Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Blue Star Mothers of America was established during World War II and federally chartered in 1960. The organization's 5,000 members and 225 chapters provide support for our men and women in uniform and assist veterans' organizations. According to their charter, the Blue Star Mothers also care for unsupported mothers. Membership in the Blue Star Mothers is open to a mother, an adoptive mother or stepmother who lives in the U.S. of a child who serves in the Armed Forces or has served in the Armed Forces during World War II or the Korean War. Wendy Hoffman, the national president of the Blue Star Mothers, has sent a letter to the committee and requests that their charter be amended consistent with the resolution passed at their national convention. She stated the following: ``As mothers of American servicemembers and veterans, we recognize changing family dynamics and have found it extremely important to include other `mothers' who have played a part in raising military heroes and also those mothers who are not residents of the U.S.'' The Blue Star Mothers have also opened membership to mothers of children who have served in the military at any time. This bill makes the changes to the charter requested by the Blue Star Mothers. Our colleague Scott Tipton introduced the House version of the bill, H.R. 2815, and the Judiciary Committee approved Mr. Tipton's bill by voice vote. This commonsense bill opens eligibility to ``a woman who filled the role of birth mother, adoptive mother, stepmother, foster-mother, grandmother, or legal guardian'' to a current member of the Armed Forces or to a child who has served at any time. To be eligible, the mother will not have to reside in the United States as long as she is a U.S. citizen. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to help enable the Blue Star Mothers to continue their wonderful work. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, this is also another very bipartisan bill. The Blue Star Mothers is a wonderful group. I have met with them and I have wept with them. I've prayed for them and am grateful to them for their work. I'm grateful for my mother, who passed away in 1991, as the mother of a servicemember and my stepmother as well, now. What they're asking for makes perfect sense, and I would encourage my colleagues to support this resolution as the Blue Star Mothers have requested. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, there are an awful lot of people hurting across America now. We take up a few suspension bills here that only the Congress could deal with, so it's something we have to do, we're proud to do, important to those organizations in two States. It's important to them; it's important to us. We have people on the other side of the aisle who come forward and try to make it into a jobs debate when it would seem that some of the best debate would be if all of us, en masse, walked down to the other end of the hall of this building and began to seek to debate the Senate--the Senate leadership, that is--and Democratic Party on why they are so intent on stopping legislation that could put people back to work. There are many besides the President, in addition to the President, who say this is a do-nothing Congress; and because the Senate does so very little, they give credence to that argument. One need only look to all the bills we have been passing here in the House that could help the economy, would help the economy, would put people back to work, would bring down dramatically the cost of energy, which would bring down inflation and the stagnation and stagflation that's been put in place by this President and, actually, the 2 years prior to this President when our Democratic friends across the aisle controlled Congress and jumped up spending like we could not have anticipated. Our friends across the aisle correctly pointed out that Republicans in 2006 were spending too much money. They were right in pointing out that we should never be spending $160 billion more than we were taking in. They were right. As a result of their being right on that and their promises that they would rein in that runaway spending, our friends across the aisle were given the majority in November of 2006. What followed in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 under the Democratic majority was runaway spending at a level never even dreamed of, at least on our side of the aisle. Who would have ever dreamed that the same party that condemned Republicans--correctly--for overspending the amount of money coming into the Federal Treasury by $160 billion would up that ante and overspend by 10 times that much? Over a $1.5 trillion deficit in just 1 year. It is just unfathomable. One of the things that so concerned me about TARP, not only the bill when I read it, but the fact that it desensitized Americans to just how much $700 billion is and how much it was in late 2008. It's my belief that if we had not passed TARP and people being so desensitized as to how much $700 billion was, President Obama could never have gotten through what was said to be around an $800 billion porkulus, stimulus, whatever you want to call it, which turned out, by some accounts, to be more like a trillion dollar giveaway program--only if you consider giving away amounts like $500 million to $600 million to Solyndra, that goes bankrupt, as throwing away money. We have set this country on a course toward ruin. And now the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Geithner, who we recall had time with the International Monetary Fund, as came to light during his unfortunate confirmation hearings, 4 years in a row he was paid by the International Monetary Fund and was said to be an independent contractor, although he manifested control and some level of governance within the International Monetary Fund. He had a job with the International Monetary Fund, but they paid him as an independent contractor, and, therefore, when he signed a document swearing that he would pay all of the taxes due on those amounts that were listed on those four documents, then he was allowed to receive all of the money that should have been paid to the Federal Government in taxes in return for his sworn agreement to pay that tax independently on his own. As we found out during those confirmation hearings, he did not fulfill his oath. He broke his oath. He didn't pay those taxes, and now he's in charge of the Treasury. How amazing. I've privately had Internal Revenue Service employees tell me how grieved they were to have had someone who did not pay his taxes when he was required to do so by law, went even further and he signed a sworn document that he would take care of it, and didn't, because, despite all the jokes about the IRS and despite there being some people with the IRS who can be a bit brutal at times, there are some wonderful people who work for the Internal Revenue Service who are abundantly fair, want to do the right thing, and have incredibly clean backgrounds. In fact, the rule as I was given to understand by IRS employees is, if you ever have underpaid your taxes or failed to pay taxes, you're out. You cannot work for the IRS. There have been incidents where an IRS agent has overpaid taxes and then recalled someone giving them cash, and without anyone ever being able to hold them accountable, no one would have ever reported it, but to keep a clean conscience because an IRS agent was so clean and had a conscience and wanted so to abide by honesty and truth and the U.S. law, filed an amended tax return which still allowed a refund coming back. And as a result, their employment was in jeopardy. Imagine the feeling of Internal Revenue Service employees who have had to throughout their stellar careers at the Internal Revenue Service, had to keep all of their affairs clean and in order, open, honest, to find out they are going to be ruled and governed by someone who misrepresented on signing a sworn document that they would pay taxes that they didn't until someone called it to their attention prior to being appointed to that role. It has to be tough for IRS agents who have had such stellar, honorable careers to have dealt with that. So what's wrong with having somebody who plays so fast and loose with signing documents, not paying taxes, playing with other people's money in the International Monetary Fund? I would submit to you that we get things, as we have here recently, with our Secretary of the Treasury, who enjoyed spending hundreds of billions of dollars from TARP, who has enjoyed the power of giving away money, paying money. Under TARP, in fact, a provision allowed the Secretary of Treasury to pay more than fair market value if anything--and this is my interpretation--if anything in his opinion, his sole opinion, would somehow, some way, some day help our economy somehow, even if it was helping a foreign economy. That's the mentality at the IMF and apparently the mentality currently at the Treasury Department. I did not think we could get a worse Treasury Secretary than Hank Paulson until we got our current Treasury Secretary, making the mistakes he has and taking the position he has, and now wanting Americans to come in and bail out foreign countries who are slightly ahead of us on the road to socialism. If you go back to the Roman Empire, the Romans found that over time when you continue to give people bread and circuses, they come to rely on those. They come to believe that they shouldn't have to work, that the government will give them entertainment and will give them money to use, food that they need, and it materially affects work. Socialism of a sort was tried in the New Testament church. And on this Earth, on this planet with fallible individuals, it resulted, as it always has and always will, in the Apostle Paul ultimately having to come to the conclusion and issue the order, okay, new rule: if you don't work, you don't eat. The Pilgrims had a beautiful compact. They were going to bring together all into a common storehouse and share and share alike. That brutal first winter caused them to lose so many. Eventually, they got to a new thing that we now call private property where people would own their own property, produce from it as they wished with full freedom to do so. They could eat what they raised. They could trade what they raised. They could use it as they saw fit. That kind of mentality and that kind of structure that affords private property to people to own and use on their own, or rental property that they can use to produce income, those kind of freedoms have allowed the entrepreneurship that has brought us to the point in history where we are the greatest Nation in the history of mankind, with more freedoms than any in the history of mankind. But over time we've seen those who fled Europe and England to come to America to start a new life, so many of them fleeing persecution as Christians, coming to a new land where they would not be persecuted as Christians. They came to America. And with private property engendering the kind of thought processes that led our Founders through the guidance--divinely, I believe--that they got, as pointed to by so many of the Founders, we got our Constitution. We have a structure of government from Founders who did not trust government; who wanted to make it as difficult as possible to pass laws. Even once they were passed, they could be vetoed. Struck down. They wanted it difficult. They saw gridlock as being a good thing. The more difficult it was to pass laws, the less chance the government would interfere in personal property rights and personal freedoms of the individual. Europe after World War II seemed to move into this socialist type of thinking where the government will take care of people. Some in this country after World War II for 60 years, going on 70 years now, have been pushing an agenda to get us to a socialist state, where we take on the attributes of those systems that have repeatedly failed over and over in time. I was recently in Israel. I went to a former kibbutz. Those were truly communes. They had real communism there. Share and share alike. But socialism, communism, it can sound so nice. Everyone bring in to the common storehouse. Share and share alike. It sounds nice, but it never works. And I saw that so clearly in an exchange program to the Soviet Union back in 1973, when it really was the Soviet Union. And on visiting a collective farm, a socialist farm, you look out, the fields did not look very good. I have worked on farms and ranches, and those did not look productive. But I was surprised to see in the middle of the morning the farmers were sitting in the shade in the center of the village. I spoke some Russian back then and asked as nicely as I could without meaning to insult because I really was curious, When do you work out in the fields? And they laughed. And one of them that seemed to be the most boisterous of the group said, I make the same number of rubles if I'm out there or I'm here in the shade. So I'm here in the shade. That's socialism. That's why it fails. And we've seen the riots in Greece as the government tried to be responsible and say, Look, we're going broke. We're out of business. We have got to stop spending money we don't have. We've got to rein it in. And people have rioted and say, No, no, no, don't cut back what I'm getting from the government, not understanding if it's not there, your government will eventually be taken over by some type of radical form-- at least historically that's what often happens--and some dictator, which they would hope would be a benevolent dictator, would take over, get the rioting under control, and set the government on a course. We saw a government after World War I in Germany trying to work toward a process. Economic times were tough. So a little guy with a mustache ends up actually getting elected to office and then eventually taking over the country. We know the results of that--at least most of us do. There are some, like Ahmadinejad, that thought the Holocaust never happened. But it did. So why in the world, when we see how that works out and we see that a country will not accept its own responsibility, as incredible as the people can be of a country like Greece--you meet people from Greece, you love them. They're just great folks. As beautiful as a country can be, as rich a history as a country can have like Greece, you want to embrace them. Understandable. But when a people such as those in Greece want to continue down a bankrupt course and you see them heading for the edge of a cliff and they say, Come join hands with us, it doesn't make me feel any better to hear people like Secretary Geithner say, figuratively speaking, Let's join hands as they jump off the cliff and take us with them. But we're told, Well, gee, some of the European countries, they'll feel better about trying to bail out Greece if they know that the United States will come in if things don't work out and bail them out. We have had such radicalized spending that's been out of control. And until we get that under control, we're of very little use to most of the world economically. The best thing we could do for Greece, for all of Europe, is get our spending under control, come back from a point of strength financially, show them by example how you get out of your problems, and then the world will be better off financially because you see repeatedly in history when a country gets in trouble financially, it opens the door to dictators or a radical form of a government such as we see in Iran today. That wasn't entirely economic. We do recall--I was in the Army at the time--when President Carter failed to support our ally, the Shah. I never met the man, but apparently historically not a warm fuzzy fellow. Was not fine with the folks in Iran. But using very poor judgment, President Carter hailed the Ayatollah Khomeini in his return to Iran as a man of peace; and as a result that man of peace, as President Carter hailed him, thousands and thousands and thousands of Americans have given their lives or had their lives taken from them. There are prices that are paid by bad judgment; and this country has paid a price for bad judgment, and now we have more efforts at bad judgment. That would include telling the world that as we've overspent more than a trillion dollars more than what we have coming in, Don't worry, we'll come bail you out. I was surprised to find out this summer that we're not printing money to get us out of our problem. No, we're not printing money. I was surprised to find out--because I've said that before. I think we're just printing money to try to pay off our debt. That causes runaway inflation. I was corrected. And I stand corrected. We're not printing money to get out of our financial dilemma. No, I was told we're not printing this money. We're just adding ones and zeroes in a computer to say that we've got more money. We're not even printing it anymore. How irresponsible is that? There is a price that will be paid for that kind of irresponsibility, and it is very tragic that it may well be paid by our children and grandchildren. It is the height of irresponsibility to leave that to future generations. And then to have our Treasury Secretary say, Let's go bail these folks out. Well, it's not really us. It's the International Monetary Fund. It is kind of reminiscent of President Obama saying, We're going to go get Qadhafi, we're going to help these so-called ``rebels,'' but we're not actually going to do it. No, we're not going to do it; NATO will do it. We started a little bit out there, but now it's not the United States at all; it's NATO. So we checked, and we find out 65 percent of NATO's military is United States Armed Services. Oh, no, it wasn't NATO--much. Sixty-five percent was the United States. It was the United States. And now the Secretary of the Treasury wants us to do this with countries that are failing and yet still unwilling to embrace the problem they've created. And then we're told there's such great news, that unemployment has now dropped from 9.1 percent to 8.6 percent, or 9.0 to 8.6 percent, and we're supposed to feel like that is such a wonderful thing. I'm not a huge fan of The New York Times, but there was an article in December 2's New York Times, an editorial entitled, ``Been Down So Long.'' I think it's worth entering into the Congressional Record by its reading. The unemployment rate dropped to 8.6 percent in November from 9 percent in October in the jobs report released Friday. The economy added 120,000 jobs and job growth was revised upward in September and October. That's better than rising unemployment and falling payrolls. Yet, properly understood, the new figures reveal more about the depth of distress in the job market than about real improvement in job prospects. Most of the decline in November's unemployment rate was not because jobless people found new work. Rather, it is because 315,000 people dropped out of the work force, a reflection of extraordinarily weak demand by employers for new workers. It is also a sign of socioeconomic decline, of wasted resources and untapped potential, the human equivalent of boarded-up Main Streets and shuttered factories. The job growth numbers also come with caveats. More jobs were created than economists expected, but with the job market so weak for so long, that is a low bar. It would take nearly 11 million new jobs to replace the ones that were lost during the recession and to keep up with the growth in the working-age population in the last four years. To fill that gap would require 275,000 new jobs a month for the next five years. That's not in the cards. Even with the better-than- expected job growth in the past three months, the economy added only 143,000 jobs on average. And most of those new jobs are low-end ones. In November, for example, big job-growth areas included retail sales, bartending and temporary services. Teachers and other public employees continued to lose jobs, and job growth in construction and manufacturing were basically flat. Indeed, work--once the pathway to a rising standard of living--has become for many a route to downward mobility. Motoko Rich reported in The Times recently on new research showing that most people who lost their jobs in recent years now make less and have not maintained their lifestyles, with many experiencing what they describe as drastic--and probably irreversible--declines in income. Against that backdrop, the modest improvement in the jobs report, even if sustained in the months to come, would not be enough to repair the damage from the recession and its slow- growth aftermath. Help is needed, yet Congress is tied in knots over even basic recovery measures, like extending federal unemployment benefits and the temporary payroll tax cut. Meanwhile, the increasing likelihood of a recession in Europe, or any other setback, could easily derail the weak American economy, sending unemployment back up to double- digit recession levels. Now, we've been hearing a great deal lately from the President and from Members of Congress on the Democratic side about how we just needed to extend this wonderful payroll tax holiday. Well, as the person who came up with the idea of a payroll tax holiday 3 years ago, I'm offended at the use of the term ``payroll tax holiday'' to cut 6.2 percent Social Security tax down to 4.2 Social Security tax when it has not increased jobs, it has not helped jobs. We're talking $30, $40, $50, $60, when the payroll tax holiday I was proposing was a true holiday. It would have allowed every worker in America not to pay any Social Security tax, any Medicare tax, any income tax for at least 2 months. It would not have hurt Social Security, the trust fund, and it would not have hurt the Medicare system because it was totally paid for. My bill said that money that was leftover--which was available at the time before our Secretary of the Treasury just started giving it away-- that money would be moved over and would cover the Social Security trust fund monies that were necessary so the tax would not be missed. It would cover the monies that were supposed to go in to cover Medicare. And so the only way that money would be missed is that Secretary Geithner would not have been able to give it away and support those four-to-one Democrats or Republicans that are executives on Wall Street and who reside in controlling our investment banks. And that's a shock to some people when they actually do their research and find out Wall Street is four-to-one Democrat over Republican because they've been listening to Democratic leaders for years talk about those sorry fat-cat Republicans on Wall Street. Well, they hadn't done their research either; or if they had, they would have been very disingenuous in so saying. That money--as I and many others contended--that was in TARP and was in the slush fund of the Secretary of the Treasury would have been far better used by those people who earned it, by just saying you get every dime back that you were paying in this month and next month. And I also knew privately in my heart that if we could have that payroll tax holiday, a true payroll tax holiday for 2 months--and initially I said a year. But if we could have had that for even 2 months, then I knew taxpayers across the country would see--many, most for the first time-- just how much money they were sending for the Federal Government to use, and they would demand better from their Congress, from their President. They would demand better from the bureaucrats in Washington that get to the end of the year and see they've got money left and rush out and throw it away, spend it on whatever they can. They would have demanded better government, and they would have gotten it or they would have fired everybody at the next election and gotten better. But we didn't get a true payroll tax holiday. I was very honored to have a chance to explain the concept of a payroll tax holiday when President Obama came to our Republican Conference back the first of the year in 2009. As I explained to him, this is immediate; it immediately helps the economy. Moody's said the tax holiday idea--a true tax holiday, not this bastardization of one-- the true tax holiday would have increased the 1-year GDP more than any other proposal, more than any other Democratic proposal or any other Republican proposal. And as I explained to the President, we pass this and you sign it--and if you just say you are willing to sign it, we would get it passed. If you sign it on a Thursday, then on Friday all of that money, all of the income tax, Social Security, Medicare tax, all of that will be in the check of the person that owned it. It doesn't have to go through Washington, and Washington take its cut out and dribbles out $30, $40, $50, $60 to the worker. They got it all. And then, to know that was going to be paid for by stopping the giveaways to the auto companies, to the investment banks, to the fat cats, as the President calls them, that was what I wanted to see. And that money would go into the hands of the people that earned it, and then they would have decided. We did a survey in our district about what people would use their money for. Look at your check. Think about it for 2 months. What would you use it for? And we weren't talking about $20, $30, $40, $50, $60 like this President has. We were talking about, $2,000 $3,000 $5,000 $6,000. And when people did that, they told us, for example, we've got a gas guzzler, and gas is so high now we can barely pay our gasoline bill, but we're underwater on our car. We owe more than the car is worth so we can't afford to trade it in. So we're stuck. You let us have our money for 2 months, we'll buy a new car. And the people in America would have decided which car companies deserved to be bailed out, and they would do that by deciding which car they would buy. And you wouldn't have had to have an auto task force secretively meeting in the White House and an auto czar and all those folks breaching the Constitution, breaching bankruptcy law, and deciding which dealers got to keep their dealership and which would have had them arbitrarily yanked away, only years down the road to find out, oops, we made a mistake on that. Oh, well, they're gone. Too bad. We could have avoided all that. And with all the effort that was undertaken to try to shore up the real estate market, we had people telling us, look, we got behind on our mortgage payments when gas hit $4 a gallon. You let us have the $6,000 we'd get to keep over 2 months, we'll catch up on our mortgage. We'll catch up on the other things. You don't need to have some big financial bailout situation because we'll take care of it ourselves if we have our own money. Then again, to know that that would have been paid for by the TARP money, and Social Security would not have been hurt. They would have gotten all the tax money that would have come in. It would have just come from TARP, instead of the individual taxpayers. And to know that Medicare would not have been hurt, because that money would have gone directly into Medicare, not from the taxpayer for 2 months, but from TARP. That would have been the right thing to do. If you really want a stimulus, let the people that earned it spend it. They'll know better than the people here in Washington did. And it didn't pass. And President Obama has chosen to take the name ``payroll tax holiday'' that I was using 3 years ago and use it for a 2 percent tax. Why? Because it will look good for the election. Why? Because it looks to be so grand because, see, you can tell people that are working that, gee, the President's got you a petty $30 extra in your check, and these Republicans don't want you to keep that. That's not true. We do. But we also, at the same time, don't want Social Security not to have the money that it needs. What the President is not telling people, as he has pitted those who are working now against our seniors, and to the one group saying, hey, workers, I want you to have that little extra 30 bucks in your pay check, and Republicans don't want you to have it. And then going to seniors and saying, you've got to worry about those Republicans because they're not going to take care of Social Security, never bothering to mention that when he says we're allowing you to keep this money in your check now, it means that money will not be in the Social Security Trust Fund, not even the IOU will be in the Social Security Trust Fund to take care of our seniors. We were told when this President was running that he was a uniter, not a divider. And yet we see in this campaign ploy that working people are being pitted against our seniors. We've seen class warfare. In essence, if you see somebody has more than you do, you need to want it and go after it. After all, that basically seems to be the one common thread running through all the Occupy Wall Street, Washington, all the Occupy groups. We had them come through Washington screaming in the hallways today. It wasn't enough that they're trying to disrupt a beautiful park people used to enjoy. Why? Because they have no regard for private property. Why? Because they've become envious and jealous. I can say that because I'm repeatedly told in the analyses that I have less assets than most people. One time I had the least assets of anybody from Texas in Congress. My wife and I cashed out all our assets, except our house, so I could run for Congress, so I could try to make a difference. And I am not jealous of anyone who has more than me. I thank God we have a country where people can be entrepreneurs. And I've accepted that as a role I can play in helping try to do that. So it breaks my heart when I see a President dividing America with class warfare, encouraging envy and jealousy. You ought to want what they have and demand that you get theirs. Leaders coming out and saying they fully embrace the Occupy movement, it's a great thing, when even the Occupy folks can't explain anything other than they hate the people that got more than they do. Then there's a report--I don't often cite CNBC, but cnbc.com, more Americans are going abroad for economic opportunities. It says that the State Department now estimates that 6.3 million Americans are studying or working abroad, the highest number on record. We're told that 70 percent of Americans, adults, believe that their children will not have as much opportunity and freedom as they've had. That's why I ran for Congress. That should not happen. We can change that. But I'm mystified when I think about the record spending in 2007 that was followed by additional record spending in 2008, under the guidance of Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid, because we know all spending originates in Congress. This is where budgets are passed. It's where appropriations are passed. If money is appropriated, it has to be appropriated from here. In 2007, 2008, I never heard anybody, Democrat or Republican, complain that those budgets didn't spend enough money, each year going beyond what we had spent the year before. And so, then to have a new President come in in 2009, and with Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid still at the reins, jump up spending an extra trillion dollars, and then come before Congress and the country and say, look, you're just going to have to raise taxes to get up to where this extra trillion dollars is that I've already spent. Why couldn't we just say, Nobody complained in 2007 or 2008 about too little money being spent. Let's go back to the Pelosi-Reid budget that was so much more than the Republican budgets of 2005 and 2006. We'll go back to those. It means we drop $1 trillion in spending. Boom, there you go. We didn't a need a supercommittee. There you are. Another easy solution that isn't talked about enough, but this House voted to cut our own legislative budget 5 percent last year and 6.4 percent the year we're in. That amount of money, though significant to most of us, is a drop in the bucket when you look at the overall Federal budget. And the way that that should be used to make a difference is for this House, since we've done it to ourselves, now having the moral authority to say to every Federal department, every agency, we cut ourselves 5 percent last year, you're cutting yourself 5 percent next year. And the year after that, since we've already done it, you're cutting yourself another 6.4 percent; an 11 percent cut. And there you are. We didn't need a supercommittee. You've got your cuts. I am so grateful to Chairman Paul Ryan. We had a good discussion back in July. Since he's been in Congress like I have, the four terms I have been in Congress, each time I filed a zero-baseline budget bill that says no more automatic increases for every Department. No automatic increases. It ought to be an easy concept. But we're living under the rules that were established for CBO back in 1974, a very, very liberal Congress that ended our participation in Southeast Asia. We should have ended it because we had not given our soldiers, sailors, airmen--we had not given them the go-ahead to win that war. We had tied their hands. When I hear some people say we ought to remember the lessons from Vietnam--and then it turns out they didn't get the lesson. The lesson is that unless you are willing to commit 100 percent of the resources and give the rules of engagement that allow our military to win, they should never be sent. It is outrageous to have our military in foreign countries with rules of engagement that don't allow them to adequately protect themselves. That's the lesson that should have been learned from Vietnam. We could have won the war. Sam Johnson can tell you, the leaders in Hanoi, as the POWs were taken out, one was laughing: You stupid Americans. If you had just bombed us one more week--like the 2 weeks they had before--we would have had to surrender unconditionally. They could have done that years before, saved thousands and thousands of American lives in Vietnam, but we didn't commit to win it. We shouldn't send anybody anywhere unless we're committed to win. It costs too much money. But even more than that, it costs the greatest American treasure, and that's American lives. We are in an economic crisis; and as Peter Marshall as chaplain of the U.S. Senate prayed in the 1940s: What we call crises, God sees as opportunities. It turns out, those of us in the House, those of us in the Senate, even the President, have an incredible opportunity. We'll never be called the greatest generation; but 100 years from now, if we bring spending down under control, people can look back and say: Wow, they had about 60 years, 65 years of uncontrolled spending. It grew and grew and grew. And the people that were in government then did something that most have never been able to do when they get to that point, when nearly 50 percent are getting more back than they are paying in. They were able to restrain their spending, get control of their financial destiny, and we got another 200 years of the greatest Nation in history. The other is possible. They could look back and say: Wow, the United States followed the tried-and-true path to the dustbin of history. They spent more than they had. People found that they could get Congress to vote them money out of the Treasury. And once again, that socialist concept failed, and the Nation failed. The Nation that provided for that brief time of Camelot, a time of hope, relative peace, evolving toward more perfect freedom, was lost because of financial irresponsibility. People have heard me so many times quote Ben Franklin. But it's easy to see from Proverbs, it's easy to see from speeches of people like Ben Franklin, our problem is a selfish problem--anytime we spend more money than we have with complete and utter disregard, gross negligent disregard, even intentional disregard for the future of our children and one day their children and one day their children, complete disregard, we want to spend it on ourselves now. It's time to tell Greece, to tell everyone, let's hold hands and do this together, not jump over the cliff by spending good money after bad. Let's do it by not spending money we don't have. And there's no way a country would not be upgraded when S&P and the world see, these people are really serious about not spending more than they have coming in. This is a brave country. They know how to make commitments. And that would get us back to having true freedom and not having the American citizens have to come begging to Congress, Please, please, throw us more morsels. Instead, Congress would be a body that inspired greatness and inspired potential again and wouldn't lure young women into the rut of having children out of wedlock because they're bored with high school. It would, instead, give them incentives and encouragement: Reach your potential; finish high school; go to college. Let's have incentives not to stay out of work. Let's have incentives to get back to work. Let's have incentives to sell our products around the world. You do that by decreasing the tariff that we put on American-made goods by every American company. That would help get us on the road back to financial independence. One other thing: When you have been blessed as the greatest country in the world when it comes to having your own energy, we ought to use it. We have it. We've been blessed with it. It's time to use it. And I would humbly suggest that this President get out of the way, stop preventing us from using our own energy, and allow us to become an independent and great Nation again. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman. If our time would be better spent on those things, we would be glad to withdraw the suspension on your suggestion and just drop it right now. We will be glad to do that. I will make that offer.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Founding Fathers did not believe that the Federal Government should try to solve every problem in the country. Instead, they believed that local problems should have local solutions. This system of federalism became the bedrock of the Constitution. One particular aspect of our federalist system is found in the Compact Clause of the Constitution. The clause recognizes agreements or contracts that States make among themselves, with congressional approval when necessary. Today, there are approximately 200 active interstate compacts addressing a variety of issues that range from environmental and energy policy to natural resources to traffic and transportation. Rather than wait for a one-size-fits-all program from Washington, D.C., the Constitution allows States to solve these kinds of problems for themselves. In 1949, Missouri and Illinois formed a compact to create the Bi- State Development Agency. The agency's mission is to facilitate and coordinate economic and infrastructure development in the St. Louis metropolitan area. Among other projects, the agency runs the public transportation system in St. Louis. The agency does not have taxing authority, but it may issue bonds. For example, in the 1960s, the agency sold bonds to finance construction of the tram to the top of the Gateway Arch, which it operates today. The compact allows the agency to sell 30-year bonds. Last year, most States adopted legislation to amend the compact and allow the agency to issue 40-year bonds. In addition to other capital improvements, the agency could use revenue from these 40-year bonds to support the CityArchRiver 2015 initiative. The purpose of the CityArchRiver 2015 is to better connect downtown St. Louis with the Gateway Arch and the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial national park. The project also involves building elevated walkways across the river to Illinois. Senate Joint Resolution 22 gives congressional approval to this amendment, the Missouri-Illinois Interstate Compact. The Judiciary Committee marked up its companion, House Joint Resolution 70, on September 21. The suspension version of Senate Joint Resolution 22 contains one amendment, to correct a minor drafting error regarding the effective date. With this amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 22 will be effective upon the date of enactment. In conclusion, I'm pleased to see this feature of our federalist system at work. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution and look forward to its swift passage. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on S.J. Res. 22, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We're in a time of massive overspending, a time when some want to raise taxes, creating more of an economic problem. But it's been shocking that after the biggest wave election since the 1930s, 80-plus brand-new Republican conservative Members coming into this House, it's been nearly a year, and we really haven't cut much of anything. There's plenty of places to do it. It should be done. It can be done. We ought to just say we're going back to the last Speaker Pelosi budget before the big bailouts and stimulus all started occurring. I don't remember governmental entities around the country, Federal Government entities, in 2007 and 2008 with Speaker Pelosi at the helm of things, complaining that they weren't getting enough Federal money. Yet, if we went back there and just said, you know what, forget the stimuluses and the bailouts, obviously those haven't worked. Let's just go back to the '07 or '08 budget. They didn't pass a budget; they passed appropriations--but let's go back to those numbers. Instantly, a trillion dollars trimmed off. What we've had is a President of the United States coming into office jumping up the Federal spending by a trillion to a trillion and a half dollars and then saying we're not cutting any of that extra trillion dollars we've added on. We just need now to raise taxes to get up to all of this giveaway spending that we've done. There are many good examples of that, but none better than in the solar energy area--a place like Solyndra getting between five and $600 million that's been completely wasted. We've been told by Secretary Napolitano that the country just can't afford to build a fence on our southern border where our problems now are not Latin American citizens coming up here. We have what are sometimes labeled OTMs, ``other than Mexicans,'' coming in; and many of them are coming in and they're not coming in to do us any favors, and they're not coming here to get jobs. We have an obligation to provide for the common defense. Our oath requires us to do that, and we're not doing it. But good grief, if you took the money that this administration squandered giving away to Solyndra, take the $700 million or so that was squandered, given away to a solar plant in Nevada--actually they had about $35 billion to give away, they literally have been doing--and according to the information from this administration--some of us think it shouldn't cost nearly this much--but if you took just $1 billion to $2 billion of that $35 billion that had been squandered by this Energy Department and said we're committed to providing for the common defense, and in providing for the common defense we're going to build a fence, it would cost a fraction of what this administration has squandered on solar energy giveaway programs. What a waste. Then we have ObamaCare. You want to save a trillion dollars? Just stop it. Repeal ObamaCare. The vast majority of American people sent a new majority into the House to try to get that done. Turns out, we've got to have help in the Senate we don't have down there so that we can do the will of the majority of the American public and repeal ObamaCare. There's a trillion dollars in savings, actually more than that. We've got $105 billion being spent right now, in the process of being spent, to make sure that the mechanisms are in place so that by 2013, 2014, ObamaCare is going to be the law of the land whether the Supreme Court strikes it down or not, because all of these mechanisms will be in place. It's time to repeal it. It's time to get rid of it and have serious health care reform. And you can't have serious health care reform until you know what the cost of health care is. You can't go into any doctor's office or any hospital, any health care provider's office and say how much does it cost for this procedure, that procedure if it is something that's covered by insurance or Medicare or Medicaid because they can't tell you. It depends, they'll tell you. What kind of insurance you got? Are you on Medicare? Medicaid? Are you paying cash? Ironically, in a society where paying cash should normally get you the lesser price, in health care, because of some of the insurance agreements, they are not allowed contractually to charge as little to the cash-paying people as those who have insurance get charged to their insurance companies. Well, that's not the free market. That's not competition. So that's something that has to be dealt with. We need transparency there. When we look at the figures, for example, on Medicare for the calendar year of 2010, it has been estimated that $522.8 billion was spent on Medicare. When you divide the number of households in the United States that have been estimated to have one or more people on Medicare, you'll find out we're apparently spending between $20,000 and $30,000 a household for Medicare. You can buy some really great private health insurance, especially if you have a high deductible, for a lot less than $20,000 a year. That's why the proposal I had--some have called it bipartisan--has clearly become a partisan entity. After being called to the woodshed by this current President, they were able to strike about $200 billion or $300 billion from their estimated costs of ObamaCare only to find, once it passed, it got put back in. Well, if CBO has a margin of error of $300 billion out of every $1 trillion they estimate, then it's probably not something we ought to keep. It's kind of like the Energy Department. When they're that bad at what they do, it's time to get rid of them and do something new. But you can't blame the folks who are there. Their hands were tied with rules that were put in place in 1974 up until the last 5 or 6 years with the most liberal Congress in our history, the same Congress that said we weren't going to stay with our commitments to allies in Southeast Asia. We left, some estimate, 2 million people to be killed when we fled Southeast Asia. Now this President seems to be following the same trends that we saw with Jimmy Carter: turning on our allies, hurting our friends, helping our enemies--and there's always a price to be paid for that. So we've got ObamaCare put in place. Over $1 trillion could be saved. Just repeal the thing, and let's start with real reform. Even though CBO refused to score it, Newt Gingrich told me, if I could get that bill scored, it might revolutionize the discussion on health care. So, naturally, CBO wouldn't score something like that even after they were requested by the ranking Republican on Energy and Commerce--the committee of jurisdiction--and by the ranking Republican on the Joint Committee on Taxation. They both requested it be scored, but CBO didn't score it. It might have interfered with ObamaCare being passed. The bottom line was it would have given seniors a choice. Do you want to keep being on Medicare and have the Federal Government tell you what you can or can't have, and have to go out and, with the precious few dollars you have from Social Security, have to pay AARP or somebody else's Medigap insurance or wraparound insurance or supplemental insurance? Do you want to have to keep paying precious dollars? Or would you like the alternative of having the Federal Government buy you basically the best private insurance you could have with a high deductible--of $3,500, $5,000, whatever we want to say, whatever ends up being the most cost-effective--and we would give you cash in a health savings account that you'd control with your own debit card, where you'd make the decisions? The only restriction is it would have to be for health care. You couldn't use that money for anything else. Give people a choice. Let them decide if they want to quit buying Medigap insurance. I know, as wonderful as AARP is, 2 years ago, I think, they cleared over $400 million in clear profit from their supplemental Medicare insurance. So you hate to cut in on a charitable institution like AARP's massive profits like that off people who can't afford to buy the product. But gee, let's give seniors a choice. Then, of course, we would need to give incentives to young people. Put your own money into a health savings account. It would be your money, but it could only be used for health care. You can't pull it out for something that's not health care. You can gift it to other people's health savings accounts. When you pass away, if you've got money in there, you can pass that on and have someone inherit that from you into that person's HSA, but once it's committed as health savings account money, it has to be spent on health care. Yet we've been told if that happens, then the vast majority of young people in their twenties and thirties would have so much massive amounts of money built up by the time they'd be eligible for Medicare, not only would they not want Medicare, they wouldn't need it. They'd have plenty of money to do what they wished. Now, that would get us off this road to the dustbin of history, because we have bankrupted ourselves on entitlement programs. At the same time, what an incredible deal--you'd get better health care; you'd get more control; you'd put patients back in control; you'd put patients and doctors back making the decisions. I'm a big supporter of health insurance, but the trouble is for a number of years now we haven't had health insurance in America; we've had health management. I'm very concerned that, unless health insurance companies get back in the business of health insurance instead of health management, then there will be some bill that ends up running them out of business. It, of course, will be ObamaCare if it's not repealed. Then it will be the government controlling things--a massive takeover. As I've said before, ObamaCare is kind of like the cap-and-trade bill. They're all about the same thing. It's all about the GRE--the Government Running Everything. That's what it's about. We could save money and return freedom to people who have not had it in the area of health care, and they would control their destinies. But there are some people here in Washington who genuinely, honestly believe they need to be making the personal decisions for people across America because, gee, they're smarter, and they would make better personal decisions for people who haven't done so well on their own. Thinking like that caused the original Revolution. They didn't want some king who thought he knew more about what they should do with their lives making the decisions about their personal lives. Some have drawn the parallel that there is a correlation between the American Revolution and the French Revolution when compared to the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement, because the American Revolution was about one thing: It was about liberty. There were people who signed and pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor. They were all at stake. And many who signed, pledging their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor, lost their lives and their fortunes--but their sacred honor was intact when they died. The Declaration of Independence says we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights and that among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nobody is guaranteed happiness. Yet the Founders knew that we were endowed by our Creator with these rights. But like any endowment, like any inheritance that's passed on from a loving father, if you're not willing to fight for it to the death, if necessary, you will not keep your inheritance. If you make stupid decisions with your endowment, with your inheritance, you're going to lose it; you won't keep it. Many countries have suspected they were endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, but they didn't fight to preserve them. They never fought to grasp them to begin with, and they've never had them. Some have had them and squandered them. We have been given such a gift by our Creator and by those who were willing to defend our inheritance so that we could enjoy that incredible endowment. Of course, we find out that there are some people in the Occupy movement who have big trust funds, massive amounts of money to keep them going, and they're out there complaining about people with money, got their laptops or their iPads, don't appear to be hurting too much. It appears some of them were born on third base and have gone through life thinking they hit a triple. Well, they haven't, and they need to be grateful for the people that got them to third base, but they're not. We can get spending under control, but we've got to get back to a moral Nation. As the Founders said, this government was never intended to work as a government for immoral people, for a people who did not grasp and understand the gift from their Creator, and that they had a Creator. We know that there are those who, in this country, are atheists because they have the freedom to do that, and that's fine. They have the freedom of religion, but the late Bob Murphy from Nacogdoches, Texas, used to say, you know, I used to feel sorry for atheists, he said. I do, I feel sorry for atheists because they have to tell the world, while they're trying to act like intellectuals, they have to try to tell the world that they believe the equation nobody plus nothing equals everything. As Bob used to say, how embarrassing, to act like an intellectual and say I believe the equation, nobody plus nothing equals everything. Because the truth is, we were endowed by our Creator. It didn't just happen. These incredible gifts didn't just appear. We are endowed by a loving Creator. I learned a lot about the nature of God as a father who loved his children. I learned even more about the nature of God as a judge and chief justice, how you don't want to punish people. You got a taste of that as a father. But there has to be laws, there has to be enforcement, there has to be equal enforcement and people not be above the law. Well, when you get people in positions of authority who think they're above the law, that they should be in a position, as was King George III, to decide legislative, judicial and executive decisions, we're in trouble. In North Dakota, there has been the largest oil find since the discoveries in Alaska. Some think the shale finds of oil in North Dakota may even exceed Prudhoe Bay. It's big. We, those of us who believe in God, should be thanking God for the endowment of all the natural resources in this country. We have been richly blessed, and yet we have got an administration that says hands off: this might make us energy independent, this might move us down the road to stop sending money to countries that hate us, to stop sending money to countries who are funneling money to terrorism. This energy resource blessing that we've been given, if we used it, would create jobs; but we're not going to allow it because we want to use something they call alternative energy. The reason, as someone recently said, it is called alternative energy is because it isn't real energy. You use more energy getting the energy out than you actually get back. That's been seen with wind energy; and we know that these massive windmills, though producing some small amount of electricity, they've chopped up a lot of birds in the process. And yet what has been this administration's position in response to the biggest oil find in modern history in North Dakota, Slawson Exploration Co. of Wichita, Kansas, was charged under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for killing 12 birds that--these aren't endangered species, they're migratory birds, like mallard ducks--after landing, allegedly landing in oil waste pits in western North Dakota. So our Justice Department, which abandoned prosecution of funding of terrorism around the world against the United States and our friend Israel, it has abandoned that responsibility, they are purging their training records of any reference to radical Islam. They are refusing to go after the people that want to bring down this country. They're appointing people on the Homeland Security Advisory Council who have glowingly talked about Ayatollah Khomeini, or the Holy Land Foundation, that funneled money to terrorism, they're putting people like that on the Homeland Security Advisory Council, giving them secret clearance and letting them peruse our classified documents. That's what this administration has been doing. But these energy resources could make us energy independent, and what are they doing? They're putting their foot on the throat of anybody that tries to produce them to the point that they will ignore the tens of thousands of birds that have been killed by windmills and go after the biggest oil find in modern history in America and charge them criminally because maybe there were 12 ducks that got into some of their oil. It's incredible what this administration is doing--they think to help America. But, clearly, just as clearly in retrospect as President Carter hurt this country, hurt those who love liberty by recognizing the Ayatollah Khomeini as a man of peace, proudly proclaiming his coming back to Iran, and thousands and thousands and thousands of people have died because such a man was encouraged to come to power. Just like this administration did in Egypt, like this administration has done in Libya, without really knowing who we were helping, and now the Muslim Brotherhood that is devout in pursuing an international caliphate that would put the lovers of liberty in this country under the shackles of following sharia law, it's a disgrace. There is so much damage that this administration has been doing; the Justice Department going after people because they believe there is a God. I will just close with what Ben Franklin said in the Constitutional Convention, 1787, toward the end of June: How has it happened that we have not once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding? In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room. Our prayers, sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. He ultimately said: If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We've been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that ``unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.'' I firmly believe this. He also said: I firmly believe that without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in our political building no better than the builders of Babel. He was right. We've had over 200 years of blessing as a result. It's time to acknowledge the result of our blessing and the source of our blessings. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Let's cut to the chase. This is a tax credit for people who want to contribute to the President's campaign fund. They're told you can check this box and it doesn't cost you anything. No, but it takes $40 million-plus a year away from the fund that could be used for other things, including for Social Security, and it gives it to the President's campaign fund. I stand with our President, Barack Obama, on this issue, who found that that fund is worthless and that it's an impediment to getting elected. So I stand with President Obama in saying let's get rid of the fund and not use it anymore, and let the $200 million in that fund go to something helpful instead of being an impediment to being elected President.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I want to share a Proclamation of Thanksgiving from the year 1798, signed by President George Washington. In 1798, it was toward the end of President Washington's time as President. It was a difficult time; we were not a strong Nation. We were struggling, and some thought we ought to run to the aid of France; but their convictions in France did not appear to be based on sound doctrine and a desire for liberty. There was too much envy and jealousy involved in that revolution, and we were not a strong Nation. Despite all the difficulties in the United States in those early days, George Washington proclaimed the following: Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness. Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favor, able interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us. And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best. Signed by George Washington in 1798. But in the darkest throes of this country, in 1863, during a war that saw the death of more Americans than in any war in our history--more than the Revolution, more than World War I, World War II, Vietnam, Korea, more than any of the wars--the Spanish-American War--there was this proclamation from President Abraham Lincoln simply entitled ``A Proclamation.'' Lincoln said this: The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battlefield; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty- three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth. By the President: Abraham Lincoln. We all know--or hopefully most know that John Hancock presided over the Continental Congress from which we got the Declaration of Independence. In 1791, he was Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and signed this proclamation, from John Hancock: In consideration of the many undeserved Blessings conferred upon us by God, the Father of all Mercies; it becomes us not only in our private and usual devotion, to express our obligations to Him, as well as our dependence upon Him; but also specially to set a part a day to be employed for this great and important purpose: I have, therefore, thought fit to appoint, and by the advice and consent of the council, do hereby accordingly appoint, Thursday, the seventeenth of November next, to be observed as a Day of Public Thanksgiving and Praise, throughout this Commonwealth: Hereby calling upon ministers and people of every denomination, to assemble on the said day--and in the name of the Great Mediator, devoutly and sincerely offer to Almighty God, the gratitude of our hearts, for all His goodness towards us; more especially in that He has been pleased to continue to us so a great a measure of health--to cause the Earth plentifully to yield her increase, so that we are supplied with the Necessaries, and the comforts of life-- to prosper our merchandise and fishery--and above all, not only to continue to us the enjoyment of our civil rights and liberties; but the great and most important blessing, the Gospel of Jesus Christ: And together with our cordial acknowledgments, I do earnestly recommend, that we may join the penitent confession of our Sins, and implore the further continuance of the divine protection, and blessings of heaven upon this people; especially that He would be graciously pleased to direct, and prosper the administration of the Federal Government, and of this, and the other States in the Union--to afford Him further smiles on our agriculture and fisheries, commerce and manufactures--to prosper our university and all seminaries of learning--to bless the virtuously struggling for the rights of men--so that universal happiness may be allies of the United States, and to afford His almighty aid to all people, who are established in the world; that all may bow to the Scepter of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the whole Earth be filled with His glory. And I do also earnestly recommend to the good people of this Commonwealth, to abstain from all servile labor and recreation, inconsistent with the solemnity of the said day. Given at the Council-Chamber, in Boston, the fifth day of October, in the year of our Lord, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-One, and in the sixteenth year of the Independence of the United States of America. This is from James Madison, the fourth President, 1815. Many credit James Madison as being the most productive person in the writing of our United States Constitution. The greatest building block for any Nation in the history of man. This is James Madison's proclamation: No people ought to feel greater obligations to celebrate the goodness of the Great Disposer of Events of the Destiny of Nations than the people of the United States. His kind providence originally conducted them to one of the best portions of the dwelling place allotted for the great family of the human race. He protected and cherished them under all the difficulties and trials to which they were exposed in their early days. Under His fostering care their habits, their sentiments, and their pursuits prepared them for a transition in due time to a state of independence and self- government. Signed James Madison, fourth President, March 4, 1850, Thanksgiving Day proclamation. And then in conclusion: Know that the Lord Himself is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; We are His people and the sheep of His pasture. Enter His gates with thanksgiving and His courts with praise. Give thanks to Him, bless His name. For the Lord is good; His loving kindness is everlasting and His faithfulness to all generations. Mr. Speaker, it is the wish here that you and all those in this body and around the country have a wonderful day of Thanksgiving in the week ahead. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Certainly.

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. I certainly appreciate my friend from New York. There are some areas of research that if the Federal Government doesn't do it, it's not going to get done, and I'm sure there are areas we can certainly agree on. Balanced Budget Amendment

Mr. GOHMERT. I wish I were coming to the floor just full of excitement because we had a vote today on the balanced budget amendment. I came to Congress nearly 7 years ago believing we needed a balanced budget amendment, knowing that Thomas Jefferson regretted not having one, that Ronald Reagan wished there had been one. But since I have been in this body, it has become abundantly clear that this body is more likely to have the will to raise taxes than it is to cut spending. I came here not believing that that was the case. But after we added over 80 fantastic freshmen coming up here with the right motivation, wanting to get our fiscal House in order, knowing that we went from 2006, when we were last in the majority before this year, when we spent $160 billion or so over what we took in, and then, because we didn't have our fiscal house in order as the Republican majority, it's my belief that's the reason, the biggest reason, actually, that the public turned over the reins to our Democratic friends. We haven't done a good job of avoiding overspending. But also in 2006, November, when we lost the majority, I would never have believed that we would go from a time when we were spending $160 billion more than we were bringing into the Treasury in just a few short years to spending a trillion dollars more than we were bringing into the Treasury. That was just unfathomable. And it appeared very clear that after a year ago, when the majority--we were in the minority at the time--made a pledge, we were going to return to pre-bailout, pre-stimulus spending, and in the first year, we pledged we would cut $100 billion. And here we are, we have just at the end of September finished the fiscal year of 2011, and we really didn't make any cuts. The jury's out. Initially we were told we may save $27 billion over the year before. It is just chicken feed when you're bringing in $2.2 trillion or $2.3 trillion and you're spending about $1.3 trillion more than that, $3.6 trillion, $3.7 trillion. And all we could find to cut was $27 billion? Then we have had more recent word that we may not even save that much. Some have told me that actually we may have spent just a hair more than we did. So it became abundantly clear to me, and I know that my friend, Chairman Paul Ryan, voted against the balanced budget amendment because he knew it ought to have more restraint on spending in there, a spending cap. And Mr. Amash, I haven't talked to him about his reasons for voting no, and Mr. Dreier, who doesn't believe we should have one at all. It's really not fun not voting with the people that you serve with, that you're in the same party with. You share so much in the way of common experiences. Because I am a strong advocate for a balanced budget amendment. But the bill on the floor today did not have a spending cap. This past year, we had just witnessed the largest wave election since the 1930s. And all of the over 80 new freshmen came forward with one central charge: stop the wasteful government spending. Following a pledge to make massive cuts in spending, it really appears that Congress finds it easier to talk about ``new revenue'' which is just code for more taxes, than to cut spending. It doesn't live up to the pledge that we made. We made a pledge to the American people to restrain government and to get our fiscal house in order. And we should be doing it. Eleven months into this majority, we should have made more progress than we have. President Obama has ramped up spending with the help of former Speaker Pelosi, Leader Reid, both majorities in the Houses when they were Democrats, by over an additional trillion dollars. It's far more than the Democratic Congress increased the debt under President Bush in 2007 and 2008. It just is mind-boggling that we could not find enough Members to return even to the liberal Democratic spending of 2007 or 2008. It's clear that, if we had passed a balanced budget amendment without at least having a spending cap, then future Congresses would use the requirement of a balanced budget to increase taxes in order to balance the budget. We are already at a point at which almost 50 percent of the American public is not paying income tax. We are on the threshold of arriving at that point beyond which no representative societies have ever been able to come back to greatness. When one more than half who is voting is receiving more from the government than they're putting in, you're done. You're doomed. It's over. All that's left is the slow walking and the low talking, but you're virtually at the end. And we are getting close. On Wednesday, the national debt exceeded $15 trillion, which left the United States with one of the highest public debt-to-GDP ratios in the world. This $15 trillion mark further enhances the uncertainty that is thwarting our economy from moving ahead. It's apparent America is on a route headed for ruin, and if we continue to spend more money that we don't have, we will arrive at that destination. Washington, this government, needs to stop the runaway train of spending. This President's policies have added $4.4 trillion to the national debt, all in a fraction of the time that that debt accumulated under President George W. Bush. If we'd at least had a spending cap as part of the balanced budget amendment, which wasn't even demanding the two-thirds supermajority in order to raise taxes--just a spending cap, make it a relevant spending cap--then what we voted out of committee in the regular order--which we promised that we wouldn't bring bills to the floor unless they went through the regular order--produced a balanced budget amendment that had a two-thirds requirement in the way of a vote before taxes could be raised. It had an 18 percent spending cap, where 18 percent of the GDP was the most we could spend. That was produced through the regular order, but that's not what we voted on here today. I deeply regret having to vote ``no,'' but I've seen what we're capable of and what we're not; and we need it in the Constitution that the budget must be balanced and that a spending cap must be there. Some have said, Well, States don't really have a spending cap. They can't print their own money. They can't go out and borrow money the way we do in the Federal Government. It's different, and it needed to be addressed differently. We were told, Well, we had to vote for this as Republicans because it's the only one that had a chance to pass. Then, on further inquiry, we were told the people who were saying that didn't believe it was going to pass the Senate, that they knew it wouldn't pass in the Senate, and didn't think it had much chance of passing in the House. Then why weren't we pushing what came out of regular order?--which is what I think most of the Republicans believed was the best bill. I don't know. I also know, in going back through this country's history, that, even during some of its most difficult and darkest days, there was a day set aside, sometimes many days set aside, for thanksgiving. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains?

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Even though this body is composed of a lot of people who have a lot of different political steadfast beliefs, it is still an honor and pleasure to serve with friends like Carolyn Maloney. So it is an honor to serve, and even though we disagree sometimes on the way we get to the end, I know that, for example, Mrs. Maloney's heart is always in the right place. It is a pleasure to serve with her.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One thing we've got plenty of around here is paper, unfortunately. We've got bills, we've got laws that we should have taken up that we haven't. And when we talk about the health care bill, people know we talk about ObamaCare, whatever the formal name is. Cutting $500 billion out of Medicare already. That's a done deal. That was rammed through by the majority when Speaker Pelosi was in charge at the behest of our President Obama--$500 billion in cuts. Our seniors deserve better than that kind of treatment. Republicans, I don't think we had any Republicans vote for that. But it was driven through against the will of the American people, and against the will of the Republicans. But Democrats had the votes, so they did it--$500 billion in cuts to Medicare. So when AARP has all these seniors send in petitions saying, I'm a member of AARP, don't you dare cut anything from Medicare, we try to make sure our seniors know that it was AARP that stood by the President as he cut $500 billion, and we're glad that they're finally waking up to just what the President and AARP, with AARP's assistance, what they did to seniors. But if you look at how much money we are spending on Medicare, not to even mention right now Medicaid, just look at how much we're spending on Medicare, and you look at the number of households we have, around 17.5 million Medicare households--this was from 2009. You divide that into the amount of money that we're spending, the Federal Government's spending on Medicare--not even Medicaid, just Medicare: We're spending right at $30,000 for every household with somebody on Medicare. $30,000? Now, for someone who's got bad heart problems or some kind of chronic disease, well, that's not so bad when you consider what all kinds of treatments and medicines they're getting. That's if you look at the bills that are sent out. If you look at the amount of actual money that are paid for those procedures, or actually paid or reimbursed by insurance companies or the government for that money, it's not near that much for most households, even most households on Medicare. That's why I was shocked in the not too distant past to find out that in one situation that I'm aware of personally, when there were $10,000 in bills between the hospital, the physicians, the ambulance, the testing, the people reading the tests, and all that stuff, 2 days of hospitalization, $10,000. It turns out that the insurance company, the health insurance company resolved all $10,000 in bills for about $800. Well, if we knew exactly how much was being paid to pay for those exorbitant health care bills, we could then finally reintroduce something known as free market principles. Now, the doctors I talk to, the health care providers I talk to, they wouldn't mind that. Their hands get tired. There are some insurance policies or contracts that health care providers have with some of the health insurance companies that said they cannot charge--that's what I'm told--they can't charge somebody paying cash as little as a health insurance company providing the contract gets out by paying. You can't have competition in health care until people know how much they're paying for their medicine, for their hospital stay. You've got to know what they're paying. It was a great thing growing up in a small town in East Texas. I loved the town, Mount Pleasant, Texas. After I finished 4 years out of the Army from a scholarship at Texas A&M, my wife and I settled in Tyler. We've loved it. It's the only home my kids knew growing up. Been so good to me. But my wife and family, we've all been blessed there. But in the smaller town I grew up in, everybody knew the doctors. And from time to time we would go to a different doctor. And a lot of the times it was because we found out one upped their price so we would go to another doctor who didn't charge quite as much because they were good. That's called free market competition. We don't have that any more in health care. We've got to get back to it. If we're going to bring the costs down, we've got to get back to it. People have to know what it costs to go to the doctor. People need to know that their medicine that they see a cost of $900, that the insurance companies, when they reimburse for that $900 prescription, don't pay but a fraction of that. So if somebody can't afford insurance, why should they have to pay $900 for a prescription drug that a health insurance company wouldn't pay a fraction of that much? We have to get back to having some competition in the cost of things. So there's one way, really the only way I see we get off this track to total socialized health care that ObamaCare puts us well on down the road toward arriving on, and that would be through greater use of health savings accounts. We're told by some actuarials that if kids in their twenties and thirties start putting money in a health savings account and it grows and it grows because they don't use much at that young age, by the time they're eligible for Medicare, not only would they not want to use Medicare, they wouldn't need it. They'd have so much money built up in their health savings accounts that they didn't get through every year. I agree with some of the people that I've consulted over the last 4 years on what would be a better plan that if you could have people putting money every month in a health savings account, building that account, then not allow it to be drawn out for something like buying a boat or anything like that, but it has to be for health care, can't be for anything else. Once its dedicated in a health savings account, and it should be allowed to be put in there pre-tax, then it has to be for health care. Oh, sure, we ought to be able to allow people to donate that to some charity that keeps health savings accounts for the less fortunate, ought to be allowed to gift it or bequeath it to children, to family and help them grow that big nest egg of a health savings account, and then you have a debit card coded to cover nothing but health care costs. And you use that health savings account until you reach the amount of the high deductible that the health insurance policy has, and then the health insurance kicks in. That would help make health insurance so much cheaper for most folks. That's what a lot of us have gone to, and I have myself. It is a lot better deal. It is a lot cheaper. But to think about, as these numbers indicate from 2009, that every household with someone on Medicare is costing nearly $30,000, it is just staggering. And that's why instead of continuing to move toward rationed care putting our seniors on lists where they can't get treated very quickly, they have to wait, because let's face it, the way of socialized medicine is rationed care. And President Obama not only must have known that that was the truth, but he put a man in the position to oversee ObamaCare who had made clear in prior statements that it's not a matter of if we go to rationed care, it is a matter of when. And then he's the guy that ends up in charge of ObamaCare because obviously this President and the Democratic majority in the last Congress intended--expected--that seniors would be getting rationed care. How much better to say, you know what seniors, you've got a choice. How about that? We've had so many people on the Democratic side of the aisle talk about it should be people's right to choose. They should have choice. How about in health care? How about giving seniors a chance to choose? You want Medicare? You want to be denied some medicines? You want to have to keep buying that supplemental coverage from AARP? Your choice. On the other hand, if you want to do something different, we'll put-- and I'm flexible on the amount, but it appeared $3,500 was a good, effective amount for achieving that kind of high deductible and lower cost for the insurance policy. Then we, the Federal Government, will buy you a private health insurance policy that covers everything over $3,500, and then we will give you cash money in a health savings account, the debit card to go with it that you hold, you use as you see fit, you choose what medicine, you choose what doctor. And if you exhaust the $3,500, then the insurance kicks in and you've got that coverage. You don't have to buy supplemental coverage, and I know that would cost AARP hundreds of millions. I get that. And I know they care deeply about retired folks. I get that. But, boy, if retired folks wouldn't have to pay anything for supplemental insurance, seems like that would be a good thing. We would give them the choice. Let seniors choose what you want. You want control of your own health care and the money to pay the deductible if you get that high and an insurance policy to cover everything beyond that if you go beyond that? You control things? Or do you want to let the government keep telling you what you can and can't get in the way of treatment? The country is better off when the Federal Government is the referee, not the player, because government's always going to be the referee; but when it's the player and the referee, that's when it's so grossly unfair. Anybody should be able to figure that. That would be so much better for seniors. Give them the choice. But you know what? This President, Speaker Pelosi, Leader Reid, they felt like they knew better for seniors. They felt like it would be better if they did not allow seniors to have a choice. Too bad, seniors. We're going to cut $500 billion from the amount of money that we're spending on Medicare, and you're about to find out what real rationed care is about once ObamaCare kicks in to the full. Why not give them a choice? Why not force doctors and health care providers for the first time in decades to start posting what the cost of health care is? How much at your hospital is a hospital bed in a single room or in a double room with two patients in there? How about showing people that, letting them decide which is cheaper? Because as long as an insurance company or the government is paying all of those costs, people really don't care. That's the way of the world. That's why in the Soviet Union in 1973 when I asked some farmers in the middle of the morning who were sitting in the shade visiting instead of being out in the field working, and I tried to do it as nicely as possible, spoke a little Russian back then, When is it you work out in the field? The loudest one said, I make the same number of rubles when I'm in the shade here or if I'm out there, so I'm here. That's socialism. When the Federal Government socializes medicine, as ObamaCare is driving us toward--it's just one giant step; we're virtually there-- well, then, it changes everything. People don't really care how much things cost because they're not paying for them. People don't try to go to a less expensive doctor or hospital because they don't care. Somebody else is paying it. Then when they see the bill that says this stay cost $10,000, they say, Well, gee, I'm glad I'm not paying that. They don't care because they're not paying it. They don't know that there may have been $200 paid for that hospital bed rather than $10,000. People deserve to know what health care costs. As I say, the health care providers--the doctors I talk to--wouldn't mind being able to do that. They would love it if patients could come in and give them a health savings account debit card. Then they don't have to have extra people who are chasing down the new codes and all this information about what the government pays and what the insurance company will or won't pay. We'd get back to a doctor-patient relationship. Wouldn't that be wonderful? As I've told health insurance companies before at a convention here in Washington, D.C., we need to get the health insurance companies back in the health insurance business and out of the health management business, because if health insurance companies are determined to stay in the health management business where they manage our health care, they're eventually going to have everybody mad at them, and they're going to be run out of business, and there won't be any health insurance companies anymore. Other than the socialist Federal Government of the United States. I don't want to get there. We're almost there with ObamaCare. That's why this body, with the majority of Republicans having taken over this year, voted to repeal ObamaCare. When it's real health insurance, people pay a small monthly, quarterly, semiannual, annual fee in order to insure against some unforeseen disease or accident down the road--unforeseen because, if they could foresee it, they'd know how much they'd need to save in order to take care of that event that's coming or the disease. You pay an insurance company for something you don't know might happen--maybe it will, maybe it won't. The thing is, if we went to the place where we allowed those on Medicare to choose--to stay with Medicare if that's what you want, and keep buying that supplemental insurance--or we'll give you the cash in a health savings account and a debit card, then we'll buy the insurance to cover everything over the cash we put in your account for the year, and we'll do that every year. When I was drafting the bill in the prior Congress, Newt Gingrich was very helpful. He sent a couple of experts to come visit about ideas. They said, You know, we ought to have an incentive in the bill so that seniors would have an incentive not to spend all the money, all the $3,500 that's put in their HSAs every year. So we put in a provision that if someone on Medicare didn't use up all of the $3,500 in their health savings account, then they got a percentage of that cash money that they could take. No income tax would have to be paid on it. It was just cash money in their pocket at the end of the year in order to encourage them not to waste money from the health savings account by buying stuff they didn't need, because they were going to get a percentage of that if they didn't spend it within the year. Give them incentives. That's what market forces are about: incentives. Now, if we were to do something like that, then certainly there will be people who are chronically ill. We will always have people who are chronically ill, and those are the people we should help. They can't help themselves. That's what a caring society does. But when there are people who are able to help themselves, then those are the folks who ought to be able to grow a health savings account over the years so that they don't need any government help by the time they get to the point where they're eligible for Medicare. If they need it, they'll get it. That would finally get us on track to get out of this massive amount of debt that we're in. That's the way to go. In the meantime, not only is that not something that's occurring, but we're not able to innovate new things that will become law. We're innovating new things, like the alternative to Medicare--the choice we could give seniors--but we know, as the President has called us--and it really only applies to the other end of the Hall--we've got a do- nothing Senate. It's not the Republicans. They keep clamoring--trying to push, trying to get the Democratic leadership in the Senate to do something to help the economy, to truly do something to help health care, but they're not interested in doing that. We've got a supercommittee, as it has been dubbed, that we really shouldn't have set up. I have nothing but sympathy for my Republican friends who have been put on that committee because they were put into a position where, unbeknownst to our Republican leadership that negotiated the deal that brought this committee about, the Democrats really don't have anything to push them to reach an agreement. That appears to be why the Democrats seem to be interested in what Pat Toomey had floated out as a framework with the support of his colleagues. They seemed to be interested in it; but, apparently, after consulting with Democratic leadership, they realized, uh-oh, we're told not to work a deal because if we don't work a deal, there will be draconian cuts to our national security, which we don't mind--we've been wanting to do that for years--and then the other cuts will be to Medicare. Apparently, because of the lack of interest by the Democrats in seeing that there is a deal done, it would appear they don't mind having the cuts to Medicare. And that's what was puzzling me last week. After they hear how far backwards Republicans are willing to go on the supercommittee, how is it that the Democrats end up walking away, basically, from what they wanted? So I struggled to try to figure out what it was that would keep them from being desperate to cut a deal with the Republicans because surely they don't want those cuts to Medicare. Then I realized, well, Democrats are 100 percent totally responsible for the $500 billion in cuts to Medicare that are contained within ObamaCare. They also know that millions of dollars of Republican campaign money will be spent next year in probably talking about the $500 billion in cuts that the Democrats solely, on their own, pushed through in ObamaCare and that unless there is at least a couple hundred billion in cuts to Medicare, then at least that amount would result from a failure to pass some kind of bill from the supercommittee. Unless there's something like that, the $500 billion that the Democrats cut from Medicare last year is all anybody is going to basically be talking about in the next election. But if the supercommittee fails and if the House and Senate don't pass what they've sent, then we've already seen the rhetoric begin: Republicans, they say, are wanting to cut health care; they're wanting to cut Medicare. So now we see how it's playing out. Some, apparently, on the Democratic side--not all, but some, apparently the leadership of the Democratic Party--apparently the President--want to see a failure so they can campaign against Republicans saying, No, they didn't want agreement anyway; and look at the cuts to Medicare that they've forced. I don't see any other explanation for the cavalier attitude of the Democratic leadership and not pushing so hard to get an agreement to avoid the massive cuts to Medicare. Even with the massive cuts, it won't be as big a cut as ObamaCare was to Medicare; but it will be enough, apparently, for them to campaign and try to demonize the Republicans. Apparently tomorrow we're going to vote on a balanced budget amendment. It will either be House Joint Resolution 1 or House Joint Resolution 2. House Joint Resolution 1 has a cap on spending that we can't go above, a percentage of gross domestic product. It requires a supermajority in order to raise taxes. That's House Joint Resolution 1. That's what passed out of committee after a long and exhausting day of debate and amendments. But we're bringing to the floor joint House Resolution 2. It just says, You've got to balance the budget. I know there are those who say, Well, that would mean that our decisions start being made by the courts. Well, 49 out of 50 States, as I understand it, have a balanced budget requirement in their constitutions. Their courts don't make those decisions. I don't see why it would be otherwise if it was. Under the Constitution, we've got the power to restrict jurisdiction for everybody but the Supreme Court. We could do that if that's what we chose to do. We're in a mess, because we're not doing the things we promised we would when we ran and got elected to the majority, the very things the Democrats lost the majority in this House because they didn't fulfill. It's time to get serious about our promises. Everybody is aware of Francis Scott Key who wrote our wonderful National Anthem. As my time runs out, I want to finish tonight with something else that Francis Scott Key said. On February 22, 1812, he said this: The patriot who feels himself in the service of God, who acknowledges Him in all his ways, has the promise of Almighty direction, and will find His Word in his greatest darkness, ``a lantern to his feet and a lamp unto his paths.'' He will, therefore, seek to establish for his country, in the eyes of the world, such a character as shall make her not unworthy of the name of a Christian nation. We've got a lot to do if we're going to live up to our commitments, our oaths. A balanced budget amendment with a spending cap is what we need to do. That's what we passed out of committee in regular order. That's what I would vote for tomorrow. Since that's not coming, then I don't want to push through a balanced budget amendment that requires ever-upward spiraling taxation because, as we've shown this year, without a balanced budget amendment, Congress doesn't have the will to cut spending, not a majority of the House and Senate both. It's time to live up to the commitments we've made and what we owe our creator, our maker. If we'll do that, we can have another 200 years of greatness as a Nation. If we don't, as Abraham Lincoln said, This Nation will die by suicide. I want it to live and flourish. I want us to keep our commitments. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we are living in interesting times. As I understand it, that's a bit of a Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times. Well, we're here, not exactly as perhaps the Founders would have hoped, where we would have an executive branch that just declares, without consulting Congress, that he's going to commit American military to an action without knowing really who he's helping in Libya, without knowing exactly what's going to happen once we finish helping them, and without knowing just how much we're going to suffer and just how much our closest allies, like Israel, are going to suffer after this President unilaterally, without consulting Congress, commits our most valuable asset, American lives, not to mention the Treasury and American equipment. For those who have ears and those who have eyes, they understand that when the President says, Oh, but we're not to worry, eventually we'll turn it over to NATO, and then has a grandiose announcement we're turning it over to NATO, that actually the United States military is 65 percent of NATO's military, because there's supposed to be a regular order to things. And, in fact, Republicans ran last year saying we're going to get back to regular order. One of the things we went through for the preceding 4 years with the Democratic majority and Speaker Pelosi in charge was the Democratic majority came to the House floor over and over with bills that had not gone through committee process, and then they were brought to the floor with no opportunity to make any amendments whatsoever. Well, one of the things we have done this year, we've had lots of amendments. We've had an incredibly open process on the floor compared to what had happened the preceding 4 years when there were more closed rules than there had been in the history of the country, meaning no input, basically shutting out almost half of America that Republicans represented. It was ``our way and no highway.'' That's not the way regular order was supposed to go. And we were assured by our own leadership, of course, that, once we had the majority, it was back to regular order. And then over and over, big things had to be dealt with. Not that they couldn't have been foreseen. It could be reasonably foreseen that a continuing resolution was going to have to occur. And lo and behold, it came upon us in the spring as if it had never been contemplated, and we were told there was no time for regular order on these things. We just have to do it. Can't have amendments. Can't cut off funding for ObamaCare even though we cut off funding for some other things that otherwise would be considered legislating; but since it was part of the bill as it came directly from committee, we were told it was okay. So the Rules Committee waived any point of order objections. Now, that's inside baseball; but the bottom line is, even though we have done a better job of allowing amendments here on the floor, we still haven't gotten back to regular order. We have gone from one crisis to another crisis and have had to tell America, gee, this is another crisis so we don't have time to go through regular order. As I understand it, tomorrow most likely, possibly Friday, we're going to have a balanced budget amendment brought to the floor. It was part of the debt ceiling agreement that was negotiated the end of July, the end of the summer session before the August recess. We were going to have a vote on a balanced budget amendment, but there was no specification as to what balanced budget amendment it would be. Well, along the lines of the so-called regular order, we have had a balanced budget amendment. We've had hearings on it. We've had it marked up out of subcommittee, committee, and it came to the full Judiciary Committee and we had a long, protracted markup. In other words, markup is simply the hearing where anybody can bring any amendment and we have debate, full debate, and anybody on the committee who has any amendment they want to bring to that bill, they can bring it to the bill. That's regular order. We had that in committee on the balanced budget amendment. And our good friend from Virginia who has been such a long-suffering valiant warrior for a balanced budget amendment, it was his bill, House Joint Resolution 1. I had an amendment to that resolution that actually changed the cap on spending from 20 percent of gross domestic product to a cap of 18 percent of the gross domestic product, and that amendment passed. That's regular order. That's how you do it. Some of us had amendments that didn't get passed, but we still had the chance to bring them to speak on them, debate on them, have every other Member on the committee who wished to speak on every amendment be heard. Those things make for long, drawn-out hearings, and that's what we had. That's called regular order. That's because everybody who is involved can have input. And that's what we had. After that long, protracted process, we voted out of committee, affirmatively bringing out of committee, voting out of committee with a majority of those on the committee voting for the ultimate product. After that long, arduous debate and voting process, we voted out of committee a balanced budget amendment. Now I'm given to understand the Rules Committee has taken up a different balanced budget amendment, and we're told we didn't need to go through regular order for that. We're bringing a balanced budget amendment that did not come out of committee and that was not voted out of committee. And, gee whiz, it reminds me a great deal of the outlandish hearings that the Energy and Commerce Committee had when they came forth with a 1,000-page health care bill in the last Congress. And there was a lot of strong-handedness that brought that bill out of committee, and it was clear from the polls that that was not what America wanted. But, then, by the time Speaker Pelosi, Leader Reid down the Hall, and President Obama had their say, that 1,000-page bill that was voted out of committee turned into, ultimately, a 2,000-page bill. And that came to the floor not under regular order, because it just appeared. Nobody knew who had written it. But when we took the majority, we were going to do better. America would be able to see the debates, listen to the debates, see who was taking what position, see who was pushing what amendments, see what got voted out of committee and would have some confidence that that would be what would come to the floor. Well, this week we're going to take up a balanced budget amendment that didn't come out of committee, but we're told we've got to vote for it because it's another crisis. We've got to. It doesn't have a spending cap on it, not even the 20 percent of GDP that was amended down to 18 percent--none of that. Regular order would mean that we bring something to the floor that was voted out of committee. At some point, we have got to get back to regular order which was promised to the American people if they would put us back in charge. And it's good politically for both parties because each side gets to show in committee and here on the floor what amendments they're pushing for. They pushed for them in committee and pushed for them here on the floor. So by the time a law gets passed, it's been fully debated and talked about. That was one of the problems with the last majority. They were shoving bills down our throats, down America's throats, without any real debate. And that's how you could get a comment from a Speaker like, gee, we've got to pass the bill to find out what's in it. That's because it never went through a subcommittee process, a committee process, came to the floor without full and open amendment debates. No, we just bypassed all that. And one of the things that has hurt this country and has hurt this Congress is we haven't gotten back to regular order like we were supposed to. We've done a lot better, a whole lot better, because of all the amendment debate. But we haven't gotten back to regular order. So we're going to bring a balanced budget amendment to the floor that's different from the one that was fully debated, have a full opportunity for amendment at committee; but we're not going to have that opportunity on the floor. No, sir, not going to have it. We're told we can't have a spending cap in the one we're going to have on the floor. Why? Well, not because the committee voted it down--they didn't; not because the body voted not to have it here in Congress, but because we're told that what came out of committee cannot be what comes to the floor. I recall people previously saying that regular order makes for better law and allows the House to work its will. Well, how is it that we're not going to be taking up the balanced budget amendment that came out of committee? That's regular order. That's the House working its will. What staff member decided that we weren't going to get to have a spending cap that we could debate and vote on? We know that staff members had a lot to do with ObamaCare, or the President's health care bill, because there's a provision in there that exempted the Speaker's staff from having to be under ObamaCare when all the rest of us were going to have to be under it, including Members. So you kind of figure they must have staff writing that one. Well, what staff member decided that we couldn't bring to the floor the balanced budget amendment that came through regular order out of committee? That balanced budget amendment was fully debated, a full opportunity to amend in committee, but regular order means we would have that same opportunity with the whole body here. Well, who was it, a staff member? Who was it that just decided we can't do what the body decided was the will of the committee and the will of the House? Who intervened? I really don't know. The right thing to do would be to bring the balanced budget amendment with the spending cap. Now, there were all kinds of amendments addressing the spending cap. Some folks didn't want it. They lost. There was the provision for a supermajority to raise taxes on that bill that was voted out of committee. Well, that's not in the balanced budget amendment. Why? I don't know why. We're told we're bringing to the floor a balanced budget amendment that appeared, and we didn't have anything to do with bringing it out of committee. We were told that we've got to pass this one because it's the only one that has a chance to pass, even though the Senate says they're going to bring it down, even though we've got Democratic leadership saying they're going to bring it down. If people on the other side of the aisle in the House and the majority in the Senate say they're going to bring it down, then why aren't we bringing to the floor a balanced budget amendment that a majority voted for and debated and amended and voted down amendments and passed it out to come to the floor in that order? How is it that we're trying, once again, in the House, as a majority, to strive to pass a bill to hit a mark that we think maybe there might be some chance that the Senate may pass as well, when we're told that it's not everything we believe in, but we're not going to get everything we believe in because we're going to try to do something the Senate will do? Well, if we've been told repeatedly that the Democrats are not going to assist, that the Senate is going to vote it down, then why not bring to this floor what we believe in our hearts as a majority ought to be passed? It's going to make it real confusing a year from now in November for voters when the Republican majority in the House is going to have to go back, as the Founders envisioned, and face our constituents, and even though we were in the majority, we didn't bring to the floor the things that we believed in; we brought to the floor things we were hoping maybe the Senate would agree to go along with. We're bringing to the floor what's called a minibus that's going to have some appropriations in it, but actually, it went through the conference process. Yet the underlying bill that passed out of the House was not a bill that a majority in the House really thought would be the best; it was a bill that we thought maybe the Senate would pass. So we compromised with ourselves in the majority in the House, thinking if we compromised with ourselves in the House that maybe the Senate would vote through just what we passed. But no, they didn't; they compromised with us further after we compromised with ourselves trying to hit the mark that we thought they would pass. So it goes to conference committee and we're further required to compromise with ourselves. What was the sense of that? And now we have to vote on a bill, an appropriations bill where we didn't even start out hitting the mark we thought was best, but, rather, hitting the mark that we thought, gee, maybe the Senate would pass? It's going to be confusing to voters because we're going to say, Here are the things we believe in, next year in November, and they're going to say, Why didn't you pass that? And apparently the response is supposed to be, Well, because we were trying to pass something we thought the Senate would pass. And the voters are going to respond, Well, what about the principle you told us in November of 2010 you were going to stand on? And unless we get back to the regular order in this body, we're going to be in trouble, because we need to be able to show the voters in America we passed in the House what we believed with all our hearts was best for America. We were going to cut spending, so we cut spending. We cut over $4 trillion over 10 years. We ought to be able to tell the American public that, but instead we have to tell them, Well, no, we were trying to hit a mark that wasn't too high because we were hoping the Senate would just pass it without the need for a conference. That's why it will be confusing to voters, Well, I know you're saying that you believed in those things, but that's not what you passed. It's time to start passing what we as the majority in the House believe is right and force the Senate to pass what they think is right. The big giveaway spending bills, force them to pass those. Don't come down here and compromise with ourselves and have a spending bill that we think--even though it spends more than we think is appropriate--we think, gee, maybe the Senate will go along because that looks to the American public like we're just like the Democratic-controlled Senate. But if we stand firm on principle in this body and we say, Here's what we believe in; here's what went through regular order; here's what was passed out of the Judiciary Committee; here's the balanced budget amendment, and we took it to the floor and we have wide open amendments, wide open debates, the American public could see this body at work, and we would pass what we believe is right for America and then force the Senate to pass what they believe is right for America and not continue to give the Democrat majority--who want to spend like crazy--in the Senate, we keep giving them cover because we won't stand on what we believe and pass that here in the House. That's what we ought to be doing. And that balanced budget amendment ought to be the one that came out of the Judiciary Committee. It ought to have a spending cap. It ought to have a supermajority in order to raise taxes. That was on that bill. Oh, it was debated. There were efforts to strike that part out. There were a lot of amendments--some to strike things like that out, some to put other things in, some to make it weak. But we fought those off successfully in committee and we came out of committee with a good, strong balanced budget amendment, and that's what ought to come to the floor, not the weak-kneed one we're going to get. Because a balanced budget amendment with no cap on spending unfortunately looks like a prescription for spiraling-upward taxes; because we've seen even with a conservative majority in the House, it's just tough to cut spending because we're told we've got to spend to get the Senate to go along with these bills. It's time to take the tough stands. America's in trouble. It's in big trouble. And as we fight these battles, it doesn't help to have people jumping on a bandwagon that really wasn't the bandwagon they showed themselves to really believe in previously. And by that, I'm talking about Secretary Panetta, Secretary of Defense. He wrote this scathing letter talking about how if the sequestration occurs, hundreds of billions are cut from defense, it could mean the loss of--I believe it was a couple hundred million of our military, which is a little ironic coming from the current Secretary of Defense, because the people on this side of the aisle believe in a strong defense. We all believe that it is our number one job to provide for the common defense, because if we don't do that, all these other things just go away and we're overtaken by people that want to bring down our way of life. But if you look to what Secretary Panetta was participating in back in the Clinton administration, you get a little better look at what really was believed at the time. You know, we've had President Clinton and those touting his time as President claiming, gee, he's the one President that actually cut the Federal workforce. No, he didn't. He cut the military. He didn't cut the Federal workforce. He cut the military. That's the only area he cut. And we paid a massive price after 9/11 because we had to gear back up because we once again found having a strong defense is important. Reagan tried to warn us about that. He said people don't get attacked because they're perceived as being too strong. They get attacked when people perceive them as being weak. And that's how we were perceived. But let's see, in January of 1993, when now-Secretary of Defense Panetta started as a part of the Clinton administration, there were 1,761,481 members of the United States military. In July of 1994, Secretary Panetta started as the Chief of Staff for President Clinton, and that continued through January of 1997. So let's take a look. From the time Secretary Panetta started as a part of the Clinton administration, we went from 1,761,481 members of the military to, in January of '97 when he left the Clinton administration, 1,457,413 members. That's a 304,068 drop in members of the military while he was part of the Clinton administration. Seems to fall a little bit on deaf ears when you have a Secretary crying about cuts to the military when he presided over a far more draconian cut to that same military when he was in charge or was part of the Clinton administration. The problem is, we can't afford massive cuts to our defense. And at the very time they're okay with that, the President goes down to Australia and says we're going to commit some troops down here too. We've got troops this President's committing all over the place, without any regard, like in Libya or Egypt, to the outcome of what is being done, what's going to happen at the end. And we're going to pay a severe price. We need to stand for a solid defense. And if we get back to a regular order in this body, where things are voted out of subcommittee, after full chance to amend, voted out of the full committee, with full chance to amend and debate, brought to the floor as they come out of committee, and fully debated, and fully amended here on the floor, America will see who stands for what, and it will be easier for the voters in the next election, and it will be easier for all of us to tell what it is the American voters are wanting because they will have had a clear view of just exactly what they're getting. I really enjoyed Mark Levin's book, Liberty and Tyranny. I think it ought to be a textbook. Let me just finish with this quote from Ronald Reagan that Mark puts in his book: How can limited government and fiscal restraint be equated with lack of compassion for the poor? How can a tax break that puts a little more money in the weekly paychecks of working people be seen as an attack on the needy? Since when do we in America believe that our society is made up of two diametrically opposed classes, one rich, one poor, both in a permanent state of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expense of the other? Since when do we in America accept the alien and discredited theory of social and class warfare? Since when do we in America endorse the politics of envy and division? That's what the President's preaching right now. It needs to stop. It's time to provide for the common defense, get back to regular order in this body, and the country will be better off for it. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate so much the comments of my friend from Ohio, from Washington State, good people, good observations. It's an honor to serve with devoted people like that. Spending is at an all-time crisis. We do need a balanced budget amendment. There's no question. We have got to have a balanced budget amendment. The great Senator from the State of Texas, Phil Gramm, joined forces and got a bill referred to as Gramm-Rudman through. That was supposed to force, legislatively, the House and Senate to only spend within the revenue coming in. But since it was legislation, since both bodies can create such legislation, then both bodies can undo such legislation. Just like both bodies can create a debt ceiling bill, as occurred late July, early August this year, both bodies can decide to do something different a few months later. That's the problem with legislation. That's why we do need a balanced budget amendment. Now, the bill that was brought through committee this year, this 112th Congress, titled H.J. Res. 1, it passed out of committee, the Judiciary Committee. It says that the purpose is proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Massive number of cosponsors. And it was a good bill. It was, it is. And all gratitude goes to Mr. Bob Goodlatte. He has been a strong proponent for advancing a balanced budget amendment for numerous Congresses for many years, and he has done a good thing with this bill. I appreciated his also including an amendment that I brought to committee that was passed in committee and is part of the joint resolution. But it's House Joint Resolution 1. It's a good bill. It's to provide for a balanced budget amendment. In section 1 it simply says: Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote. Well, you might think that would be sufficient just to say total outlays cannot exceed total receipts. But those of us who've been around Congress long enough know that's not good enough unless you add, as Mr. Goodlatte does in Section 8: Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. If Section 8 is not in there, some Member of Congress down the road, if the balanced budget amendment were made into law as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, would be clever enough to say, hey, it doesn't say you can't borrow. It just says you can't have outlays exceed total receipts. Well receipts, if you get loans, you've got money coming in, even from loans, well, that ought to be good enough. So we need Section 8 that says total receipts include all receipts except those derived from borrowing. That's a good provision to have in there because we know that this body, different parties in charge, different groups in here, as Members of the House and Senate, have always had people that found a way, found a loophole, found a way to get around the laws, the Constitution. A good example of that, no, a great example of that is the ObamaCare bill. Article I of the United States Constitution, section 7 makes very clear that any bill that raises revenue, increases the amount of revenue, it has to start here in the House. It can't originate in the Senate. It has to start in the House. That's where the founders wanted bills involving taxes in any way, that raise revenue at all, had to start in the House. Over the years, people found a way around that. And we saw that with the ObamaCare bill. The election of Scott Brown in the Senate made clear that they were going to have to do something different than what was originally planned in order to get the ObamaCare bill passed. So they took a House bill--they knew they couldn't wait on the House to do anything. They were going to have to start it. So to get around the clear requirement of the Constitution that bills that raise revenue, as did the President's health care bill--raised taxes quite a bit actually--they said, okay, we're going to take a House bill that's already passed the House. They took one that provided a tax credit for first-time homebuyers who happened to be veterans. That was the basic intent of the bill. Beginning with line 1, page 1, the Senate then deleted every word and substituted therein 2,400, 2,500 pages of ObamaCare. That way the Senate could say, hey, it didn't originate here in the Senate. This is a bill that originated in the House. We just struck every single word and put in the Senate bill. Well, that violates the intent of the Constitution because, clearly, that health care bill did not originate in the House. But that was deemed to be a loophole in the rules and in the constitutional law, and so it's been gotten away with before and it was gotten away with on that bill. So we know games get played like that. If you don't specify that receipts do not include borrowed money, then somebody's going to figure that out and use it and probably get away with it. So it has to be in there. The rule has now been reported from the Rules Committee about the balanced budget amendment version that we're going to be taking up. And people keep referring to it as a clean balanced budget amendment. That's the one we're going to take up, one that does not have anything else other than total outlays must not exceed total receipts. Now, in this House Joint Resolution 1, it has another provision that says: Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of economic output of the United States, unless two- thirds of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific increase of outlays above this amount. It goes on in section 3: The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote. That means in order to increase the debt ceiling, you can't do it with one more than 50 percent, that also will require three-fifths to raise the debt ceiling. Section 4 is a requirement that the President transmit to the Congress a budget for the United States Government. That's a proposed budget for that fiscal year. ``Total outlays do not exceed total receipts.'' Well, we've already seen with the Senate, seen previously the President can just choose to ignore that, not because it's not a matter of law. The law requires the Senate to pass a budget. They've chosen to ignore that, to violate the law. They have violated the law. They continue to refuse to follow the law. But, unfortunately, it's another loophole in the law even though they're required to pass a budget, and the Senate's failed to do so for going on a thousand days now. There is no enforcement mechanism of what we do to the Senate if the Senate violates the law by not submitting a budget, so we've seen games get played. The games continue. Now, in this House Joint Resolution 1, section 5 says: ``A bill to increase revenue''--in other words, raising taxes--``shall not become law unless two-thirds of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.'' So, in other words, a supermajority is required in the House and the Senate in order to raise taxes. Now, of course, section 6 makes an exception for war. As it says: ``The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect.'' It's a war exception because we know in times of war we have to do whatever has to be done in order to provide for the common defense and to ward off those who would destroy this country that we love. So I think those are all important. But now we're going to be taking up something that is so important to the country, a balanced budget amendment. And I believed when I was elected in 2004 a balanced budget amendment is very important to become a part of the Constitution through the amendment process, and I still believe that. My beliefs have not changed. But in my over 6\1/2\ years now here in Congress, it's become very clear to me that unless we have a constitutional cap on spending, the House and Senate will not be able to control themselves. And all one need do is look at who's paying the taxes now. We're told somewhere between 50 percent and 53 percent of all of the adult Americans will pay all of the income tax. We're now told over 47 percent of American adults are not paying any income tax. When a country has close to 50 percent who are not paying any income tax, then you're always going to have a situation where there is a hue and cry among those who are getting money from the government and not paying money in not to cut spending but to raise taxes. I feel like having a cap on spending is so important that even though I really appreciate and think a supermajority to raise taxes is a good idea, I think it would be okay to let that go. If we have a cap on spending, the provision that would say it takes three-fifths to raise the debt ceiling, if we have a balanced budget amendment and a cap on spending, I think we can let those go. But I've become increasingly convinced that if we don't have a cap, a maximum amount of spending--and the best way we've seen, I'm open to other ideas, but the best proposals have indicated a percentage of our gross domestic product is the best thing to take a percentage of and make that the maximum amount the government can spend. If we don't do that, I've seen repeatedly, whether the Republicans are in charge or the Democrats are in charge, we can't control spending. No better example than what's been going on lately. We have a President in the White House who has threatened that he'll veto a bill that makes cuts that he doesn't want. He's threatened to veto a bill that tries to rein in the extra trillion dollars of spending that he immediately came in and spent. I mean, good grief. It would seem that since this body, under control of Speaker Pelosi for 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, that we had spent more money than in history, that we could at least go before the big Wall Street bailout, October of 2008, we could at least go back to 2007 spending. That was spending that was created by the liberal Congress headed by Speaker Pelosi. Surely we could go back to 2007 before we added an extra trillion dollars and then President Obama added a trillion dollars, and then we keep adding that extra trillion dollars that we didn't spend in 2007 and actually wasn't spent until fiscal year 2009 because it was so late in 2008. We'd already passed October 1. We're in 2009 spending. Why couldn't we go back to 2008 levels of spending before we added an extra trillion, before this President ran up spending to about $1.5 trillion more than we were bringing in in receipts? It just seems so grossly ridiculous to have a President come in and increase and say: We're going to have this big, over a trillion dollars in added spending we've never had before. And, by the way, if you dare try to cut any of this spending, I'm going to veto the bill. So we don't cut spending. We had the biggest wave election last November since the 1930s. Over 80 new Republicans coming into the House of Representatives. Having met them, gotten to know them, these are good people. These are good Members of Congress. They came with the right motivation. They were elected by people who had the right motivation. They want to see this country thrive and not just survive but really prosper and protect liberty. They were driven by those beliefs. They were driven by the same desire that I have that motivated me to run for Congress in 2004. I do not want to be a part of the generation that gave our children a lesser country than we inherited. That's why so many of us work so hard. We don't want to be that generation. This country could go on for 200 more years and still be the greatest, freest land in the history of the world, but not with the level of spending that we have embraced. So I've come to see, when you look at what has happened with that wave election coming in and when you go back and look at our conservative Republican pledge made by wonderful people I love serving with, that we pledged to the American people. I didn't write that pledge, but I agreed to it. It said we were going to return spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels. We promised that. We pledged that. Not only that, we said, Here is our marker. We promise you we're going to cut at least $100 billion in the first year if you put us in office. That's our pledge. Everybody who took that pledge meant it. Then we had a wave election after that pledge, and wonderful, wonderful people came into this body with the intention of keeping the pledge. We got to the spring of this year. Well, actually, we got to December--Speaker Pelosi was still in charge. There was more money given away by Congress in December than in any lame duck session in the history of the country, which was after the most conservative wave election since the 1930s. Actually, that wasn't a conservative election back in the thirties, but this was a wave election. A powerful majority of Americans wanted restraint on spending, and with the wonderful people who were elected and sent up here, we had the biggest giveaway last December of any lame duck session in history. Then we come in at the first of this year, still with the best of intentions. We still knew, Okay. Just forget about December because we're going to keep our pledge. Then some realized, Gee, we're up against an awful lot of people who don't pay any income tax, and they don't want any cuts in spending. We may not get enough in the Senate to do what we promised, so let's do a compromise. It was with the best of intentions. There was nothing ill-intended about working out a compromise with the Senate. The way it should have worked is for this House to pass the bill that they believed was appropriate. It was for this House to pass a bill that cut $100 billion off of spending and then wait and demand for the Senate to pass something, because the Senate just seemed to have trouble passing anything. It's why the President is 50 percent right when he says this is a do-nothing Congress, because the Senate has been doing nothing. They've got our bills piled up down there, led by able leadership here in the House. They're letting them pile up down there. They're not going to pass them. They don't want to create those jobs or it might look good for Republicans who are driving the agenda. So they're just going to let them die down there unless the American public makes it very clear: You either pick up those Republican bills in the Senate and pass them or over 20 Democratic Senators won't be back come January 2013. Maybe that will motivate them. In the meantime, we should have forced them to pass something. Then it would go to conference, and then a compromise would be worked out. That's how the system was intended to work. Then we could say to our constituents here from the House, where the Republicans have the majority, You see what the House passed. This is what we believe. We passed what we said we would. If you want this to become law as we passed it in the House, you've got to give us the majority in the Senate, and we'll do that. As it is, all we have is a majority in the House. This is the only place we can pass it. We had to work out a compromise in the conference committee, and that's why we got what we did. But in the meantime, if you want what the House passed before the compromise, give us the Senate next year and you'll get it. That's the way the system was designed to work. Then it allows the Senate to say, Look, see all these giveaway programs that we passed here in the Senate? We had to drop some of these giveaway programs in the conference committee because, the dadgum fiscally responsible Republicans in the House, they wouldn't go along with all the giveaways, so we had to cut some in conference; but if you want more and more giveaways like we're passing in the Senate, then give us back the majority in the House, and you'll get more and more giveaway programs. That's the way the system is supposed to work. Then in November next year, the American voters can say either they want a majority in the House to have more giveaway programs like the Senate has passed or they can say we want more fiscal responsibility as we found in the House by virtue of the bills they passed. The problem has been that we have been negotiating with the Senate to see what we think they might pass and then shoot at the target that they say they might pass in the Senate rather than passing what we believe in in the House. This summer, it is to the Republicans' credit in the House that we passed a bill called Cut, Cap, and Balance. There were some issues and concerns I had, but overall it was a good bill and it passed. We should have demanded that the Senate pass something that would go to the conference committee with our Cut, Cap, and Balance and that we would work out a compromise from there, but that's not what we did. We turned around and passed a debt ceiling increase that had been negotiated and, basically, was what the Senate said they might be willing to pass, and we got it passed. My point being, we keep passing bills that really haven't cut spending. With the wave election like we had and with a big group coming in, we couldn't control spending? We couldn't get a majority to pass it in the House to cut $100 billion in spending? What are the hopes in the future? The time has come for a balanced budget amendment with a cap on spending. I think that cap on spending is so important to help future Congresses, to help this country last. I think it is so important that I think we can forget about the two-thirds to raise taxes. I think we could forget about some of the other provisions if we just have those two things: one, a balanced budget requirement where outlays do not exceed the receipts and where the receipts don't include borrowed money; number two, a cap on spending. We've seen time and time again we haven't been able to control spending even with the incredibly good Representatives that were added last November. With regard to the debt ceiling and bringing down the spending, good grief. We added over $1 trillion. We're spending nearly $1.5 trillion more than we're bringing in in receipts--and we can't find $100 billion to cut from that? I mean, good grief. This House this year had agreed to a 5 percent cut in our legislative budgets. We did that to ourselves. Most of America has no idea about that. Then for next year, we're going to have a little over a 6 percent cut in our legislative budget. Most of America has no idea about that either, but we did it. The only way that's going to really make a difference in the deficit is if we make that demand of every other agency, of every other department, of every other amount of discretionary spending and if we say, Look, we did it to ourselves, that gives us the moral authority to say, You're cutting your budget 5 percent next year and 6 percent the year after that, and we're going to bring this down 11 percent over the next 2 years. Then, voila, we have met the requirement that was put upon the supercommittee. You see some problems with the so-called supercommittee. There are some great people on there. The people who were put on there from the House and the Senate, the Republicans, they're friends and they're good people. Pat Toomey--there's not a more conservative guy anywhere--he was even willing, from the reports, to have a framework that actually raised revenue like the demand had been made by the Senate Democrats and by the President. Some of us were wincing at it--ooh--but he was willing to do that. It looked like the Democrats were so impressed-- gee, this is great. So I'll tell you what. This may be the deal that works. Then they went back and talked to their Democratic leadership, whoever that is, and they came back and said, We can't work out a deal here. That should have made it pretty clear, when the agreement was made to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from our national security and at the same time cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare, that some people on the other side of the aisle have realized, if we go into next year's election and if the only cuts to Medicare have been the $500 billion that ObamaCare did last year--that the Democrats rammed through against the will of the Republicans in the House and the Senate and against the people across America--we're going to be toast next November. So, if we could have this failure of the supercommittee and if all this doesn't work out and if all these hundreds of billions are cut from Medicare, then we can tell them the Republicans did it instead of ObamaCare, which AARP thought was a good idea. They'll forget about that if we have those cuts this year because we blame the Republicans. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is left.

Mr. GOHMERT. Let me finish up by saying, we need a cap on spending. And with respect for the veterans, let me finish with a prayer from George Washington, just a small excerpt since my time is so short. It's Washington's prayer: Almighty God, we make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection; and Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field. Those are our veterans. I'm a veteran. I didn't serve in combat. But thank God for those willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our liberties. Now we should not squander it. 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. It is interesting to see the way the negotiations with the supercommittee are playing out. Some of us didn't vote for the debt ceiling bill. I know in my own case I didn't vote for it because I read it, and I was concerned it was not a good idea. Our country should not put its national security as a bargaining chip on the table. National security is important to everyone on both sides of the aisle; it should never be used as a bargaining chip, whether or not we're going to devastate it. On the other side, the defense would be devastated at the same time Medicare would be devastated. If the supercommittee's recommendations are not approved by at least seven of the 12 and then Congress does not pass them into law, Medicare gets cut and so does the national security get devastated. So who stands to win and who stands to lose in that scenario? Well, we know that when what is commonly referred to as ObamaCare--I don't even remember the real name--when that got passed, AARP indicated, hey, that's a good idea, even though it had $500 billion in cuts to Medicare. I couldn't believe that some of the groups that endorsed that bill did endorse it because, for one, it had $500 billion in cuts to Medicare. You know, we've got AARP stirring up seniors right now--send in a petition, tell them you don't want any cuts to Medicare, that you're a member of AARP. And I appreciated those petitions very much. Those people that felt Medicare shouldn't have been cut should have been telling that to AARP back when they were thinking that ObamaCare was a good idea. It wasn't then, it's not now, and it won't be if it kicks into effect fully and people start having rationed care. So, what would take people's minds off the fact that the President's pride and joy, his health care bill, cut $500 billion from Medicare and Republicans didn't support it? didn't think it was a good idea? That's 100 percent a Democratic bill that was ramrodded through with most of the country against it. So the President has to carry that mantle, as do the leaders in charge at that time, the people that were in the majority in the House at that time under Speaker Pelosi as she pushed it through, commenting that we needed to pass it so we could find out what was in it. Well, I had read it. I knew what was in it, and knew it was a disaster waiting to happen. I knew that it hurt seniors badly. So we come back again to this supercommittee. What do Leader Reid and the Senate Democrats--even House Democrats--have to gain if the supercommittee's proposals are not adopted? Well, there will be massive cuts to security, and there will be massive cuts to Medicare. And that will mean, from a political standpoint, that those same people that rammed through ObamaCare against the country's will will then be able to say before next year's election, look what happened. Republicans caused a massive cut to Medicare. They're the ones to blame. They'll be able to take people's minds off the fact that ObamaCare was a $500 billion cut to Medicare to our seniors that will result in them having rationed care, getting on long lists before they can get treated, like happens in England, like happens in Canada. You get on a list to get your mammogram, get on a list if there's cancer there to have it biopsied or if there's a lump, having it biopsied, get on a list, have therapy of some kind, whether it's surgery, whether it's radiation, chemo, whatever kind of cancer it is. You get on a list. I mentioned before a man originally from Canada who said his father died because he was on a list to have a bypass surgery for 2 years. If he'd been in the U.S., the son said he'd still be alive. But he was in Canada, and because they have the socialized medicine program basically embraced by ObamaCare, then you are going to, you know, end up on a list. That's what happens when the government's completely in charge of health care. It doesn't have to be like that. When you look at the amount that the Federal Government, State governments spend on Medicare and Medicaid, divided by the number of households in the country, we've gotten a bunch of different numbers, but it appears that it may be around $25,000 for every household on Medicare or Medicaid. Between $20,000 and $30,000 just to pay for health insurance? We'd be far better off buying them a high-deductible policy and giving them cash money in an HSA, a health savings account, with a debit card they control. They decide what doctor they go to; they decide what hospital they go to. They decide whether they want this medicine or that medicine. And when they go through, if they go through the amount of the high deductible, that's all the money to cover that's in their health savings account, then their insurance kicks in, and we finally get the insurance companies out of the health management business and back into the health insurance business. Because right now we don't really have any health insurance companies. We've got health management companies. I want to go back to having health insurance companies. Insurance is when someone pays a small amount monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, annually to ensure against some unforeseen event, either a catastrophic disease or accident. It's unforeseen. Don't know if it's going to happen. Don't know if you're going to run up health expenses to that kind of high mark so you've got an insurance policy to ensure against that unforeseen event or disease. That's insurance. If we don't get the insurance companies back in the business of insurance instead of management, they may not be around because there will always be people that want to push something like the President did last year. Most of us, I think, don't want the government telling us what medication we can have, what doctor we can see, why we can't see a doctor, why we're going to have to pay through the nose, why we'll have to buy an additional insurance policy to cover all the gaping holes that Medicare or Medicaid leave. It would be nice if people didn't have to buy the supplemental insurance policies. But here again, you know, follow the money. AARP makes hundreds of millions of dollars each year selling their supplemental insurance, so they had a vested interest--who can blame them?--in wanting to push through ObamaCare when it means even more money for their supplemental policies. What I'm talking about is a situation where seniors can have a choice. You can have your Medicare. If you're on Medicaid, you can have Medicaid; or we'll give you a debit card where you're back in control of your own health care. Why not? It would be cheaper. It gets back to a real doctor/patient relationship. It gets people back in charge of their own health situations. Well, the reason is because for many people, it's all about the GRE, the government running everything. The Founders didn't want the government running everything, but once the government has control of everyone's health care, they have a legitimate right to dictate what you can eat, what you can't eat, what you have to do in the way of exercise, what you can't do in the way of physical activity. They've got a right because they're paying for your health care. If they're paying for the health care, they have a right to tell you what you can or can't do. I do not want to live in a country where the government gets to tell me what I can eat or not eat, do or not do. Government's role is supposed to protect people against evil, against evil people or countries who want to take away their freedoms and liberty. In other words, it's addressed in the United States Constitution as providing for the common defense. That's what we ought to be doing. And then on the domestic front, our job is to provide a level playing field where everyone has an equal opportunity to pursue happiness. Nobody's guaranteed happiness--that comes in the heart--but everyone would have an equal opportunity to pursue it. That's what we're supposed to do. We're supposed to be referees. We're not supposed to be the player/ referee. What a terrible game to be in where the government's both player and referee. But I do want to give the President credit any time I can, and he's been running around, even recently again--I believe it was last night I saw him--talking about Congress doing nothing, that that's what Congress wants to do. Well, again, I've got to give him credit. He's half right on that. The Senate hasn't passed a budget in over 900 days. He's right. It's a do-nothing Senate. They refused to pass any kind of debt ceiling bill until basically the House passed one that was acceptable. We should have forced them to pass their own CR back in March, their continuing resolution; but they were negotiated with, and a bill was crafted that it appeared they could agree to pass in the Senate. What the country needs to see is what the House stands for, what the majority in the House stands for and what the majority in the Senate stands for, and I'm not sure that people have seen that. But it means the House should pass what a majority in the House believes is best for the country and then stand, unmoved until the Senate passes something. Instead of trying to hit a mark that we think the Senate can hit, we pass what we believe in, as cut, cap and balance passed, and then don't try to keep coming back and hitting a mark the Senate--make them pass something. And in the rules, the law is very clear. This is all provided for. The Constitution provides for these two parties. It expected there would be times when they'd pass a different bill from us, and it would go to a conference committee and then a compromise is worked out. And then those of us in the majority in the House can say, see what we passed at first, like cut, cap and balance? This is what we believe in. See what the Senate passed first? See this monstrosity? That's what they believe in. So in the next election, when the House can say if you want more of this kind of bill and responsible spending, not continued runaway spending, this is what you do. If you want the continued runaway spending, more and more and more taxes, then go with the Senate. I think there's some evidence to support that there are people in the opposition party who want to see the supercommittee fail, that want to see the massive cuts to Medicare--not that that would ever be said publicly, but we know that Pat Toomey, as he talked about yesterday, Jeb Hensarling talked about, two of our brightest minds on financial issues. We've got some really good quality people on that supercommittee, so-called. Senator Toomey apparently had a framework worked out, and the indications were there were Democrats who were agreeing that it was not a bad setup. There would be some people who would lose some deductions that would, therefore, raise revenue without raising the taxation rate, but, in fact, the taxation rate would be lowered to a rate in the twenties, corporate tax in the twenties, but there would be enough deductions and write-offs that would be eliminated, it was actually going to raise revenue. One Democrat even said that was a huge breakthrough when that was proposed. It gave a lot of hope that something was going to be worked out. But then they talked to Democratic leaders. We're not privy to what was said. Next thing you know, there is no agreement. They're not going to agree to a deal. So you can't help but wonder if that's evidence that they really didn't want this bill to pass because if the supercommittee came up with a way to cut $1.2 trillion off the budget over the next 10 years--it's only $120 billion a year--then people next year at election time would really begin to realize just what ObamaCare did in cutting $500 billion off Medicare. But if there are these massive cuts to Medicare, then Republicans can be blamed before the next election, even though it obviously would have been them standing in the way of passing a bill through the supercommittee. One of the things that should be a no-brainer but apparently it's a no-starter, that is a zero baseline budget bill. Chairman Ryan has assured me and on television and Speaker Boehner has said, we're going to bring that to the floor this year for a vote. It's going to be passed out of the Budget Committee. I guess you can't guarantee that it will be passed, but I sure feel strongly when it's brought up for a vote in the Budget Committee, it will pass. When it's brought here to the floor, it will pass. That will end this ridiculous automatic increase in Federal budgets that was begun by a very, very liberal Congress back in 1974, the same one that created CBO and started the ridiculous rules that they're bound by that do not let them consider historic reality in scoring a bill but only has to follow a formula that sometimes forces them to come up with a scoring that is completely unreal and not supported by history. Well, we've got trouble here, and it's not looking good for that getting accomplished as it should. People are playing games and America will suffer. The Book of Proverbs tells us that where there is no vision, the people perish, and if we don't get people getting a bigger vision not only of where this country has come from but where it could go, then people are going to perish, and it's so unnecessary. It was interesting meeting again last week with Prime Minister Netanyahu. He was appreciative of House Resolution 271, I provided a copy, which goes through a lot of whereases. We've got lots of cosponsors on this. I hope if anybody is not on, that they'll sure add their name to this on both sides of the aisle. The whereases include: Whereas archeological evidence exists confirming Israel's existence as a nation over 3,000 years ago in the area in which it currently exists, despite assertions of its opponents. It says 3,000 years ago. That was about the time of King David ruling in Hebron and also the City of David. It just turns out archeologically, it's immediately south of the area where the current walled city is. And of course the walled city is over the area which was original Temple Mount and Herodian Temple Mount and then hundreds of years later became of interest to people of the Islamic religion. But it's actually much more than 3,000 years ago. Nonetheless, the bill says: Whereas with the dawn of modern Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, some 150 years ago, the Jewish people determined to return to their homeland in the Land of Israel from the lands of their dispersion. And so that means for people who are really wonderful, big-hearted people like Helen Thomas but are just ignorant of actual history, Jews didn't come from Poland. They were originally in the Promised Land that extended from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, if you go back and look at the promises made to David. Whereas in 1922, the League of Nations mandated that the Jewish people were the legal sovereigns over the Land of Israel and that legal mandate has never been superseded; Whereas in the aftermath of the Nazi-led Holocaust from 1933 to 1945, in which the Germans and their collaborators murdered 6,000,000 Jewish people in a premeditated act of genocide, the international community recognized that the Jewish state, built by Jewish pioneers must gain its independence from Great Britain; Whereas the United States was the first nation to recognize Israel's independence in 1948, and the State of Israel has since proven herself to be a faithful ally of the United States in the Middle East; Whereas the United States and Israel have a special friendship based on shared values, and together share the common goal of peace and security in the Middle East; Whereas, on October 20, 2009, President Barack Obama rightly noted that the United States-Israel relationship is a ``bond that is much more than a strategic alliance.''; Whereas the national security of the United States, Israel, and allies in the Middle East face a clear and present danger from the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran seeking nuclear weapons and the ballistic missile capability to deliver them; Whereas Israel would face an existential threat from a nuclear weapons-armed Iran; Whereas President Barack Obama has been firm and clear in declaring United States opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran, stating on November 7, 2008, ``Let me state--repeat what I stated during the course of the campaign. Iran's development of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable.'' And we know that since President Obama stated it, he absolutely means it, even though he said that the negotiations on health care would be on C-SPAN, would be open for everybody, even though there were comments that he'd be focused on jobs like a laser. Hopefully he really meant this. Whereas, on October 26, 2005, at a conference in Tehran called ``World Without Zionism'', Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated, ``God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism''; Whereas the New York Times reported that during his October 26, 2005, speech, President Ahmadinejad called for ``this occupying regime [Israel] to be wiped off the map''; Whereas, on April 14, 2006, Iranian President Ahmadinejad said, ``Like it or not, the Zionist regime [Israel] is heading toward annihilation''; Whereas, on June 2, 2008, Iranian President Ahmadinejad said, ``I must announce that the Zionist regime [Israel], with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion, and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene''; Whereas, on June 2, 2008, Iranian President Ahmadinejad said, ``Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come, and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started''; Whereas, on May 20, 2009, Iran successfully tested a surface-to-surface long range missile with an approximate range of 1,200 miles; Whereas Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons; Whereas Iran has been caught building three secret nuclear facilities since 2002; Whereas Iran continues its support of international terrorism, has ordered its proxy Hizbullah to carry out catastrophic acts of international terrorism such as the bombing of the Jewish AMIA Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1994, and could give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization in the future; Whereas Iran has refused to provide the International Atomic Energy Agency with full transparency and access to its nuclear program; Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 1803 states that according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, ``Iran has not established full and sustained suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities and heavy-water-related projects as set out in resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) nor resumed its cooperation with the IAEA under the Additional Protocol, nor taken the other steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors, nor complied with the provisions of Security Council resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) . . .''; Whereas at July 2009's G-8 Summit in Italy, Iran was given a September 2009 deadline to start negotiations over its nuclear programs and Iran offered a five-page document lamenting the ``ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global relations'' and included various subjects, but left out any mention of Iran's own nuclear program which was the true issue in question; Whereas the United States has been fully committed to finding a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear threat, and has made boundless efforts seeking such a resolution and to determine if such a resolution is even possible; Whereas the United States does not want or seek war with Iran, but it will continue to keep all options open to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons; and Whereas Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said in January 2011 that a change of course in Iran will not be possible ``without a credible military option that is put before them by the international community led by the United States'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) condemns the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for its threats of ``annihilating'' the United States and the State of Israel, for its continued support of international terrorism, and for its incitement of genocide of the Israeli people; (2) supports using all means of persuading the Government of Iran to stop building and acquiring nuclear weapons; (3) reaffirms the United States bond with Israel and pledges to continue to work with the Government of Israel and the people of Israel to ensure that their sovereign nation continues to receive critical economic and military assistance, including missile defense capabilities, needed to address the threat of Iran; and (4) expresses support for Israel's right to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran, defend Israeli sovereignty, and protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within a reasonable time. Now there's a bunch of cosponsors on this bill but we need a lot more. We need pressure to bring it to the floor of the House and of the Senate. Prime Minister Netanyahu is right, sanctions won't do it. Unless Iran knows that the military threat is very real, they're not likely to stop. People keep talking about sanctions, sanctions. If we just sanction the banks, if we sanction this, if we sanction that. Well, the truth is Russia and China have said they're not going to play that game; they're not going to get involved. And as upset as I have been with Russia and China over some issues, I am grateful that they're honest about this. My concern was Russia and China would say, Okay, we'll have sanctions, knowing that there is no better time to make an absolute fortune than when some sanctions are declared against a country that has something like oil because it means all the other countries that are participating in the sanctions don't get to benefit from any contracts, and, therefore, that means the bigger share for whoever wants to cheat on the sanctions. At least Russia and China have been honest and said, We're not going to do the sanctions. So why in the world are we bothering these days to keep saying sanctions are going to work? Madam Speaker, it's very clear Iran is a threat to the United States and Israel, and we should not leave it to Israel to defend the United States. We ought to defend ourselves and go after Iran and take care of this problem ourselves. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I request that my name be removed as a sponsor to H.J. Res. 2.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here on the floor to hear my friend from New Jersey's comments, very well thought through. And I feel sure we can find some commonality in our concerns and appreciate the man's heart and mind. Thank you. One of the things under the debt ceiling act that was passed early August was a requirement for a vote on a balanced budget amendment. There are different versions of a balanced budget amendment. One has most of the things we hold dear, not only a requirement of balancing the budget, but also a cap to spending as a percentage of gross domestic product, and also an increased supermajority in order to pass any tax bills raising taxes. My concern has been that we had a wave election last November. We got over 80 new conservative freshmen, and we haven't cut spending like we should. I am more and more compelled that we need a cap on spending. All of our Members support that. But the question will be: What version of a balanced budget amendment will come to the floor for a vote? I really do appreciate the comments of my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). There's been a lot going on in the Middle East. And it's not looking very good for those who love freedom, the right to make their own choices, because you find in some of the documentation of those who have pushed, supported rebellion, the so-called Arab Spring, their definition of freedom is the freedom to live under shari'a law and be completely governed by shari'a law. That's the freedom that their Arab Spring brings. And it's been interesting, there's an article here from the Washington Examiner by Gregory Kane. The title says, ``Obama Becomes `Silent Cal' on Libya, Shari'a.'' I'd just like to read this for the Record. And I'm inserting ``President'' into the mention of President Obama: With each passing day, we're learning more and more about the people President Obama tossed us into bed with in Libya. Here's a headline from the London Daily Mail, a British newspaper: ``Now the rebels impose Shariah law as Islamic rules become `basic source' of Libyan legislation.'' In the story below the headline, readers learn from the chairman of Libya's National Transition Council that the country's new parliament will have ``an Islamist tint,'' that ``any existing laws contradicting the teachings of Islam would be nullified'' and that men would be allowed to have as many as four wives. Again, the question must be put to Barack Hussein ``American Values'' Obama, president of the United States: exactly how do Shariah law and polygamy reflect American values? Remember, when President Obama justified American and NATO airstrikes in Libya to support the rebel forces that toppled the regime of Moammar Qadhafi he claimed that preventing bloodshed was an ``American value.'' But there was bloodshed aplenty, as least on the side of Qadhafi forces. Qadhafi himself was a victim of the bloodshed, and the circumstances of his death that have come to light shed more light on what a sham Obama's claim of acting to preserve American values really is. In a separate London Daily Mail story about Qadhafi's death, the paper printed the photo of an unidentified rebel who claimed he was the one who killed Qadhafi. ``We grabbed [Qadhafi],'' the young man said. ``I hit him in the face. Some fighters wanted to take him away and that's when I shot him, twice, in the face and in the chest.'' Later, it was revealed that more was done to Qadhafi than this young rebel merely shooting him in the face and chest. Some reports say that, before he died, Qadhafi was sodomized with either a knife, bayonet or some other sharp object. So let's recap: President Obama commits American forces--as part of NATO. I'll parenthetically add, when he did not have the sense to come before Congress and make the case here, as many of us on both sides of the aisle have been advocating. No matter who the President is, Republican, Democrat, if you can't come to Congress and make the case as to why American lives and American treasure should be put at risk, is it really something we ought to be doing as a country? Now, resuming with the article: 1. President Obama commits American forces--as part of NATO--to supporting a rebel faction in Libya whose goal is to overthrow Qadhafi. Obama does this while having absolutely no clue about what kind of people make up this rebel faction. 2. The rebel forces prevail, primarily through NATO airstrikes. It was a NATO airstrike that took out a Qadhafi convoy fleeing Sirte that allowed rebel forces to capture the deposed Libyan leader. 3. Qadhafi ends up in the hands of what can only be considered a mob. He is beaten, tortured, possibly sodomized, and fatally shot in what has been oxymoronically described as ``mob justice.'' His body is then put on public display in a meat store. 4. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flies into Libya and announces, with the smug arrogance we might expect from an official from Obama's administration, ``We came, we saw, he [Qadhafi] died.'' 5. Leaders of Libya's National Transition Council announce that Shariah law will prevail in Libya. 6. President Obama is mum on No. 5. He--President Obama--hasn't said one word about the blatantly false account of Qadhafi's death that interim Libyan Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril initially gave reporters. He hasn't condemned the ``mob justice'' that led to Qadhafi's death, the beating, the torture, the alleged sodomizing. He hasn't mumbled so much as a syllable about Qadhafi's body being put on display in a meat store. Obama hasn't said one word about Shariah being the law of the land in the new Libya. The man who was unavoidable for comment when it came to justifying American intervention in Libya has now pulled a complete Harpo Marx Act. On this issue, Obama--President Obama--has made ``Silent'' Cal Coolidge look like a motor mouth. That's an article from Gregory Kane in the Washington Examiner. Then, interestingly, from the American Thinker, an article by Andrew Bostom, ``Liberated Libya: Al Qaeda Flag Aloft Benghazi's Courthouse.'' The courthouse in Benghazi, is the iconic seat of the revolt which toppled Qadhafi--Libya's ``(im) moral equivalent'' to Egypt's Tahrir Square. During the tumultuous months of Libya's brutal civil war, it was here that rebel forces established a provisional government, and propagandistic media center, crowing to foreign journalists about their ``heroic'' struggle ``for freedom.'' [Picture of al Qaeda flag] One can now see both the Libyan rebel flag and the flag of al Qaeda fluttering atop Benghazi's courthouse. I've got a blowup of that right here. Just so those who felt so compelled to assist members of al Qaeda, we knew they were members of al Qaeda. We didn't know how many were part of the Libyan rebel forces, but we knew there were members of al Qaeda. We knew that there were people who were rebelling against Qadhafi, that as much as they wanted to kill Qadhafi want to kill Americans. And now we also know NATO forces, as the President kept saying, Oh, no, we're going to leave that to NATO forces. The United States military makes up 65 percent of NATO's military. It's American. So let's look and recap the good that we've done in supporting those members of al Qaeda who took out Qadhafi, with whom this administration had lawful dealings before they decided to support taking him out and, hiding under NATO's name, took action to see that he was thrown out and, now, killed, brutalized. So here we are, the al Qaeda flag flying over the courthouse in Benghazi. That's the daylight photo. Over here on this third we have the nighttime photo; and, once again, there is the al Qaeda flag waving proudly over that historic courthouse in Benghazi. Going back to the article from the American Thinker: According to one Benghazi resident, Islamists driving brand-new SUVs and waving the black al Qaeda flag drive the city's streets at night shouting, ``Islamiya, Islamiya! No East, nor West,'' a reference to previous worries that the country would be bifurcated between Qadhafi opponents in the east and the pro Qadhafi elements in the west. Elhelwa adds these salient details: Earlier this week, I went to the Benghazi courthouse and confirmed the rumors: an al Qaeda flag was clearly visible; its Arabic script declaring that ``there is no God but Allah'' and a full moon underneath. When I tried to take pictures, a Salafi-looking guard, wearing a green camouflage outfit, rushed towards me and demanded to know what I was doing. My response was straightforward: I was taking a picture of the flag. He gave me an intimidating look and hissed, ``Whomever speaks ill of this flag, we will cut off his tongue'' How about that for an American value? ``I recommend that you don't publish these. You will bring trouble to yourself.'' What glorious American values. Our President assured us that, without the support of Congress, without even a debate in Congress, he had to rush headlong into helping these people that turns out are, as we were concerned might be, al Qaeda. We had to help al Qaeda, with whom we had declared war, basically, by the President of the United States after 9/ 11 because they had declared war on us. And so this President, without coming and having a debate, decides he's going to go help these people before he knew who all exactly we were helping because they reflect American values. Going back to the article. The author says: ``He followed me inside the courthouse, but luckily my driver Khaled was close by, and interceded on my behalf. According to Khaled, the guard had angrily threatened to harm me. When I again engaged him in conversation, he told me ``this flag is the true flag of Islam'' . . . Well, how about those American values that our President used our treasure, put our military members at risk in order to effectuate? Now we've got the al Qaeda flag flying in Libya, in Benghazi, over the historic courthouse that was the headquarters during the assault on Qadhafi. We found out on 9/11 there were people in the world who were at war with us, and it turns out they had been at war with us at least since Iran, since those days when a naive but well-intentioned President named Carter had declared the Ayatollah Khomeini as a man of peace coming to Iran. The same President who gave away the Panama Canal that so many valued Americans lost their lives digging, creating, defending, was given away. There will be a price to pay for that at some point down the road by this country. But we're already paying the price and have been since 1979 for the administration at that time while I was in the Army at Fort Benning watching those things happen, knowing it was a crime for me as a military member to criticize anybody in the chain of command, which was President Carter. We had to bite our tongues as we watched that administration welcome in the Ayatollah Khomeini. So many lives have been lost. So many people tortured, killed. We've got Christians on the run all over the Middle East, Christians being killed around the Middle East. The last Christian church has now closed in Afghanistan that we sent American treasure and lives, lost so many American lives in order to rout the Taliban. And then we turn the country over to what the people there tell us is a very, very corrupt administration. Having met with leaders of the Northern Alliance with a few other Members of Congress, it's clear we have not done a good thing enforcing a centralized government in a country that cannot sustain it without mass corruption and brutality. We also know from the recent comments of Karzai himself he's prepared to make peace and be an ally of people sworn to destroy us. Afghanistan can be salvaged, but we have to be smart in the way that we do that. At the same time, we know that more of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia than from any other country. It certainly appears that there are people in Saudi Arabia who have made massive amounts of money because of our dependence on their oil who have used that money to fund terrorism that has been used against the United States to kill our precious men and women of our military. We need to become energy independent. We need to get rid of any Department that has had as its avowed goal for 32 years to get off dependence on foreign energy and every year has done a poorer and poorer job of that, although they have made some nice contributions for people at Solyndra and other bankrupt companies. It's time to get rid of the Energy Department. It's time to get serious about stopping the dependence on foreign energy. We know we've got enough natural gas. We can actually do that now. We have at least 100 years of use of natural gas. And I am fine taking a percentage of the royalties the Federal Government could get off of natural gas produced, oil produced on our own land, our own Federal land, and using it toward alternative energy. But I am not, as most of my friends here, are not in favor of borrowing more money to throw at companies like Solyndra that cannot make it on their own. Or like the solar company in Nevada, the friends of Leader Harry Reid also getting massive money, 42, 44 cents of every dollar, which we had to borrow to throw at their friends who had gone bankrupt. It's time we started using some common sense. You don't rush in to help in a rebellion until you know who you're helping, and this administration did not do that because to think that they knew who we were helping is really unthinkable. That's my hope and prayer that this administration did not understand who it was helping who would one day fly al Qaeda flags over a building where housed the Government in Libya. And we have sat idly by and watched Iran grow greater and stronger in strength in its move toward creating nuclear weapons, just as my Democratic friend from New Jersey was talking about, Iran getting closer and closer to having nuclear weapons. Plural. Our strong ally in the Middle East, who is becoming surrounded by those who want to take it out, Israel, is at threat for losing its very existence, an existence that was acknowledged and affirmed unanimously in the United Nations before it was taken over by people who sympathize with those who fly the al Qaeda flag. Back in those days, it was a unanimous decision: How could a country, a Jewish state like Israel, not be created after the worst genocide, Holocaust, in the history of man? They needed a country of their own, and what better place than in a place where King David ruled 1,400 years before there was a man named Mohammed, 1,400 years before the creation of modern-day Islam. Well, I'm proud to say that Joel Rosenberg is a friend of mine. I was visiting with him last night. He's got a brand-new book out. Can't wait to read it. Joel Rosenberg has an article in the Washington Times, Friday, October 21, needs to be entered in the Record, and I'll do so by reading it. The headline, the title is ``Confronting the threat from Iran.'' Joel Rosenberg writes: The brazen Iranian terrorist plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, kill Americans and blow up the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington was a wake-up call. The radical regime in Tehran has crossed a red line. Iran has murdered Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon over the years. Now it appears to have ordered terrorist attacks inside our nation's capital. Should this prove true, Iran has engaged in an act of war. Now the question is: Who will neutralize the threat from Iran before' the mullahs finish building nuclear warheads and the ballistic missile systems to deliver them? ``The international community must stop Iran before it's too late,'' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned in his United Nations speech last month. If Iran is not stopped, we will all face the specter of nuclear terrorism, and the Arab Spring could soon become an Iranian winter. . . . The world around Israel is definitely becoming more dangerous.'' ``Iran has not abandoned its nuclear program. The opposite is true; it continues full steam ahead,'' warned Maj. Gen. Eyal Eisenberg, home-front command chief for the Israel Defense Forces, in a September speech. He warned that the Arab Spring could turn into a ``radical Islamic winter'' and ``this raises the likelihood of an all-out, total war, with the possibility of weapons of mass destruction being used.'' The Obama administration is not taking decisive action to neutralize Iran. President Obama's policy of engagement with the mullahs has morphed into a policy of appeasement, and it has failed. Yet the White House has all but taken the use of force off the table. In September 2009, then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said, ``The reality is, there is no military option that does anything more than buy time.'' In April 2010, the New York Times reported that Mr. Gates had ``warned in a secret three-page memorandum to top White House officials that the United States does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran's steady progress toward nuclear capability.'' Little has changed in the past 18 months. What's more, the administration is pressuring Israel not to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran despite the growing threat of a second Holocaust. The American people, however, expect and deserve better. A bipartisan poll conducted in September by Democrat Pat Caddell and Republican John McLaughlin found that 77 percent of Americans think the Obama administration's current polices toward stopping Iran's nuclear program ``will fail.'' About 63 percent of Americans think Iran is the nation posing the greatest threat to us, ahead of China and North Korea. Remarkably, 63 percent of Americans also approve of pre- emptive military action against Iran if economic sanctions do not stop its nuclear program. And they have not. It is very clear that these sanctions have not slowed Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. It appears very clear to those who look very long and who study the issue very long that Iran is counting on developing nuclear weapons before the sanctions totally cripple them, because they know, when they get nuclear weapons, they can then use them to extort the removal of the sanctions. They will not work in time. It's time to face up to that. Going back to Joel Rosenberg's article: War, of course, is not the preferred solution. There are a range of options a serious American president could take to neutralize the Iranian threat. But none of them is likely to work unless the president is willing to publicly put the military option on the table and order the Pentagon to accelerate planning for massive airstrikes and special operations. Will any of the Republican candidates for president step up? Articulating pro-growth economic policies is vital to the 2012 campaign, to be sure, but the GOP candidates must not drink the Kool-Aid that the economy is all that matters to the American people. To the contrary, anyone who is asking for the Republican nomination must articulate a clear, compelling and detailed strategy for neutralizing the threat posed by the apocalyptic, genocidal death cult in Tehran. At the next debate, each of the Republican candidates for president should be pressed to directly answer the following questions: 1. As president of the United States, what specific actions would you take to stop Iran from obtaining and deploying nuclear weapons and using terrorism to advance its Islamic Revolution? 2. If you had intelligence that Iran was on the verge of building operational nuclear weapons, would your administration support an Israeli preemptive military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities? 3. Would you as president seriously consider ordering a pre-emptive strike by U.S. military forces to neutralize the Iranian nuclear threat? Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney recently delivered a foreign-policy address in South Carolina in which he raised the Iranian threat. ``Will Iran be a fully activated nuclear weapons state, threatening its neighbors, dominating the world's oil supply with a stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz?'' Mr. Romney asked. ``In the hands of the ayatollahs, a nuclear Iran is nothing less than an existential threat to Israel. Iran's suicidal fanatics could blackmail the world.'' Mr. Romney noted that he would ``begin discussions with Israel to increase the level of our military assistance and coordination'' and would ``reiterate that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.'' However, he did not specifically discuss how he would stop Iran from getting the bomb and sponsoring terrorist attacks. Businessman Herman Cain has soared into the top tier of presidential candidates with a bold pro-growth tax- simplification plan, but he has spoken little of foreign policy. He has identified Iran as one of America's most serious national security threats and has been clear about his strong support for Israel. Drawing on his experience as a civilian contractor for the U.S. Navy working on ballistic- missile projects, Mr. Cain rightly has called for enhanced missile defenses to blunt an Iranian nuclear threat ``I would make it a priority to upgrade all of our Aegis surface-to-air ballistic-missile defense capabilities of all of our warships, all the way around the world,'' Mr. Cain told the Values Voter Summit in Washington earlier this month. ``Make that a priority, and then say to [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, `Make my Day.' '' His instincts are right, but missile defenses are insufficient to neutralize the Iranian threat. Few of the GOP candidates better understand the Iranian threat--and the dangerous end-times theology of the current Iranian leadership, which is preparing for the coming of the Shia messiah known as the ``Twelfth Imam''--than former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. Thus far, however, he has not made Iran a major element of his campaign. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Rep. Michele Bachmann and Texas Gov. Rick Perry have barely mentioned the issue, though certainly they understand the dangers. Only Rep. Ron Paul among the Republican contenders doesn't grasp the seriousness of the twin Iranian threats of terrorism and nuclear weapons. ``One can understand why [the mullahs] might want to become nuclear-capable, if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectfully,'' Mr. Paul has written. The congressman opposes economic sanctions on Iran. He opposes pre-emptive strikes on Iran. Indeed, Mr. Paul has indicated he does not have a problem with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons because he doesn't think the mullahs in Tehran would actually use such weapons against their enemies. What's more, he has stated that he would not come to Israel's defense if Iran fired nuclear weapons at the Jewish state. This article by Joel Rosenberg is an excellent article, and it used to be taken seriously. Knowing Herman Cain personally, Governor Rick Perry personally, Michele Bachmann personally, Rick Santorum personally, Newt Gingrich personally, I know they're all concerned about it, but because of the way the debates have been structured, this has not been an issue that has been pushed. I know all of those individuals well enough to know their hearts and to know they do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons and that they will do what's necessary to prevent it. The trouble is none of those individuals will become President or even have the chance to become President for 18 months. It's time that the American people convinced the American President of this, who helped create the situation where al Qaeda--our enemies, our sworn enemies who want to destroy it--can fly their flags over the Libyan courthouse. It was more than the Libyan courthouse. It was the brief capital, the headquarters, for the people that this President chose to help. A dangerous time. Now, I have filed House Resolution 271. It has got a slew of cosponsors. They're all Republican, but I would hope that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle would join in with us on this. Madam Speaker, I would hope that people would encourage their Members of Congress to sign on if they support what's here. Basically, most of this resolution--it's not terribly long; it's just six pages--and most of that are whereas clauses stating facts. The text is as follows: H. Res. 271 Whereas archeological evidence exists confirming Israel's existence as a nation over 3,000 years ago in the area in which it currently exists, despite assertions of its opponents; Whereas with the dawn of modern Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, some 150 years ago, the Jewish people determined to return to their homeland in the Land of Israel from the lands of their dispersion; Whereas in 1922, the League of Nations mandated that the Jewish people were the legal sovereigns over the Land of Israel and that legal mandate has never been superseded; Whereas in the aftermath of the Nazi-led Holocaust from 1933 to 1945, in which the Germans and their collaborators murdered 6,000,000 Jewish people in a premeditated act of genocide, the international community recognized that the Jewish state, built by Jewish pioneers must gain its independence from Great Britain; Whereas the United States was the first nation to recognize Israel's independence in 1948, and the State of Israel has since proven herself to be a faithful ally of the United States in the Middle East; Whereas the United States and Israel have a special friendship based on shared values, and together share the common goal of peace and security in the Middle East; Whereas, on October 20, 2009, President Barack Obama rightly noted that the United States-Israel relationship is a ``bond that is much more than a strategic alliance.''; Whereas the national security of the United States, Israel, and allies in the Middle East face a clear and present danger from the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran seeking nuclear weapons and the ballistic missile capability to deliver them; Whereas Israel would face an existential threat from a nuclear weapons-armed Iran; Whereas President Barack Obama has been firm and clear in declaring United States opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran, stating on November 7, 2008, ``Let me state--repeat what I stated during the course of the campaign. Iran's development of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable.''; Whereas, on October 26, 2005, at a conference in Tehran called ``World Without Zionism'', Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated, ``God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism''; Whereas the New York Times reported that during his October 26, 2005, speech, President Ahmadinejad called for ``this occupying regime [Israel] to be wiped off the map''; Whereas, on April 14, 2006, Iranian President Ahmadinejad said, ``Like it or not, the Zionist regime [Israel] is heading toward annihilation''; Whereas, on June 2, 2008, Iranian President Ahmadinejad said, ``I must announce that the Zionist regime [Israel], with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion, and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene''; Whereas, on June 2, 2008, Iranian President Ahmadinejad said, ``Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come, and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started''; Whereas, on May 20, 2009, Iran successfully tested a surface-to-surface long range missile with an approximate range of 1,200 miles; Whereas Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons; Whereas Iran has been caught building three secret nuclear facilities since 2002; Whereas Iran continues its support of international terrorism, has ordered its proxy Hizbullah to carry out catastrophic acts of international terrorism such as the bombing of the Jewish AMIA Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1994, and could give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization in the future; Whereas Iran has refused to provide the International Atomic Energy Agency with full transparency and access to its nuclear program; Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 1803 states that according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, ``Iran has not established full and sustained suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities and heavy-water-related projects as set out in resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) nor resumed its cooperation with the IAEA under the Additional Protocol, nor taken the other steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors, nor complied with the provisions of Security Council resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) . . .''; Whereas at July 2009's G-8 Summit in Italy, Iran was given a September 2009 deadline to start negotiations over its nuclear programs and Iran offered a five-page document lamenting the ``ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global relations'' and included various subjects, but left out any mention of Iran's own nuclear program which was the true issue in question; Whereas the United States has been fully committed to finding a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear threat, and has made boundless efforts seeking such a resolution and to determine if such a resolution is even possible; Whereas the United States does not want or seek war with Iran, but it will continue to keep all options open to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons; and Whereas Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said in January 2011 that a change of course in Iran will not be possible ``without a credible military option that is put before them by the international community led by the United States'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) condemns the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for its threats of ``annihilating'' the United States and the State of Israel, for its continued support of international terrorism, and for its incitement of genocide of the Israeli people; (2) supports using all means of persuading the Government of Iran to stop building and acquiring nuclear weapons; (3) reaffirms the United States bond with Israel and pledges to continue to work with the Government of Israel and the people of Israel to ensure that their sovereign nation continues to receive critical economic and military assistance, including missile defense capabilities, needed to address the threat of Iran; and (4) expresses support for Israel's right to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran, defend Israeli sovereignty, and protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within a reasonable time. That's House Resolution 271. And I certainly hope that more Members of Congress will join us in supporting that position because time is running out. It is also my hope and prayer that the rumors that have gone around about what this administration has told Israel behind closed doors do not have support. In fact, that's my hope and prayer. Because if this administration were to be telling Israel behind closed doors that if they move to protect themselves against a nuclear attack by Iran without the United States' permission--which would not be given--then Israel, since they do not have all of our stealth capability, do not have the most sophisticated bombs we have, will likely lose many planes and will be in need of replacement planes and parts. I hope and pray that the rumor that they're telling them, we will not support them with replacement planes, replacement parts if they defend themselves, is not true. But this President, though he's been so vocal about why we needed to go support Libya, why it was in our American values, interest, has not talked a lot about what he's telling Israel behind the scenes. Israel is in grave danger. We have been a friend because we believe in the same value of human life, the same value of freedom, of liberty. We owe it to them, our friends, our allies. If we're not going to have the nerve to take action against a country that is sworn to be at war with us and to destroy us and take us out at all costs, then we should at least not stand in the way of a friend who wants to do so. I have a few more things I want to cover here. There's an article from National Review online from The Corner by Andrew McCarthy, another brilliant man and, I'm proud to say, a dear friend. The headline: ``Did Obama appointee access confidential database in effort to smear Perry as `Islamophobe'?'' At PJM, terrorism researcher Patrick Poole reports that Mohamed Elibiary, an appointee on President Obama's Homeland Security Advisory Council, is in hot water with the Texas Department of Public Safety (TDPS). The issue is whether Elibiary used his privileged access to a state law- enforcement database to acquire intelligence reports and then tried to shop them to the media, urging that they showed rampant ``Islamophobia'' at TDPS under Governor Rick Perry. Poole says no story was published because, according to one press source, there was ``nothing remotely resembling Islamophobia'' in the leaked reports. The source told Poole, ``I think [Elibiary] was hoping we would bite and not give it too much of a look in light of other media outfits jumping on the Islamophobia bandwagon.'' The Islamophobia bandwagon was the subject of my column last weekend. Seems there are plenty of Islamists and Leftists climbing aboard. Elibiary, you'll no doubt be stunned to learn, was also on the Obama DHS's working group on ``countering violent extremism.'' That's the brain-trust that helped devise the new Obama counterterrorism strategy I outlined (here and here) a few weeks back--the one that envisions having law- enforcement pare back their intelligence-gathering activities and take their marching orders from ``community partners.'' I call the new strategy ``factophobia.'' As noted by Poole and the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Elibiary's history includes an appearance at a conference honoring Ayatollah Khomeini; condemning the Justice Department's successful prosecution of a Hamas- financing conspiracy designed by the Muslim Brotherhood (the Holy Land Foundation case); praise for Brotherhood theorist Sayyid Qutb; and an aggressive email exchange with Rod Dreher in 2006 (when Dreher, at the Dallas Morning News, countered Elibiary's praise for Qutb), in which Elibiary reportedly called Dreher ``a Klansman without a hood'' [ACM: I think that means ``Islamophobe'' and warned him: ``Treat people as inferiors and you can expect someone to put a banana in your exhaust pipe or something.'' Who better could President Obama possibly choose to help formulate counterterrorism strategy? Actually, once you read the strategy, I think you'll agree that he made a perfect choice. Then we have another article from National Review Online, again from Andrew McCarthy. Headline, ``Napolitano: On Elibiary, I know Nothing. I Know Nothing * * * '' He said that Secretary Napolitano ``professes not to know anything about the matter''--he's talking about Elibiary--``or about how I got a guy who appears at a conference honoring Ayatollah Khomeini, who praises Muslim Brotherhood theorist Sayyid Qutb, and who condemns the Justice Department's successful prosecution of the Muslim Brotherhood's Hamas financing network (the Holy Land Foundation case), somehow winds up on the Department of Homeland Security advisory council that helped devise the Obama administration's counterterrorism policy.'' Actually, it turns out, as Secretary Napolitano testified, that actually she, as the Secretary of Homeland Security, gave this gentleman the secret security clearance which ultimately allowed him to access sensitive documents, at least three of which he downloaded and then tried to market to major media sources. It is important to note that in the pleading that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed filed--and he is a very smart man. He may be crazy, but he is a very smart man. He did his own interpretation in English, so some of the articles are not quite appropriate, but he sets out a legal document and justifies all of the actions he took in working on 9/11's murder of 3,000 Americans. He takes verses from the Koran and uses them to justify his actions. At one point in his pleading, which we have access to through our Web site--and this was declassified by the judge in the 9/11 cases involving five planners of 9/11. It was ordered released on the 9th day of March, 2009, and there are also transcripts of his colloquy with the judge in which he confessed to many other acts of terrorism, quite voluntarily, it was obvious. But in his pleading, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, on behalf of himself and the four other defendants who were ready to plead guilty, announced they were pleading guilty before this administration; and the Attorney General-to-be, Eric Holder, announced they were going to give these guys a show trial in New York. So they withdraw their guilty pleas so they could get a show trial in New York. Now that's not going to happen, and now it looks like, 4 years after these people agreed to plead guilty, which will be December of next year, they will still not have been tried because of the actions of this administration. But Khalid Sheikh Mohammed says: We do not possess your military might, not your nuclear weapons; nevertheless, we fight you with the almighty God. So, if our act of jihad and our fighting with you caused fear and terror, then many thanks to God, because it is him that has thrown fear into your hearts, which resulted from your infidelity, paganism, and your statement that God had a son and your Trinity beliefs. Then he goes on and he says: God stated in his book, verse 151, Al- Umran, Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companies with Allah, for which he has sent no authority; their place will be the fire; and evil is the home of the wrongdoers. That is just one part. He also says: We ask to be near God. We fight you, destroy you, terrorize. You'll be greatly defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq, and America will fall politically, militarily, economically. Your end is very near, and your fall will be like the fall of the towers on the blessed 9/11 day. But this gentleman references that one of the reasons that it's okay to kill Americans is because many Americans believe there is a Holy trinity, a Father, Son and Holy Ghost. They believe that God had a son that Christians call the Messiah. My time is running out, so let me direct you to the Treaty of Paris, 1783, such a historic document. The most powerful country in the world at that time, 1783, was Great Britain. They had the most powerful Navy, the most powerful military; and yet a ragtag bunch of people who believed so firmly in the ideas of freedom and being able to practice most of them--in fact, a third of the signers of the Declaration, they weren't just Christians; they, as Martin Luther King, Jr., were ordained Christian ministers, and they believed in freedom and that God was giving us a chance to govern ourselves. So after this ragtag bunch defeated the strongest country in the world, Great Britain, and they sat down in 1783 in Paris, and we had there on our behalf John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay, three of our brightest minds, they had to set about figuring out: What can we put on paper to have Great Britain sign that will be so important that they would not want to risk violating an oath? What kind of oath could we put on this treaty that Great Britain would be scared to violate? This treaty will want them to recognize the United States of America. What can we do to make it serious enough that they would not turn around the next month and say we had no right to be independent despite what they signed? There is an original copy of the Treaty of Paris in the State Department. Tours can be taken, I've taken tons of tours around Washington, D.C. Until my pastor and his wife, David and Cindy Dykes, were in town years back, I had not seen that. But I was taken aback, and I've got a copy of--this is a duplicate--of the Treaty of Paris, two pages, well, it's the first and last page here. There are 10 articles, so we've got the first and last pages here. So how would you start a treaty in such a way that it would scare the strongest country in the world from violating their oath? Well, they figured it out, and they put it on the document. The biggest letters anywhere in the treaty are those in the first two lines, and they began ``In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity.'' Starting the Treaty of Paris with ``In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity,'' they knew would be strong enough to scare Great Britain into not violating the oath that they signed on that document. Then you tie it in with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's pleading, the very fact that they would sign such a document recognizing the Holy Trinity, according to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his interpretation of the Koran, that's justification for killing and terrorizing people that believe in the Holy undivided Trinity. There's a war going on, and in Libya, apparently we fought for people who want to destroy us. The al Qaeda flag now flies proudly over this federal building in Benghazi, Libya. Congratulations to this administration for making that happen. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.