Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I am so grateful that I have such a dear friend from Iowa as Mr. Steve King. There's no price you can put on a dear friend like that. Thank you. I would like to continue on in this discussion about the President's speech. I'm not quite sure what the President had in mind when he decided to rush over to the State Department and make a speech, when he knew the Prime Minister of our dear ally, Israel, was traveling to come to the United States. He knew that when he gave the speech that the Prime Minister would be at a great disadvantage. It was a speech, as I understand it, that wasn't run by the Prime Minister, was quite a surprise to him, and, in fact, when there were hints that the President might make the statements he did, there was a pleading not to do so. I don't know if those are stories or, actually, how it occurred. That's no way to carry on international relations. It's certainly no way to treat our friends. It's not hard to understand that when it comes to international relations, if you treat your enemies better than you treat your friends, then your friends will desire to be your enemies, and you will get what you desire. I don't know what the people in the White House are thinking; this is a friend. You don't do this to friends. So he jumps out and goes to the State Department where he has got a captive audience. Well, I say captive, apparently from what's on statements that have been made, the president of the Islamic Society of North America, which is a listed coconspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial for funding Hamas, a terrorist organization, this president of the listed coconspirator of funding, or in the Holy Land Foundation trial for funding Hamas, made comments about the speech because he had been invited to be in the inner sanctum of our State Department by this administration. This administration, this President, chose to make a speech, basically slapping a friend in the face, and at the same time invite the president of a listed coconspirator for funding terrorism to be in attendance so he could talk about how wonderful the speech was. The same Imam Majid, the president of the Islamic Society of North America that we find from reading the transcript of the speech that the number two person in the National Security Administration, the deputy National Security Adviser, said this spring, as he addressed the All Dulles Area Muslim Society, which they like to call ADAMS, for short, he thanked Imam Majid, the president, this listed coconspirator, for his remarks and also to talk about how wonderful his prayer was at the White House Iftar celebration last year, which is the celebration in Islam that marks the end of the fasting of Ramadan. And in the remarks, the deputy National Security Adviser of the United States commented on the President noting that this was really a continuation of the Iftar celebration that Thomas Jefferson had, once again, marking that the President is not getting good information about our Nation's history. There are not 57 States; we are not, as the President said, producing more oil now than we ever have. You don't have to go back that far. We were producing 9.6 million billion barrels a day, and now we are producing 5.5. Do the math, if somebody will be honest enough to give the President the right information. He says we never had more people on the border than we do right now. Somebody show the history of 1916 when a President--who I don't have a great deal of admiration for, Woodrow Wilson--knew that it was wrong to have a Mexican bandit, or a bandit group led by Pancho Villa come into the United States and be responsible for killing a handful of American citizens. That was enough to motivate the President at that time to call up something new called the National Guard and to send General Pershing down there with over 10,000 troops to go into Mexico, root out the troublemakers--many were killed even though he didn't catch Pancho Villa, but the murders stopped. The intrusions into the United States across our sovereign border stopped. The 100,000-plus National Guard troops that were placed on our border in 1916 made sure that the intrusions stopped. And by General Pershing going in, they made sure that they were not going to want to come try that again. That's how you deal with domestic or foreign terrorism. You can't try to love people and you can love your enemies and in Christianity we are taught to do that. And as individual Christians, that's what we are supposed to do. But when we take an oath to defend this Constitution, when we have the responsibility of an oath to defend this Nation, to provide for the common defense, then it is incumbent upon us to provide for the common defense, and we have a different standard for which we have to answer. So, yes, Christians are supposed to love one another. But the government's responsibility, as noted in Romans 13, is, as the scripture tells, someone tempted to do evil. If you do evil, be afraid, because God does not give the government the sword in vain. We have a responsibility to provide for a free society and a safe society where people will be free to love each other and to make free choices. And, yes, when there is a religion that has been hijacked by radicals that says you give people freedom of choice, that's wrong, we need to have a caliphate. We need to have a religious leader that tells everybody what they can do. That way we avoid all the debauchery that you can see on any evening news in America. The trouble is, God gave us freedom of choice. We can choose well or we can choose poorly, and the government ought to ensure, any government ought to ensure that people have that opportunity to do that as well. So, after the President's speech, which basically amounted to a slap in the face of the leader of our friend, Israel, after the inaccurate representation by the White House that, gee, this is where all the talks have always started, well, not exactly. That was the point to which the Clinton administration pushed Prime Minister Barak, when he was the Prime Minister of Israel and, who knows, God knows, I think God hardened Arafat's heart so that when the Clinton administration had pushed Prime Minister Barak, what I think was far too far, which would have made Israel indefensible by any conventional means when Arafat had basically everything that he wanted, except the extinction of Israel, Arafat's heart was hardened and he said, no, I am not entering the deal, thank goodness for Israel. So Israel remained a defensible Nation. Now, when the White House, when the President tried to walk back his comments and explain--and as someone besides me has said before, when you hear someone say what I said was, it normally means that it isn't what they said. It's them trying to get a better twist than actually was the words that were said. But in the President's speech, where he tried to massage the words that he had given on Thursday, the President's word, and I have got a transcript of his speech here, President Obama said, ``The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.'' He goes on and says, ``The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves and reach their potential in a sovereign and contiguous state.'' So this is the President's speech after he has been chastised by so many in his own party and so many across America who apparently are better friends to Israel than our President. He has had time to think about it, to pour over and make sure he doesn't make a mistake of saying something this time that he doesn't mean. So if we want to give the President the benefit of the doubt that he made mistakes on what he said Thursday, then let's look at what he said this past weekend, and that should be what he really meant because he had time to massage the words he said. I think it is helpful to look at a map of Israel right now. This is the West Bank where Palestinians are located, but it's under the control, ultimately, of Israel right now. This was originally Israel's territory after 1967. This down here is the Sinai Peninsula where Egypt is now. After Israel was attacked unprovoked, Israel defended itself and took the Sinai Peninsula, took over the West Bank, took over Jerusalem, and took over the Golan Heights up here. And that was a defensible state. But Israel--and I didn't really understand it fully until I went to Israel for the first time. I couldn't understand, Why do you guys not get it, that when you unilaterally give away land trying to buy peace, you lose the land and you provide a staging area from which you are ultimately attacked again? But once I had been in Israel and I saw locations of families and friends being blown up by suicide bombers, saw the location of children and families that were killed, terrorized by rockets, now about 12,000 of them, I understood a little better. They are so tired of being terrorized and losing friends and family that they're willing to say, Look, we'll give you this area up here in Lebanon that we were able to control after the '67 war when you attacked us, we will give it back to you if you'll just leave us alone. Patrick Henry said, People cry, peace, peace, but there is no peace. Israel wanted peace, so they gave away northern Israel, what's now colored as part of Lebanon. And so it wasn't but a few years ago Lebanon starts attacking, comes across the border, takes hostages, attacks Israel from the very area which Lebanon had been given in Israel's unilateral quest for peace. Now, during the times before they controlled the Golan Heights, this area is quite high. It overlooks the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River. And it was real easy to just lob artillery shells from the Golan Heights into Israel, terrorizing farmers and killing. It was indefensible. So by the grace of God, after they were attacked, they took the Golan Heights, and they still hold them. And it is an area that by holding they can avoid having cheap mortars that are a lot cheaper than rockets just being lobbed over into their settled areas, their civilized areas, killing and terrorizing all the more. The West Bank--my hats go off to Prime Minister Fayyad for the efforts he has made in trying to bring up the West Bank and the Palestinian areas. I was critical because Palestinians have received billions of dollars, and yet they have not been building homes for the rank-and-file refugees, which seems to indicate to me they wanted to keep fomenting hatred toward the Jews, toward the Israelis. Now let's take the President's words that he had time to massage. He learned from his mistake on Thursday, supposedly. He says that it should result in two states with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt. Well, you've got the Gaza Strip that Israel unilaterally gave back, and now they have suffered thousands and thousands of rockets, terrorism, and death as a result of that generous gift of the Gaza Strip back. If you'll just leave us alone, we'll give you this wonderful strip. They gave it back. People cried peace, peace, but there was no peace. There is no peace now. They're still ready--if you'll just leave us alone--to make peace. But under the President's words, gee, he uses the statement, in a sovereign contiguous state. Well, Palestinians have the Gaza Strip and they are occupying the West Bank. For that to be contiguous, there's only one of two things that can happen, and that is, if you cut Israel up, or you give all of this area to the Palestinians that are now completely in signed agreement with a terrorist group, Hamas, then you give all of this for the use of a terrorist group, Hamas. And so then that would fulfill the President's desire as he had time to massage it and think about it, giving all of this land to Hamas, Palestinians, all of this area up here. Well, but wait a minute. He said that after he described the borders that we would demand for the Palestinians, he said they would have a border with Egypt and with Jordan, comes clear up here, and that Israel would have permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. Well, he described the borders he wanted for the Palestinians. So his massage words, it seems, would mean that for Israel to only have borders with the Palestinians, you also have to give Palestine up here into Lebanon so that you have this little area, this little strip left for Israel, because that's what the President said. After he had days to think about his mistake on Thursday, this is the best that he can do? We're going to give Israel a little strip? And, by the way, can you imagine if Canada or Russia or China, one of their leaders, made a speech and said, United States, by the way, we think you ought to give away Arizona? You know, you've got drug smugglers up there; it would be a lot safer. You basically let them have it anyway. Why don't you just give it to the drug smugglers? Can you imagine that? Well, that's the interdiction of a meddling President. He is trying to tell another sovereign state where they can have their borders and where they can't. That is not what you do to a friend. And I know that we're winding down to the minutes, and I know that some people have been taught or miseducated about our history. Well, we are not going to be in session here on June 6. June 6 is the anniversary of D-day, when we lost thousands and thousands of Americans who were trying to retake a beachhead in Europe and eliminate the horrible force that was taking away freedoms and killing 6 million Jews. And so to conclude tonight, Mr. Speaker, I want to read a prayer. Since we are not going to be in session on June 6, I want to read the prayer that Franklin Delano Roosevelt read live on national radio on June 6, 1944. President Roosevelt said these words: ``My fellow Americans, last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far. And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer.'' And then Roosevelt's prayer begins: ``Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity. Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith. ``They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph. They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest-- until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war. ``For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home. ``Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom. And for us at home--fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice. ``Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts. ``Give us strength, too--strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our Armed Forces. And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be. ``And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment--let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose. ``With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace--a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil. ``Thy will be done, Almighty God, Amen.'' The words of Franklin D. Roosevelt on D-day, June 6, 1944. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from Iowa, my very dear friend. As my friend knows, he and I've both been extremely vigilant in following up on these issues. But I wanted to point out, there is a lot of confusion. There are people on television that are just making these claims that the Constitution has been thrown away, and they haven't looked at how these three provisions that have been extended for 4 years were being used. Now, my first year here, 2005, we were taking up the Patriot Act, and I had concerns then. I still have concerns, because these things, these powers, these three have been held constitutional, and I think they are. The problem comes in the potential for abuse. And the reason I ended up catching a lot of grief from some of the leaders in our party back in 2005 as a freshman was I wanted to have sunsets on some provisions so that we could get leverage, because as we saw from Attorney General Gonzales, when he was head of the Justice Department, and as we have seen with Attorney General Holder, Departments of Justice are not very forthcoming no matter what party they are when the Congress asks for information. Now, they will say, Oh, yeah, we'll give you whatever you need, but they're not very forthcoming. And it's not until powers that they want to keep come up for sunset, that they could go away and they need them renewed, and they know they need them renewed because they are helpful in keeping the country safe, but it's only then that they come forward and say, Oh, by the way, what was it that you made in your request a year ago that we never did provide you? And that basically happened back in 2004 and 2005. And that was one of the reasons I was pushing we've got to have sunsets, because the only way to deal with these issues and make sure the abuses are not occurring of these constitutional powers is to put sunsets, and that way they come forward with the information and those of us that have the security clearances can go in. Now, not everybody who has security clearances has enough interest to go wading through this material like my friend from Iowa and I have. But I think part of the problem has been people have been confused with the abuses that occurred, the outrageous abuses that occurred with the national security letter power, which has been reined in some, still not enough for my liking. And I really would like to rein in the national security letter power even further because it is not required to go before a district judge like these powers that we extended tonight for 3 years. That's where the abuses were. That's where the IG report said they were. And so that's where a tremendous amount of vigilance needs to be placed in making sure that the Justice Department does adequate vigilance themselves in not abusing the power they have. And I'm sure I didn't make the Director of the FBI very happy when I pointed this out to him in committee, but it's what I believe, and that is that this Director came in to the FBI and eventually implemented--he called it a 5-year up-or-out policy. So that if you were a supervisor in the FBI, of a field office anywhere in the country, and you did 5 years in that location, at the end of 5 years, you had to either move to Washington, move up to Washington, or get out of the FBI. Move out, basically. We have lost thousands of years of experience from our FBI. Now, I know what it is to be an aggressive prosecutor, young, out of law school. Had a little more hair back then. And boy, we are going to get the bad guys. There's something to be said for experience. So it's not been uncommon to have FBI field offices around the country go, for example, from having a supervisor with 25 years of experience, he or she had seen it, done it, been there, and able to learn from mistakes, make wise decisions, and yet because of the 5-year up-or-out policy, they end up having to leave because they're not moving to Washington. And when they do, we have had offices, for example, come in and the new supervisor has 5 or 6 years' experience, the head supervisor. We go from 25, 26 years to 5 or 6; it's not good for the FBI. These are fantastic agents. Take nothing away from their knowledge and ability, but there is something to be said for 25 years of experience as a law enforcement officer. We lost that. As we lost that, we began to see these vast abuses of the National Security Letters. And people need to know that the National Security Letter power was not up for renewal tonight. It is something I would like to address further because it has such tremendous potential for abuse. I am hoping we can deal with that. I also further hope that those who were really upset or concerned will not just take demagogued statements, but will actually look into this, as I have. And I have spent no telling how many hours pouring through material, classified material, pouring through the laws, the interpretation of the laws. These powers are basically the same powers the FBI has, these three that we renewed tonight, basically the same powers the FBI has to go after organized crime; and now they're allowed to do it with terrorism. They pertain to terrorists, or agents, foreign agents of foreign powers. So if they're properly supervised, as I know my friend from Iowa and I will do unless we get kicked off of the Judiciary Committee, but as long as we're allowed to be there, and as unpleasant as some people find our positions at times, we want to make sure there's adequate supervision. That's what I intend to do. That's what I know my friend from Iowa intends to do. That is what our friend Michelle Bachmann from Minnesota will do. That's one of the most diligent people I have ever seen in anything. And I'm not sure there is another Member of Congress or the Senate that has a master's in any area of law. She has a master's in law. So you have got people that are diligent, that understand the law, have studied it, and are looking into the allegations. I am comfortable with what we did tonight only to the extent that I know that there will be an awful lot more nights like I have had the last two nights where I get 1\1/2\, 2 hours sleep because there is so much to review, so much to cover, so much to read because of this important responsibility we have been handed. But I hope people understand National Security Letters have been the area where there has been great abuse. Supposedly that's been reined in. But the reason some of us on the Republican side demanded sunsets on these is not because we think they are unconstitutional, but because we have got to have leverage to use with the Justice Department, no matter which party is in power in the White House, to make sure that our freedoms are preserved and Congress can use its power, have power, have leverage that gets respected by the Justice Department. I appreciate my friend for yielding.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I am about to file a bill, its number will be determined later, but it expresses support for the State of Israel's right to defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceable solution can be found within a reasonable time to protect against such immediate and existential threats to the State of Israel. We have a President who doesn't know history as well as he should or he would be aware that last Thursday, instead of saying what his spokesman was saying, gee, this was the starting point for all negotiations, actually, the facts are that the Clinton administration pushed Prime Minister Barak into basically that proposal. And it's my belief that just as I believe that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh when Moses made his request, he hardened Arafat's heart. He rejected the offer, and it does not need to be made again.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I want to identify with the comments of my friend from Indiana. Well said. Great thoughts. We have wonderful friends in this world, as a Nation. But we need to recognize who are our friends and who are our enemies and who are the places, the countries, the peoples that intend us harm, who are the people that are willing to assist us in encouraging and allowing for freedom to spread around the world. We should be well aware that there are people across our border in Mexico who are not Mexicans, people who would like to see this Nation fail as such an important keeper of the peace. We know that Hezbollah has been setting up camp across the U.S. border in Mexico; that they have been working with drug cartels in Mexico, and it appears we see some of the signs of that in the ways that people are murdered, the way the crime business has developed. We know that people coming across our border into this country, a significant percentage at least, are other than Mexican. OTM, they're classified. So many of them from the Middle East, many who are taught to try to appear as Hispanic and come across and try to avoid indicating anything that would give away the fact that they are coming here, not for jobs, but to set up to try to do us harm. So when you are aware that there is so much violence on the border, Americans being murdered down on both sides of the border, we have two lakes between Texas and Mexico, Lake Falcon and Lake Amistad, together about 85 miles of international border that should be patrolled by the United States Coast Guard. But this administration doesn't wish to see the Coast Guard there. Visiting with the Texas Governor a few weeks ago, he had made clear, please help me in urging the administration to allocate some Coast Guard resources to these lakes, where the drug cartels are bringing dangerous people, bringing drugs, bringing mayhem across into the U.S. Texas is committing money, resources, manpower on the lake, but it's a Federal job. And what we've seen with this administration, when a State does too good a job or tries too well to do the job the Federal Government is not doing in order to protect its State, this administration decides to sue them. We've seen also recently that if there is plenty of evidence to support that people or groups are funding terrorism in the world, and it is radical Islamists that are doing that, then this administration wants to embrace the groups that we have evidence are funding terrorism, rather than confront them and stop them. It's an interesting time we live in. I do want to follow up on the President's comments. Here Texas has suffered the loss of around 2.3 million acres burned in the last decade or so. Other Presidents, other administrations, and even this administration, have recognized that when 177,000 acres, 300, 400, 500,000 acres have been destroyed, that is certainly worthy of declaring a disaster area in order to provide Federal support. Texas is a donor State. We always put much more into the Federal Government from Texas than Texas ever gets back. We're proud to be such an important, vital part of the United States. It does follow that when there is such a compelling disaster as the wildfires in Texas, 2.3 million acres destroyed, that it would be nice to have the support of the President. But just as this administration snubbed all the contributions that Houston provided to the shuttle program, and refused to allow a shuttle to be on display permanently in the NASA Space Center in Houston, also Texas was again snubbed there with the 2.3 million acres being burned, snubbed without any assistance or declaration of a Federal disaster area. Then we know the President did have a rather nice fundraiser in Austin, during which probably hundreds of thousands of dollars were sucked out of Texas due to the President's fundraising, and then headed to El Paso. And I have to say, much of the President's speech in El Paso was very good. It was unifying, coming from a man who said he was a uniter, not a divider. But then, toward the end of the speech, the gloves came off and things were said that were not true. The President said, and I know they weren't lies because a lie requires intent to deceive on the part of the speaker, and I'm sure the President would not ever want to do that, but he did state things that were not true and they need to be addressed. The President said the fence is basically finished, that the fence on our border is basically finished. Actually, our border is nearly 2,000 miles, around 1,969 miles of border between the United States and Mexico. Close to two-thirds of that are in Texas. We know that the so-called ``fence'' was going to be largely consisting of a virtual fence, where there's no real fence, but there's technology utilized that would allow monitoring, checking to ensure that the border was protected even without a physical fence there. So not only was there no physical fence, the administration ended that program. No virtual fence, no physical fence. We're open for business for the drug trade. Despite the Border Patrol, the limited folks, they're doing all they can, it is such a massive border, it requires more help than is currently there. We withstood belittling from the President as he stood in El Paso, Texas, where just within a few miles, 3,000 people have been killed in the last year just across our border, the violence spilling over into the United States. And the President chose this time and location to belittle those who say we should secure our border; we should comply with our oath. We have an obligation to provide for the common defense. That includes securing our borders. And the President wants to belittle those of us who say let's keep our oath. Let's keep faith with the American people by defending them, by defending our sovereignty. This administration, on the other hand, the very administration that makes light of those who say let's secure our border; let's protect our people, instead of doing that, says: You know what, Arizona, with 30 miles or so of border with Mexico and wilderness area where we don't allow any mechanized vehicle to go, I tell you what: We'll put up a sign, which they did, and there's a lot of violent drug smuggling, dangerous people coming in this area, so we would advise American citizens to use the areas north of the interstate, because this administration has basically turned over our sovereign soil to foreign, illegal, violent drug smugglers. That should not allow for any smug condescension and belittling of those who are concerned about our security. We were told in the President's speech that, since 2004, the President has more than doubled the Border Patrol. The actual fact is that, when President Bush took office, there were about 8,600 Border Patrol, around that number. When Bush left office, there were about 17,500 Border Patrol. And it took us a while to convince President Bush to do it, but President Bush did double the number of Border Patrol on our southern border. And since President Obama has taken office in the last 2\1/2\ years, that has increased 18 percent. But if you want to know what the President personally feels about what should be done, you can look at his 2011 budget that he proposed, because he actually cuts the number of Border Patrol. Yes, it is true: Bush doubled the number of Border Patrol. But the truth is, this administration has increased it only a fraction of that and shown its true intent. They would just as soon cut it. Well, this Congress isn't going to let that happen. The President said, We've got more people on the border than we have ever had in history. That is simply not true. I realize that the President has spoken previously of what he says are the 57 States in our country, so perhaps he is not aware of the history that goes back to 1916 when a man named Pancho Villa from Mexico was involved in a handful of Americans being killed. President Wilson was not going to allow that to build. He wasn't going to allow renegades from Mexico to come illegally into this country and kill Americans. So he took a stand, he sent General Pershing there, and with 10,000 to 20,000 troops, Pershing went into Mexico chasing after Pancho Villa. The way it was done may not have been well thought out; but the fact is that at one point during that time, in order to protect America from the small number of murders that had occurred from illegal Mexicans coming into the United States around 1916, Wilson had over 100,000 troops, early National Guard folks, down on the border to protect our sovereignty. So obviously the President was not aware that any President had ever seen murders by illegal immigrants coming into our southern area as important as President Woodrow Wilson did, but hopefully someone on his staff can do the research that hadn't been done before in the White House and advise the President: Hey, there was a President who took it real seriously when Americans were killed along our border. He didn't go to El Paso and make a speech making fun of those who were concerned about our security. He actually sent over 100,000 troops, and they stopped the insanity before it could go any further. Some historians talk about how Pershing was not able to get Pancho Villa and how much it cost. There was a lot of waste in that campaign, perhaps a lot more were committed than necessary, except he made his point: the violence stopped. And when our enemies who would like to destroy our way of life here take away all the goodness that is developed in this country, take away the things that people, we are told maybe as many as 1.5 billion of the 6 billion people in the world would like to come to America at some time or other, there's got to be something good going on when that many people would like to come here. But there are those who want to destroy that, take it away, and this President has an obligation and an oath to protect it. We hope that he will stop the belittling of those who want him to keep the oath and live up to his true commitments. But we are dealing with a President who said: If you like your insurance, you can keep it. And we find out that wasn't true. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. We found out that wasn't true. We were told here recently by the President in another speech just in the last week or so that we are producing more oil right now than at any time in our history. I know he doesn't know or he wouldn't have said that, but the fact is that we have produced as many as 9.6 million barrels of oil, and right now we are producing 5.5 million barrels of oil in this country. We also know that this is a President who assured us that he would go line by line and scrub that budget, and that has never happened. He told us that Vice President Biden was not going to allow any fraud or waste. We know that hasn't happened. He said that he was going to close Guantanamo within the year. I'm very grateful that he didn't keep his word on that. He said he was a uniter, not a divider, that he would bring people together, and I hope and pray that, at some point before his 4 years are up, he will actually do that. But there are people that want to destroy this country. We can no longer play around, make fun of each other in this country while people are set about to destroy us. We've got to defend what we've got. We had a hearing in Judiciary where the Attorney General of the United States testified, and we also know that there is a memo. He has been given the date and who provided the memo, and we asked for a copy of it. He hasn't been willing to provide that either to Pete King or to Judiciary thus far, so we are probably going to have to subpoena it if he doesn't; and we may come to quite a row, governmentally speaking, if they will not provide it. Instead, the Attorney General said, Oh, I understand there was an article in the Dallas News where the interim U.S. Attorney down there said that politics didn't play a role in our administration not pursuing the co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist funding trial. We want the memo. We don't need a newspaper article from the Attorney General. And when we have documentation from the FBI that arose in the Holy Land Foundation trial, five defendants convicted of all 108 counts in late 2008, we know that in 2005 massive amounts of additional evidence were obtained, and we have these transactions, journal vouchers, there are deposit slips, all kinds of things, that helped establish with the judge that co-conspirators like ISNA or CAIR should be left as named co-conspirators and not eliminated from being named in the pleadings in the Holy Land Foundation trial, we know the evidence is there. We know that there is a case to be made. And yet this administration not only refuses to go after the Islamic Society of North America, often referred to as ISNA, but we have the remarks on the White House's own Web site, and this was put up March 6, 2011, remarks of Denis McDonough, Deputy National Security Adviser to the President. Our Deputy National Security Adviser starts his remarks at this Muslim Society by, ``Thank you, Imam Magid, for your very kind introduction and welcome. I know that President Obama was very grateful that you led the prayer at last summer's Iftar dinner at the White House.'' The president of a known co-conspirator of financing terrorism is not only buddies with our Deputy National Security Adviser, he's leading the Iftar prayer, which is the ceremony that ends the Ramadan celebration. So the White House had the Iftar celebration and had the president of the named co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation leading the prayer in the White House. Who's running this henhouse? And then we find out, as we hear in the news, and I know the President gets briefed and is aware, not only are there al Qaeda involved in going after Qadhafi, we're helping those people, including al Qaeda. Qadhafi needs to go, but, my goodness, intelligent people on foreign affairs know you should never help take out a foreign leader unless you can be assured that the subsequent leader will be better for your country. Whose country are we trying to help here anyway? We know we've got people being killed on our southern border, and instead, because the President said, not Congress, but the U.N. and Arab League had encouraged us to get involved in Libya, we're going to go expend American treasure and American lives at risk in Libya? That we're going to push for an ally, whether he's a nice guy or not, he was helping keep the peace in the Middle East, Mubarak, in Egypt, and we pushed to take him out, so that instability is going to reign in the region. Who's running this show? Who are we trying to help? We ought to be helping this country. That's where our oaths have been made and that's to whom the oaths have been made. It's scary stuff here. It is staggering what this administration is doing. There's good information. Andy McCarthy and Patrick Poole have been publishing some good information on what has been going on in the Holy Land Foundation non-prosecution. It's time to defend this country, not be protecting other countries. There have been some excellent things written and said encouraging the President on what would be appropriate action in the Middle East. Unfortunately, this administration has chosen to play handsy, be friendly with and encourage, it seems, the development of the relationship between Fatah, the Palestinian Authority leaders in the West Bank, with Hamas, who we have listed and know to be a terrorist organization that is in control of the Gaza Strip. We have laws in this country that prohibit us from providing funds to any nation or any entity who is allied with terrorist organizations, and yet what we are seeing is this administration apparently being willing to somewhat embrace, I am hoping the President will come out and make clear he's not going this far, but embrace that, hey, the West Bank joining hands with Hamas, the terrorist organization, is okay, when the fact is our laws prohibit us providing money to Hamas. We have had five defendants convicted in the Holy Land Foundation trial for providing funds, including to Hamas. And yet if this administration does not stop the funding of the Palestinian Authority when it is joined with Hamas, then whoever pushes for that funding may have some criminal sanctions to lie. This is a very, very serious issue and it needs to be addressed. Caroline Glick, who writes for the Jerusalem Post, has an excellent article this week on that very issue, and I hope that, Madam Speaker, you and others will review that, because it makes very clear this administration keeps pushing the Israeli leaders to give away land, make unilateral concessions, when it is not Israel that is acting in terrorist fashion. This administration seems to be ignoring the fact that Hamas is still killing people in Israel, still killing people and promoting terrorism in the Middle East. It is time to stop acting as if this Nation's administration is okay with terrorism in the Middle East as long as it is by the Muslim Brotherhood, as long as it is by Hamas or Hezbollah. We are helping rearm people who are Israel's enemies. This stuff's got to stop. It is insanity when we help arm people who want to see this Nation destroyed. I hope and pray that this President will come to his senses, his advisers will give him better advice, and that we can stop this. We are hurting ourselves when we hurt our friend Israel. It makes no sense. It has to stop. We are going to be fortunate to have the leader of Israel speaking to us from that second-level podium right here on May 24, and I know the administration is going to be trying, probably has already, to push Binyamin Netanyahu into making concessions. But the fact is Israel is still under attack, its enemies are still not willing to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation, they are still not willing to stop the pushing of hatred and the teaching of hatred and anti- Semitism in the Middle East. So Israel owes them no unilateral concessions. There should be nothing, and I hope and pray will be nothing in the way of concessions. As I pointed out to Prime Minister Netanyahu, any time Israel in its long history going back 3,000 years or so has given up land to others, it is normally used as a staging area at some point from which to attack Israel. The Tanakh is full of incidents where leaders of Israel have tried to placate terrorists, those who would want to destroy it; and giving them land, giving them things, paying tribute, it has never worked. It will never work. This is no time to do it now. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the proponent of this amendment in his zeal to ensure that the environment is properly addressed, but those concerns are properly addressed in the permitting policy. The problem is that we had a company with around 800 safety violations, British Petroleum, that was allowed to continue drilling, and you wonder why. Could it be that they were negotiating at the very time of the blowout with Democrats in the Senate for making the big announcement that they supported the administration's cap-and-trade bill? Could it be that they were going to be involved in the carbon credit business and would work with the administration? Perhaps a better question than the effect on the environment is, How close will the applicant for a drilling permit be politically with this administration? Because what we see time after time is a situation of political payback. We see crony capitalism. If you're a good buddy at GE, you're going to do well. If you're on Wall Street and you contribute four to one to this administration over its opponent, then you're going to do well. You may have to endure being called a fat cat from time to time; but, otherwise, we're going to make sure your profits exceed anything you have ever seen before. We have seen this administration rush to Libya. We have seen this administration rush, appropriately, to help our friend Japan. We have seen them rush all over the place. But when it came to really helping the gulf coast region, this administration rushed in and did more damage to people's lives by putting this moratorium on than the spill itself did. At some point, it's time for the administration to stop the political payback game. Perhaps Louisiana would be better off if they dissociated themselves from Texas. We know that you can have 500,000 acres burned and have it be a disaster area. You can have 2 million in Texas, and they won't come to your help because this administration is partisan and bitterly so. But it's time for this administration to quit playing political games and help people where they need it in our own country, on our own gulf coast. Let's vote ``no'' on the amendments and get this bill through.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I certainly do appreciate the recommendations of my friend from Iowa. And I certainly agree, we should be passing a bill that would require no leeway for the Treasury's Secretary, that he should pay our debts as they come due and also make sure the military is paid on time. We know that Social Security is already going to be mandatory spending in the event of a shutdown. And that way we are allowed to pursue the issues that are most critical and that is, really, in the interest of children. That term is used so often. It is really true now. We have got to cut the ridiculous, irresponsible spending to preserve this Union. But there are two problems out there that are seeking to destroy this country. One is passively to destroy this country, and that is our gross, irresponsible overspending: $2.1 trillion coming in and $3.75 trillion going out. We won't last much longer as a country if that continues. The other is not passive. It is very active. And our great military and intelligence communities did a fantastic job apparently in taking out the most wanted man last weekend in the world, the man responsible for possibly more murders than anyone currently in existence on the planet, but certainly he had killed more Americans than anyone else alive on the planet today. And that was, of course, Osama bin Laden. But there has been a great rewriting of history. And since we know-- it has been made very clear that there are radical Islamist jihadists that want to destroy our country--it is ridiculous not to defend ourselves. We took an oath to defend the Constitution. We are supposed to provide for the common defense. It is the most important responsibility that we as a Federal Government have, because if we do not provide for a common defense, then it matters not what we try to do in the way of Medicare and Medicaid. All kinds of problems occur in the U.S. If we don't defend ourselves, there are plenty of evil groups who would love to destroy our way of life. In the case of the radical Islamic jihadists, they believe that as much freedom as we have in America leads to decadence and debauchery and that we need one leader, one religious leader, an ahmadi, to preside over one giant, worldwide caliphate. So for those of us who realize on both sides of the aisle we make a lot of mistakes, people across the country make a lot of mistakes. No one at the current time on Earth is perfect. We realize still that freedom to make our own choices is what the Founders intended, and that is because they believed that the Creator--as they referenced in the Declaration, God referenced in other places, Providence in other places, they believed that that was God's choice for our life, that we have choice. And even though God knew that we would make bad choices, when people can freely love of their own volition, their own choice, as a father I know that means so much more than if you demand that a child or someone in your care act like they love you. So thank God. He desires our love and our praise. As a result, we were given freedom of choice. You don't have to look too deeply into founding documents and diaries and journals to realize just how much the Founders, the Continental Congress members, believed that. So it gets interesting when people try to rewrite history and especially in the process of failing to properly provide for the common defense. We had the Attorney General of the United States before the Judiciary Committee this week, and of concern to me and many others has been the refusal of this Justice Department to prosecute the unindicted coconspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial. The evidence used in that case had been adduced from back in 1991, 1993. There was a treasure trove of material found, I believe, in 2004 here, just across in Virginia. There was a sub-basement that had tremendous amounts of documents reflecting the plans and intentions and strategy for the effort to bring down the government as we know it, our way of life as we know it, and that was by radical Muslims. I am also thankful that there are a majority of Muslims who are moderates. They don't believe jihad means to go about destroying those who oppose what you are doing. They believe that jihad means an internal change of life. And when someone has a moderate Muslim for a friend, he has a friend for life. It kind of reminds me of southern hospitality. But, nonetheless, we do our moderate Muslim friends no favors in failing to oppose the radical Islamic jihadists, because make no mistake, if we do not defend this Nation against the radical Islamic jihadists, then some of the people that would lose their lives, at a minimum lose their freedoms, would be moderate Muslims, because being a moderate is not abided in the world of a radical Muslim. If you don't believe just as they do, then it is okay to take your life. So that's why I say we are no friend to our moderate Muslim friends if we do not defend this Nation against the radicals, because our moderate Muslim friends will be targeted if we do not do our job in defending the Nation, which brings me back again to the Holy Land Foundation trial. The Bush administration, acting on information that was obtained through the 1990s through the Clinton administration Justice Department, FBI, and especially since 1993, the efforts made by the FBI, the incredibly professional work that was done, it was amazing how well they put a case together. Unfortunately, when the case was tried the first time, it led to a hung jury. In the pleadings--and I have many of the documents here. Not all of them. There are boxes and boxes of documents, and I understand even now, under Attorney General Holder, the Justice Department has boxes and boxes of evidence, documents, wiretaps that have not even been translated. You would think that would be fairly important before a decision was made on whether or not to pursue the unindicted coconspirators. Now, it is not always the case, but in this case the unindicted coconspirators were actually listed. If one goes through the list of unindicted coconspirators, you find groups like the Islamic Society of North America, aka ISNA; you find the North American Islamic Trust, aka NAIT. It is amazing. You find Founders of CAIR, C-A-I-R. So it was intriguing, after having five convictions on all 108 allegations in the Holy Land Foundation trial that went on in Dallas, that this Justice Department would ultimately decide we are not going to pursue any of those other coconspirators or joint venturers, who the evidence shows clearly provided financing for a known terrorist group, Hamas. The documentation is substantial. And this is only a tiny thimbleful of the evidence that was in the case. But when I look here at the Islamic Society of North America, at some of the evidence that came out, we have journal voucher after journal voucher showing the money that was taken out and used to ultimately assist in terrorism or to fund a terrorist group. You see all these journal entries. There are deposit slips in here making clear all kinds of things in the way of money. All kinds of amounts were transferred to assist in the funding of terrorism. In fact, at the conclusion of the first part of the case with the five defendants, some of the unindicted coconspirators filed a motion to require the Federal District Judge in Dallas to strike or eliminate all of the names of the unindicted coconspirators, or at least their own, and an assistant U.S. Attorney in Dallas named James Jacks did a very good job in rebutting that and laying out in his brief before the Federal District Court how there were significant amounts, tremendous amounts of evidence that showed that the unindicted coconspirators' names should not be stricken from the record. And the judge in his memo order on the case came back and said basically there is a prima facie case. In fact, the judge said here--this is in his memo decision, and this is Judge Solis, a Federal judge in Dallas--``The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, C-A-I-R, ISNA, Islamic Society of North America, and NAIT, the North American Islamic''--I have it here, what the T stands for--``with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine and with Hamas. While the court recognizes that evidence produced by the government largely predates the HLF designation date, its evidence is nonetheless sufficient to show the association of these entities with HLF, IAP and Hamas,'' and being conjunctive together and not disjunctive. The judge goes on to say, ``Thus maintaining the names of the entity on the list is appropriate in light of the evidence proffered by the government.'' He goes further in his opinion and says, ``The explanatory memorandum includes a section entitled `Understanding the Role of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America,' which states that the work of the Ikhwan in the United States is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.'' Also contained in that document is a list of the Muslim Brotherhood's ``organizations and the organizations of our friends,'' which includes ISNA, NAIT, the Occupied Land Fund, which was HLF's former name, and the United Association for Studies and Research. During the early years of the OLF and HLF operation, OLF raised money and supported Hamas through a bank account that it held with ISNA and NAIT. Indeed, OLF operated from within ISNA in Plainfield, Indiana, where defendant Baker was employed. The Muslim Brotherhood supervised the creation of a ``Palestine Committee,'' which was put in charge of other organizations such as HLF, IAP, UASR, and ISNA. The July 30, 1994, meeting agenda for the Palestine Committee lists IAP, HLF, UASR, and CAIR as working organizations for the Palestine Committee. The order is pretty extraordinary in following the pleadings as filed by a quite capable assistant U.S. Attorney at that time, now interim U.S. Attorney in Dallas, and stating basically there is a prima facie case here. In fact, this has come to the attention of a number of us, not insignificantly, what to do with Patrick Poole and his research, Andrew McCarthy and his research, and other individuals who have been prosecutors, people who are familiar with the system, how the system works. Pete King, himself, has a very pointed letter that was sent to the Attorney General, asking for answers, and yet he really didn't get much of an answer. In fact, his letter reads this way. It was dated April 15. ``Dear Attorney General Holder, I write to inquire about your decision not to prosecute the 246 individuals and organizations named as unindicted coconspirators in a Hamas terror finance case.'' Actually, it is the largest terror finance case in American history. If you don't cut off the money, the terrorism will continue, and if the terrorists have tremendous amounts of money, it is a lot tougher to defeat them as our enemy, our sworn enemy, sworn to destroy our way of life. If you cut off their funding, it is a lot easier to be at war with someone in a tent, riding a camel, than it is someone who has jets, RPGs and the most sophisticated weaponry and the ability to build million dollar compounds to hide in. Of course, money also opens the possibility for bribes, which makes it a whole lot easier to hide in plain sight, because people are willing to look the other way. We don't know if that was occurring in Pakistan. There is a lot still to be learned in that situation. But Chairman King, Pete King, goes on and says, ``I have been reliably informed that the decision not to seek indictments of the Council on American Islamic Relations and its cofounder, Omar Ahmad, the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust was usurped by high-ranking decisions at the Department of Justice headquarters over the vehement and stated objections of special agents and supervisors of the FBI, as well as the prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Dallas, who had investigated and successfully prosecuted the Holy Land Foundation case. Their opposition to this decision raises serious doubt that the decision not to prosecute was a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion.'' Chairman King goes on and says, ``I request you provide answers to the following questions: ``What are the reasons for the Department's decision not to prosecute CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, and Mr. Ahmad, who is a CAIR cofounder and former head of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States? ``Who made the final decision not to prosecute? ``Who, if anyone, from the Executive Office of the President consulted with, advised or otherwise communicated with the Department of Justice in electronic, oral or written form regarding the Department's decision to not seek indictments of CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, and Mr. Ahmad? ``How does and will the Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation address the potential for CAIR, ISNA, NAIT to engage in terrorism financing? ``What policies with regard to those organizations have you implemented to address that threat? ``The answers to these questions should provide some explanation for declining a prosecution that is strongly supported by the record from the Holy Land Foundation trial.'' Then the chairman goes through and cites some of the information from that case, and he goes on and says, ``Hamas has been designated as a terrorist organization by the Department of State since October 9, 1997, and its status was reconfirmed by the most recent annual report of the National Counterterrorism Center, issued April 30, 2010. ``Hamas shamefully conducts cowardly suicide bombings against civilian targets inside Israel.'' He goes on and sets out some further information there. It also should be noted that Chairman Lamar Smith, when it was brought to the attention by some of us on the committee, also sent a letter to the Attorney General, requesting information about these very same things. In fact, there was a memo that was involved, and Chairman Smith on behalf of the Judiciary Committee requested a copy of the March 31, 2010, memo entitled: ``Declination of Prosecution of Omar Ahmad'' from Assistant Attorney General David Kris to Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler. As I understand it, Chairman King got a response; very unsatisfactory. Basically, they're not telling him anything. If they follow that tradition, Chairman Smith is not likely to get much of an answer. But it causes great concern because we have the Attorney General, who has testified before the committee this week that no one in his Department was involved in advising or consulting over that. Yet we have information about a memo which may contradict the Attorney General directly. If that's the case, he would have given false information before a committee not once but a number of times during his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. I hope and pray that's not true, but there's one way to find out. Instead of providing the memo that was requested, he referred Mr. Trent Franks, when he asked, to a Dallas Morning News article that quotes Mr. Jacks as saying there were no political factors involved in that decision. Well, I have a copy of that article as well. I also have a copy of Mr. Jacks' pleadings where he did a very nice job of setting out that there was a strong case--in essence, a prima facie case-- against these people wanting to have their names eliminated as coconspirators in the pleading. He also filed a pleading with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Now, I know as a former judge and chief justice that lawyers are not supposed to file pleadings and try to persuade based on facts that they believe or know not to be true. It's called fraud upon the court, and there's punitive action that lies in that case. But the information that U.S. Attorney Jacks provided to the district court and to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals appears to be very authentic and very well done. Obviously, a very capable lawyer. There are no punitive actions that can be taken for misleading a newspaper. On the other hand, perhaps he doesn't know what was in the memo that was requested from March of last year. But we're now getting into some very serious grounds when the Attorney General of the United States will not be forthcoming, changes his answers a number of times about who consulted or didn't consult; who's in his department, who's not in his department; who participated. So we've got a lot of explaining to get to. I hope there are legitimate explanations. But one thing is very clear, Mr. Speaker, and that is when the Attorney General is holding evidence that will answer the questions that were asked and prove if anyone is lying and who is lying and when they lied, it is not at all comforting to say, We're not giving you evidence that might contradict something that's been said by the Justice Department, but we will refer you to a newspaper article that an interim U.S. Attorney gave, who serves at the will of the United States President. So then, again, as a former judge, you're not looking for evidence which may support or not. Could there be politics at play in this kind of decision? Well, about this Islamic Society of North America, ISNA, it's interesting. I got a transcript of the speech, because I got it off of the White House Web site today, made by the Deputy National Security Adviser to the President of the United States, Barack Obama, his being Denis McDonough. This was actually, it says, for immediate release March 6, 2011. This is printed, like I say, from the Web site. These are the remarks of the Deputy National Security Adviser to the President, Barack Hussein Obama, in which he starts his remarks like this: Thank you, Imam Majid, for your very kind introduction and welcome. By the way, these are remarks to the All Dulles Area Muslim Society, ADAMS, ironically. Thank you, Imam Majid, for your very kind introduction, and welcome. I know that President Obama was very grateful that you led the prayer at last summer's iftar dinner at the White House, which, as the President noted, is a tradition stretching back more than two centuries to when Thomas Jefferson hosted the first iftar dinner at the White House. Well, ``iftar'' refers to the evening meal when Muslims break their fast during the Islamic month of Ramadan. Iftar is one of the religious observances of Ramadan, and is often done as a community with people gathering to break their fast together. Iftar is done right after sunset time. Traditionally, a date is the first thing to be consumed when the fast is broken. But if you look at the true history of the country, Thomas Jefferson did invite a leader from Tunis to break bread with him at the White House, and it was at the conclusion of Ramadan, but there's no evidence to indicate whatsoever that this was a traditional iftar dinner. You get back to the facts. In the second paragraph, he says--and this is Denis McDonough, Deputy National Security Adviser--Our Founders understood the best way to honor the place of faith in the lives of people was to protect their freedom to practice religion. In the Virginia Act, establishing religious freedom, Thomas Jefferson wrote that all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion. He goes on in his remarks, and he says, Thank you also for being one of our Nation's leading voices for the values that make America so strong, especially religious freedom and tolerance. Parenthetically, I'm not sure if tolerance includes funding terrorist activities against Israel and the United States, but that's a parenthetical question on my part. Back to Mr. McDonough, Whether it's here at the ADAMS Center or as president of the Islamic Society of North America, you've spoken with passion and eloquence not only about your own Islamic faith but for the need to build bridges of understanding and trust between faiths. This is incredible. The Deputy National Security Adviser is thanking the president of a coconspirator--named, at least, as a coconspirator, joint venturer in the Holy Land Foundation trial. He was not merely introducing him at this proceeding, but was also thanking him for being a confidant who led the White House in prayer in their iftar proceeding in the White House. The president of a coconspirator to fund terrorist activities is leading Muslim prayers in the White House. I realize my time has expired. I just know we need to work hard so that this country's time will not expire.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we heard from our friend from Massachusetts the allegation that we over here on this side of the aisle were squeezing Medicare. Good grief. Even now has the gentleman from Massachusetts not read the ObamaCare bill? It cuts $500 billion out of Medicare. We heard from Minority Leader Pelosi that we have a moral obligation to create jobs. Then what this administration has done under her definition is immoral, because this administration has been killing jobs. We hear so much from the other side about the working poor. Coming from an area in Texas where we have lots of hardworking poor folks, that's who is being hurt by this administration's policies. When you shut off the jobs in the Gulf of Mexico, when you come out and say we're going to tax these American companies even more, we're going to take away their subsidies, they're called business deductions, the cost of drilling, the cost of doing business. And who will be taxed? American companies. We will be putting further tariffs on, not foreign products but American companies. We drive ourselves more and more to foreign oil, and that's a mistake. Price controls is what President Carter did. He was going to show the energy companies, and as a result we had no gas, we ran out of gas, it was a disaster. Salazar has shut down leases that were let after a 7-year process that could have produced as many as a trillion barrels of oil.

Mr. GOHMERT. You could have an immediate effect if you would encourage your party's President to change course and start creating jobs. The energy industry would create a million jobs across the country if we opened up the OCS. We've heard the testimony a million jobs if ANWR is opened. A million jobs if the North Slope is opened. What is more, we've also heard from people that know that a dollar out of four is most likely attributable to speculation. The speculators look at what we do. And we make it harder and harder to produce our own energy, the speculation keeps going up. You could turn around a dollar out of four overnight if we showed the world, we're going to use our own energy. This country has been blessed with more natural resources when you put them all together, and this administration and the former majority has done more to put them off-limits. It's time to get back to what the former Speaker said was our moral obligation. You lower energy prices by using more of our own energy, you create jobs, and you bring down the price that is killing the working poor. And that's a moral obligation.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, my first daughter was born very prematurely. They rushed her over to Shreveport to the highest level intensive care. The neonatologist encouraged me, because my wife couldn't come, to caress her, talk to her, that it meant so much, even though she couldn't see me. She grabbed my finger and held it for hours. She wanted to cling to life. For those of us who think it's wrong to kill children in utero, it is even more wrong to pry money from our hands at the point of an IRS gun so that others can use our tax dollars to pay to kill those children. Please, let's stop it.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we had a hearing yesterday in the Judiciary Committee. The Attorney General of the United States came before us, and one of the things we discussed was the fact that in 2008, toward the end of the year, there was the biggest, most important terrorist funding case that was ever tried, conviction of all five defendants on 108 counts, and now this administration has dismissed and is not going to pursue the evidence that the trial judge said was there to make a prima facie case against the coconspirators. Instead, you can go to the White House Web site and find that their deputy national security adviser is thanking the president of the Islamic Society of North America, which was one of the unindicted coconspirators, for his wonderful help in the White House and his great prayer he gave the year before. It's time to get foxes out of the henhouse. Let's hold people responsible who want to destroy our way of life.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 268, passage of H.R. 1473, I was detained. I got here right at the close of the vote. I missed voting ``no'' because I believed the vote did not live up to our promise.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we are here because the last Congress did not do its job and for the first time since 1974 didn't have a budget. So we're having to do last year's work in addition to this year's work. And in the meantime, we look around at who is actually being hurt. And there were many of us that were inquiring over the last month, all right, if there is a shutdown, is the military going to be paid? Well, we find out the military is essential, the military will be working in the event there is a shutdown. But then as recent as last week, we find out they definitely will not be paid until after a shutdown is over. They will get paid for sure, but it will be after a shutdown. But they will be working. In talking to many people on active duty, I find that things haven't changed a great deal since 30 years ago when I was in the Army. There are lots of people in our military that are having to live paycheck to paycheck. They don't get paid all that much. But they are standing between us and harm to this Nation, even its very existence. There are those who want to take this out. At the end of last week, Congressman Jack Kingston, John Carter, Steve King, Michele Bachmann, a number of people involved, we wanted to ensure that if the Democrats say we don't care--for example, gee, providing Federal tax dollars to fund abortion in the District of Columbia is more important than anything else. We wanted a vehicle to make sure our military gets paid on time so while they are out in harm's way, they don't have to worry about it. We filed a bill the end of last week, and it's H.R. 1297. I contacted Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's office and Jim Inhofe's office, and they had it filed the first of the week. Down there it's Senate bill 724. Now we are told, well, gee, there is a procedural problem, because even though in the first two paragraphs each one starts with, ``to appropriate, to appropriate,'' later in the bill, very short, three pages, it says, ``make available funding.'' That can easily be remedied by a manager's amendment to change to ``shall appropriate.'' Easily handled. A rule was passed this week that this could be brought to the floor within 24 hours. That part is waived. There is no reason that the military cannot be paid on time. That can be wiped away from their concerns. But our leadership was good enough last week to say we are taking care of it. We are going to make sure it's taken care of. The best solution is what was done yesterday. The military is fully paid through the end of the year. That's the best way to go. It makes sure there is no glitches at all. But if our Democratic friends down the Hall are going to stand in the way of having the military funded for the rest of the year, then we need to bring this bill, H.R. 1297, to the floor today and make sure our military does not have to worry: your pay, your allowances will be taken care of on time. Our military that are out in harm's way, as we heard about Marcus Luttrell and other heroes, they're taken care of. Your families back home get your paycheck. They're cared for. That's the responsible thing to do. Secretary Bob Gates said, ``As a historian, it occurred to me that the smart thing to do for a government was always to pay the guys with the guns first.'' That is a smart thing to do. Let's take care of the people that are taking care of this country's protection.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. Your comments also point to another aspect, not only your caring about America, caring about those that are fighting for us and your desire to fight for those here in Washington who are fighting for us, but it also shows a great deal about your humility, because you and I both know you have been working on this issue just every bit as long and as hard as I have, and yet you are giving Jack and me great credit and I appreciate that. But the truth is you have done every bit as much work, perhaps more, as Jack and I have and the cosponsors we have here. But, you know, things here in Washington obviously don't get done in a vacuum, and it means so much when we have people like Kristi, Rob, Nan, folks that are out here. We got over 100, I am not sure how many over 100 now, cosponsors on the bill. These are people that want to make sure that the military is not used as pawns in this game. A lot of us haven't been thrilled about the short-term CRs, but it does point out one thing, that the leadership of the Republicans in the House are committed and have paid the price of being criticized by people like me for doing short-term CRs. They are so committed to trying to do everything they can, especially Speaker Boehner. He has really gone as far as humanly possible to do all that he could to avoid a shutdown, making it clear he doesn't want that. Some folks have been critical that he needed to stand up and be ready to do so. He has made it clear he doesn't want one; he doesn't believe it's good for America. And so I know my friend from Round Rock, Texas, sitting in Georgetown as a judge for so many years, often looked at things like I do, as another former district judge. You look at evidence to bear things out. Who is at fault? The American people are going to be looking around. Who is at fault? Well, you look at what's happened, and the evidence is quite clear. You have a group here, a majority in the House that has done absolutely everything possible to try to placate the Senate. We passed lots of bills, trying to get the funding done. And why was that? Well, the evidence is clear. The Democratic majority last year refused to do what was required and pass a budget. No budget passed, no appropriation to fund things. Why? You can only speculate about that. It was an election year. Perhaps there was concern that if people really saw the total amount that they were going to be appropriating in all these areas that it might have even been worse in the election in November. The people saw through, and the majority switched here in the House. So here we are with these bills that have been filed, pushing another bill this week here in the House. In response, there has been nothing passed in the Senate. People that know the rules know that the Senators, any one of them-- and of course it would have to be a Democrat that would have any chance of getting something passed, because the Democrats under Harry Reid are in the majority, so a Democrat, any Democrat down there, could take the bill, the bills that we have done, the CRs that we have done. They could take those and do as they did in ObamaCare. You know, that was, boy, here again, it's the military. The ObamaCare bill was a bill to assist with a tax credit for first- time homebuyers who were veterans. And what did the Senate do with that bill? Since it had to originate in the House under the Constitution, they took it, and in their bill they said they are taking the first- time homebuyer bill for veterans, stripping out every word and substituting, therefore, about 2,700 or 2,800 pages of their ObamaCare bill. Well now, if they don't agree with what we have done, they could have taken any one of these CRs that we passed and said we don't like it; it's dead on arrival. They could have taken those, stripped out every word just like they did for the veterans, to count every word that helped the veterans and substituted, therefor, their disastrous bill in ObamaCare. They could have done that with their own CR, what they were going to fund, what they wanted to see happen. Not one person down there in the majority of the Senate has taken the leadership to do that. Some have said, well, why isn't the White House involved in what's going on in the Senate? Why aren't they showing some leadership down there? I heard someone say, well, that's the White House. It's a separate branch. The Vice President of the country is and has been the President of the Senate. He has not only a vested interest; he is the presiding officer of the Senate. We have heard over and over from this President that Joe Biden is going to make sure things are done right. And yet what did he do when the going got tough? Maybe he is tough because he got going to Russia, and he disappeared. When the going got tough for the President, he went to Brazil and played golf and then issued an order from down in South America sending troops into battle. And we had a former President Bush who quit playing golf. He said it just didn't feel right to know our troops were in harm's way and I would be out on some golf course. This President not only doesn't have a problem playing golf with people in harm's way, he takes time out of his golf round to send more people into Libya into harm's way. And to be assured today that, hey, we really are going to get around to turning everything over to NATO, and it won't be us--my friends, 65 percent of NATO is American military. It's not a lot of comfort to me. But the least we could do is to make sure that our military, and that includes Reserves, and so that the military knows it includes all pay, all allowances, you're not going to miss anything if the Senate will just do right by them. We have a standalone bill that could be passed in the next day or two. It is House bill 1297. It could be done. But as my friend from Round Rock has pointed out, our leadership, Speaker Boehner, has brought a CR for 1 week. He didn't want to do that. We know he didn't. But he was concerned about the military. And it funds all aspects of the military through the end of the year. Then we have this fallback bill that if the Senate is doing as they're indicating--oh, it's dead on arrival. We're not even going to pick it up and put our ideas and pass it through the Senate--then obviously the evidence is clear, Judge. It seems to me the evidence is all in, and it's very clear: They want a shutdown. They think they win politically by forcing a shutdown and then blaming the Republicans in the House. It's not only not the Republicans in the House's fault. It's also clearly them playing games with our military, with the vital function in this country, and it isn't right. I thank you for yielding. I do thank you so much. I know we've got several of our critical key sponsors here on the House floor. And I am so grateful for the leadership. We're talking freshmen. We're talking people that haven't been here all that long, and yet they have grabbed this issue and have shown such leadership. I appreciate you so much. Thank you, Judge.

Mr. GOHMERT. Since we know it would do no good for a Republican in the Senate to take a CR and bring it to the floor of the Senate, or file it, but we also know that any Democrat in the majority down there could do that and at least try to get over some Democrats, Judge Carter, what does it tell you that not a single person in the majority has bothered to usher forth and file a CR of any kind to respond or to take ours? modify it? What does it tell you?

Mr. GOHMERT. Judge, would you yield for a question?

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. We're here because the Democratic majority last year did not do their job, did not give us a budget, did not due proper appropriations, and now the Senate has had the same problem. So I applaud anybody's efforts in trying to move the ball down the road so that we can appropriate. I just wish the Senate would do their job now and take care of it. But for a bill to say provisions that pass the House are hereby enacted into law violates my conscience and the Constitution. I cannot vote for it.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. One of the things that is being said is, But what about the children? I welcome that question, because those of us who are standing so firmly in trying to cut this runaway spending are the ones who are standing for the children and the children's grandchildren because what has been done--and in truth, I remember getting beat up in '05, '06 for $160 billion in deficit spending. It was wrong. We shouldn't have been there. But now for the last 3 years, 2\1/2\, to be over a trillion dollars each year is just reprehensible. It is wrapping such a heavy weight and chains around the necks of the children--some not even born yet--that it is unthinkable that somebody would invoke for the children to keep the self-aggrandizing spending going when it is going to come out of the children and their grandchildren's pockets. We've got some that say, It's all going to work out. Don't worry about it. Look, just let the spending go. Don't rock the boat. I saw this prayer from Peter Marshall back when he was Chaplain of the Senate. And just for historical purposes, in one of his prayers in the Senate, he said, ``Our Father, give us the faith to believe that it is possible for us to live victoriously even in the midst of dangerous opportunity that we call crisis. Help us to see that there is something better than patient endurance or keeping a stiff upper lip, and that whistling in the dark is not really bravery.''

Mr. GOHMERT. I understood where my friend was going, and I had not heard about that opinion, and I'm so glad the smart gentleman had brought that to our attention because that is just incredible except that it is exactly what the Democratic proponents of ObamaCare and the President himself had said before they wanted to get to. The goal was to use this to get to a complete government-run health care, a single-payer system, where everybody is required to be under it, and so this decision speeds that process up dramatically; but it is ultimately where they said they wanted to get anyway. Now, having seen socialized medicine firsthand in the Soviet Union as an exchange student back in 1973, and having seen another form of socialized medicine for 4 years in the United States Army, I don't want to go there. I don't want the government in charge of my health care. I saw that in the Army. We have some incredible medics. We have some folks that shouldn't be practicing medicine that were working there; and, in fact, I'm hopeful that I was helpful in getting rid of some of those. But that's not where we need to be going. People deserve better. But the fact is that in the bill itself there is retribution for the working poor who can't even afford to do what the administration has dictated. So between a judge saying if you've got Social Security, you're going to be crammed into this policy, and this administration and former Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid saying that we're going to penalize you because you're working poor and can't afford the luxuries of the policy we're mandating, the working guy just doesn't have much of a chance unless we are able to turn some of those things around. And the working poor is what I often saw at Ft. Benning when people were not getting paid what they should have under President Carter; but now the military is paid better, and yet I wanted to bring up the situation that exists. There is an attempt to use the military as pawns even while they're out there fighting to protect us in foreign areas, combat theaters. The last thing those people should have to worry about is whether or not their money arrives in their account so their family can be taken care of. Yet we're hearing from military people, they understand if there's a shutdown, sure, they will get their pay eventually when the shutdown is over and maybe they will be lucky and Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate won't force a shutdown for very long. We know they want to force it because they keep saying they do. And of course we heard from Senator Schumer himself that this is a political game to them. They are going to force a shutdown and basically blame the tea party. The military are the ones who are going to get hurt there. This from the Democratic Party that says all they care about is those working to protect us; and yet when you see what they are really doing behind the scenes, it is no such thing. We have a report from CRS here that says: ``Even though uniformed personnel have been excepted from furloughs during a lapse in funding, no special provision allows the Defense Department to provide pay when appropriated funds are not available to do so. In this regard, uniformed personnel are treated no differently than excepted civilian Federal employees who are similarly expected to continue working during a shutdown but whose pay will be delayed until appropriations are enacted.'' Well, I know my friend from Indiana feels, as I do--and we've got, I don't know, around 50 other people just in a matter of an hour or so that have signed on to this bill, H.R. 1297, that says--and I will get over right to the meat of this thing--it says, During a funding gap impacting the Armed Forces, the Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in the case of the Coast Guard, out of any amounts in the general fund of the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such amounts as the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in the case of the Coast Guard, determines to be necessary to continue to provide pay and allowances without interruption to members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including Reserve components thereof who perform active service during the funding gap.'' So we hope that the majority leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, and Senator Schumer and those who have been saying privately, which got exposed--like the Bible says, What's done in the dark will be exposed, and it has been. They are out to shut down the government, try to blame the tea party. And they have expected that one of the things they will, I'm sure, be able to do is have the ``lamestream media'' that run out and try to do anything they can to support that party go try to find spouses of military in harm's way who are scared to death because now the government has been shut down and there is no check coming for the next pay period. This will address that, and we can take our military off the table as pawns and let them be about concentrating on protecting us and saving their own lives.

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my good friend for yielding. You know, we hear so often from this administration they're concerned about the little guy, but we know that Wall Street executives gave contributions four times more for the present President than they did for his Republican opponent; and so it kind of tells you where you see where the contributions come from for a particular candidate, who they really care about. We're told that they really care about the working poor; and yet the very thing we're talking about under the ObamaCare bill is almost inconceivable except that it was pushed through by this President and two Democratic majorities, that there's a provision that if you are just above the poverty line and you can't afford the health insurance that this administration dictates--as I understand, we will be including pregnancy, say you're a young single person, no plans of getting pregnant, no ability to get pregnant, other things that will not affect you at all but have been mandated by the administration-- instead of being able to buy a cheaper insurance policy you can afford, this administration will have made it so expensive that people just above the poverty line won't be able to afford it. And how the bill deals with those working poor just above the poverty line, it requires a 2 percent additional income tax if you cannot afford the insurance that they mandate.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, always an honor to come to this floor in these hallowed Halls and address the issues of the day. My colleague from across the aisle was discussing jobs. That is so important to most Americans, and there is one way we could do a great deal toward immediately putting Americans back to work, and that would be if we started utilizing more of our own energy resources, which is what this Nation has been so blessed with. When you consider all of the natural resources that are natural energy sources--coal, natural gas, oil, we do have wind, places where solar works--but all of the carbon- based energy resources that are so valuable around the world, the ones for which we keep paying trillions of dollars to other nations that could be utilized here in the United States and could be utilized to create jobs right here at home, it does not make sense to keep sending hundreds of billions and trillions of dollars to countries that don't like us. We're doing that through the purchase of energy. I've listened to all the explanations about why we've gone into Libya that have been made in the press. Those press conferences, all kinds of releases by this administration, and you still come back to trying to figure out why Libya was so much more important than Tunisia or so many of the others, Iran. I mean, the people of Iran have attempted rebellions against madman Ahmadinejad, and this administration didn't seem to lend a helping hand, and that's a nation whose leader has sworn to see that the United States, Ahmadinejad said, will soon no longer be a Nation. As Ahmadinejad had said, we'll soon be able to experience a world without the United States and Zionism. So he says he's going to eliminate the United States; we're going to eliminate Israel. That ought to cause concern. Have we lifted anything other than trying to prevent people from buying goods from Iran? Not really. Oh, yes, and those sanctions are going to work, and probably in another 15, 20 years they've got a real chance of working. The trouble is, in 15 or 20 years--and, actually, the possibility exists in a whole lot less than 5--if we continue to persist in sanctions and nothing more with Iran, they will get nuclear weapons, and then they will give us a choice: either remove the sanctions or count on a nuclear blast coming in your country. That's why we have to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. But we use them, and they will certainly threaten to use them so that they can get what they want. In fact, they may get more by threatening the use once they have them than they would to actually use them. But Ahmadinejad has made clear in a number of settings he expects the 12th Imam, the Mahdi, to be coming, and he believes he can hasten the return of the Mahdi, have a global caliphate where all of us fall on our knees supposedly or die. Well, we could prevent that, could have stopped it long before now, but we haven't. So what makes Libya so special? It's really interesting, and it's hard to put our finger on it. Libya does produce oil. China, I understand, may be the biggest purchaser of Libyan oil but not the United States. So why should we go rushing to spend hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in Libya? Europe, England are big customers of Libyan oil. So why would we be running to help Europe and England with their Libyan oil? Well, the President's made clear, it's because they asked us to. You know, we've got a number--and Secretary Clinton has also said, she's made the rounds of the news programs, the Arab States asked us to, the U.N. asked us to, Europe and England's asked us to, so why would we ever need to come to Congress. It's been made very clear, you know. The public has heard those comments. You don't have to come to Congress when the U.N. has said that's something that needs to be done. It's interesting, though, I don't recall any of the Cabinet members or the President raising their right hand and taking an oath to defend the United Nations. I was thinking their oath had to do with our Constitution and our country. And it's also been made clear that Libya was not a threat to our national security, not a threat to our vital interests; yet we're willing to put our treasure and our American lives on the line for something that's not in our vital interests. That does not make sense. But then again, as you continue to piece together the Obama doctrine--we get it, that apparently intervening, risking American lives, and spending American treasure that this administration didn't earn but they are taking away from taxpayers and then borrowing from others, that's okay if it kind of feels like it ought to be something we do, you know? If it feels like we ought to go to Libya and risk American lives and spend all that American treasure, then let's go because, after all, people asked us to do that. Why would we not go when people around the world ask us to do that? Could it possibly be that a reason for not doing it is because an oath was taken to this country--not to the U.N., not to the Chinese or the European constitutions or the European Union, but to this country? This is where the oath was taken. These are the people in America for whom and to whom the oath was made. But then we look at energy again and we look at spending treasure; and as more people are finding out, in the last couple of years this administration has said, You know what, we're shutting down drilling on the gulf coast. We're not just going to stop the one company that had around 800 safety violations while others had one or two during the same period because, see, that's British Petroleum. And British Petroleum, as we found out, was poised to come public and be the administration and the Democratic Party's one big energy company that rode in on a white horse and said, we support the cap-and-trade bill. We're going to make money like crazy for BP on the side trading in carbon. These stupid Americans. They don't get it. It's a transfer of wealth like nothing anybody has ever seen before. The American people lose. Companies like BP and General Electric, they'll all win big. But the American people lose. They wouldn't go after BP. It took so long to go after them. And when you know that BP was going to be their big energy company to embrace and endorse the cap-and-trade bill, then it makes a lot more sense as to why it took the administration so long to respond. Then of course we will recall the President sat down with the BP exec and said, Okay, let's tell the American public that you are going to put up $20 billion. They did. Well, that saved some feelings, but there was never $20 billion put up. So isn't it amazing. We don't know what all was discussed. We don't know what all quid pro quo was promised for BP coming in and offering large sums of money. Obviously, there were a lot of people on the coast that were devastated and continue to be devastated who were not compensated by any money from BP. But nonetheless, it took the heat off of BP for a while. So perhaps the administration thought that after having the moratorium and putting tens of thousands of families out of work, putting tens of thousands of families onto unemployment insurance, devastating tens of thousands of families, perhaps the administration thought that nobody would notice that the first permit that was extended after this moratorium, to hurt the Southern States--it actually hurt the whole country--but the first permit, I believe, went to Noble Energy Company. But the major investor was a company called British Petroleum. Now, was that a quid pro quo? Okay, BP, we are not going to be able to take you out into the Rose Garden, have you announce that you support the cap-and-trade bill because, you know, you are just not well thought of right now. It wouldn't work right now. But there will be pie in the sky by and by if you will just play along with us for a while. Who knows what conversation occurred there. But isn't it interesting that BP was the largest investor in the company that got the first permit after the drilling moratorium. Now, understand, there haven't just been a glut of permits come rushing forward. There are still tens of thousands of families that were made destitute by this administration because they chose to punish the entire South and even the country, rather than allowing energy jobs to go forward in the gulf coast area. So imagine the surprise of some of those destitute folks that have just been traumatized by this administration when they find out that our President has just been down in South America, telling the Brazilians that we think so much of their drilling that we're going to loan them $2 billion to drill off their coast and that, when they strike this oil off their coast, the President tells them, We're going to be your best customer. Why couldn't we be our own best customer? Why couldn't we be drilling off our own coast? Why couldn't we be drilling in ANWR? Why couldn't we be drilling in the North Slope area where there's no drilling allowed yet? We would be our own best customer. We would create millions of jobs not just in the oil industry but all kinds of jobs if the President were not wanting to punish this area. I mean, it's as if we're wanting to punish free enterprise. Actually, we've had a very cold winter where I live. Yet the EPA, under this administration, doesn't care, and they don't care that the new regulations they are coming out with would not have maybe one-billionth of 1 percent effect on the CO2 level in the atmosphere. Yet as a result of this administration and their war against jobs-- the war on jobs--you've got the EPA out there trying to put people out of business, keeping people from hiring, when the truth is, when those jobs leave here, they go to South America. They go to China, India, different places. Then they pollute a minimum of four times more than the pollution in this country from the same industry because we do a good job of policing industries. When the economy is going well, that is when you have the best chance of really cleaning the environment because when an economy is struggling--and China knows about a struggling economy, trying to employ people, keep them from getting upset and revolting. When an economy is struggling, people don't care so much about the environment. They are more interested in just feeding themselves, having a roof over their heads, and surviving. So if you want to help the environment, if that is the true purpose, then what you do is allow the economy to thrive. This President has had a war on jobs, and that continues--oh, I'm sorry. I should qualify that--a war on jobs in America. Because obviously we're helping create jobs in Brazil. We're helping the Democratic largest contributor, Mr. Soros, with his single largest investment for drilling down in South America or Brazil. So the Democrats' largest investor is going to make a tremendous amount of money because we're loaning $2 billion to pay him for his investment down there to do the drilling that we won't allow in this country. Why is it that our global President is more interested in creating jobs in Brazil than in the United States? I guess, whenever we find out that reason, it may help us understand why we expend American treasure and risk American lives in a country that is of no vital interest to this country. It is interesting. When you look at the history of Muammar Qadhafi, this is not a nice man. This is not a man that should have avoided prison and perhaps even capital punishment, depending on the charges, the evidence, and proving the charges. Yet you have to look at what will replace Qadhafi when he's gone. Now, first we hear from the administration, no, there's no al Qaeda there rebelling, and then we find out, yes, there is. They're involved. The Muslim Brotherhood is involved in the rebellion in Egypt. Now, Mubarak was a dictator. We're not big fans of dictatorship in this country. But when you have to look at the national vital interest here and you have a man who is in charge in Egypt who is not a threat to the United States and was living as best one could with the status quo next to Israel and yet there is an effort to throw Mubarak out of office and any kind of decent intel would indicate you've got the Muslim Brotherhood that in all likelihood will replace Mubarak, then why did we call for Mubarak to leave and allow himself to be replaced by a group that wants us all to bow the knee in one giant global caliphate to religion when some of us believe in our own, my case, Christian beliefs, heart and soul, which I had hoped to get through this life without having to die for? But there are people who are trying to take over Egypt who we've given great encouragement to. There are people in Libya that are wanting to take over that country and its powerful military who would like us to either convert from Christianity or to lose our heads. Why would we be helping them? That's a difficult question. So if it weren't so serious, it would be an amusing game to try to figure out what this administration is attempting to do. What is the Obama doctrine? When it comes to the budget, the President gave a wonderful speech. He read it impeccably well, about how we have got to cut spending. He gave that speech right before he released his budget. And that budget was projecting around a $3.75 trillion expenditure when we were only going to take in around $2.1 trillion. So he gave a speech about cutting spending, and he's been doing that the last 2 years, and it turns out the first year we had a $1 trillion deficit. The next year we had more than that. And this year the President's proposed a budget and spending that will be a $1.65 trillion deficit. That makes no sense. Why would you give speeches saying you're going to cut spending, and yet every year it goes up and up dramatically? That doesn't make sense. Yet we know the results of the election in November indicated very clearly the American people want the spending cut. We can't continue to live in a country that is running up trillion dollar deficits. People will quit buying our bonds. We're dangerously close to having our bonds downgraded, our rating lowered, and if that happens, interest rates go up. And if the interest rates go up like that, that will give fodder to those who are demanding that something besides the dollar be used to buy oil. I mean, it could put this country in a terrible financial spiral downward from which it might be impossible to pull out. I was in a plane once when I was told the baffles were taken out. It was aerobatically qualified, and I was being allowed to sit in the copilot's seat. It was a crop dusting plane, and it was kind of fun flying the plane with the joystick. I said through the radio system in the plane to the pilot, This thing is aerobatic qualified, isn't it? You know, we could do loops and go in and out of spins. And he said, It would be, but we removed the baffles from inside the wings where the gasoline for the fuel is stored; so if we go into a spin, then the fuel all runs to one end of one wing and we go into a spin we can't get out of, and we'll crash and both of us die. Well, that's kind of where we're heading with this thing. If we don't get the spending under control, one thing leads to another and we're in big trouble. And it's got to stop. At the same time, we're supposed to be helping Americans with better health care. If you liked your insurance, you were going to keep it. Yet we found out that absolutely was not true. If you liked your doctor, you can keep him. We found out that absolutely was not true. It's a bad bill. Then when you find out that the prior Congress not only passed that 2,800-page bill with all kinds of things in it, including a new President's commissioned officer corps and noncommissioned officer corps, do we really need that, I wondered, when I had read that in the bill. But then when you find out we're being sent to Libya and going to use our treasure and our American lives there, maybe there's intention to so deplete the military that we're going to need that Presidential reserve officers commissioned corps and noncommissioned corps that the President can call up on a moment's notice involuntarily, according to the ObamaCare bill. But the trouble is there's already been $105 billion appropriated. It's like writing postdated checks that are due to be cashed each year into the future. Well, you're really not supposed to do that. That's not appropriate. This isn't like Social Security where it is controlled by formulas and it's in automatic motion. This was just an appropriation. It's not mandatory. It could be repealed; but, to do so, it actually has to be rescinded. My friend Steve King has got a bill that would prohibit any money that's currently been appropriated through the present from being utilized for the purposes; in other words, it ties the hands of the administration from using any of the money already appropriated for the purposes of implementing this ObamaCare program. Denny Rehberg has an amendment that was voted in that also has some effect in that regard. Jack Kingston is an appropriator and has come up with an idea that a couple of us have joined forces with him, and I think we've got around 22 cosponsors, and that's growing constantly. But it is an approach that I would hope would attract Democrats in both the Senate and the House because it is an important principle. And I would certainly hope that it would attract Democrats in the House because it, in effect, says we're not going to do postdated checks for something besides Social Security, those type of things that were controlled by formulas. We're going to cancel the postdated checks. Now, it should be attractive to my friends in the minority now because, someday, they may be back in the majority. If and when that happens, they surely would not want the Republican majority to have passed a decade worth of spending bills, not for Social Security, not for mandatory spending, but a decade worth of spending with postdated checks, say you can't ever stop this. So the principle that the Kingston bill would stand on is that these type of things must be taken up annually. So we're going to cancel all the postdated checks that were going to be cashed in the future. And if the Democratic Representatives get back in the majority, some will say it's not a good idea, because if they get back in the majority, they can just appropriate that money. Well, of course they can. They can pass a whole different health care bill if they get back in the majority. That's the way it works. When you are in the majority, you can pass things. So it would not be unfair to just say we are canceling all those postdated checks, we are canceling $105 billion worth of spending; and, if you get back in the majority, it is up to you what you appropriate. But as long as we are in the majority, we are not spending that money. That allows us to keep our promise. It allows people on both sides of the aisle to say we are standing on principle and on procedure that the majority should rule in the legislature, and not a minority that years ago was a majority. That's a better way to do it. So there have been those questions. Some have said, why make it so complicated? In the new bill that we have proposed today and filed today, it would effectively end the $105.5 billion in the funding that was in Obamacare by turning them into an authorization without the appropriation. That means not this or any future administration would be able to spend the money without first coming to Congress and getting a majority here in both the House and the Senate to approve it. Now, there are those that say, well, you know, there are a few good things in that Obamacare bill. Well, my gosh, when you have a 2,800- page bill, there surely ought to be something in there that is decent. And there were a few good things. But why not make those a 25-page bill instead of a 2,800 page bill? Why create all these hundreds of new agencies, the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations, all those things that come from this massive government overload? Why not just do away with all of those things? That is what we should do, and then start, as Senator Obama had said we should do when he said repeatedly we ought to have negotiations on a health care bill. We ought to have hearings, we ought to have negotiations that are public. Have them on C-SPAN if C-SPAN will carry it. Let everyone see who is in it for themselves and who is in it for the American people. I think the American people, even without seeing the negotiations on Obamacare, got the message who was for the American people, and that is why the House changed hands. So we hope that in the next few days there will be more and more people get on board, because this is an important principle: A minority, even though they once were a majority, should not be able to bind future Congresses on things that are not mandatory through formulas like Social Security. Now, with regard to Libya, there were some interesting quotes from the President's speech. He had pointed out that Qadhafi had denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people. This had been going on for years. It certainly had been going on all the time that President Obama has been in office. It was going on when he was a Senator, and he had never called on these kind of things before. But he goes on. Just two paragraphs down, he says, ``Joining with other Nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Qadhafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes.'' Now, I'm familiar with holding people accountable for their crimes. As a former judge and as a former prosecutor, I have done that, held people accountable for their crimes. I don't see what this administration has done to make Qadhafi accountable for his crimes. In fact, there was discussion in the news today that this administration is floating the idea of some type of amnesty if Qadhafi will just leave. So that statement in his speech may be like the one, if you like your health insurance, you will be able to keep it. It sounds good, but it has no basis in fact. The President said, ``Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air.'' My understanding is that has happened in Burma, Pakistan, possibly in Syria. There are a lot of other countries it has happened in where we haven't gone against the administration in that country. So that was a little puzzling. The President said, ``So 9 days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership in Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973.'' But the fact is, we have been told repeatedly that this administration had the support of the U.N., to whom the President did not take an oath to defend and did not have the consent of the governed in this country-- not the governed and not the governed's legally elected representatives. Now, the President said in his speech, ``We hit Qadhafi's troops.'' Well, I would think, with the President's broad education, he would understand if an infidel, or an infidel country like we are considered, kills Muslims, then we are worthy of death under what they consider the law. So if the President is right and we haven't just shot rockets and taken out certain type of military hardware, we have actually killed Muslims in Libya, then we have not made ourselves a bunch of friends. In fact, that may be one of the reasons we see the President's image being stomped on and burned and destroyed in effigy in Libya and foreign countries. The President said, ``I said that America's role would be limited. We would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners.'' In other words, we are turning over command, but our U.S. military is doing the lion's share of the fighting. And so we keep hearing that in the news. This administration is turning over the lion's share of the effort when actually they are turning over the leadership. My office made an official request yesterday of the administration to know what percentage of the military of NATO is U.S. military, and we were given the figure 65 percent. So it doesn't come as a great comfort to many of us that we are turning over this great responsibility that we have led as helpers in Libya to NATO when we are 65 percent of NATO. That is one of those things that sounds good. Kind of like, if you like your insurance, you can keep it. But it really doesn't have much basis in fact for comfort. The President said in his speech, ``NATO has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone.'' Yet, it is confusing, because those speaking for the administration here in Washington seem to indicate that we have not yet turned over command. He says, ``Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and our partners.'' I guess that means NATO, which we are 65 percent of. I know I look stupid sometimes, but, I mean, I can get that. If we are turning it over to a group that is 65 percent us, we really haven't turned it over. Unless we want to say, ``Yeah, but we are not leading anymore. We are putting our military under the command of foreigners who have never taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of this country.'' How do you feel good about that? Well, it is hard for some of us to feel good about it. The President says Libya will remain dangerous. The question is, dangerous to whom? We saw that after the invasion of Iraq, that Qadhafi threw up his hands and said, Hey, we will give up nukes, we will give up pursuing anything. We don't want you to invade our country, so we want to work with you. We saw a similar attitude after President Reagan dropped a bomb down his chimney. So we know that, as long as Qadhafi knows we have a strong President who will go after him if he does anything to us, then we have nothing to fear. But we also know from his history that if he is not controlled, if we do not have a strong President who is willing to go after and punish those who are attempting to destroy us, then maybe he is dangerous. Maybe that is what the President was talking about in his speech. Anyway, the President said we also have the ability to stop Qadhafi's forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground. But, here again, it didn't have the support of the American people; it didn't have the support of Congress. It brings back to mind, when George W. Bush was President, he enjoyed playing golf. He still does apparently. I never played with him, but I understand he is a good athlete. But once troops were committed to harm's way, President George W. Bush said it didn't feel right for him to be out on a golf course while troops he committed to harm's way were in danger, so he gave up playing golf for the rest of his administration. Yet the current administration has a President at the top who not only doesn't feel any qualms about playing golf while we have troops committed that he committed to harm's way, he will also play golf and pause long enough to commit more troops to harm's way. The President said the democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship. That is, unfortunately, what the majority of Americans are concerned about happening here in America if we get away from the legislative process and forcing bills through that are not supported by the American public and forcing American commitments in places that America does not support and spending beyond anything a drunken sailor would have ever spent. We are afraid of what is happening in this country. We are afraid of what is happening to our economy. The President said it is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. Well, then we find out the Libyan opposition is composed of, at least numerous members are part of al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood; and apparently al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood representatives had not asked us to intervene militarily in Egypt or Tunisia or Syria. Maybe that is the difference, I don't know. But it is disconcerting. The fact is, when you look at the oath we took, our allegiance is to this country. It is not to the United Nations; it is not to other countries. It is to this Nation. So a serious look at Libya and the problems there might deserve some intervention. But first we have to ask the question, is whoever will replace Qadhafi more of a danger to this country than Qadhafi? If the answer is possibly yes, then we should not be sending American treasure and American lives to help intervene on behalf of people who would like to see this Nation destroyed. That ought to be pretty commonsense. One other factor is Israel. We have a true friend in Israel in the Middle East. But, unfortunately, our friends have seen the way we have treated our best friend in the Middle East, Israel. We vote against them at times, like we did last May. We snub them in public ways people hear about. Israel's enemies hear about how we snubbed Israel. And Israel's enemies know when there is a crack and especially, whether it is there or not, a perceived distance between Israel and their greatest ally that used to be us. Then it is time to move. That is when the flotilla came last May, is after we voted against Israel. That is when a lot of these actions began taking place. People who want to see Israel gone seem to be in the middle of revolting in a number of countries around the Middle East and Africa. We have got to come back to what is best for the United States, and it should be very clear. With the common interests and beliefs that the people of Israel have in the value of life and the value of equality of people and the equality of women, those ought to be our friends. Those ought to be people who, when under attack, tell us we are next. In this case, it is not a hard deduction to get to, because the people have said we want to eliminate Israel, the little Satan, and then the United States, the big Satan. So Israel is a great investment as a defense partner, because if they go, if they go down, we are certainly next, and also I happen to believe that, in blessing Israel, we can be blessed. Before I conclude my time here tonight, it is so important to take a look historically at things that have been said in the past history of this Nation, that have been said in this building in official settings, that have been said by those who have led the way, carried a torch to light our way down the years. One such man was the Chaplain of the Senate, Peter Marshall. I was given this book in the last couple of weeks, two or three weeks, ``Sermons and Prayers of Peter Marshall,'' while he was Chaplain of the United States Senate. I would just like to read a prayer that Peter Marshall gave in the Senate for the historical value and insight of this brilliant man, a dedicated Christian. He said: Our father, we are beginning to understand at last that the things that are wrong with our world are the sum total of all the things that are wrong with us as individuals. Thou has made us after Thine image, and our hearts can find no rest until they rest in Thee. We are too Christian, really, to enjoy sinning and too fond of sinning to really enjoy Christianity. Most of us know perfectly well what we ought to do. Our trouble is that we do not want to do it. Thy help is our only help. Make us want to do what is right, and give us the ability to do it. In the name of Christ, our Lord. Amen. A prayer by Peter Marshall.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate the gentleman's insights. But, unfortunately, based on our modern history in this country, the indications are if you were being tortured and held in prison, it doesn't appear that this government would do anything different than what we've been doing. And the point that you make is so important. We've heard it from those who suffer and have suffered in gulags, who have been later released, and when we hear whether it was those held in Poland or in the Russian gulags or Chinese or Cuban, for example, when Ronald Reagan said this is an evil empire, what we've heard in the more recent years is that gave us hope. Somebody was willing to stand up and call it what it was. And at the time, that kept them going. And our colleague here in the House, Sam Johnson, when he was a POW for 7 years in North Vietnam, being tortured daily, one of the most difficult things to endure was the information that our country did not care. Now, it's heartbreaking to think about our friends who were suffering in horrible prison conditions, and we gave--not only gave the impression we didn't care, we had people running around blaming those very people for their own troubles when all they were trying to do was keep horrible, repressive regimes from taking over and killing millions, as they did when we left. And so one of the great attributes of Reagan was he called things like he saw them, and it gave hope to the world. And I don't know if my friend from New Jersey has heard me mention this, but last year, around Easter, I was in West Africa and met with some of the West Africans who were Christians. And the oldest said he wanted to make sure that I knew that they were so excited when we elected an African American president, that that was thrilling to them, until they began to see that his policies were weakening America. And this elderly, wonderful, wise gentleman, with others younger, all in agreement, said, You have got to make sure people in Washington understand. If you keep becoming weaker, we lose hope in this life. We know where our hope is in the next life. But as far as our hope for having a peaceful life in this world, it will be gone when you become too weak. Please tell your friends in Washington, do not let America grow any weaker. And here we overspend. We give monies to countries who hate us, who hate the things we stand for, who hate the fact that we believe in freedom, because they believe freedom leads to debauchery, and so they believe you should have some dictator, caliphate, somebody that tells you everything you can do and what you can't do because freedom, they believe, corrupts; whereas, we know in our hearts, it's in our Constitution, it's in our Declaration of Independence, God gave us freedom to make choices. And it is one of the greatest things that America has done that I think has helped cause this Nation to be blessed. We have stood for those freedoms. Not just for America. There is no country in the history of the world that has ever given treasure and life of that country's people to get freedom for other countries and other people of whom we ask nothing in return. That is unheard of in the history of the world, and yet this Nation has done it over and over. We have done it to help protect Muslims and give them freedom of choice, Christians, Buddhists. It did not matter. It was all about human rights, human dignity, and human freedom. And we see that slipping away every time we prop up some brutal dictator, every time we look the other way and pat cruel, evil people on the back and say, ``Oh, we're so proud of you; we're glad to be your friend,'' when those like who have been repressed by Cuba say, ``Please, do not give more credibility to the oppressors.'' I yield to my friend for any final thoughts.

Mr. GOHMERT. I certainly thank my friend from New Jersey. Chris Smith, you are a leader. You are a man of conviction who cares deeply about those who have suffered for no good reason and standing for freedom. You are a true patriot, and it's an honor to serve with you as a friend here. I don't know if you were aware; but in the discussion about all the foreign aid to countries who do not have the same abiding love and desire for freedom for all people and the same value of human life, I didn't know if my friend was aware of the fact that in 2008--I don't have the 2009 and 2010 numbers in front of me--but for 2008, this country, the United States, provided $45,330,000 in aid to Cuba. And you can't help but wonder over the years, like with Dr. Biscet, how much American money might have ever been used to help restrain heroes of this whole Earth that should have been praised and appreciated. Yet we're giving money to brutal dictators who treat the best that humanity has to offer in this manner. Does the gentleman has some thoughts?

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. We're going to talk some about the CR. We're going to talk about government spending and what we ought to be doing.