreen. But what this does is say, if you had these constitutional rights before the AUMF, you've still got them now. And nothing in the AUMF, nothing in the former NDAA, nothing in the new NDAA can change that. You have those rights. I understand we don't have CARE supporting this amendment as they do the following proposed amendment. But listen, what this would do if the subsequent amendment wins instead of this one, you are giving rights to people illegally in this country, for example, to people who are foreign terrorists, who sneak their way in here and kill people, rights that immigrants who are undocumented don't have. People say, Gee, we have a right to an article III court. This Congress has the right to never create an article III court. No one in America has the right to an article III court. This Congress has a right under article I, section 8 to create or not create inferior courts. I'm glad we created them. I would say we should if we didn't. But the right is to go back to where we were before the AUMF. That's what this amendment does, and we appreciate the support of Heritage and The Wall Street Journal in saying that the subsequent amendment is not the way to go, extending additional rights. Let's fix the problem, and this amendment does that. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. We hear repeatedly people say persons are entitled to their constitutional rights, and, yes, they are. When I was in the Army for 4 years, I was entitled to constitutional rights, but I had no right to freedom of speech. I had no right to freedom of assembly. There were a lot of people in the military that would rather not assemble at 5 a.m. in the morning, but you don't have that constitutional right. The same way with immigrants. Immigrants do not have all of the rights under the Constitution that others do. What we're saying is that people who are terrorists and kill Americans on American soil should not have more rights than an immigrant who is here peaceably but that is subject to the laws and subject to detention without going to an article III court. There are constitutional rights, yes, but not everyone under the Constitution has the same rights. Ask somebody in the military. So I implore my colleagues, please do not give foreign terrorists on our soil more rights than our own military has under the Constitution.