Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 40 seconds to another cosponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would yield 1 minute to my friend from Louisiana, also a cosponsor of this bill, Mr. Landry.

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

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).

Mr. GOHMERT. At this time, I reserve the balance of my time. I do have the right to close; is that correct?

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend yielding. Mr. Speaker, it's such an honor to pay tribute to such a great man as Chuck Colson. I first read about Chuck Colson, of course, after the Watergate event occurred and all of the events surrounding it. And then I was in law school when I read his book, ``Born Again.'' It sounded like this was a brilliant man who really and truly had had a conversion experience. Life had been materially changed. Then, again, there are those who as a judge I saw that would get in trouble and grab a Bible and say, I'm changed, so go easy on me. Things like that. But this really appeared quite genuine with Chuck Colson. And I knew, as the Bible teaches, we'll be known by our fruits. What incredible fruits this man produced. Amazing. So over the years I stayed in touch. He didn't know me personally during those years, but I listened to cassettes of his sermons, his lectures. That tells you how far back it goes--they were cassettes. Then I listened to CDs of him speaking and his lectures and sermons, and I would read his books. Thank God he was so prolific that he was moved to write such extraordinary books. In fact, I came to realize with this kind of brilliance--and others have pointed this out, but it struck me back in the eighties--this is a modern-day Apostle Paul. He has that kind of intellect, that kind of ability. And yet he's able to discuss anything with anybody on any level. But his life is a living, breathing, walking testimonial. I love the quote that Steven Curtis Chapman used in Chuck Colson's own voice in ``Heaven and the Real World,'' where you hear Chuck's voice say these things. Chuck said: I meet millions who tell me that they feel demoralized by the decay around us. Where is the hope? The hope that each of us has is not in who governs us or what laws are passed or what great things we do as a Nation. Our hope is in the power of God working through the hearts of people. And that's where our hope is in this country. That's where our hope is in life. As he pointed out on more than one occasion, our hope--the Kingdom of God--will not arrive on Air Force One. And any hope of that happening is just misplaced. Well, I have a brother about 8 years younger, now a Baptist pastor near Richmond, and Bill had acquired Chuck Colson's new novel called ``Gideon's Torch.'' And as a man who had worked in the White House, to have him write a novel which, as you read it breathlessly, you realize these things could easily happen, every one of them, just as he spells out. It was an incredible book. When I met Chuck Colson, I asked him, Are you going to write any other novels? That was just a fantastic novel. And he said, My publisher tells me people are not buying my fiction. They want my nonfiction. And I want God to use me however he can use me. If it's more productive, more helpful to people to write nonfiction, I'll write nonfiction. He also said writing ``Gideon's Torch,'' a novel, was far more difficult than writing the nonfiction, which he does. I'm not sure that it's still in print, but I would hope that after his passing there would be a resurgence of requests and people would get that book and greatly grow and benefit from it. I just wanted to share a couple of things from his book ``God and Government.'' He came to the Hill to provide this to many of us. As my friends here know, one of the benefits of being in Congress--and there are plenty of things that aren't benefits--but one of the benefits is getting to become friends with people you have as heroes. And Chuck Colson was one of my heroes. He was someone I truly looked up to and I benefited from. And even before he knew me, he was a mentor. At page 69 he says: Whether or not God's existence can be proved, the evidence can be rationally probed and weighed. (Author C.S.) Lewis does so compellingly, and he cites moral law as a key piece of evidence. Clearly it is not man who has perpetuated the precepts and values that have survived through centuries and across cultures. Indeed, he has done his best to destroy them. The nature of the law restrains man, and thus its very survival presupposes a stronger force behind it--God. Or consider the most readily observable physical evidence, the nature of the universe. One cannot look at the stars, planets, and galaxies, millions of light years away, all fixed in perfect harmony, without asking who orders them. For centuries it was accepted that God was behind the universe because otherwise ``the origin and purpose of life would be inexplicable.'' This traditional supposition was unchallenged until the 18th century's Age of Reason, when Enlightenment thinkers announced with relief that the origins of the universe were now scientifically explainable. But in the past few decades, science has completely reversed itself on the question of the origin of the universe. After maintaining for centuries the physical universe is eternal and therefore needs no creator, science today has uncovered dramatic new evidence that the universe did have an ultimate origin, that it began at a finite time in the past--just as the Bible teaches. Chuck Colson will be missed. But thank God and thank Chuck Colson that he has left us so much in the way of wisdom that we can draw from in the days ahead. We will be remembering his family and all of those who loved and miss Chuck in our prayers. With that, I appreciate being yielded to on behalf of Chuck Colson.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are really blessed here in the Capitol with some of the greatest people that work around here and touch the lives of so many. So many come from around the country to admire our great national Capitol, and the people that work around here touch them one way or another. Albert Caswell is one of those great folks. It seems every day we see him with wounded warriors, in addition to his regular duties as a tour guide. He's taken them through the Capitol, doing poems for them, having them signed by Members of Congress, getting them entered in the Record, getting them to individual warriors. He just does great work, so I'm quite pleased my friend Steve King read that into the Record. The truth is, freedom is not free, and we're surrounded by people who have given a great deal--given limbs, given so much. I was standing by a Gold Star mom in Texas this past week, and I really wasn't sure who gave the most. Her son gave everything--gave his life. But his mother gave her son. We're told by Jesus, Greater love has no one than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. This Nation has experienced so much love by people who have laid down their lives for their country, but at the same time millions of parents have given their children proper teaching to love the things that make this country the greatest country in the world. Instill those values in their children for them to be willing to show the greatest love that anyone can have. I do know, from being so close to parents who have given their children, that that is an unfathomable love. To care about your country and its freedoms so much that you're willing to risk a child's life for the good of others, and ultimately give that child for the good of the country. It is so terribly difficult. So we have people on foreign soil who are risking their lives; some have given their lives for this country. We have law enforcement. We have intelligence agents, agents from all parts of State, local, and Federal Government who put their lives at risk every day so we can enjoy the freedoms we have. We owe them not to be stupid about the way we carry out the government's business and the way in which we protect the citizens of this country, the people in this country, from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Now, we have some very noble patriots that serve at the various levels of our Federal entities that are charged with keeping us safe. Having visited with Secretary Panetta, who called me a few weeks ago, having had multiple conversations with Director Mueller as Director of the FBI, so many others in our Federal law enforcement, our Federal intelligence, justice, we have a great lot of noble people. But here again, we cannot be foolish about the way we go about protecting America. There are people who have been at war with the United States since 1979. President Carter hailed the Ayatollah Khomeini as a man of peace as he came back from exile and for the first time in so many years gave a foothold for radical terrorizing Islam to have a country in Iran. Americans soon found out the price of bad judgment in international affairs. Not too long thereafter, there was an attack against the American Embassy in Tehran. I know at Fort Benning, Georgia, where I was, a lot of folks were put on alert that it may be necessary for us to go and defend this Nation because an attack against a country's embassy is an attack against that country. It is an act of war. So there was an act of war committed in Iran in 1979, and our response was so benign that it is still being used as a recruiting tool by radical Islamists today to show how Americans are not very smart, they don't have the stomach for a strong fight so we can still prevail. We had a benign response in 1983 after the attack on our marines and lost around 300 precious marine lives in Beirut. The response was to pull them out without a fight. So many times we've been attacked in the last 30 years, acts of war, and we failed to recognize what they were until 2001 when most of America woke up at that point, that there are people who want to destroy America. When bin Laden wrote that they had spent around $500,000 to train those people and to carry out the mission of crashing planes into American buildings to destroy buildings and to kill thousands of Americans--apparently they were hoping for more, in the range of 50,000 or so to be killed in the Twin Towers. But as bin Laden has pointed out, an investment, from their standpoint, the way they saw it, of around $500,000 cost America trillions and trillions of dollars. And even before he was taken out, it was clear to him that they helped put America on track to be bankrupt. From his standpoint, that was a tremendous investment. Invest $500,000 in an act of war and cost your enemy not only thousands of lives but trillions of dollars, not only in damage but in the money spent to try to secure the Nation. That's why it is so important that we be smarter about the way our money is spent, that we utilize a little bit more discernment, a little more wisdom in the way that we take on those who are bent on our destruction. They are still there. And the Taliban's strength, as both Senator Feinstein and Representative Rogers, the two chairs from the Senate and House, respectively, of our Intelligence, our Homeland Security--I guess, Intelligence--they understand and they believe the Taliban is stronger now than it was before. It is growing in strength. We have not been very wise about the way we took on an enemy that wants to take this country down. Now, there are some who have been a little oversensitive, and it seems that some who are our Muslim friends who have been more defensive about any questions about radical Islam than they have been about condemning the radicals that have hijacked their religion. And it would be helpful for those of us who know there are moderate Muslims who just want to live in peace, to have their help in condemning radical Islam instead of condemning those of us who stand up against and condemn radical Islam. America, one of our great traits is we don't want to really offend people around the world. There have been some ugly Americans over the years who give us a bad name, but all in all, Americans are loving, caring, forgiving people. And the only nation in the history of the world that has ever sent treasure in the form of money and our greatest assets, our individuals, to fight and die on behalf of people in another nation over which we want no control, we want no territory, we just want freedom to reign in the world so we can live in peace and help extend that freedom to others around the world. That's why, over the years, as stories have unfolded about high- handed leaders in other countries who say, We want Americans out; we don't like you. And the response has come in some situations, Do you want us to remove all of the dead bodies of Americans who gave their lives so you could have the freedom to tell us where to go and what to do? Americans have had a place in history like no other nation. Ironically, as one general recently said in conversation, virtually every deployment he has had into harm's way, he has been sent there by the United States on behalf of Muslims who were being mistreated by others, including Christians. So, for some of us it gets a little discouraging that our Muslim friends who want to live in peace will not take notice of the fact that this country has stood up against tyranny, against moderate Muslims around the world, and we continue to do that. We are doing that in Afghanistan and we get no credit for that. Instead, we get condemned because we want to protect what we have, and we get so caught up in political correctness that we're afraid to call things as they are. Now, I mentioned before, but that line in the ``Patton'' movie may or may not have actually been said. But it is a fact for military strategists, as Patton looked over the carnage from a battle in which his tanks took on the tanks of that incredible German Field Marshal Rommel, and reportedly Patton said something like, paraphrasing, Rommel, you glorious, childless son--or apparently, son--I read your book. Going through military science, we were taught that if you want to be able to fight effectively on behalf of your country, you have to know your enemy. We would prefer we have no enemies. As Christians--those of us who are--we're taught to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus, himself, said, when he was asked by a lawyer, What's the most important commandment? He said, Love God. The second is like it, Love your neighbor. And on those two things, those two laws, hang all the law and the prophets. The full face of Moses depicted above the door in the center back in the gallery is there because he was considered perhaps the greatest lawgiver of all time. Of all the lawgivers who have side profiles, Moses has the one full face. And if you were to outline the Ten Commandments that Moses was used to provide, you could outline them under two headings: number one, love God; number two, love each other. They all fall under those two commands. Since we have a very rich Judeo-Christian heritage here in America, for at least the first 130, 140 years of our country's history people have been proud to constantly quote the Bible here on the House floor as the ultimate authority for reasoning behind good legislation. As one goes right out those doors, straight down the halls a matter of feet, you come to Statuary Hall. It is the place where the House of Representatives met for most of the 1800s. And except for after the fire in 1814 that the British set, a fire which was put out by what insurance policies would call an act of God, a deluging rain that put out the fire, preserved this Capitol's shell so that it didn't implode and become a bunch of ruins, right down the hall in Statuary Hall-- formerly, the House of Representatives--for most of the 1800s, it was a place of nondenominational Christian worship services. I hope one day we'll have a plaque down there so that the 15,000 or so people a day that come through can read and understand that the man, Thomas Jefferson, who coined the phrase ``separation of church and State''--not in the Constitution, as most Americans apparently believe, but in a letter to the Danbury Baptists about why, really, we shouldn't have an official denomination of the Christian religion--Jefferson attended church virtually every Sunday he was in Washington just down the hall. They had nondenominational Christian worship services. So it is amazing the lack of education that has occurred in recent generations so that you can have one of the cable channels--is it BSNBC or something like that? They reported that in the past week there was some kind of a prayer service in Statuary Hall by a bunch of right- wingers, when what was actually done was not nearly as stout in Christian nature as what Thomas Jefferson used to do as President when he attended church down there, and the Speaker's podium was used as the pulpit each Sunday for most of the 1800s. Most people credit Madison with having more to do with the Constitution than anyone else of our Founders. Madison also attended church, a nondenominational Christian church, in Statuary Hall--back then, the House of Representatives--and he found no affront to the Constitution to attend church in the U.S. Capitol. For much of the 1800s, the largest Christian church in the Nation's capital was here at the Capitol in the House of Representatives where they attended church each Sunday. The Congressional Research Service did some research on material that we provided to see what they believed was documented and what wasn't. They said Jefferson normally came down Pennsylvania Avenue on horseback by himself. One story is of Jefferson coming down Pennsylvania Avenue with a big Bible under his arm, and one of the citizens said, Mr. President, where are you going? Well, it was Sunday morning, and he said, I'm going to church up in the Capitol. He said, Sir, you don't believe everything those Christians do up there. And he said, Sir, I am the highest elected magistrate in this country. It is imperative that I set the proper example. So he came to church, and he did not find attending church down in the House of Representatives as offending the notion that he dreamed up of a separation of church and State--his words. He's also the person that coined the phrase having a ``wall of separation'' that the Supreme Court has many, many years later misconstrued because they didn't know their history, weren't properly taught. But Jefferson did not find it an affront to his concept of separation of church and State to bring the United States Marine Band into the Capitol to play Christian hymns for the Christian worship services. So what to some cable channel may have been this strange, weird thing that happened because they have not been properly educated, to Thomas Jefferson, to James Madison was just a matter of propriety and course. Certainly, there's nothing wrong with bringing the Marine Band to play hymns in the House of Representatives for a nondenominational church Christian worship service, because it was nondenominational. They weren't putting emphasis on any particular denomination. When Randolph, during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, saw that things were falling apart and heard this inspirational speech by Benjamin Franklin, how Franklin, in his words--we have his words because he wrote them down in his own handwriting--said: 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 man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it possible an empire could rise without His aid? Franklin went on to say: We've been assured, sir, in the sacred writing that, unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. Some of us were taught he was a deist, but in his own words, in his own handwriting, the speech that he gave to the other members at the Constitutional Convention, he urged them by saying, Firmly believe this. He said: I also firmly believe without His concurring help, we shall succeed in our political building no better than the builders of Babel. We'll be confounded by our local partial interests and we, ourselves, shall become a byword down through the ages. Well, Randolph, his proposal, after Franklin, was we basically have had so much disagreement, such a spirit of anger in here, I move that we all go to church. Here we are, the end of June, we're about to celebrate the country's anniversary. I move that we all go to church together, and all of us--the irony of this, all of us, as part of the Constitutional Convention, that are going to give this Nation the Constitution that will one day cause the Supreme Court to say we don't think that you can constitutionally do what the Founders and the writers of the Constitution did, he said, we all ought to go to church together in celebration of the anniversary and then come back and pick this up. One wrote that there was a new spirit. They all went to the Reformed Calvinistic Church. They all went to the same church. They all heard the same sermon. And it evoked a spirit of unity and collaboration, that although there were differences, they were able to come together thereafter and give us the Constitution. So it's part of our heritage. And as part of our heritage, we welcome people from all faiths, or no faiths. But just because you don't have a faith, don't come in and tell us we can't have and enjoy what the Founders provided and assured in the First Amendment that we could have. Don't try to mis-educate any more Supreme Court Justices, so that although they're brilliant of intellect, they're ignorant of our history and what the Constitution means so they do not really understand the freedoms that we were provided and that there is a prohibition against our practicing our religion. Some have twisted those words, the language, our Constitution, and political correctness to the point that it is exposing us to unnecessary danger. And although these people that we have in authority here in this town mean well, and they all want to see the country do well and thrive, we can't be stupid about the way we go around helping protect the country. So, we have people in America that are more concerned with political correctness and more concerned that someone does not get offended while we are fighting for our Nation's life, fighting for the Nation's existence against powers that want to destroy us. They're concerned we might offend somebody, we might offend those who want to kill and destroy us, and, what's worse, we might offend someone who is a moderate and practices under the name of the same religion of those who want to destroy us. And just like Patton was pointing out, you can't defend yourself unless you know the enemy that wants to destroy you. 9/12 was a day like I've not experienced in my lifetime. We were scared. Americans across the country came together. We prayed. We didn't care about political correctness. Courthouse squares around the country, we grabbed hands. We did in Tyler, Texas. They did all around the country, people holding hands and singing hymns, singing ``Amazing Grace,'' singing ``God Bless America,'' people praying for God's protection once again, just like Ben Franklin told us we would have to have or we would succeed no better than the builders of Babel. We came together, and for that day, and for a time thereafter, there was no such thing as a hyphenated American. There was no Euro-American, there was no African-American, no Asian-American, Native-American. There were Americans here in America, and we were concerned about having a future for us and our children and, hopefully, their children and their children. And we were smart for a short time, and in a bipartisan way, this Chamber came together. I was on the bench at the time as a judge. I was qualifying a jury panel when the Twin Towers were hit. Nobody was concerned about hyphenated Americans because we were Americans. And what this Chamber did, in coming together with the Senate and saying, You know what? Let's study where we went wrong. And a bipartisan commission was put together to study, in complete candor, what had gone wrong. How did the worst attack against America on its own soil occur without us realizing what was coming? We had the 9/11 Commission report that came out of that, and the 9/11 Commission report used words like ``enemy'' 39 times, ``jihad'' 126 times, ``Muslim'' 145 times because those who wanted to destroy us and tried used that term about themselves. That's who they said they were before the attack. They used terms in the report 32 two times like ``Islam'' because those who attacked us in the worst attack in our history on our soil used that term about themselves. And I am very sorry for our moderate Islamic friends who want to live in peace with all Americans because they're Americans. And I'm sorry if people are offended that those who hated us so much they would bring down the World Trade Centers, try to wipe out the Pentagon, try to wipe out what some say is the most recognized building in the world, this Capitol, I'm sorry if they're offended that those people call themselves Muslim. They call themselves Islamists. ``Muslim Brotherhood'' was mentioned five times in the 9/11 Commission report because it was important. There was an interwoven nature to what was going on in the attack. They used ``religious,'' that word, 65 times. They mentioned ``Hamas'' four times. They mentioned ``Hezbollah'' two times. They mentioned ``al Qaeda'' 36 times. They mentioned ``caliph'' seven times. They mentioned ``shari'a'' twice. But apparently we have leaders who mean well, I know that, who think they're protecting America, who are more concerned about not offending people who don't want to hurt us than they are about just speaking truth. And how can you deal with an enemy unless you're willing to recognize them in truth? So now, because in the very recent months, the FBI counterterrorism lexicon, this effort by our FBI that's going on in the Justice Department, it's going on in the Intelligence Department, it's going on in the State Department, it's going on in the White House, itself-- they're leading the charge--we don't want to offend anyone. So no longer is an FBI agent who is new, someone who may barely remember what occurred on 9/11, allowed to be taught what the enemy who attacked us said about themselves. They're not allowed to be taught what they said motivated our enemy. How can you deal with your enemy? How can you take them on and win that fight and come out victorious unless you recognize what motivates them? Because, when you know what motivates them, you can predict more likely what they will do next. That's why there are novelists in America who do a better job of projecting where we will be hit next than our own government intelligence agencies, other than our own government FBI. It's why some noticed that there was a soldier on al Jazeera who was saying exactly what Major Hasan had said: in essence about how, with his being a Muslim, if he were sent to a Muslim country where he might accidentally kill another Muslim for one of the unrecognized allowances to kill another Muslim, then they would have to act up and kill Americans to avoid having to risk going to a Muslim country and killing a Muslim. The guy is saying basically the same things Hasan did before he killed 13 of our precious servicemembers in an act that in our political correctness this administration now refers to as ``workplace violence.'' I came to know and love some Pearl Harbor survivors. They had no idea that what they experienced at Pearl Harbor, according to the thinking of this administration, was an act of workplace violence, where someone came into the workplace of all of these civilians and all of these soldiers and sailors and marines in Pearl Harbor and killed them in their workplace. They didn't understand that because that's not what it was--nor was it workplace violence at Fort Hood. It was an act of war against our military. I am grateful we have Members of the House and Senate who had the foresight to file a bill to make sure that they should have Purple Hearts, because it was not workplace violence. They died for their country. They died for freedom. They laid down their lives, which they knew were at risk from the moment they took the oath, which is just like all of us who have been in the service have taken. Political correctness must be set aside so that we can speak candidly and truthfully. So, if there really is nothing to fear from the radical Islamists who have hijacked the name of a religion away from the mass moderate Muslims, it is time for more than just three or four or a handful of moderate Muslims to step forward and help us in calling it what it is. Now, I recognize that, for any Muslim to step forward and condemn another Muslim, it is a very, very risky proposition. It's far more risky for them to do that than for a considered infidel like me to step up and condemn radical jihadist Islamists, because I'm already an infidel in their eyes; but moderates know that if they speak out publicly they could be targeted for turning on their own religion. Among the radicals--crazies--who are trying to highjack the religion, they get angrier at a moderate Muslim than they do at an infidel for speaking against another Muslim. So it is very risky for a moderate to step up and join those of us who want to recognize accurately what our enemy is. But, in the name of political correctness, not only have we cleansed our National Intelligence Strategy, which is becoming a misnomer--how can you have intelligence if you're not allowed to recognize your enemy for what your enemy calls himself?--our FBI counterterrorism lexicon, how it has been cleansed of the terms that those at war with us call themselves. It is important that we learn from our mistakes because, if we refuse to learn from our mistakes, we're going to keep making them. Most people have been taught the old adage: ``Those who refuse to learn from history are destined to repeat it.'' We should not have to experience another major attack on our own soil and the loss of thousands of American lives before we have another heartbreaking day like September 12 of 2001 on which we come together, embrace, and say we're not hyphenated Americans--we're Americans. We are one people, and we will stand together. We shouldn't have to have more Americans killed as they were on 9/11 to bring us together like that. But I beg, Mr. Speaker, of my colleagues: Let's help educate our Federal Government that it's okay to call people ``radical Islamists'' if they have called themselves that and that it's okay to describe people in our FBI counterterrorism lexicon and in our intelligence materials what the terrorists, themselves, call themselves. It's okay, and we won't be mad at each other when we do that. What happens when we try to become too politically correct is that we have things like the FBI and a wonderful Director who, I believe, unintentionally has hurt the FBI by his 5-year up-or-out policy, which we now know has cost us thousands and thousands and thousands of years of experience by running off our more experienced FBI agents in favor of agents in charge, who may go from having 26 years of experience to having 5 or 6 years of experience, who may not even have been out of college at the time of 9/11 and who are now in charge as the most experienced people we have in our offices around the country. That has hurt us. At the same time, for example, in June of 2002, our FBI Director took fire for giving a speech to the American Muslim Council, which the Director's spokesman described as ``the most mainstream Muslim group in the United States.'' But, at the time of the speech in 2002, the head of the American Muslim Council was a man named al-Amoudi, who was videotaped in October of 2000 delivering a speech just yards away from the White House, proclaiming: I have been labeled by the media in New York as being a supporter of Hamas. We are all supporters of Hamas. I wish they'd added that I'm also a supporter of Hezbollah. That was also the same year, 2002, that the AMC, the American Muslim Council, board adviser and former acting president, Jamil al-Amin, was arrested for murdering a Georgia police officer. Al-Amoudi was arrested in 2003 in a Libyan assassination plot targeting the Saudi Crown Prince, and was later identified by the U.S. Treasury as one of al Qaeda's top fund-raisers in the United States. At the time of our FBI Director's speech in 2002, al-Amoudi had been under investigation by the FBI for almost a decade for funneling money between Osama bin Laden and the ``Blind Sheikh.'' In October of 2003, just days before the ceremony honoring a Detroit Muslim leader, Imad Hamad, and bestowing on him the FBI Director's award for exceptional public service, the FBI had to contact Hamad and tell him he wasn't going to receive the reward. The FBI initially claimed they had decided to give the award to a victim of the 9/11 terror attacks, but later an FBI spokesman revealed that unflattering information about Hamad had been made public during the deportation proceedings for one of his close associates. In fact, the INS fought for two decades to deport Hamad for his suspected support for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a designated terrorist organization by this government. That information came to light not due to any checking or vetting by the FBI, but thanks to an article published by the New York Post. It brings me back to the point about a young soldier after the 13 military members were killed at Fort Hood by Major Hasan who was on al- Jazeera saying the same things Hasan did before he went to kill. We had people that actually noticed that, but it would have been politically incorrect to do anything about it. You know, they say those things. If it had not been for a gun dealer in Texas who found this young private suspicious, if it had not been for that gun dealer calling in local authorities and alerting them, we would have had another Fort Hood shooting and lost other precious members of our military. They were saved not because of the intelligence community, the FBI counterterrorism, or the Homeland Security countering violent extremism, because we don't want to use the term jihad or Islamic jihad. So it's countering violent extremists. No, none of those picked it up. There were people who noticed and reported it, but nothing was done because it might be politically incorrect. They risked the lives of our precious military in political correctness. If not for the work of a gun dealer in Texas and local law enforcement jumping right on top of it, we could have lost military members. Here are some other examples. Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian had meetings and conversations with high-ranking officials at the Justice Department and the Homeland Security Department despite being the subject of FISA wiretap warnings since the early 1990s and having his home raided in 1995. He was still having meetings at the DOJ, Homeland Security, and having access to our government's inner sanctum. As part of a plea agreement, al-Arian admitted to being a part of the leadership structure of the terrorist group, and they were meeting with him. In 2008, our FBI director handed one of his Director's Community Leadership Awards to Imam Yahya Hendi, who had testified during al- Arian's trial as a defense witness. Hendi had served as a moderator during a 2000 fundraiser for the Benevolence International Foundation, which was shut down in November 2002 by the U.S. Government and designated a terrorist organization for its support of al Qaeda and a number of other Islamic terrorist groups. An FBI agent testified during the Holy Land Foundation trial that CAIR was a front for the terrorist group Hamas, and the FBI was publicly forced to sever its ties with CAIR. They had all this information, and yet they continued to, as their own information says, partner with CAIR, though CAIR--they knew we had evidence--was partnering with terrorists. In September of 2010, known Hamas cleric, Mustapha, who was a part of a 6-week FBI Citizen's Academy, was treated to guided tours at the top- secret National Counterterrorism Center, FBI headquarters, and the FBI Academy at Quantico. Mustapha's participation in the FBI program came after he was personally named a coconspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial and after his appointment as a Muslim chaplain to the Illinois State Police had been revoked. Illinois had already figured out what he was and what he believed before he was given tours of our top-secret National Counterterrorism Center. Time magazine featured a profile of Mohamed Majid, imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society--or they call themselves ADAMS for short. I'm sure John Adams appreciates that. He is the current president of the Islamic Society of North America, which also was a named coconspirator to fund terrorism in the Holy Land Foundation trial. And both the district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals examined the record and said there is plenty of evidence here to support their being named specifically as supporters of terrorism. But in November 2005, Majid was awarded by the FBI for the imam's cooperation in the war on terror, claiming, ``Majid regularly tips off the Bureau.'' But in a letter to the ADAMS center community the very next day, Majid told his mosque Members he did no such thing. Majid made clear that he never reported on anyone in the Muslim community and that his relationship with the FBI was one-sided, and the outreach meetings, ``are solely to create avenues to work with law enforcement to preserve our civil liberties and civil rights.'' Majid has met with top DOJ officials urging the criminalization of criticism of Islam. It's okay to burn a Bible; it's okay to criticize Christianity and Judaism; and police allowed people to scream and cuss obscenities about God during a prayer at a Tea Party, but it's not okay to be critical of these people. It's time to wake up. It's time to set political correctness aside. And Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this letter, signed by 22,000 Americans begging us to end political correctness that risks our liberty, be made a matter of the Record. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the wonderful work our chair has done to work with the ranking member on this issue. It is critical that the world know how united this Congress is behind our ally Israel. It's a maxim in history, it's a truth that when a nation's enemies see their strongest ally turning against them, that is when their enemies move against that nation. We saw a couple of years ago when this administration voted with Israel's enemies to require that Israel disclose certain of its weapons. It was shortly after that that a flotilla challenged the blockade at the Gaza Strip. That's how it works. When a nation's enemies see an ally that may be turning against a nation, they move against that nation. This is what is so important, that we show the world that when it comes to this issue, we may bicker back and forth about all kinds of things, but when it comes to support for Israel--the analogy could be applicable here, that it is a miner's canary. When Israel is under attack, it's a potential attack on all of the rest of those who love liberty as well. I agree with Mr. Hoyer, our friend from Maryland, when he says that Israel's enemies need to know that when it comes to support for Israel, we have solidarity and complete support for our friend. Israel's enemies need to know that, and the world needs to know that. And I'm very grateful for leadership on both sides for making that clear to the world and to Israel's enemies.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have an article that is dated today, Monday, May 7, 2012, from the Associated Press, Congress's Intelligence Heads: Taliban Has Grown Stronger under Obama. Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Mike Rogers, who I just saw outside, a smart guy, former FBI agent, well respected in the areas of law enforcement and the security of this country, well, as the article points out, and there are other articles as well, I believe Human Events also had one, but this article from the AP says: The leaders of congressional intelligence committees said Sunday they believed that the Taliban had grown stronger since President Barack Obama sent 33,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan in 2010. The pessimistic report by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D Calif., and Rep. Mike Rogers, R Mich., challenges Obama's own assessment last week in his visit to Kabul that the ``tide had turned'' and that ``we broke the Taliban's momentum.'' The two recently returned from a fact-finding trip to the region where they met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. ``President Karzai believes that the Taliban will not come back. I'm not so sure,'' Feinstein said. ``The Taliban has a shadow system of governors in many provinces.'' When asked if the Taliban's capabilities have been degraded since Obama deployed the additional troops two years ago, Feinstein said: ``I think we'd both say that what we've found is that the Taliban is stronger.'' I was in Afghanistan a couple weeks ago. I was in Afghanistan a couple months before that. And as one of the Afghans pointed out, former ally--well, they are still allies, as far as they are concerned. This administration has thrown them under the bus--but they pointed out, you know, from the Taliban's perspective, they have said we, the Taliban, do not have to win a single battle. All we have to do is be here when the United States leaves. Now, a couple of weeks ago, of course, the administration, two Cabinet members, were requesting that my dear friend, Dana Rohrabacher, not go into Afghanistan for one reason--that President Hamid Karzai didn't want him to come in. Now, apparently, Karzai, ignorant of what is actually going on in Washington, had said that my friend, Congressman Rohrabacher, proposed a bill that would partition or divide up Afghanistan. Well, I worked with Congressman Rohrabacher on his very good bill, and basically it is a sense of Congress that says we support the Afghans' right to vote for their leaders. Now, I understand Secretary Clinton inherited a State Department and a situation in Afghanistan that was not of her making. I get that. And, in fact, we sat by and even assisted as Afghanistan created a constitution based on sharia law that has now resulted in the last public Christian church closing. It's a system where the President gets to appoint governors, mayors, chiefs of police, many of the higher- level teachers, slate of legislators. He gets powerful control over so much of the purse strings. So it was amazing to see the President over kind of doing what appeared to be a victory lap around Afghanistan and back home: gee, the Taliban's back is broken, things are looking good, and we now have an agreement going forward with Afghanistan. Great news. Well, when you find out from Afghans that actually the Afghanistan Government has a $12.5 billion budget and all the sources of revenue that Afghanistan can come up with provide $1.5 billion of their $12.5 billion budget, and the rest comes from other countries, you would presume largely from the United States, and when one considers the billions of dollars that we are spending for humanitarian projects, training farmers to farm as I've met with the teachers, American teachers teaching Afghans to farm, and they were so depressed because the billions we've spent, given basically to Afghanistan to create farming projects so the people can maintain themselves when we're gone, have not made its way to any of those projects in that region of the country. There is one region where apparently some has made it to projects, but certainly not all and probably not most of them. So it would seem if you're the President of the United States and you go to a country whose government has a $12.5 billion budget and they can only come up with $1.5 billion of that and you're the big force behind all of the other $11 billion, it would seem to me that there shouldn't be a whole lot of negotiation that has to take place. What kind of person does not understand leverage? The President accepted, of course, because it appears that the foreign policy that we've run into from President Obama's administration is we've got people around the world that hate us, want to destroy us, so we're going to give them money. We're going to buy them an office in Qatar, as we've offered the Taliban. We're going to be releasing their murdering thugs that we've got in detention, and then maybe they will like us enough to agree with us. That sounds like somebody that spent too much time community organizing and not enough time studying history. That's no way to negotiate. If one wishes to approach an individual, and like in my situation, being a Christian, we're supposed to help the needy--``blessed are the meek.'' The Beatitudes are quite compelling. The government has a different role. The government is to protect the people. As Romans 13 points out, if you do evil, be afraid, because the government does not bear the sword in vain. The government's role is to protect people so individually they can live the kind of life that so much of our heritage embraces. The government is supposed to protect the people; it's supposed to punish evil, and it actually is supposed to encourage good. We've gotten so far off track. Back in the sixties, well-intentioned, we began paying young women to have children out of wedlock, born out of the best of intentions--deadbeat dads were not helping, so let's help them out. Instead, what they did is lure young women away from a high school education, in many cases--I've had many of them come before my court--and lure them into a rut they couldn't get out of. We have senior citizens on Social Security whose religious beliefs embrace marriage as being the ultimate living situation between a man and a woman. Yet they have guilt because they know they can't live on what little they have, and they know that if they marry another person that they're living with--I've heard from folks like this--that lives on Social Security as well, then their Social Security will be reduced if they get married, so they live together. The President's own proposal, although he's been out saying he was going after millionaires and billionaires, when you look at the specific proposals--which he finally put in print so we can see in print what he really believes--as he continues to say we're going after millionaires and billionaires, the Buffett tax, that kind of thing, you look at the specific proposal and he goes after everybody making more than $125,000 a year if you're married, $250,000 if you're filing jointly. If you're single, it can be $200,000 to $225,000. So, once again, the President wants to promote living together rather than being married, as evidenced by what he provides money for. Now, we know that we've been told by this administration repeatedly, look, if we just show the Taliban how good a people we are and how good our motivation is, then they'll fall into line. I've said and will keep saying: You don't have to pay people to hate you; they'll do it for free. We are wasting billions. We have wasted trillions of dollars over all these many years. So this administration continues to try to buy the affection of the Taliban. Let's see. This article was from CNN, and they reiterate: The heads of the Senate and House intelligence Committees Sunday said the Taliban was gaining ground. The President added, the administration was in direct discussion with the Taliban, saying the group can be a part of the country's future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws. We saw that same kind of effort by this administration. There was a Taliban leader who was released with the consent of this administration basically because it was the humanitarian thing to do, to let him go die in peace. Well, he was released from detention. As the Afghans, who have buried family and friends while fighting with American troops against the Taliban initially--before this administration threw them under the bus--they've said, hey, that Taliban leader that you released, the U.S. authorized the release because he was going to go die and this would be the humanitarian thing to do, guess what? He is back in Afghanistan, and he was on Afghanistan's biggest television station. He said three things. Two of them were that it is very clear to the world that the United States has lost, and that's why the United States--as everyone in the world knows who's paying attention--the United States is begging the Taliban to come just sit down and negotiate with us. Please, we know you murdered thousands of Americans. We get that. That's okay. Just sit down with us. We'll keep releasing your murdering thugs if you will just agree to sit down with us and talk. Why, we'll even buy you a wonderful office in Qatar so you will have international prestige to spread whatever goodwill you wish to spread. Well, that would be known, Mr. Speaker--if the President would pay attention--that would be known as radical jihad. That is what they wish to spread. Here's a news report today from foxnews.com from Kabul: The U.S. has been secretly releasing captured Taliban fighters from a detention center in Afghanistan in a bid to strengthen its hand in peace talks with the insurgent group, the Washington Post reported Monday. Who in the world who has ever studied history comes around and says we're releasing the murdering thuggish war criminals to strengthen our own end? We're letting our enemy have their murdering thugs back to strengthen our hand. Perhaps a community organizer would think that. The article says: The strategic release program of higher-level detainees is designed to give the U.S. a bargaining chip in some areas of Afghanistan where international forces struggle to exercise control. Under the risky program, the hardened fighters must promise to give up violence and are threatened with further punishment, but there is nothing to stop them from resuming attacks against Afghan and American troops. ``Everyone agrees they are guilty of what they have done and should remain in detention. Everyone agrees that these are bad guys. But the benefits outweigh the risks,'' a U.S. official told the Post. In a visit to Afghanistan last week, President Barack Obama confirmed that the U.S. was pursuing peace talks with the Taliban. You know, there was once a policy in this country that we did not negotiate with terrorists, but that's the old days. This administration's policy is, not only do we negotiate with terrorists, we give them stuff. What do you want? Do you want more of your murdering thugs released so maybe they can kill more of our Afghan allies or more American troops? Eighteen hundred, is that enough? Do you want to kill more? We hope you won't; but if you'll just say, we won't kill if you'll let us go, then we'll let you go. It reminds me of the naivete of Secretary Madeleine Albright and President Bill Clinton who, in essence, told North Korea, look, we will give you everything you need to make nuclear weapons if you'll promise us that you will only use it to make nuclear power. Really? North Korea basically said, really? All we have to do--you know we're liars. You've caught us in lies repeatedly. But all we have to do is tell you we'll never use it for nukes, and you'll give us all this stuff? Well, sure, yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah, you've caught us in so many lies? What's one more? So, guess who has nuclear weapons now that we worry about? The same people the Clinton administration gave nuclear materials and information, simply on the promise that they wouldn't use it to make nuclear weapons. What a lovely world it would be. Back to the article from Fox News: We have made it clear that they, the Taliban, can be a part of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws. Many members of the Taliban, from foot soldiers to leaders, have indicated an interest in reconciliation. A path to peace is now set before them, Obama said. The upcoming NATO Summit in Chicago, the U.S. coalition will set a goal for Afghan forces to take the lead in combat operations across the country next year. Look, Mr. Speaker, it makes sense that all of us should want peace. All of us, I know in this body, want peace. But just as we've seen signs around this Capitol since I've been in Congress saying war never brought peace, there is a naivete of some people who think if you apply individual blessedness, turn the other cheek, those kinds of things, from a government standpoint, that other governments controlled by terrorists, war criminals, mad men, that they will respond to that, when the truth is that's an individual approach. The Nation's government must be about providing for the common defense, number one, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We should be doing that. And that means when there are murdering thugs in the world who have sworn to do everything they can to destroy the United States of America, we have to take them seriously and take them out, if necessary. We have that obligation to the people we were sent here to protect. When I took an oath to the United States Army, it was the same kind of oath. We were supposed to serve and protect. And best of intentions, good will does not defeat terrorists who have made clear they will not stop until they're dead and, they think, in paradise, or we are dead and our government gone. Now, we know that the term Islamophobia, Islamophobe have come from-- been pushed by the Organization of Islamic Conference as a way to further their goals. Anybody stands up to point out that there are radical Islamist jihadists who want to destroy everyone who does not believe as they do--we know that those people were behind 9/11, killing 3,000, over 3,000, innocent people, and that the only regret that those individuals had was that more people were not killed. They'd hoped that perhaps 50,000 55,000 would have been killed in the two World Trade Centers. You can't, as the United States Government, just turn the other cheek when there are people coming into this country illegally wanting to destroy us. They're not just people coming for jobs anymore. There's the OTM, as they're classified. So some of us who will call radical Islamic jihad what it is, a policy of a minority, a small minority of Muslims, they want to call some of us Islamophobes. Islamophobes. Give me a break. Two weeks ago I was in Afghanistan. Karzai didn't want our friend, Dana Rohrabacher, to go in. Dana, ever the patriot, he was persuaded by Secretary Clinton not to push the issue because talks were in such delicate shape at the time. Delicate shape? We pull out, don't give any more money, and Karzai collapses. He'll either be out of the country with money he's stowed away, or he'll be subjugated by the Taliban if we pull out and don't provide any assistance. And we have to go begging him for talks? Excuse me? Delicate talks? We know that President Karzai is Pashtun. He can deal with the Taliban. It appears he's dealing with them somewhat like Maliki is dealing with the Iranians who want to take over Iraq, caving, as necessary, to keep his position. There are ways to execute foreign policy that don't cost thousands of American lives, that don't have to exist on the good intentions of people who are sworn to murder and destroy us. The enemy of our enemy is our friend. And that was seen, once again, a couple of weeks ago in Afghanistan. Congressman Rohrabacher had hoped to be at the meeting with our Northern Alliance friends. Most of them are part of the National Front now. I would hope that one of them would be elected President of Afghanistan. My friend, Massoud, his older brother, might have been the one person to unite the country; but the day before 9/11 the Taliban knew that, so they assassinated him. Massoud's father-in-law, Rabbani, was assassinated last September. General Dostum, many consider the great hero of late 2001, early 2002, when the Northern Alliance tribes defeated the Taliban on horseback, fearless warriors. And this administration thanks them by publicly calling them war criminals. These were our allies. These are the enemy of our enemy. Yes, Muslim. No Islamophobe here, because I recognize the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Those people fought with us and for us. There is something very strong in the bond--or should be--between the people of the United States who fought, buried family or loved ones, and those in the Northern Alliance who fought with us and who buried family or loved ones, friends. There is a bond there. But instead of embracing that bond and utilizing that bond, those who fought for us and with us, who did most of the fighting when the Taliban was initially defeated, have been thrown under the bus. So when they were gathering on Sunday 2 weeks ago and when they wanted to meet with someone, three Members of Congress went. At first, we were told, Well, gee, there's just not enough security to get you there. Then I pointed out to the person coordinating the security for our five Members of Congress, Sir, do you see that gate out there at the embassy? You're going to have to take me down before I get out the gate. He said, Sir, we're not authorized to take down a Member of Congress. I said, Well, then, you will not stop me. I'm going to see our friends. Massoud, who is the head of security, has assured me they're going to have bulletproof vehicles to pick us up, and I'm going with them. Amazingly, thirty-or-so minutes after our next meeting, we had American security taking us to the meeting. We were quite safe there. They made sure of that. They didn't want anything to happen to their American visitors. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Congressman Michael Burgess, we would have had to have taken an additional vehicle had more than three Members gone. So John Carter, being the gentleman, said, Mike Burgess, why don't you go. Mike Burgess and Michele Bachmann and I went to see our friends--Mohaqiq and numerous other leaders of the National Front. Now, it's interesting. They pointed out--and you've probably heard-- about Karzai saying, Gee, he believes so much in our Constitution--and the Constitution says, if you serve two terms, you can't run for a third term--that he may resign a year early. He said, Your people, your leaders in America seem to be eating that up. The truth is that the people who are advising Karzai are all trying to figure out--How can we get around that prohibition from running for a third term?--and they think they may have it. They think that, if he resigns a year early and if somebody else takes over Afghanistan for a year, with or without an election, then he could say, Gee, I never served two terms. I didn't make it two terms. I resigned before the second term was up, so now I can run for a third term. Gee, the U.S. is going to have troops out by 2014. Therefore, I could run in 2014. The U.S. will not be around with any strength to enforce such an agreement of my not running. And, gee, what if the people really want me to run? We know there has been corruption in those votes over there, but the system that's set up in Afghanistan is a system that creates conduits for fraud. We could strengthen Afghanistan if we would simply allow the people to elect their regional-provincial governors, elect their mayors, let them pick their own chiefs of police, not the President Karzai cronies. That's a system that's fraught with the kind of danger you found, fraud you found in the old Roman Empire, where they would appoint a governor of a region, but of course you had to kick back to the one who appointed you. That's the kind of system they have right now in Afghanistan. In talking, there are some who say, Well, there are some supplies of the Taliban's coming through northern Pakistan; but most people are saying, We think the Taliban is getting most of their supplies through southern Balochistan. The Baloch have been terrorized for decades by northern Pakistan. Before 1947 48, when lines seemed to be arbitrarily drawn in creating countries, Balochistan had never been a part of Pakistan. For decades now, it has. The people have been terrorized. After Congressmen Rohrabacher and Steve King also met with Baloch leaders, the idea struck me: since these Baloch leaders are tired of being terrorized by northern Pakistan, by the leaders in Islamabad, they could be quite self-sufficient in having natural resources, which is much of what the nation would need to survive on its own; and they're our friends. There may be a lot of Muslims. This non- Islamophobe knows that the enemy of our enemies is our friend. We can support them. We can help each other. So that's why Congressman Rohrabacher and I proposed a bill that would support the creation of an independent Balochistan. As one person in the region over there said, Wow, if Balochistan were independent, that would change everything. Now, I know this President is not gifted on foreign policy--I get that--but it doesn't mean he can't learn. Then you look at Pakistan. While this administration is trying to play footsie with Pakistan and while they're trying to play footsie with China, who was it they let in to see our stealth helicopter? China. Who was it that they harbored in their country--the greatest enemy, public enemy number one, of the United States--and kept there, supposedly, for years? This administration wants to placate them, how they can, just like it's trying to do with the Taliban and our other leaders. Maybe we can buy them off. Maybe we can do something to show them how sweet and kind we are. Those types of people see that as weakness. It's like blood to a shark. They're drawn to it, and they will devour us if we don't show strength rather than weakness. So an independent Balochistan gave me an interesting idea. Congressman Rohrabacher and I had done an op-ed that was published, and it was my conviction that we stick in there a line about the potential for an independent Balochistan. Interestingly, after that was published, there was an article published in the Pakistan Daily News. I thought I had a copy of it here. I must not. Oh, here it is. It was published back in January. It says this in the article in the Pakistan Daily Times: In another interesting development, Louie Gohmert, a U.S. Republican Representative, proposed that, in order to beat the Taliban, the U.S. should carve out a new, friendly state, Balochistan, from within Pakistan, to stabilize Afghanistan's western border. The article goes on: Even if Mr. Gohmert does not necessarily speak for Washington, it is logical to assume that he made this observation after picking up the buzz in American political circles. The U.S. wants a consulate in Quetta, but so far, Pakistan has resisted this request. The geo-strategic location of Balochistan and its potential in minerals, gas and oil is something that interests the world's sole superpower. So says the Pakistan Daily Times. They say the Baloch resistance movement is one of the few, if not the only one, that has not been declared a terrorist movement by the U.S. The U.S.'s soft attitude towards this resistance movement does not necessarily mean that they are enamored of the complaints and aspirations of the Baloch, but that the Americans have their own vested interest there. They may now want to snip away at the roots of the Pakistan military's dual policy in the war on terror by a flanking move in Balochistan. The Pakistan Daily Times says: Before this loud thinking is embraced as policy by Washington, for our own territorial integrity, we should do away with our double game in the war on terror and politically settle Balochistan's issues. By helping the Afghan Taliban and other jihadi groups, we have only weakened our own country. It is time that the military realizes this folly. Indiscriminate killing of the Baloch by the military and its intelligence agencies cannot and must not be tolerated. The political leadership must talk to the Baloch resistance. Only through negotiations and a dialogue can the Balochistan issue be settled peacefully. The enemy of our enemy should be our friend. That is why when Congresswoman Bachmann, Congressman Burgess, and I got to the home of my friend Massoud, with all these other National Front leaders there waiting, and I got out of the vehicle, they knew my heart. They know we are friends who have the same enemies. And there was embracing all around because it truly was good to see them, to see them alive, and to see them in their own country in Massoud's own home. They fought with us, they fought for us, and they bore the brunt of the battle against the Taliban in late 2001 and early 2002 when they were routed initially. We added over 100,000 troops, got over 100,000 under this President, and things are not going as well as they were when the Northern Alliance was fighting them with simply a matter of hundreds of Americans embedded with air support. It's not going as well as it was then. Occupiers in Afghanistan--Russia for example. Going clear back to Alexander the Great, we know he died leaving that area, that things didn't go as well as he might have hoped. They've learned that occupiers don't do all that well in Afghanistan. Empower the enemy of your enemy. Don't try to buy off your enemy that is sworn to destroy you. Empower the enemy of your enemy. I mentioned earlier about the Taliban leader that we released who is now back with the Taliban. I mentioned one of the three things he said. He said, It's apparent to everybody that the U.S. has lost because they're begging us to come negotiate. Another thing he pointed out, which is consistent with sharia law, is that anyone who has not been supportive of the Taliban in the past needs to first come to the Taliban--and under Karzai they've been able to be more public, and they have a public presence. He says, Come to us, ask for forgiveness, ask for our protection, and you may be spared. From my understanding of sharia law, you can avoid being killed under sharia law if you come ask forgiveness and ask for protection in just such a way as this Taliban leader--fresh from his U.S. reprieve--is out there saying. And again, the Taliban position is, we probably can't defeat the U.S. in a single battle. We don't have to--we've just got to be here when you leave. And the heartbreaking aspect of that, for those of us who have attended too many funerals of Americans who have paid the full measure of devotion, is that if we leave and we leave a situation where the Taliban is empowered again, other Americans will have to come down the road in the future and fight the Taliban, and more American lives will be lost. It's not necessary. Had President Carter realized in 1979, when he welcomed the Ayatollah Khomeini back into Iran as a man of peace, had President Carter realized that Americans would be dying in America to protect America because radical Islam had then been given a country in which to be nourished, you would hope he would not have taken the same steps and would not be as bitter toward so many as he is today after his failed presidency. Perhaps even President Reagan--with the best of intentions--if he had realized that we were in a war, but only one side knew we were at war, when our precious Marines were killed in an explosion in Beirut, perhaps we wouldn't have run out so quickly. But for Heaven's sake, as American buildings, embassies, individuals were attacked--and in 1993, the first attempt on the World Trade Center, another act of war, was a signal letting us know that since 1979 these people had been at war with us. There was the Khobar towers, the USS Cole, further acts of war. We've been at war; we just didn't know we were. Then we come to 9/ 11, and we're totally shocked, totally unprepared because we did not realize there was a war going on. We just didn't know we were in a war. Now this administration seeks to go back to September 10, and it is cleansing its training materials of any reference to Islamic jihad. It is bringing in noncitizens. It is bringing in Members of the Muslim Brotherhood to advise it. It is bringing in officers of named coconspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial supporting terrorism. It's bringing in people who have ties supporting terrorism. It's bringing them in to dictate our policy toward radical Islam. What have they said? The first thing you've got to do is eliminate any reference to Islam, any reference to jihad. So this administration, from the Department of Justice, Department of State, Department of Defense, intelligence agencies, has been very compliant. That is ongoing. As one intelligence official said, we're blinding ourselves from the ability to see our enemy. What's going on these days will be the subject of historic articles that will continue for centuries to ask how this Nation could be so naive and/or stupid that we would be at war and not know it for 30-plus years, and that in the fight of such a war, we would bring in people who support our enemies' actions to tell us how to fight the war. There will be articles and history books that will repeat the question: How could they not see what they were doing was going to bring either an end to America or devastation to America, one or the other? Well, we know that in the news this week, we have such people down in Guantanamo, the 9/11 detainees, as they're referred to. I have got a couple of articles here. The New York Times is talking about the detainees showing defiance, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other detainees: ``9/11 mastermind, four cohorts to be arraigned.'' That was last week. ``Mohammed Joined By Four Codefendants in Deferring Pleas,'' a couple of days ago. There's another article: ``Outrage as 9/11 Defense Counsel Insists Women Cover Themselves.'' What happened to the freedom the people in our military are fighting for? Amazing. ``Lawyer Defending 9/11 Suspects Wearing Burqa in Court `Out of Respect.' '' Well, there is a great article--and it certainly wasn't recent--that points out that these detainees are ready to plead guilty. They're ready to come in and plead guilty. And this is a New York Times article: ``Five Charged in 9/11 Attacks Seek to Plead Guilty.'' Most people had not seen that title. All they've been hearing about is how they're disrupting the pleadings. This trial could go on for years and years. They're making a mockery out of it. And the reason people haven't seen the title of this article, ``Five Charged in 9/11 Attacks Seek to Plead Guilty,'' by the New York Times is because it was published December 8 and 9 of 2008. In 2008, these detainees indicated they were willing to plead guilty. These detainees--particularly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--had been through a lengthy questioning by the judge. He had spelled out his role in different things, not only in the 9/11 plot but his role in other terrorist acts. He had filed a 6-page pleading where he sets out that, if we have terrorized you, then praise be to Allah. He said, in essence, in that pleading, if you are Jewish or American, you deserve to die; you are an infidel. And he prayed that Allah would help them to continue to terrorize America. But a sad thing happened on the way between those guilty pleas in late 2008 and here, going on 4 years later. Virtually nothing has been accomplished. In fact, we are further back from where we were in December of 2008 because we had the H&O policy--the Holder and Obama policy--of, Gee, we're going to give you the chance--this isn't what they said. But anybody who has eyes to see and ears to hear could understand that what the Taliban, what al Qaeda, what radical Islamic jihadists would hear is, We're going to give you a show trial. Why would you want to plead guilty? So these guys, as of December '08 said, Whoa, this guy Eric Holder-- hey, he's represented terrorists. He will identify with us. The President, the community organizer he is, he's going to help us. So they're going to give us a way that we can have a show trial. In fact, the Attorney General wants to give us that show trial in downtown New York. Wow. Allah be praised. We're going to get to go back to the scene of the crime and create all that chaos and all the heartache for the people of Manhattan. Well, Congress, fortunately, said, that's not going to happen. They are going to be tried at Guantanamo. But the damage had been done by the H&O policy--the Holder and Obama policy to give them a show trial-- had taken hold. It had developed the imaginations of the 9/11 plotters and planners. So now we're having a show trial. This time in Guantanamo. Fortunately, not in the middle of where so much grief and anguish took place in New York City. Some had said at the time, Hey, this is New York City. You are an outsider. You have no business saying anything about what we do in New York City. This was an act of war against our country. The whole country suffered together and came together as one on 9/12/2001. It does pertain to the whole country. As our friend Representative Weiner from New York chastised me, he said, We all want to see them put to death in New York, and you have no right to say otherwise. Well, having been a judge and chief justice, I know those kinds of statements would be exhibit A or B of any motion to transfer venue, that they can't possibly get a fair trial. They were not well reasoned comments. So here we are, going on 4 years later. Justice has not been done. A travesty has been done to all the families of the victims of 9/11. They can forgive. They can turn the other cheek. But as a government, our role is different. We are to provide for the common defense. We are to punish evil. We are to encourage good. And that means, any nation in the world who has a government that wants to declare war on us, then be advised: Many of us don't believe--like in Iran, we don't believe we should go to war with Iran, but we'll take out the government that wants to go to war with us. Obviously this administration feels like we can buy time and has even given hints that they think they can live with a nuclear Iran. Well, a lot of people would not live with a nuclear Iran. A lot of people would die because of a nuclear Iran. It does not need to be allowed to happen. One other comment, though. There is a great article today out about one of the banes of my existence, and that was TARP. George W. Bush is a great man. He got a bad rap, was accused of lying when he did no such thing. He didn't bother to defend himself when truckloads of yellow cake uranium were taken out of Iraq, feeling that history would judge him fairly. But he trusted a pitiful Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson, and we had something called TARP. There is a great article in Human Events from today. ``Inspector General report ends myth that TARP 'turned a profit.''' And David Harsanyi goes on and points out very clearly that the money hasn't been paid back, as promised. Some of it has been paid back by other giveaways and gifts and loans by the Federal Government. And the government, printing money to pay debt and then having interest on the new money they've printed, is somehow making a profit. When the truth is, as the article points out: It's tricky to track $700 billion of emergency funding that was haphazardly dropped into the economy by a panic-stricken government, when accounting for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout, the American taxpayer is probably owed somewhere in the neighborhood of $237.7 billion-- But we were told it's all been paid back. Yeah, right. --though some estimates are far higher. And it will be more. The Treasury Department says that a large part of the money lost via TARP is the result of the housing and car bailouts, also not paid back. When the next Fannie and Freddie rescue comes--as a number of reports have indicated will be needed-- taxpayers will be on the hook. Most of the banks that were ``too big to fail'' when TARP was implemented are now even bigger. The report to Congress points out that a recent working paper from Federal Reserve economists ``confirms that TARP encouraged high-risk behavior by insulating the risk takers from the consequences of failure.'' That's why you never set aside free-market principles to save the free market. If you have to do that, the free market is not worth saving. But it was worth saving and there were free-market principles that could have been followed to get us out of that mess to avoid encouraging further risk taking. And I would commend, Mr. Speaker, people to Mike Franc's work at the Heritage Foundation that disclosed that despite the rhetoric of the President, how he's going after fat cats on Wall Street, the Wall Street executives and their immediate family donated to President Obama four-to-one over Senator McCain. And they've done extremely well under this President. It's almost as if there is a deal: Look, I'll call you ``fat cats,'' I'll call you all kinds of names--millionaires, billionaires--I'll trash you, but you'll make more money than ever and then I'll put taxes on those that make over $125,000, and then I'll say I'm going after major oil, Big Oil, and probably nobody will read the bills. I read it. I read the President's own words. He's going after independent oil companies. He's eliminating their deductions, not the major oil. He's not going to hurt major oil, from what he's proposed, but he'll put the independents out of business. The majors will make more money than ever because 95 percent of all wells drilled in the continental U.S. are drilled by independent oil and gas producers. So he says he's going after major oil, but they'll make more money than ever if he gets his way. One other thing: This is an election year, and my colleague from Texas was really going after Texas over the voter ID. I would point out to my friend from Texas, and any others, Mr. Speaker, that the fact is that bill in Texas says, if you can't afford a State ID card, we'll give you one. There are people that volunteer to even get you there to get it done. Let's avoid fraudulent elections further. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it's always an honor to be able to speak here in the House of Representatives. It has been a good day because here in the House, despite what some may think, we voted overwhelmingly to leave student loan rates at the same rate they are right now, 3.4 percent. If the government had had to subsidize a rate, if interest rates were higher, that would be more difficult to justify because of how much overspending this administration has had as dictated during the time when Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid had full control over all of the spending. But while the President was very busy running around the country condemning Republicans for not caring about student loan rates and the plight of students, we were busy here at work making sure that student loan rates did not increase. While the President was out there telling students that Republicans don't care about you, that they're going to double the interest rates of your student loans, he didn't bother to come check and find out what was happening in Washington. If he had, he would have found out we felt the same way about the student loans. Let's see which Democrats were as concerned as we were today about the student loan rates going up. This was bill H.R. 4628, and it's basically two pages, not 25 pages or 2,800 pages. It is two pages, and it keeps the rates at the same rate so they won't go up. One of our clerks just brought the printout of the Democrats that voted with the Republicans to extend the current interest rates, and there were 13 Democrats who voted with Republicans to keep the interest rates where they are. All that's on the printout are the last names: Barrow, Bishop of New York, Boren from Oklahoma, Donnelly, Higgins, Hochul, Kissell, Lipinski, Matheson, McIntyre, Owens, Peterson, and Walz. Those are the Democrats that voted today with the Republicans to keep the student loan interest rates the same. So, Mr. Speaker, it's my great hope that while the President is running around the country condemning Republicans for not caring about the plight of students who have to pay student loans and about the fact that he says Republicans are going to double the student interest rate, I hope that somebody who's not out campaigning--like the President, as he flies around at government expense--I hope somebody down Pennsylvania Avenue, right down the street that way, will get something into the President's teleprompter that advises him, Hey, you may want to back off of that. The Republicans, with only 13 Democrats voting with them, actually voted to extend the same interest rates. Now, I feel like the Democrats would agree with the fact that we believe that in order to keep from having expenses continue to go out of sight, as they did during the 2 years that Congress was completely controlled by Democrats and they had the White House, they did whatever they want, they passed a rule, pay- as-you-go. Actually, I broke ranks and voted with them. Others told me they don't really mean this pay-as-you-go thing. Yes, they're going to pass it, but they don't mean it. I go, But I do believe in pay-as-you-go. I do believe things should be paid for. I found out from those who had been here longer than I had that they were right in their cynicism, because over and over big bills that our friends across the aisle brought when they were in control of things, they would make an exception. So this bill and that bill and this bill and that bill weren't paid for, so the pay-as-you-go didn't mean much. But some of us believe that when we create a law we ought to either abide by the law or change it. This needed to be covered. In looking for ways to come up with funds to cover these current interest rates, some of us were reminded of the fact that ObamaCare, that most of the country didn't want--most of the country begged Congress, under Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid, not to pass--and that Americans, even in Massachusetts and other places normally controlled by Democrats, expressed their will by electing Democrats, this time elected Republicans so they could stop ObamaCare. It took a procedural twist that was quite unseemly in order to get it passed, but the American people didn't want it. I realize that since President Obama sees ObamaCare as his defining issue, his biggest issue, that he would not ever sign a bill that repealed ObamaCare in its entirety. I can get that. I understand that. I respect that. But it seemed to some of us that surely, as the President in every speech talks about being financially responsible, surely he would see that we shouldn't spend the $105 billion implementing ObamaCare until we find out if it's constitutional; because to use $105 billion to implement a bill, actually a takeover of people's rights, to implement that only to have it struck down would mean we had wasted tens of billions of dollars. My thought was, surely--surely--President Obama would be willing to meet us at that point. Sure, he won't agree to a complete repeal, but let's just suspend the spending until we find out whether the Supreme Court says it's constitutional or not. How could you be against that? Well, he was, because as the bill was shoved down the throats of Americans, it became very evident that they didn't care what Americans thought, don't really care what the Supreme Court thinks. Apparently, many don't even know what the Supreme Court thinks or says because the President, himself, said it would just be such a fundamental change from what the Supreme Court had ever done before. Obviously, he was not aware of recent cases like Marbury v. Madison. I think that was around 1803. Not all schools have copies of those newer cases like that. Anyway, it's not fundamentally different from what the Supreme Court has done in the past. What's fundamentally different is to have a Congress push through a bill like ObamaCare that's about one thing, the ``GRE,'' the government running everything, with a majority, a big majority of Americans saying, Please, don't do this. So it was done. In looking for ways to pay for this bill today, it seemed to many of us that a good and appropriate course would be to say let's take some of that money, a tiny, tiny bit of that money from ObamaCare that many of us think will be struck down, that shouldn't be spent till we find out if it's going to be struck down, and let's use that to pay for the $6 billion for this program. It made sense to some of us. But as I have already read, there were 13 Democrats that stood up and said, Okay, we can go along with that. Let's wait and see if ObamaCare is struck down or not before we spend any more of that money on ObamaCare. In the meantime, we will use it to pay for the student loan rates that we're out there blasting Republicans for not caring about. This was a way to be bipartisan, and 13 Democrats were bipartisan, and we appreciate them reaching across the aisle to pass this bill with us with a big majority. The President, on the other hand, apparently did get word that despite all his rhetoric that we don't care about the student loan rates on our side of the aisle, we don't care about students, as he runs around the country condemning us, somebody at the White House got word, because there was the issue of a veto threat if we passed this bill that keeps student interest rates where they are. Now, when I first heard that we were going to potentially pass a student loan bill that would affect interest rates, I considered that I may have to vote ``present'' because my wife and I have student loans for our children that we are paying back. Well, it turns out this bill will not help me one bit. My interest rates are still way above this. My wife and I took out student loans for our children. They're way above this. This doesn't affect our loans that we have, and, therefore, I was able to vote for this bill to help those students that are getting loans in the present. The reason I feel compelled, my wife and I felt compelled to start taking out student loans and to take responsibility for paying those loans, was because, before I ever ran for office as a judge, my wife and I had set aside money in accounts that would pay for our kids' college when they got there, would increase in value, increase in value. By the time they got ready for college, the money would be there to pay for it. But when we took, we believed it was, a calling for me to run for judge--they badly needed a new judge--we knew it would be a big hit financially. Just as when I ran for Congress, we had to really feel compelled that this was the course for our lives. Once we felt that, we cashed out every asset except our home, our retirement accounts, everything. Now, a little scarier to some than others, I knew I could make a lot more money because I did before. I made a number of times more in the private sector a couple years before I started running. The practice was going good. I didn't want my children to have to be encumbered with massive college debt for one reason, because I felt called to be a public servant. So we've taken on those student loans. So it doesn't go over too well with a person like me who has sacrificed all our assets except our home to come be a part of Congress and to try to get things on track. It doesn't make me feel too pleasant when people say that I don't care about students, student loans and their rates. We get it. We understand. We want students to do well. But more than that, we want them to have a vibrant economy and a job waiting for them when they get out of college. And it should be an exciting time of renaissance and economic boon in America, except for this President. If he would simply get out of the way. We have found that we can be energy independent, and we don't have to send billions and billions of dollars, 42 cents out of every dollar of which we're borrowing, we don't have to send all that money to the Solyndras and all the cronies of this administration, if he could just get out of the way and allow the market to work and collect the revenue that comes pouring in from the income tax, from the businesses, including the oil companies and the independent oil and gas companies as they start producing more of our own energy. It should be a new day in America. It should be a time of renaissance here. Instead, people are struggling to figure out how much food can I afford for my family when I'm paying $70 and $80 to fill up my gas tank when it shouldn't be more than $40, because this administration has given every indication by its actions--not its words but by its actions--that it will do nothing to help us become energy independent. We talk about, gee, natural gas, from this administration, natural gas can really help out. I'm for all of the above. Well, apparently that means the President is for all of the above up in the sky somewhere because he's doing everything he can to keep us from drilling and producing the energy we've got. We should be thanking God every day for blessing this country with more energy than any country in the world. And people like the Chinese are wondering: What is going on with these people? They've got more energy than anybody in the world. We're having to run to South America, Africa, and other places to buy their energy because we just don't have enough. They've got all they'll need, but they're putting it off-limits and won't produce it. It's kind of strange to thinking people that we're not utilizing the blessings that are found in this country. Well, it's time we started, and if we do that, then the students will have jobs, and they can pay them back more quickly. We do care, and this bill today shows that. Now, I want to take up another topic right quickly here, something called the United States Post Office. Now, there are some who think we ought to just get the government out of the post office business altogether, and normally I'm a guy that believes, if a private entity can do a better job than the government, then let's let the private entity do it. But there's a problem here, and it's called the U.S. Constitution, article 1, section 8: The Congress shall have power to-- and you go through the listed empowerments--establish post offices and post roads. If you go through our history, you will find out that actually they were quite concerned about the King being able to prevent them from sending newspapers, news and messages around that could inform people of what was really going on. They thought it was so important that there be a government post office, and I do think. But we can't be stupid about the way it's running, and we have people in management positions in the United States Post Office who have been worse than stupid. Incompetent doesn't begin to touch what some in management of the U.S. Post Office have been doing. It's as if they want to kill it off. Now, there are a lot of issues, but I think the biggest issue is in the middle and upper management of the post office. Because I've seen, on more than one occasion, an announcement by the United States Post Office that we are going to close this post office, we're going to close this facility, and that was followed with a statement that, and therefore we are going to pay for an independent study to show that we should close these facilities. Well, duh. If you go pay somebody to do a study to justify the decision you've already made, you've got no business being in a management position because you're not using the facts and information at hand to make your decisions. You make your decisions willy-nilly regardless of what the facts dictate should occur. We got a good indication of that recently in east Texas. We got a map sent out by these brilliant managers of the U.S. Post Office explaining a decision they had made. I'm going to get this up here because it's important that the management that sent this out understands how silly and how ridiculously incompetent they are. Now, they were making a decision with regard to a postal processing facility near Tyler, Texas. Tyler, Texas is located in Smith County. Now, in Texas, though, we do have a Tyler County, and in Tyler County you find towns like Woodville, Chester, and Warren, places like that; but you don't find Tyler, Texas, or the Tyler, Texas, processing facility in Tyler County. It's in Smith County. Yet we had a determination by the management of the U.S. Post Office that it would be more effective to shut down the Tyler processing facility, and they sent out this map to show this. This is an exact enlargement of the map the U.S. postal management sent out to justify their closing a processing facility near Tyler, Texas. In the center of this circle is Tyler County. It's not near Tyler, Texas. It's not near the processing facility. Now, you might say, well, surely they went out and talked to the people at the processing facility, looked to see if there were decisions that could made to make it more efficient and more economically viable, those kinds of things, and the answer would clearly be: How can they go out and talk to them when they don't even know where Tyler, Texas is? They think it's in Tyler County. We've got some morons. Maybe they're just incompetent. Who knows? But when we look to see, okay, how is the post office adjusting, we figure, well, as any business would know, you don't want to hurt the retail business and you don't want to make it more difficult for people to use the retail end of your business. That would be the local post offices. So what have these mental giants done? They've said, We're going to close lots of post offices and make it much more difficult for you to use our services. Not only that, we're going to close processing facilities that make the mail move many times more quickly, more efficiently, and save tremendous amounts of gasoline because we do the processing close to where it occurs. They're talking about closing a processing facility in Lufkin, Texas--I'm sure they don't know where that one is either. But when you look at what they've done, it makes no sense. Now, this is the map they sent out with Tyler County as the center. This tells you, down here is Tyler County; up here is Tyler, Texas. They're not even close. They don't cover the same areas. And yet they were using information down here about Tyler County to justify closing a facility up here. Surely, they found their error, but they don't care because they're in middle management. What difference does it make? They're not accountable. They don't have to show a profit. They don't have to show efficiency. So what do they do? Here's part of what's going on with the post office. Well, times are tough, so let's create more senior management staff. How about that. Percent management change from 1997 to 2012, up 41.25 percent. Wow, that's some smart folks. Gee, we need more retail, we need people using our services more; let's close retail facilities, make it more difficult to use them. Let's get more senior management in there, and gee, that will make a lot of difference. We've gone up 1,006 percent on inspector generals, and local management losses have been rather dramatic. That's not the way to become more efficient. Not only that, they could take a clue from what America is doing. It used to be that you pulled into a service station and you got service. Now you pull into a service station, the only service is what you get out of the car and do yourself. I prefer to do that anyway. I've worked in service stations, and I actually enjoyed it. So I don't want anybody else pumping my gas. When I finish and the thing clicks off, I raise the hose up and I get every bit of the gas that I've got in that hose. Well, let's look at the routes. Right now, if you mail a letter in Tyler, Texas, to go to Lufkin, Texas, it will travel 84 miles. You mail one from Tyler to Palestine--and it is Palestine in East Texas--total is 47 miles. You mail a letter from Tyler to Longview, it's 38 miles. Under the new plan--that's certainly not going to save any gasoline-- our brilliant postal management will have you mail a letter from Tyler that's going to Longview, the 38 miles, now it will go to the Dallas area, then over to Shreveport, then back to Longview. We're not going to process it here. We're going to go from 38 miles to 389 miles to deliver a letter. If you're going to send a letter down here, let's see, I can't tell where that is. It looks like down 35, so maybe that's to Waco or Austin. So you want to send it there--oh, I see. If you want to mail a letter from Tyler to Palestine, instead of 50-something miles, it will go Tyler to Dallas, down here to Austin, then back to Palestine. If you want to mail a letter the short distance to Lufkin, well, we're going to make it go 10 times further. We're going to go to Dallas, and then clear down--I guess that's to Houston, and then back up to Lufkin. We're going to go about 10 times as far to deliver a letter as we did before. This is nuts. What we've seen in America is, as times got tough, service stations said, you know what, we're going to let you do your own pumping. That will help us save and be more efficient. As time has gone on, they said you know what, let's put other services in this gas station, so you see banks, you see other things. In some post offices, they were beginning to do that. They have agreements with the State. Let's let the State lease or pay us to do some of the State services here. Let's allow them to come in and get passports here. There were some people that were thinking--and thinking right--you combine other services, this post office will be the center of the community. It will be efficient, it will be local, it will bring people to our retail outlet, and they will have more people using our services at the post office. Not the way these mental giants figure it; oh, no. We're going to close post offices. We're going to close processing facilities and make it cost a tremendous amount more. We're going to make these decisions, and then we're going to go out, and we're going to hire people to do a study to come to a conclusion--we tell them, all in the name of making the post office more efficient. That is nuts. It's time to clean out the management of the United States Post Office. I've dealt with postal employees all my adult life. Those are hardworking folks. People that deliver the mail, people that stand there behind the counter, take abuse all day, lines getting longer because we're not replacing the people when they leave, they're good people. They're hardworking people. There are some issues with pensions, we can deal with those. But for heaven's sake, it's time to get rid of top-heavy management making ridiculous decisions, and we can improve our lot here. One other thing. Last night, I was on a telephone town hall with Rusty Humphries and a lot of Tea Party folks. A question was asked-- they slipped in a ringer in there, a Democrat, who said: Gee, you say you're a Christian. How could you vote to take money away from helping seniors with their health care? And how could you help the major oil companies by giving money to them? Quickly let me just say, a subsidy is a gift or grant of money. Look it up. No oil company is getting a gift or grant of money. They're getting deductions. If you forget what the President said, he said he's going after major oil, declaring war on them. Ridiculous. We have, in the President's jobs bill, exactly what he's doing. He's eliminating the deductions that will bankrupt the independent oil and gas companies in America. It won't affect the major oil companies. He says he's declaring war on the major oil and big evil oil, but the truth is he's going to bankrupt the independent oil and gas producers that produce and drill and maintain 95 percent of the wells in America. So what will be the effect of this President's so-called ``war'' on major oil? It will put the independents out of business, 95 percent of the wells will not be drilled and maintained. That will mean more profit than any time in the history of the world for the major oil companies. It's time to get that under control. And to the gentleman that we got cut off with last night because we were out of time, let me just say: Son, dumb, dependent, and Democrat is no way to go through life. I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 43, 112th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, there's a lot going on in the world these days. I had an interesting trip to Afghanistan this weekend, a country into which we are pouring billions and billions of dollars and have military there that is keeping President Karzai in office. And he's a very grateful man. That was demonstrated when he told our government, this Obama administration, that Dana Rohrabacher, my very dear friend, one of the greatest patriots I know, would not be allowed into Afghanistan, as if he had that power, because he had been very critical of President Karzai. So we're spending billions and billions of dollars so that a cantankerous President of Afghanistan, who is only there because of the lives and treasure that Americans have sacrificed, can turn around and tell Americans, we don't want Members of Congress that actually control the purse strings to money flowing into this country, we don't want them here. It was rather interesting. And as might be expected, President Karzai had his facts entirely wrong. He was representing that Representative Rohrabacher had a bill that was attempting to partition, divide up Afghanistan. Entirely wrong. I knew that because I assisted with the bill and cosponsored it, proudly, because it was a resolution that basically was encouraging Afghanistan to allow elections of their regional governors. It encouraged elections. Somehow President Karzai found this very offensive, as a threat to him. And I can see it from his standpoint. If one puts one's self in his position, you realize, gee, I'm President Karzai. I get to appoint every regional governor. And gee, that would be a system, like ancient Rome, where you would be appointed to be governor, but you had to kick back to Caesar in order to keep your seat. Interesting. That is a plan fraught with the potential for corruption. That's one of the reasons that Dana and I, and so many others, think it would be a good idea, help strengthen the country, if the people in the various regions were able to elect their governors. President Karzai not only appoints the governors, he appoints the mayors. They don't get to elect them. He appoints them. You want to be a mayor of a city, you better go suck up to President Karzai because he's going to make the appointment. If you would like to be the chief of police, don't worry with some local city council in Afghanistan. Don't worry with the governor. You'll be appointed, that's right, by President Karzai. We're told by Afghans that actually it goes so much further than that. He even appoints many of the teachers. You want to be a teacher at an upper level? Afghans tell me that he appoints them as well. President Karzai gets to appoint a slate of potential legislators. He has tremendous control of the purse strings in Afghanistan, not someone to be countered with, you would think, unless perhaps you're from a government that assists the government of Afghanistan in meeting its budget needs. As I understand it, Afghanistan has a budget of $12.5 billion. As I understand it, Afghanistan provides $1.5 billion of that $12.5 billion budget. That's all the revenue--taxes, fees, all kinds of things. That's the extent of their revenue. Gee, what would happen to President Karzai if all of a sudden this Congress did what the 1974 Democratic-controlled Congress did when, without any regard for those who had fought with us in Vietnam and in Southeast Asia, every penny was just completely shut off, when every penny being spent in Vietnam back in '74 was cut off? What happened after we left was an absolute horrible bloodbath of those who had assisted the United States in any way. So I don't think this Congress will be as abrupt as the Democratic Congress was in 1974, but it certainly has the ability to do that. The difference is, I think, there are enough people in this Congress who realize, unless we empower those who fought the Taliban in late 2001, after 9/11, and in early 2002 when they basically routed the Taliban with U.S.-embedded support and air support, unless we empower those allies by allowing them to elect their own regional governors, by allowing them to elect their mayors, taking some of the power away from a central administration where, regardless of whether or not reports may or may not be accurate about corruption at the highest level, then there is certainly corruption in Afghanistan. It is also interesting that this administration refuses to replace the inspector general, who is supposed to supervise and audit the money that's going into Afghanistan. Surely, that couldn't be because it's an election year. Surely, that couldn't be because, if we had somebody actually monitoring where all of the billions of dollars were pouring into Afghanistan are going, the report would indicate widespread corruption, which would reflect poorly on this administration, throwing away billions of dollars not only to the Solyndras around the country but to corrupt administrations who are fattening their bank accounts while Americans don't have any. Many Americans struggle to have any money in their bank accounts, yet we're propping up an administration over there that thinks that, on a whim, they can say, I don't like this Congressman because he has been critical of my administration, so we're going to keep him out. I realize that Secretary Clinton inherited a very difficult situation that was not of her making, but it is important in dealing with matters of foreign policy and in dealing with matters of State that we not be duped by people who have made careers out of duping Americans and Russians and other nationalities. So we have a great ally in the nation of Israel. They believe in freedom as we do. They have a truly representative government, one in which the Prime Minister of Israel does not forbid the elections of other officials so that he will be the only one who has the power to appoint. Israel allows elections, and as others have pointed out, they're more likely more free than any of the other neighbors immediately surrounding Israel. Even Muslims in Israel have greater freedom to elect whomever they wish in fair and free elections. We have an ally in Israel. Now, I realize there are differences in views, whether the Old Testament, the Torah, the Tanakh have valid legitimacy these days. Some of us believe them and are proud to do so just as the Founders did. Heck, of the 56 signers of the Declaration, over a third of them were ordained Christian ministers who believed every word of the Old Testament. So I've been looking in the Old Testament for wisdom in application to our current situation because we know, back earlier this year, The Washington Post was told by this administration that the window during which Israel was going to likely attack Iran was between two different dates during a certain period. Well, that's not very helpful to an ally when we tell the world about when an ally may choose to defend itself. That's more a heads-up to an enemy of Israel's and the United States, a sworn enemy of the United States, led by people who have sworn to the destruction of the United States and Israel. So it's a little bit confusing to see how this administration could be going about betraying our friend Israel. It would seem, when this administration leaked to the media that our dear friend and ally Israel was going to utilize the relationship with Azerbaijan to attack, that such a release was not something you would do for a friend but, rather, a betrayal of a friend and ally. It appears that those were efforts to keep Israel from doing what it needed to do to defend itself when this administration is telling Israel, Hey, just trust us. Trust us. We'll take care of your national security, and yes, there is a window beyond which you could no longer do any good in trying to stop the nuclear proliferation in Iran and beyond which we in the United States could. So, if we can just force Israel past that window, then they would have to rely completely on the United States to do all in its power to protect Israel. If Israel looks at what has been happening already this year with a couple of betrayals of our friendship, that would not bode well that the top in this administration for this country will protect Israel at whatever cost. That has to be considered by Israel. Then we have this report. This was dated April 19, 2012, from the Middle East Media Research Institute. The introduction reads: An important element in the renewal of nuclear negotiations with Iran in the talks in Istanbul April 13 14, 2012, was an alleged fatwa attributed to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, according to which the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons. Indeed, U.S. leaders, among them Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and even U.S. President Barack Obama, along with other representatives to the talks, the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors, and even highly respected research institutes considered the fatwa as an actual fact, and examined its significance and implications for the nuclear negotiations with Iran that were renewed in Istanbul. However, an investigation by the Middle East Media Research Institute reveals that no such fatwa ever existed or was ever published, and that media reports about it are nothing more than a propaganda ruse on the part of the Iranian regime apparatuses in an attempt to deceive the top U.S. administration officials and the others mentioned above. Iranian regime officials' presentation of facts on nuclear weapons attributed to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as a fatwa, or religious edict, when no such fatwa was issued by him, is a propaganda effort to propose to the West a religiously valid substitute for concrete guarantees of inspectors' access to Iran's nuclear facilities. Since the West does not consider mere statements by Khamenei or other regime officials to be credible, the Iranian regime has put forth a fraudulent fatwa the West would be more inclined to trust. It goes on to talk about, and I'll just read from this: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton clarified that she had discussed the fatwa with ``experts and religious scholars,'' and also with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. At the NATO conference in Norfolk, Virginia, in early April, she stated: ``The other interesting development which you may have followed was the repetition by the supreme leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, that he had issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, against weapons of mass destruction. Prime Minister Erdogan and I discussed this at some length, and I've discussed with a number of experts and religious scholars. And if it is indeed a statement of principles and values, then it is a starting point for being operationalized, which means that it serves as the entryway into a negotiation as to how you demonstrate that it is indeed a sincere, authentic statement of conviction. So we will test that as well.'' During his visit to Tehran in late March, in an interview with Iranian state television, Prime Minister Erdogan said, ``I have shared the Leader's [Khamenei's] statement with U.S. President Barack Obama and told him that in face of this assertion, I do not have a different position, and the Iranians are using nuclear energy peacefully.'' On April 7, 2012, Kayhan International reported, citing Press TV, that Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had told the Turkish Kanal D TV that there is no possibility that ``Khamenei's fatwa forbidding the possession and use of nuclear weapons might be disobeyed in Iran.'' So we can all celebrate. There's has been a fraudulent false report of a fatwa by Khamenei. So, gosh, nobody in Iran would violate this fatwa making it against the Islamic religion to develop nuclear weapons. When the truth is, if Israel is not going to defend itself by itself, as President Obama said it absolutely must on more than one occasion, if it is going to rely on the representations of this administration to, Trust us, we'll take care of you, we got your back, then Israel may want to note how easy it is to deceive this administration into believing what it wants--that Iran would not develop nuclear weapons. It is important to note that this administration has been praised in messages coming from the Islamic Society of North America and other groups actually named coconspirators in funding terrorism in the world. They've been praised by these named coconspirators in funding terrorism for their cleansing of training materials of our FBI, of our intelligence, of our State Department. We have gone through and eliminated words like ``jihad,'' words like ``Islam,'' words like ``radical,'' replacing them with things like ``violent extremism.'' When the trouble is, it is so easy to deceive national officials in any country where they refuse to study the enemy who has sworn to destroy them. If you will not study the enemy who is sworn to destroy you and your country, then you will continue to be easily duped. So we have these named coconspirators for funding terrorism out there praising this administration and their meetings inside the hearts of the administration at the State Department, in the White House, in the Justice Department. They've been praised for eliminating all of these references to such inappropriate things as ``Islam.'' Well, this weekend, despite efforts by some in this administration to prevent it, a few of us met with our allies, members of the national front, one of which could be elected the next President of Afghanistan. These are people who, while we in America were burying Americans, they were burying family members who had fought with us against the Taliban. These are the enemy of our enemy, the Taliban. They should be our friends, and they are my friends. Therefore, when I saw my Muslim friends there at the home of my friend Massoud, there were big hugs all around. This administration calls them war criminals because some of them fight as viciously as the Taliban that they fight against, but they were friends. They fought with us. They did much of our fighting for us before we became occupiers in Afghanistan. Yet, when this administration throws our allies under a bus, it means for them to stay there. Well, some of us believe that if we ever hope to have other allies, then it is critical that we treat our allies with respect. We don't stab them in the back. We don't throw them under the bus. But that's a lesson hard learned. There are international reports that say President Karzai may be willing to resign a year early. That's been heard different places around the world. Gee, wow, isn't that wonderful if Karzai would resign a year early. But in meeting with my friends who have talked to some of Karzai's circle, they point out: Do you in America not understand that when this President Karzai says he's looking at retiring a year early, it's not because he is some big-hearted, wonderful, democracy-loving person? If he loved democracy, he'd let us elect our governors. He'd let us elect our mayors. But he wants to appoint them, and he's not ready to give up power. But the Afghan constitution apparently says that if you've served two terms, you cannot run for a third term. So, this President Karzai is looking at a way, when perhaps if he resigned a year early, then he could argue, I didn't serve two terms. I served 1 year short of two terms, therefore I can run for a third term. Being as how the President of Afghanistan appoints the governors, the mayors, the chiefs of police, so many of the positions of power in Afghanistan, it's quite conceivable that he could ensure that he got elected again next time if he ran a third time. And if he were to be allowed to run a third time and get elected, that puts him beyond 2014, which means the United States will not be around to enforce the promises that President Karzai made. Oh, it's a hope and prayer that this administration will quit living on the false promises of people who say they're going to help us, but are sworn publicly and privately to destroy our way of life. And there are those we continue to hear say, Look, Israel is just occupiers. They're occupiers in this land. The Palestinians have more claim. But as Newt Gingrich pointed out, the term ``Palestinian'' is a very recent word that found usage. If you go back, as one reporter did, who ended up being let go, she marveled that these people ought to go back to Poland or wherever they came from, when actually if you look at where they came from 1,600, 1,700 years before Mohammed existed in the city of Hebron, a King named David ruled for 7 years. He then moved the capital up to Jerusalem, and a beautiful capital it was. Some have said, ``Well, where is the evidence of the Israelis being in Jerusalem?'' Well, we know that Mohammed never went to Jerusalem. He had a dream, as I understand it at one point, that he had gone there; but he never physically went. That's for sure. But here is the current city of Jerusalem. This is the city of David here, south of the Temple Mount, Mount Moriah, where Abraham went. It's interesting, because people have said, gee, where is the archeological evidence? And we see people around the country in Hebron where Jesse was buried, where his tomb is, in what I call Shiloh and they were calling Sheloh. The Ark of the Covenant, they've found the location, it certainly appears, where it was kept for over 300 years, long before there was a Mohammed. People have said, well, where is the evidence? It is beginning to show up in droves. Quite interesting, as the archeologists have begun to look, they've realized, you know what, the city of David may have been south down the hill from where the current Temple Mount is. They began excavating, and they found all kinds of dramatic evidence of Israel's existence. It's dramatic. There is no question from the things that are being found and the way they're being dated and the dates that are coming to light that Israel existed in the land where it has its country now. Not just in part, but throughout the West Bank. That was Israeli territory many, many centuries before a man named Mohammed lived. I'm not attempting to push my religious beliefs on anybody else. These are simply the facts of history that we have to look at and understand. Until we have an administration that stops blinding those who are supposed to protect us, we're in big trouble. So it is important that we pay tribute to our dear friend Israel, stop the betrayals, and say thank God for the nation of Israel and the dear friend that they are to the United States. 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, these are interesting times we live in, and I've appreciated my friends, my doctor friends. We have got two physicians who would certainly like to help heal America, but we have people in powerful positions in the Senate, as well as the White House, that don't appear to be interested in their prescriptions. I sure am, and I appreciate their observations. Also, they alluded to some of the energy issues before us in the country right now, and that's certainly worth noting. First, I want to address something that we are hearing that the President, over and over and over, he is spending millions and millions of tax dollars running around the country telling people that the cure to what ails us and the cure to all unfairness is the Buffett rule. We are told that since Buffett may pay a lower percentage than his secretary, Warren Buffett and the President are saying we need to tax the wealthy more. We found out the President pays, apparently, a lower tax rate than his secretary, 20 percent compared to a higher percentage that his secretary pays, and it leaves some of us baffled. If somebody really feels that it's fairness or a moral issue for Warren Buffett and the President to pay more taxes than their secretaries, then at least have the morality to do it. Don't come to Congress and say we demand you pass laws to force us to do the morally right thing because we're not going to do the morally right thing unless Congress passes a law making me, Warren Buffett, me, President Obama, do the right thing. We can't control ourselves and make ourselves do the morally proper thing, the fair thing, unless Congress passes a law. Really? Is that what we have come to--that the leader of the free world just down Pennsylvania Avenue has to have Congress pass a law to get him to do what he says is the moral and fair thing to do? Come on. Are we in that bad a shape now? I have had one of the smarter economists in the country, Art Laffer, Ronald Reagan's economic adviser--what a great guy. Served us good spaghetti and meatballs at his home in Nashville. I personally got to try them out. Wonderful family, delightful family, a brilliant economist. I have had him explain to me how anybody who says we're going after the rich, we're going to go after the rich, and we're going to make them pay their fair share, is probably not being honest. They're just probably not being honest, because if they think through their proposal, if they will look at current history, if they will look at immediate past history and long past history, what they find is this. If you're a union worker, if you're a mechanic, if you're working on an oil well somewhere, if you're working as a waitress, you're working in a restaurant, you're working in a pharmacy, you're working in any of millions of businesses across America, and you're not rich, you're part of the working middle class, you cannot move if you get taxed a higher amount because you are reliant on that job. Taxes, no matter what kind of tax you put in place, it's most likely only going to affect those who are in the middle class, no matter what else you do, because only the wealthy are not tied to a restaurant, to a car company, to an auto manufacturer, to an auto repair place, they are not tied to those. They can own them, and they can live in the next State or the next country, but they don't have to actually live at the place of business they're making money from. When you go after the wealthiest in America and want to make them do the morally fair thing because, without Congress passing a law, these wealthiest among us can't make themselves do the moral and fair thing, according to their own words--Gee, we can't do it unless Congress makes us--what you do is tell the wealthy, we're going to slap a big old tax on you, and the wealthy can say, no thank you. I look stupid, perhaps, but I'm not that stupid. That's how I have either gained or been able to hold on to my wealth. So I'm moving. I'm voting on where I want to live with my feet, and they pick up and they go to where there are less taxes. We've seen it in the wealthiest moving from country to another country, or island, or buying an island. We have seen that repeatedly. If the government says, gee, well, we'll outsmart the wealthiest among us. They've moved to another country, so we'll figure out a new way to go after the wealthiest. And every time it fails to work. So after a while you get the idea, wait, let's look historically, every time a city, state, or nation goes after the wealthiest people in the world to make them pay higher taxes, unless the whole world collaborated at the same time to make it happen, they will simply move. The middle class cannot do that. The middle class does not have that luxury. If you're very wealthy and gas goes to $4 or $5 a gallon, it's an inconvenience and you can't be tied up with trivial details like gas going up $1 a gallon or $2 a gallon or, like it has under this President, go from $1.80-or-so up to $4. And now we're heading toward $5. And in some places I have seen $5--certainly, over $5 for some time this year in some of the premium gasoline lines. The wealthiest, they're not really bothered. It's an inconvenience. They can choose to live in an estate out in the country. They can choose to live in a town home worth millions in the middle of town, or they can choose to live on an island. They can choose to live anywhere. Because of the Internet, the telephone, Internet meetings, the wealthiest among us can do their business from anywhere. So it becomes very clear that the only reason somebody really intelligent that understands what is going on and is willing to look at historical precedent, anybody that's really going to be fair, will realize the only reason they would say we're going after the wealthiest among us is for political gain, because they're going to drive them out of the country otherwise, or drive them out of the State or city where the taxes are going to be raised dramatically. The thing to do that's fair for those of us who want those making more money to pay more and those who are making less money to pay less, those of us that feel that way, many of us have begun to say, To do that, let's have a flat tax. Some, like Steve Forbes, have been saying it for a long time. The Heritage Foundation has got a new flat tax proposal that looks to have wonderful merit. There are a number of flat tax proposals. Steve Forbes was at a 17 percent flat tax, it doesn't matter how much you make. In my conversations with Art Laffer, he said you can have a flat tax and actually even be lower than 17 percent--I'm looking forward to getting the full details--and have two deductions, one for home mortgage interest and one for charitable contributions. I'm not talking about when you give underwear to some charity and say, Congratulations, you've now got my undergarments. I'm talking about real charitable contributions. Make those things deductible, but otherwise eliminate all the loopholes, whether it's 12, 17, and the economy would explode. There would be more jobs available. And at this time when there are so many that are just on the edge of desperation, when they don't know what they're going to do, they can't keep paying $4 a gallon for gas, for those who have been looking so long, the millions that are out of work because they just got tired of looking so they're not counted in the unemployment numbers. So we realize, gee, the unemployment is probably much, much, much worse than the administration is telling folks. For those folks, I would like to provide a little hope. It won't be under this administration; but if we have a different President and we get a different majority in the Senate, it truly ought to be spring time in America, figuratively, as it is literally right now. We now know, many of us, we can be energy independent. Seven years ago, when I got to Congress, I didn't think so. The natural gas we've found is extraordinary. And how have we done it? The technology has gotten so good at slanting holes, the technology has gotten so good in sealing the hole and fracking a formation. And for those that understand how it works, if you do not have a sealed formation there, and you frack, then you have lost the formation. There will be no pressure to bring the oil or gas up. We've also had hearings in Natural Resources--and Chairman Doc Hastings has done a great job there--we've had hearings and we've discussed a lot of these things. And we have some Chicken Littles in the Interior Department, Energy Department, and the EPA running around saying, gee, hydraulic fracking keeps polluting drinking water. They've shut wells down. And each time when they've brought in the scientific study to actually analyze--because there has been some drinking water polluted by something--but when they analyze, they find there is not anything that was utilized in the hydraulic fracking process that was able to make its way through the thousands of feet of rock formation to get to the drinking water and that there is nothing in the polluted drinking water that could possibly have come from the fracking. Yet this President keeps saying, I'm for all of the above. And the best I can figure is when he says I'm for an all-of-the-above energy process, it means: I'm for anything we don't get out of the ground. So we'll give hundreds of millions, actually billions, of dollars to dear friends who have bundled money for the President's reelection and original election and we'll give them those billions of dollars and say, Go try to make solar panels, even though it's not financially feasible. It's not a viable enterprise. Go do it and I will help you by giving billions of dollars--42 percent of which we're having to borrow. We'll give them all that money. Some day we should be able to use solar energy; but for heaven's sake, we should not be depriving our Social Security funds of money while this President is giving away billions of dollars to cronies for energy ideas that don't work and that are not feasible and that are bankrupting America. And yet that's what's been happening. A 2 percent payroll tax cut for workers to divide Americans. Seniors have been told, You don't have to worry. This Democratic administration is going to make sure we take care of our seniors. And the very times that's being said, they are gutting the Social Security trust fund. Even though it's IOUs going in there, there's Social Security tax money that has been coming in since the 1930s in enough sufficiency to pay for the outgoing checks. It was not supposed to be for many years that we were supposed to reach that point where there was more Social Security money going out than Social Security tax money coming in. Well, this President doubled down, and in what is a divisive--I guess, to use his terminology--divisive, dismissive gesture from this administration, we have undercut our seniors. This administration has been pushing to gut the Social Security trust fund. And it has done so. Now, the friends in the mainstream media, trying to cover for the President, are not talking about the fact last year there was 5 percent of Social Security payments that we didn't have money to pay from the Social Security trust fund payments coming in. So we had to borrow around 42 percent of the rest, and we had to take tax money to make up the rest. And there's projections that though it was a 5 percent shortfall last year, it will likely be 14 or 15 percent this year. That's not a good road to stay on. It is a road to Greece. It is a road that will so undercut our senior citizens, who deserve better from every administration, including this one. Seniors have been hurt by this administration, 5 percent last year, 15 percent this year, and if we don't get a different administration and a different majority in the Senate, it's going to be worse after that. It will be 45 percent the next year. If it triples in 1 year, it could triple again. We're in trouble if we continue the policies of this administration. Now, since hydraulic fracking has brought us 100 to 300 years of natural gas, even at vastly expanded rates of usage, we could be energy independent, we could put not merely city buses on natural gas, but move cars to natural gas. At the same time, the Bakken play up in North Dakota has found a huge amount of oil we didn't realize we had. And in northeast Utah, northwest Colorado and southwest Wyoming, we are told there are tremendous amounts of energy. We're told there's clean coal technology. And what's the answer from this administration? Let's shut down any use of coal. Why? Because this administration has ``all of the above'' as their energy policy, which means they're not going to use coal because it comes from underground. We in the United States have been blessed beyond measure. We have more natural resources and more energy than any nation in the world. China, Russia, you name it--we've got more natural energy than anywhere. And this administration has continued to put our energy off limits. The second-largest coal deposit in the world is in Utah, we are told, and it was put off-limits by President Clinton. This administration, of all the campaign promises you would hope the administration would break, you would hope they would break the promise to see energy prices ``necessarily skyrocket.'' I would love to have seen that promise broken, yet that seems to be one of the very few that's been kept. Energy prices have necessarily skyrocketed. And then we find out today, because hydraulic fracking has delivered the ability for this Nation to become energy independent, today, the EPA has declared war on hydraulic fracking. People are desperate. The rich--we've seen how this works. The President calls the wealthiest among us, the Wall Street folks ``fat cats.'' All they have to endure is a little name calling from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and in return, they get richer than they've ever been. Most people can endure a little name calling by an individual when they know the individual is going to see that they're wealthier than ever. Wall Street has done pretty well under this administration. It's done a lot better than most of America. Americans deserve better. The President says he's going after Big Oil, declaring war on Big Oil. Well, this is one of the few areas where the President actually does have a substantive plan to go after what he calls ``Big Oil.'' Well, we've learned from the way Wall Street has been handled, call them names but make them richer than ever. Say you're going to war against Big Oil, and what happens? We get this proposal in writing from the President, this is his Jobs Act, and subtitle D of the President's job act is entitled, ``Repeal Oil Subsidies.'' Well, that word is extremely disingenuous. The President uses it all the time, but the word, if you look it up, means a grant or gift of money. There is no grants or gift of money. There are tax deductions for expenses. So he says he's going after Big Oil, but if you look at the specific deductions that he now has in print that he is going after Big Oil with, what do you find? You find out these deductions don't help Big Oil companies. It's so marginal, it's a drop to them. Who it will devastate and put out of business are the independent oil and gas operators who drill 95 percent of all the oil and gas wells in the continental U.S. There is a repeal in here by the President of the deduction for intangible drilling and development costs in the case of oil and gas wells. There is a repeal of the percentage depletion for oil and gas wells, there is a repeal of the deduction for injectants, and there is a repeal of the oil and gas working interest exception to passive activity rules. Now, if anybody is interested in really finding out the truth, they can go to major oil companies and ask them, would these repeals of these deductions really hurt you as a major oil company in the world? And the answer would be, no, not really. You can go to the accountants, as I have, for independent oil and gas operators and say, if these are repealed, would it affect independent oil and gas operators who drill 95 percent of the oil wells in the continental U.S.? And the answer is, it will devastate them. Not only is he going after the deductions that keep them afloat, they're going after the investment in oil and gas wells by the mainstream public. Now, if you're British Petroleum or Exxon, you don't put out a proposal that says, we're drilling a well, and here's the proposal, here's the geology, here's the other wells in the area, here's what we think it will do. And if you invest X amount of dollars, then we will give you X percentage amount of the working interest in this well. That's the kind of proposal independent oil and gas companies have to make to get investments for people to invest in their oil well. If they hit a gusher, hit a huge well, then those who invest and take a percentage of the well will do very well. If they hit a dry hole, then they lose money. And when you invest in a dry hole and it costs you money, you would hope you would be able to deduct your expenses of the investment that failed. What this President is doing not only is going to destroy the independent oil companies by taking away deductions that keep them afloat and keep them able to keep drilling another well, he is going after their investments. So once you begin to see these specifics, you realize--and there are some other things in here, repeal marginal well production, repeal of enhanced oil recovery--when you see the specifics, you realize, oh, wow, maybe he doesn't know that he will destroy oil and gas independent operators. Maybe he doesn't know. But it doesn't take a genius to realize if you put oil and gas operators out of business who are the independents, who are not big enough to have all the employees they need to do the drilling, who have so many subcontractors who go out and eat and go to the entertainment places and they go invest in things around town, and they go buy clothes--those people, those subcontractors, their subcontractors, all of those people will be without anything to do because this administration says he's declared war on major oil, but instead, it's really a war against independents. If he stops 95 percent of the drilling for oil and gas in the continental U.S., then what happens to major oil? You've eliminated all of their competition among the small independents. Well, what does that mean? Well, there are only a small number of massive international oil and gas companies comparatively, and you've wiped out their competition in America. It means they will charge more for gasoline, more for diesel, and there's nothing we can do about it because they're the only ones that have any energy. Right now, before this President finishes driving or trying to put independents out of business, we've got to stop this train wreck that's coming. This should be springtime in America. It should be a time of renaissance. People shouldn't have to pay $4 a gallon. And as soon as this President takes substantive actions, just to announce that he's going to take substantive actions, not to declare war on hydraulic fracking as they have now, not to declare war on oil companies in North Dakota because there have been eight mallards that died that had some oil on them and, therefore, they have the Justice Department under the President's thumb who is prosecuting the oil companies for violations of the Migratory Bird Act even though they've got windmills they support that are chopping them up by the thousands and thousands. No, don't go after the windmills. They're above. So when the President says he's for all of the above, that includes all of the wind being generated here in Washington and other places where there are windmills that are driven by the hot air. It's time to start saying what we mean, so that when this President tells the leader of Israel, ``I have your back,'' the leader of Israel doesn't realize he's got to put on something that will stop a knife coming from the back. It's time for our allies to know we support our friends, and we're going to stop supporting and trying to buy off our enemies. It's time to bring peace and prosperity back to the continental U.S., all 50 States, all our territories, by truly having an all-of-the-above energy policy. And if we want to pursue renewables, don't be letting the Social Security trust fund or the tax money dry up and leave seniors so vulnerable. Don't take away $500 billion from Medicare and hurt the seniors like that as ObamaCare has done. Don't do those things. If you want to go spend billions giving it to your friends in solar energy, for heaven's sake, let's start leasing the Federal land like it used to be done, and then use 25 percent royalty, use part of our royalty, to throw away on the President's friends, not be borrowing from China, not be taxing people to give to his buddies, and we can return to springtime in America. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. As this will be the last session before we go into the Easter district work period, I thought it was appropriate to look back at something historically, and I have a prayer that was given in the United States Senate in the 1940s by Senate Chaplain Peter Marshall. He said: We pray to Thee, O Christ, to keep us under the spell of immortality. May we never again think and act as if Thou wert dead. Let us more and more come to know Thee as a living Lord who hath promised to them that believe: Because I live, ye shall live also. Help us to remember that we are praying to the Conquerer of Death, that we may no longer be afraid nor be dismayed by the world's problems and threats, since Thou hast overcome the world. In Thy strong name, we ask for Thy living presence and Thy victorious power. Amen. That was Senate Chaplain Peter Marshall. It is a good prayer, Mr. Speaker, to pray as we head for the Easter recess.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we've just had a vote on H.R. 5, something very important. It's one of the horrible parts of the ObamaCare bill that we would have a board that would dictate to people what they could or could not have in the way of treatment or care. The Federal Government has no business getting between people and their doctor. They have no business taking over health care, because if the Federal Government has the right to take over people's health care, then they'll have the duty to tell people how to live, what they can eat, what they must do. But I had to vote ``no'' on this bill for this reason: in order to pay for this bill, under our rules, they added a provision that has the Congress dictating to every State in the country what their State med- mal tort laws have to be. In Texas, we did tort reform, and we have doctors coming back. Some say, well, Louie, other States don't have it. That's fine. It's their right. Their doctors can come to Texas. But when Congress wants to usurp State law, I have to say, ``No.''

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, a couple of issues I want to address. I appreciate so much my friend, Dr. Fleming, who has the adjoining district to mine, across the Sabine River over in Louisiana. He makes great points. We need to get the Federal Government out of the business of controlling people's health care. We need to get them back in the business of being a referee, making sure insurance companies and health care providers do the right thing, butt out of the business of dictating and controlling health care. Very clear from ObamaCare, the IPAB, we got a board of 15 people going to dictate people's medical decisions for them, and, of course, all of the pandering back during the debate on ObamaCare how you can, as my friend Dr. Fleming pointed out, the President, all those who mirror his comments, all those that read from the same teleprompter and say, oh no, you like your health care, you can keep it. You like your doctor, you can keep it. Well, we knew they were wrong. They were wrong. So most people have already lost their health care exactly as they had it before if they liked it, and if they haven't yet, they will. That's why it was a good idea, not only to repeal the provision on that board that will dictate people's lives, what health care they can have, what they can't have. That was a good idea. We need to repeal the whole bill. It is unconstitutional, and of course the President did us a wonderful favor by showing what many of us knew, that if ObamaCare is considered constitutional--it's not, but if the courts considered it that way--then it is very clear, the President believes, and I think, under the bill, he has the authority to step on, suppress, override people's individual liberties and freedoms. We were assured by our Founders that we were endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among those, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Well, ObamaCare modifies that to the extent that you can have life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness only if it meets with the approval of the administration in power and the people they've put on IPAB, and what they have to say about whether you're too old to have a treatment, whether, or, like the President said in one of his town halls to a lady that said, will you at least consider the quality of life on people like my mother and whether she could get a pacemaker since she'd lived for 10 years with the pacemaker. And he said, ultimately, you know, maybe we're just better off telling your mother just take a pain pill. The part that he didn't say is take the pain pill and die. Don't live 10 years, because that's what ObamaCare will do for us. So, hopefully, the Supreme Court Justices that will take this up and consider it will also realize that since ObamaCare gives the President the power to override the Constitution and prohibit the free exercise of religion--I'm Baptist, but, obviously, it does clearly restrict the free exercise of individual Catholics, of Catholic institutions, and that's because the President says so, because ObamaCare gives him the power to do that. I hope that the Supreme Court Justices will take note of that. They could take judicial notice of what has been publicly done and by order, and take note of the fact that since our freedom of religion is clearly expressed in the first part of the First Amendment, and it's there in black and white, the government's not to prohibit the free exercise of religion. And since the ``privacy rights,'' as the Supreme Court has come to call them, are not written in the Constitution, they were somehow found in the shadow of a penumbra somewhere and, gee, if ObamaCare gives the President the power to override people's constitutional rights, for rights that are put in stated words in the Constitution, then it's certainly going to give some redneck President down the road the right to just say, you know what, the privacy rights aren't even there, and so we're setting those aside too. Just like I set aside Catholics and other religious beliefs, now we have the power to set aside a right that's not even mentioned in the Constitution. And it ought to scare every thinking liberal--we won't get the ones that don't think--but every thinking liberal ought to have that go to their core and give them goose bumps. Oh, my goodness. I didn't think about some redneck person possibly getting--becoming--President because at some point the American people are going to get so fed up with having Washington dictate all of their individual decisions that they may just elect the biggest redneck they can get. And because the Supreme Court, if it were to do the unthinkable and rule ObamaCare as constitutional, then the administration will have not only a right, they will have a duty to dictate to people how they can live, because if the Federal Government has the right, under the Constitution, to control all our health care, putting some providers out of business, picking winners and losers, telling who gets a pain pill, who gets a pacemaker, if they have the right to do that, the government has a duty to tell every person how they can live. We're told that the Federal Government, if it wanted to, could look at every debit purchase, every credit card purchase. I mean, I got in this discussion with some government attorneys back before I ever got to Congress; and they were saying, look, if banks have the right to review all of your banking records, why shouldn't the government? I explained because the government can put us in jail and a bank can't. That's why there are protections against the government. But ObamaCare will give the government control of our health care; and, therefore, at some point it will only make sense that they live up to their duty to say, you know what? Of course, under ObamaCare the Federal Government will have every person's health care records. It becomes the repository for everyone's most private information about their lives. There's nothing in mine I'm worried about, but it is quite bothersome to think that there is nothing that can be private from the Federal Government once they have all of everybody's health care records. Well, if they've got everybody's health care records, wouldn't it make sense at some point down the road to say: You know what? You're costing us too much money. You're not living properly. And we noted that in your health care records, you've got a 280 cholesterol level, and then we noticed you went to the grocery store and bought a pound of bacon this weekend, so we're going to have to change your health care, change the charges. Folks, that is a reasonable conclusion of where ObamaCare has to take us if it's ruled constitutional. It's got to stop. One other thing I want to mention, Mr. Speaker. It's been reported today in a couple of places, one in my friend Breitbart's online news blurb from A.W.R. Hawkins; another is from The Washington Post. Two different ends of the spectrum, perhaps. They're both reporting the same thing: that this administration, through Secretary Hillary Clinton, is going to announce that it could care less what Congress has ordered about helping the enemies of Israel, about helping those who are terrorizing and persecuting Christians in Egypt and destroying churches and eliminating freedom of religion, and are saying they want to rethink their peace accord with Israel and setting themselves up to be the enemy of Israel. And now this administration, knowing that Congress passed a law that says you can't give people money in Egypt unless you can certify to certain facts--and they cannot, not honestly. If they do so now with what we know publicly, we know they will not be honest in doing so, and they're going to give $1.5 billion, not in humanitarian aid, according to this story, not food--military aid. So forget all of those speeches that this President gave at AIPAC: Oh, gosh. We're Israel's best friend. We're going to help them. Because, oh, no, we're going to give people who have the power to destroy Israel, on the border with Israel, military aid, as they are planning--many there make it clear they hate Israel, they hate us, and I've said over and over: We don't have to pay people to hate us. They'll do it for free. We have to quit funding the enemy of us and the enemy of our friends. This is insane. And I hope somewhere in this administration is a cooler head that will say, Mr. President, Madam Secretary, Israel is our friend. Remember the speeches you've both given about what a friend they are? And it's time that we do not provide military aid, abetting, and assistance to people that want to destroy Christians, that want to destroy Israelis, and that want to put the world in turmoil and have everyone living exactly as they dictate. We want to keep some freedoms here and in Israel, and the way to do that is not to fund and provide military assistance to anyone unless we know they are our friend, they're Israel's friend, they're the friends of our friends. To do otherwise will bring calamity on this country like they will not realize until it's too late. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, it's always a pleasure to get to address the House in your presence. I tell you what. There was quite an election in November of 2010. One of the results was a freshman named Rob Woodall from Georgia, and the gentleman from Georgia does his constituents proud. It's a pleasure to serve with him. His comments, most meaningful. When we think of what is going on today in the world of energy and the world of constitutional rights, in the world of religious freedom, there are things to be excited about, and there are things to be greatly saddened about. When I came to Congress as a freshman, was sworn in in January of 2005, it looked like our days of being an energy giant in the world were over. Sure, we were the kings of technology, but we were hearing from people that use natural gas for most of the stuff it seems like-- you look around the room and see whether it's plastics, or if you've got food, probably had fertilizer, natural gas used to make the fertilizer--it has had such a role in many things. In recent months I've asked some scientists, do you see anything on the horizon that might replace natural gas for the use as a feed stock for so many things we make, and manufacture, in this country. I was told not for at least 30 years or so. The amazing thing, though, in the last 7 years that should have everybody in America excited, is all the energy that's been found in America. Here we are having to all wring our hands, lower our heads, oh, woe is us, gas prices going up. We've got a President, unfortunately, seems like a nice fellow, but he doesn't know anything about energy other than what's handed to him that he could read about. I wish that it was otherwise, but the fact is he keeps making statements that are not borne out by the facts with regard to energy. I've been excited as a member of the Natural Resources Committee to find out all of the things that are being found. In east Texas, where I am, we are fortunate because there was a natural gas formation that Louisiana was kind enough to share with us. It's called the Haynesville shale. For that reason, there's more natural gas being produced in east Texas than any of the other 31 congressional districts in America. There's the Marcellus shale, Pennsylvania, runs up into New York State. But a massive natural gas formation. The ability of hydraulic fracking, which has never been shown by a single scientific study to pollute water, despite some of the stories--once they're investigated people find out they're not true. Because the purpose of hydraulic fracking is to push oil or natural gas out of the formation and up. There is a vested interest in making sure that everything is sealed thousands of feet below where drinking water would be found. There is no scientific study that finds hydraulic fracking has polluted drinking water. Yet, you look at the things it's done. Depending on who you believe, we probably have at least 300 years of natural gas, even at an accelerated rate. People are now looking at having their cars running on natural gas. Then, just when we think, well, natural gas is the thing of the future, now we've got 300 years in which to find a suitable alternative without bankrupting the country trying to create something in the way of solar power or wind power--one day solar power I think will be a very viable source, but in the meantime, this President, in supporting his cronies who are manufacturing solar panels, some of them not doing anything but enriching themselves--but the market will take care of these things. When it is economically feasible and economically viable, then we'll see things like solar power become a reality. But it's no time soon. In the meantime, the President's friends are being enriched, the country is being taken to the poorhouse on a fast track. There is no need for that. Natural gas is the cleanest burning form of energy we could hope for. We're the largest repository of coal in the world. Then we find all of this oil, this huge place in North Dakota. I've met with a third group now who tells me that in Utah, this hard reddish brown rock that you wouldn't think has oil, when put under intense heat, without oxygen, you get oil. They say it's $60 a barrel. They can make $10 or more a barrel. They're doing it right now in Estonia. The same kind of rock, the same kind of thing. Now the third group has told me they believe they think they can get 3 trillion barrels of oil from just one area of Utah. Then it goes into northwest Colorado and southwest Wyoming, from what I'm told. We know that there have been enough wells drilled in the Middle East that all the oil that is there, we pretty well know where it is. We have a good idea from the way the wells and the fields are being depleted about how much is left. Information that I've been given indicates that there is probably somewhere around a trillion barrels of oil left in the Middle East--a trillion. Yet, in one area of Utah, we're told there may be three times that much. Sadly, however, this administration does what it has done repeatedly for over 3 years: they put more and more of our resources off limits. So when the President reads the teleprompter and says, There's just nothing I can do to change the price of gasoline, would that we could get information to him to show him how wrong that is. There is oil; there is natural gas; there is coal. We've also been given the information that when gasoline hits $4 a gallon, normally at least 25 percent to a third or so is purely speculation. So I realize the President wouldn't say there's nothing he can do about the skyrocketing price of gasoline. He surely means that, or I'm sure he wouldn't say it. Yet the truth is, if the President were to go on television tonight and announce, Do you know what, folks? My Secretary of the Interior in January of 2009 immediately on coming into office announced that he was sending back the checks for leases in this small area. It may have involved some in northwest Colorado, but it was certainly in Utah. He sent back the checks and said that we're not going to allow leases on these areas that were let at the midnight hour by the Bush administration. Well, we'd give him the benefit of the doubt and just say, apparently he didn't know at the time what he was saying was not true. Those leases, as he admitted in one of our hearings as I had to keep pushing to get the answer, were part of a 7-year process. Companies can't just come in and bid massive amounts of money on a lease on which they expect to produce oil or gas until they've had a chance to study the information. It was a 7-year process--not the midnight hour, but 7 years. Secretary Salazar finally admitted that. It was 7 years just to get to the point where people could bid on those leases--a massive amount of Federal land. The majority of Utah is Federal land. He put it off limits and returned the checks after the 7-year process was completed. Fortunately, during the prior 7, 8 years of the Bush administration, there were other areas where leases were let and permits were granted and drilling commenced. I don't think we ought to be allowing anybody to drill who has had as many safety violations as British Petroleum had in the gulf. If you can't have less than 800 egregious safety violations in your drilling, you've got no business drilling on American soil or over American waters. Yet they were allowed to drill when, during comparable times, Exxon and others had one, two, none. They had about 800. It appears the reason they were allowed to keep going, even though there was such a great lack of safety, is that they were about to come out publicly as being a big energy company that embraced the President's cap-and-trade bill. That was going to be big news, so they didn't want to alienate a big energy company. Of course, they were going to be getting even richer dealing in the carbon credits. Consistent with the crony capitalism, they were going to be thrown lots of bonuses through that. But anyway, this ought to be an exciting time in American history. We have energy galore. A man from China told me that he thought they had figured out what we were doing for our energy policy. We keep declaring all of our energy off limits, more and more of it. We don't use the energy we've got. We do have more energy, when you consider all of the resources, than any other country in the world. While the President is busy out there deriding America for using too much energy, we make the world safer; we make the world more peaceable; we make the environment cleaner. When manufacturers leave America and go to other places in the world, they pollute four to 10 times more in most of the places that those manufacturers are going to. If you really care about the environment, then keep them here. Many of them are union jobs. You'd think the unions would embrace what we're trying to do rather than what the President is doing, but I understand loyalty runs deep. We've got health care that has been rammed down the throats of Americans. The majority didn't want it. The elections revealed that in November of 2010. All of the polls revealed that throughout 2009 and 2010. We got it forced upon us when, really, what this government does best is play referee. It makes sure everybody is playing fair and playing by the rules. The problem is, when we become a player, when we become a coach and the referee, we're terrible at all three. When we get so involved in owning part of Wall Street that we're not watching what's going on, you have things like Madoff ripping people off right and left. We should be the referees, making sure everybody plays fairly--not the players, not the coaches, but the referees. The government, Federal Government especially, is a terrible coach when trying to tell people how to make a business work. The best thing that could happen is if we get insurance companies out of the health care management business that they're in now. They're really not in the insurance business anymore; they're in the health management business. If we don't get them back into the insurance business and out of managing our lives and our health, then they'll be out of business, and the government will take over it all just as ObamaCare anticipates. That's where it's all headed. If we don't get the Federal Government out of being a player and a coach and a referee in health care, then the government will ultimately be the only player and coach and referee, and that does not bode well for Americans. We have a chance now, for the first time since the sixties, since Medicare was thought up, to allow our seniors to take control of their own health care and to give them the resources to do it. There would be nothing like a real test: Medicare here. If you want Medicare, have it just the way it is or we'll buy you health care, a private insurance policy; and we'll be referees and make sure they pay fair. We'll make it a high-deductible policy because those are so much cheaper. Then we'll give you cash in a health savings account that will be enough to cover the amount of your deductible each year. In the end, it will be cheaper, and it will give people the dignity and patience--the control--of their health care so they don't have to beg the Federal Government, so they don't have to beg this board that ObamaCare has set up, so they don't have to beg some insurance company--please, please, let me have this treatment. You'll have insurance; you'll have the money to cover the high deductible; and we will move people into being in charge of their own lives, because the alternative is rather grim. But let's be clear: this government wants to control people's lives. As soon as ObamaCare were to be fully operational, then the Federal Government has every right to tell people what they can eat; to tell people what medicines they can have; to tell people when they won't get that pacemaker, as the President told a lady at the White House during a town hall. Maybe it's time we tell people like your mom, who would have 10 extra years of life with a pacemaker, you don't get the pacemaker--just take a pain pill. If we don't get this turned around, the government will have every right to tell you what to eat, what to drink, how much you have to exercise, what you can and can't do. Our freedoms will be gone. I've got a great quote here from one of the Founders, a man named Thomas Jefferson: If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny. Those that say: Gee, I want to have unlimited sex, and I want the government to pay for it. Somebody's got to. I want the government controlling my life. People that feel like they need the government telling them what to do whatever it is, whatever aspect of life. Sam Adams is given credit as being one of the most influential Founders in giving us this great Nation: If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. Now, once the government has the right to control everybody's health care, it will have the right to tell you what freedoms it will recognize and you can practice and which you can't. That's why one of the reasons ObamaCare is so objectionable. It's the government intrusion into so many areas of our lives. The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. We're not supposed to make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. ObamaCare does that. It gives this government the power to say: You know what? People ought to be able to get abortions paid for by the government, which means the taxpayers pay for it. They ought to be able to get contraceptives as they wish. So never mind the fact that right now if there is somebody in America that needs contraceptives, they can be obtained, plenty of sources, still the President feels the need to intrude upon religious belief and say: Folks, you can't practice this belief. If you believe abortion is murder, it's murder of an unborn child, well, I will tell you what we'll do. We'll just say your money doesn't go for abortions. Yet in ObamaCare, it's very clear there will be clinics, there will be policies that will provide abortions, and people that pay into policies, those policies insure across the board and they will cover that. And money is fungible; it will be used for abortions; it will be used for contraceptives, even though there are people putting in money to the system that object and feel they are violating their religious beliefs. So it struck me that the President recently found time to apologize to someone who had been up here on the Hill testifying, but he never found time to apologize to those whom he told: You cannot practice your religious beliefs. Oh, yes, he tried to make an accommodation for a church and a hospital, but Catholics that have these closely held beliefs--I'm a Baptist, but, good grief, if you're going to tell a Catholic they can't practice their religion because, as some in this body have said, a majority think you shouldn't, you're going to tell people they can't practice their religious beliefs? For heaven's sake, at least give them an apology. But not so, no apology there. So I thought, well, maybe it would be helpful to track exactly what deserves apology and what doesn't. Well, we remember when the President first came into office, the first thing he did was take what a lot of people refer to as the apology tour. He went around the world apologizing for America's arrogance toward countries where we had Americans buried who gave their last full measure of devotion to free those countries. But the President found time. Do they get an apology or no apology? Yes, you got an apology. All right. There were Bush policies that our President said--toward countries that we actually give a tremendous amount of money to but who vote against us over half the time in the U.N. Do they get an apology? Bingo. He found time to give them an apology. The family of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, murdered by an Operation Fast and Furious gun that our government forced to be sold to criminals, well, well, no time for an apology. They don't get one. The CIA enhanced interrogation that saved lives and led to finding Osama bin Laden, we do have time to apologize to them. They get one. All right. Detaining terrorists who killed or conspired to kill Americans at Guantanamo, even though there hasn't been a single incident of waterboarding or torturing of any kind remotely at Guantanamo, even though when they throw feces or urine on our guards, we will take away 2 hours of their movie watching, still, they get an apology from this White House. The accidental 2012 burning of these Korans that were desecrated by the writing of detainees, yes, they got an apology. The families of the American soldiers who were killed after President Obama said he ``calmed things down'' by apologizing to Afghanistan. No, didn't get an apology. No apology there. Our own soldiers, but, no, no apology. Death of two Pakistani soldiers in Pakistan and the death of four other Pakistanis in 2010 when a plane, we were told, made a mistake. Yes, Pakistanis, they get apology; but Americans don't, Pakistanis do. The President's support for the Ground Zero mosque at 2010 White House Iftar dinner opposed by most Americans, including 9/11 survivors, most Americans didn't want a mosque at Ground Zero. The President said it was a matter of religious freedom. So, basically, the word ``apology'' I don't believe was used, but it was an apology. We believe in them being allowed to do that, even though it offends most Americans and victims' families, yes, yes. They were at the White House hearing how sorry he was that Americans opposed that. Comments in 2011 that Israel should return to its 1967 borders that would have subjected it to relentless attacks and vulnerability, as Prime Minister Netanyahu explained, no, Israel doesn't get one. No apology for Israel. His good friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the first people to have a fundraiser at their house for him, they were part of a radical left-wing group, Weather Underground, detonated a bomb at the Pentagon in 1972. And we know there are still people serving in the military that were around when the Pentagon was attacked by his biggest, earliest supporters. They don't get an apology. No apology there. Ordering many Christians to violate their religious beliefs and pay for abortion, drugs, and contraceptives, no, no apology there. Violates your religious beliefs; too bad, no apology. Comments by President Obama and President Sarkozy in 2011 at the G 20 summit where they belittled Prime Minister Netanyahu. He's Israeli. No apology for that. Comments made by Rush Limbaugh in his radio program about pro- abortion activist and Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, yes, the President found time for that apology. The President's support for not allowing nurses to save babies that were born alive after a botched abortion, we've heard from some of those--at least one of those nurses--how brokenhearted they were sitting there and being forced to watch a baby die. No apology for those folks. Attendance for 20 years at Trinity United Church of Christ where radical pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright used racial and anti-Semitic terms, inflammatory rhetoric and insulting comments about Hillary Clinton from his pastor--I believe the comment was he could no more disown that fine gentleman, which he later did. No apology for anybody offended by that. And inflammatory and indecent comments of one of President Obama's biggest supporters, Bill Maher, regarding Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, tens of times worse than anything Rush Limbaugh would have ever dreamed of saying. That's right, no apology for that. So I think it helps to chronicle exactly what deserves an apology from the White House these days, you know, just so we know where policies lie and where this President stands and with whom he stands. And with that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we're glad that the President took time out of his schedule from apologizing to people who apparently want others to pay for their contraceptives so that he could see Prime Minister Netanyahu today. He reiterated again what he said last May at AIPAC when he said--in the middle of a lot of other comments--that Israel must be able to defend itself by itself. He reiterated that again yesterday and today. The problem is for Israel to defend itself means they're defending us. We've been described as the Great Satan, the United States, and Israel the Little Satan. It's time for this President to quit trying to suppress our friend Israel and stand with Israel; but if this President will not stand with Israel, then don't make threats to them about what we're going to do if they defend themselves without our okay. They've already been given the okay by the President, saying they must defend themselves by themselves. I hope and pray we will stand by Israel as they defend themselves--and us.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. In conclusion, we pay tribute to a big man, as Jesus said to the poor man of Nazareth, who has now been carried to the bosom of Abraham by the angels. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, there's so much going on in this country. There are so many great folks and some that are not so much. There are stories out indicating that this administration is considering releasing the Blind Sheikh. He's credited with helping mastermind the first attempt to bring down our World Trade Centers. He is credited as the Islamic fanatic who issued the fatwa that was considered by the radical extremist jihadists to justify killing thousands and thousands of Americans--what they hoped would be tens of thousands of Americans-- at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. One report indicated that with regard to the Pentagon, if the plane had not just brushed across a berm outside the parking lot before it hit, it probably would have gone all the way into the interior, doing a massive amount of more damage than it actually did. Because of the valiant work of so many first responders, there weren't tens of thousands killed at the World Trade Center. But we suffered the loss of 3,000 murdered because of some religious fanatics, the Blind Sheikh being one of them. The story is out yesterday and today that the administration is considering the release of the Blind Sheikh and other American murderers so that we can obtain the complete release from Egypt of people that went there to try to help the Egyptians have free and fair elections. And in return for going there and providing the billions of dollars this country gives to Egypt and continues to give, in return, the people in charge--that this administration welcomed in charge of the Egyptian Government, as they stabbed an ally name Mubarak with whom they had written agreements--I'm not saying he's a great man; I'm saying this country, this administration, had agreements with that man, and this administration broke those agreements and stabbed him in the back. As a result, now we have Americans in harm's way, some of them in the Embassy in Egypt. Now, the reports are that the administration is considering releasing murderers, people who planned and were complicit in murders and attempted murders of Americans, and this administration is considering releasing them and may be negotiating that. Now, I'm hoping that this report is what this administration has done many times, and that is release a trial balloon to see how people react. And if people react violently enough--verbally, that is--against it, then they will say, hey, no, we never planned to do that. And I'm hopeful that that will be the case here. People who have been responsible for murdering and attempting to murder Americans have no business being used as bargaining chips. If the rule of law and of justice is going to mean anything in this country going forward, we cannot be bargaining with American liberty. Now, some of us recall very well in 1979 when an act of war occurred by the people, by the Government of Iran in Tehran, against the American Embassy. Everyone's idea of international law indicates that the soil on which an Embassy exists is the soil of that country. If you attack the Embassy, then you have attacked that country. And it was my recollection, and those of us that were stationed at Fort Benning at the time, we knew it meant that many of the people, many of us at Fort Benning, may have been sent to Iran if a war broke out. Everyone was watching to see if, as the term was used, the flag were to go up, who was going to go. Nobody was dying to go, but everyone was willing to go and die in defense of our country. The Carter administration, instead, began pleading with the Iranian Government to let our hostages go. It was my recollection back during the time as we watched from Fort Benning, I'm not sure what the fate of those of us at Fort Benning would be, but the spokesman for the Iranian Government kept saying, the students have the hostages, the students attacked the Embassy. And it just seemed to me, as a captain in the Army at the time, do you know what it sounds like? The Iranian Government is trying to give themselves a backdoor so that if President Carter stands up and finally becomes a great leader and shows great leadership and stands up and says: All right, you're saying that students have the American hostages? Well, then, here is the deal: An act of war has been committed, and either you release, you deal with those students and you get those American hostages released, or we're bringing the full weight of the American military against Tehran for the release of those people. And if those hostages are harmed before we get there, then we will overthrow your government and we'll leave. We're not going to nation- build. You can pick whatever government you want, it's your business, unless you attack the United States of America. Because when you attack the United States of America, it is our business. We won't nation- build, but we will take down any government of any nation anywhere that commits an act of war against us. That's what President Carter should have done. And now these rumors swirl around, these reports from media resources that tell us they are reliable, that this government now is thinking, well, maybe we'll dodge what the Carter administration did that got President Carter defeated for a second term. Maybe if we just release murderers of Americans, maybe if we'll just give them whatever they want, they'll release these people or allow them to leave the Embassy and travel back to America, and we'll be okay. Wrong. You release people who declared war on America, who declared war on the World Trade Centers, on New York City, on Washington, D.C., you release those people, you have not made America safer. You've endangered far more lives than you got released. I like Ray LaHood. He's a good man. We haven't agreed on some things, but he's a good man. I know that. It broke my heart when I saw that his wonderful son, who believes in liberty and freedom, was being kept against his will from leaving Egypt. He went over there to help them have a free and fair election. But from what I know--having not met Ray's son--I don't think he would want the lives of tens of thousands or millions of Americans jeopardized because this administration might be trying to avoid losing an election as President Carter did. The thing to do is the thing that President Carter didn't try. He tried the negotiations. He offered all kinds of things. The thing to do is say: Egypt, we have given you American treasure. We supported your efforts in electing leaders. Here is the deal. We sent you people to have free and fair elections. If you're going to hold them hostage, then that is an act of war on us and we will come to Egypt. We're not going to go to war with the nation. The whole nation of Egypt is not against America. But if the regime in power is going to take Americans who came over there to help them, who were participating in helping a process so that Egypt could continue to get U.S. funds to stabilize their country, if they're going to declare war on those individuals, then we will take out that group that is presiding and attempting to govern. We won't nation-build, but we will allow you to put whatever government you want in place. If they come against America, we will come against that government; not against the people, but against the government. We will take that government out and then you pick some other government. We don't care who it is. We don't care what kind of government you have, as long as they're not at war with America. But if you commit these kind of criminal acts of war against American citizens, against America, we will take that group out that is governing in that manner and then you find one that won't declare war on America. That's what needs to be done, not releasing the Blind Sheikh, not releasing American murderers. That is not the thing to do. I hope and pray that tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of American lives will not be jeopardized by this administration just hoping to avoid a hostage crisis like arose in Tehran. That arose because of a weak administration refusing to do what it should have in response to an act of war. Because what we saw after those initial periods where they said, ``No, the students had them; we're trying to negotiate; we're trying to work with them,'' eventually they saw the Carter administration was not going to do anything, and so they began saying, ``We had the hostages; we had the hostages,'' and started making demands and threats and things like that. The thing to do is say, look, we want to live at peace with every nation in the world; but you declare war on Americans, we will take that government out and let the people choose whatever kind of government they want. We should not be nation-building. You pick what government you want and we will live in peace as long as they don't declare war on us. If they do, we're coming. We'll take them out and then you pick your next government. That's what should be done, not the release of murderers, of those complicit in American murders, such as the Blind Sheikh. I hope that enough people in America will rise up, Mr. Speaker, and make their voices heard. Don't be releasing people who declare war on America, who have American blood on their hands. We do not want to put the future of America in foreign hands that are covered with American blood. That is not the course to take. Civil Rights Movement One other thing I wanted to mention before I get to a tribute, and that is with regard to the Selma march, that is with regard to the civil rights movement. There are some in America who think people like Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lewis, others who were such participants in the civil rights movement--people see that and say that was a movement by blacks or African Americans to try to have equal civil rights. But having read a great deal about Martin Luther King, Jr., it's very clear this was a Christian minister, an ordained Christian pastor. I haven't heard anybody in the wonderful tributes that have been paid here today as we commemorate that march in Selma, I haven't heard anybody mention this. As a Christian minister, Martin Luther King, Jr., and those who participated, did more than help African Americans move closer toward having full equality, toward equal rights. It did more than that. For those of us who were young, white Christians, for those who would come behind us as Euro Americans, white Americans, they did something wonderful for us. They created an environment in which all Christians-- whites, all Christians--would be able to treat brothers and sisters as being brothers and sisters. They did a great service for all Americans. So I will lend my voice, such as it is, in tribute for the service that was done for all Americans, and anxiously long for the day--we're getting so close--but long for the day when people are judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin; where there are no quotas, there is no need for a Justice Department to review everything, because people are acting and treating each other in ways of equality, so that we finally achieve the dream. Andrew Breitbart Now I want to turn to a tribute to a great man. This Nation and freedom has lost a great proponent and defender. Andrew Breitbart, who was reported to have died this early morning in California, was and is an American hero of mine. This man, in what appeared to be the prime of his life, knew that the key to keeping our endowed freedoms was shining the bright rays of sunlight on whatever issue was stealing away our Nation's prosperity and liberties. Many came to know Andrew as the brains and the will behind the exposure of a cancer on our system that was exemplified by some of the things going on with ACORN, where they were not bothered by the thought of underage girls being placed in the bondage of sexual prostitution and they were not bothered by the idea of getting people in the country illegally for immoral and illegal purposes. He figured out a way to deal with these issues and to address what was sucking the nutrients and the life from this host country as, really, a cancer. He figured out how to shine sunlight inside offices of what was happening and gave a good dose of chemotherapy to the cancer. He also innovated ways to expose the extreme bias within many in the media that were holding themselves out as being objective. We have freedom of speech. We have freedom of the press. But there should be some degree of honesty. If someone is expressing an opinion, it should be reflected as an opinion and not as unbiased journalism. Andrew had been in the process of exposing that, as well as so many other issues that were weakening our Nation and infringing our liberties, were deceiving rank-and-file Americans of the truth and our factual history. Andrew was serving as a clarion call to action for honorable Americans across the country to seek truth, justice, and the American way. In visiting numerous times with Andrew, he was so excited. He could see that he was literally, and profoundly, making a difference for truth. Often, when innovators or impassioned innovative visionary people depart this world, they have not had the benefit of seeing any of the fruits of their labor. God had favored Andrew with a glimpse of the difference that he was making. In this book that--and I acquired this copy from the Library of Congress, ``Righteous Indignation'' by Andrew Breitbart--this is a new conclusion to Andrew's recent books. He wrote this new conclusion himself. These are Andrew's words: I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the complex refuses to report. I love fighting back. I love finding allies and, famously, I enjoy making enemies. Three years ago I was mostly a behind-the-scenes guy who linked to stuff on a very popular Web site. I always wondered what it would be like to enter the public realm to fight for what I believe in. I've lost friends, perhaps dozens, but I've gained hundreds, thousands, who knows, of allies. At the end of the day, I can look myself in the mirror and I sleep very well at night. He now sleeps in the arms of God. Andrew was being demonized by those who were profiting from their deceptions of people and their cronyism with the government. He was rallying like-minded Americans to seek and take back the liberties with which they were endowed and upon which liberties vast encroachments have been occurring. I would like to speak straight from the heart, but I typed these lines up just moments ago because of the difficulty. It's easier to read. Let me finish with what I wrote moments ago. Andrew had two films coming out in the near future, of which he was so proud, as he showed me and my friend, Steve King, here the trailers very recently. Those films can and will be quite powerful in furthering the cause of sunlight on darkness, though they may now have to be modified because of his passing. But Andrew was so kind to be an encourager to my daughter in California, was always complimentary of her when we talked. He knew how to make a father proud. In considering Andrew's works, the life and death of John Quincy Adams comes to mind. Adams had been elected President in 1824, first son of a former President to be so elected. In 1828, he was defeated by Andrew Jackson. In 1830, John Quincy Adams did the unthinkable. He had been President of the United States; and yet he was driven by a God-placed feeling, a need to stop slavery in America. So after having been President, he lowered himself to run for the House of Representatives and was elected in 1830, sworn in in 1831, and served until 1848 just down the Hall in what we now call Statuary Hall. He was a driven man. He believed God had called him, as he did William Wilberforce, to bring an end to slavery--Wilberforce in the British Isles, the United Kingdom, and Adams in America. He was concerned, appropriately, that it would be difficult to expect God to keep blessing America if we were putting brothers and sisters in chains and bondage. He gave powerful speeches over and over down the Hall trying to convince the other Members of the House to pass bills that would end slavery, that would free slaves, and he never got it done. In fact, at one point, he had so alienated the Rules Committee, they passed a rule, he couldn't even bring those types of bills anymore. So then he had to fight the rule so he could go back to filing bills to end slavery and free slaves, and eventually he did. And he preached those powerful sermons down the Hall against slavery. In 1846, a young man, not particularly handsome, some at Gettysburg that heard him years later said he didn't have all that pleasing a voice to listen to, he didn't have a beard at that time, but a young, skinny, some-would-say homely-looking guy was on the back row, just down the Hall of the House of Representatives. Adams liked this guy. Adams was not necessarily referred to as being a warm and fuzzy, cozy kind of guy, easy to warm up to, a bit cantankerous at times; but he liked Lincoln. In 1848, having spent so many years devoted to many great causes, but particularly to the cause of trying to end slavery, sitting at his desk, John Quincy Adams had a massive stroke. He was moved back into the Speaker's suite just off the floor, died 2 days later. 1848. Thirteen years later, Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President of the United States. It was reported that someone had asked Lincoln was there anything memorable that happened during your two brief years in the House of Representatives. He was reported to have said, in essence, not other than those powerful speeches of John Quincy Adams on the evils of slavery. Lincoln knew it was wrong. It tore at his soul that slavery existed in America. After he lost after one term, he went back, tried to make a little money, did, practiced law, represented the railroad some, but the compromise of 1850 allowed new States to come in that would have slavery. Lincoln had thought perhaps he was done with slavery, but he couldn't stand it. He got back involved in politics, lost, lost again, got elected President, and then helped bring about an end to slavery in the United States. John Quincy Adams did not bring an end to slavery as he had hoped, but he profoundly affected that young, skinny, less-than-handsome- looking guy named Abraham Lincoln. Andrew Breitbart is gone. That's the report. I'll be interested to see what the autopsy says. But I can't help but think his devotion to truth, to preserving liberty will have inspired so many who will pick up that banner and potentially, as was the case with John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln, do far more than Adams himself could have done, and in this day, in the years to come, do more than Andrew could have done by himself. Though Andrew did great service to himself, his family, and his Nation, it's my prayer that his greatest contribution to this, the greatest Nation with the greatest freedoms in the history of the world, will not be those specific but amazing accomplishments he achieved, but that his greatest accomplishment will be the inspiration he was and is to so many who saw his devotion, saw his commitment, saw his goals, and will, just as did John Quincy Adams, accomplish more through those he inspired than those he could ever have accomplished individually. At a time like this, there is sometimes a temptation to blame God and ask, why did God take such an individual so soon? Our directed comments to our Creator should instead be, Thank You, dear God, for the gift of Andrew Breitbart. We wish we could have kept him longer, but thank You for this marvelous gift. God be with his family, comfort his family. Andrew will be sorely missed by seekers of truth. His departure will be welcomed by those he was exposing, but they shouldn't be too comfortable. He was a patriot. He was a lover of liberty. He was a lover of family. He was a lover of God, a lover of this Nation. He was also a friend and encourager to me. With that, I would yield to my friend, Steve King, from Iowa.