Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Out of the same deference and respect for this document that we revere, I think it is important that we use the language of the Constitution itself. They are not deletions; they are amendments. And, in that respect, we go by the ``amended'' document, not by the ``deleted'' document. There are too many that have fought and died for those amendments to call them deletions.

Mr. GOHMERT. Amendment Four: ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.''

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, this bill that's just passed has been indicative of how things have gone here in this last 2 years. People didn't have a chance to read the bill. People didn't have a chance to make amendments to the bill. There is no question the heroes from 9/11 deserved our full attention. They deserved to have proper moneys raised in proper ways in order to fund their proper treatment. That should have been done, but it wasn't. No, we come rushing in here at the last minute, and in fact, there were 176 Democrats that voted. It took 42 Republicans voting to give a quorum to get enough people so the vote would count. We had to wait over an hour for people to fly in from different places. Is that any way to run a government? Is that any way to handle the business regarding heroes? And by the way, we're told, well, this will be paid for. One of the ways we're going to get a bunch of money to pay for that is our troops are in the Middle East, and we have to buy things from vendors over there, and we're going to slap a 2 percent tax on everything they sell to us. Our servicemembers will pay for it. This is no way to run a government.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, down the hall we have the Senate as they have been taking up the START Treaty to help limit our defense of ourselves with a country that is not the country we're most concerned about. We seem to keep ignoring the fact that Iran continues to move forward developing nuclear weapons, and once they have them, then that is the game changer. Of course, we know that even in this hemisphere that there's the potential for rockets that could reach the United States. It's nothing to fear if we act appropriately and don't stick our head in the sand, as the START Treaty apparently attempts to do. For example, we've got people in the Senate that do not understand that the President has the power to negotiate treaties. The Senate's role is in advising and consenting, but they don't have the power to amend the treaty. That has to be done between the other country and our President. So they can make suggestions, but that language is not binding unless the other country agrees to it. So all this frivolous stuff, all this discussion, it is meaningless unless Russia were to adopt it. And when you look at the preamble to this START Treaty, despite what the President says and despite what people in the Senate are saying about it not affecting missile defense, the preamble says: Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the parties. Now, maybe from the legal training and the judicial training it helps to read and understand that better, but the Russians make pretty clear they intend for this treaty to restrict a defense system. How do people down the hall not get that? It seems pretty clear. We have an obligation to support and defend this Constitution. We took an oath to do that. We have never ratified a treaty in a lame duck session. Yet that is exactly what is being attempted down the hall right now. People who have been voted out of office because the majority in their States did not want them representing them anymore are down there cutting a deal with the Russians. The election should have consequences, and people should have the decency to note that the majority of the people in their States have spoken, to go home and to not set a precedent of being the first lame duck session that people didn't want consenting to treaties providing consent to the treaty. It is so inappropriate what is going on down there, and then they stand there and tell us, Oh, no. This will have nothing to do with our missile defense shield. We had a President back in the 1980s who, despite all the jokes, despite all the insults hurled at him, insisted that the thing that was maddest of all was the concept of mutually assured destruction, that insane was the idea of two countries saying, We'll both develop so much in the way of nuclear offensive capability that one won't attack the other because they will know the other will attack them, and they will both be wiped out. So along came President Reagan, and he would not leave it alone. We are going to defend ourselves. We took an oath to do as much, and if Russian, Iranian, Venezuelan, Cuban missiles--any kind of missiles-- pose a threat to the United States, we have an obligation to defend ourselves. But not according to this President. According to this President, we are basically going to unilaterally mutually disarm, which is what happened with the Polish missile defense site. I understand it has now been revealed that the Russians had hopes, according to their early documentation, that eventually in the final document they would get the United States to agree to abandon their plans to put a missile defense shield in Poland. However, they didn't realize that they were negotiating with a new President of the United States, who promised hope and change and that the hope and change that he was bringing was a change unlike any negotiation in our past. We were going to unilaterally lay down our best leverage, not ask for anything in return and think we'd somehow be better off. Well, that's not the way negotiations work in the world among individuals. Especially for those of us who are Christian, you treat individuals with respect. You follow the admonitions and the teachings of Jesus. Yet, as the national leader, we have a different obligation-- not to go into people's bank accounts, into their homes, to take their money against their will, and give it to our favorite charities. We were told they were supposed to do it with their own money. We were not to abuse the process of this body to go legalize stealing people's money to give to our favorite charities. Let the people do that. It is one of the things that made us great. The charitable, big-hearted people in America have helped make America great. But as people who are elected to come to Washington help lead this country, we have a different obligation. We are supposed to defend this Nation. We are supposed to provide for the common defense so that people who live in America can have a Merry Christmas, can have a Happy Hanukkah, can have the enjoyment and the freedom of religion. Operating under a Judeo-Christian system, as this was formed, all people could worship as they chose, and people could be defended as they did so; but to do that, you cannot unilaterally lay down the arms of this Nation. We--I say ``we'' cumulatively. This President just gave away, early on last year, our best card. That's not really looking out for the American people. It's looking out for the Iranians; it's looking out for the Russians; it's looking out for the North Koreans, the Venezuelans, the Cubans, and those who might at some point like to see us gone and who have said as much, but it's not looking out for America. Now, this administration has never been a fan of missile defense just as many Democrats were not of the plan President Reagan proposed; but because the Russians--the Soviets at that time--couldn't keep up and were already spending too much money, the Soviet Union fell. Clearly, this treaty links offensive reductions with missile defense. So these guys down the hall may think they're doing a wonderful thing for America, but they're not. They may think, Gee, the President has said this about the treaty, so maybe it's true. My friend Andy McCarthy, Andrew C. McCarthy, had a posting today, on December 21, with National Review Online, and it bears particularly on this point, so I will read from Andy McCarthy's article because it is so well written. These are Andrew McCarthy's words. ``Patting himself and his fellow Senate Republicans on the back for selling out on President Obama's new START Treaty, Bob Corker absurdly claims that all is well because, despite treaty terms that patently disserve our national security, Senators have held debates, and because he and Senator Richard Lugar have drafted a swell `resolution of ratification' that purportedly addresses New START's serial flaws. Meantime, an unidentified John McCain admirer tells Rich the crafty `ol Maverick deserves kudos for pressuring Obama into writing a letter talking up missile defense.'' Mr. McCarthy goes on. ``Whoopee! Don't you feel better about the GOP now? This is the most craven sort of nonsense.'' Mr. McCarthy goes on. He writes, ``These Senators are trying to rationalize their inexcusable approval of a bad treaty they lack the backbone to vote down. Holding debates? It's commonplace to mock the U.N. General Assembly as a `debating society' because the term connotes how inconsequential its exertions are. ``As for the vaunted resolution of ratification, I defer to John Bolton and John Yoo. Writing in The New York Times last month, they explained that the Obama administration hoped to sell its `dangerous' bargain by diverting attention from the treaty, itself. Attention would instead be focused on the ratification resolution, which they predicted would be loaded with `a package of paper promises'--variously called `conditions,' `understandings' and `declarations'--that would purport to address concerns about missile defense, the condition of our nuclear arsenal, treaty limitations on conventional weapons, et cetera. Ambassador Bolton and Professor Yoo continued.'' They said, ``Senators cannot take these warranties seriously--they are not a part of the text of the treaty, itself.'' As Eugene Roskow, a former Under Secretary of State, put it, such reservations and understandings ``have the same legal effect as a letter from my mother.'' They are mere policy statements that attempt to influence future treaty interpretation. They do not have the force of law; they do not bind the President or future Congresses. The Constitution's supremacy clause makes the treaty's text the ``law of the land.' '' ``Instead, Bolton and Yoo asserted, `To prevent New START from gravely impairing America's nuclear capacity, the Senate must ignore the resolution of ratification and demand changes to the treaty itself.' This is exactly the duty from which Senate Republicans are abdicating. The ratification resolution is nothing. The Presidential letter Senator McCain is said to have extracted is less than nothing: it lacks even the patina of a legislative act and is about as enforceable as a Presidential commitment to close Gitmo or televise the government's health care deliberations on C-SPAN. ``The administration is wrong on national security policy and politically weakened by the midterm thrashing. The treaty is awful, which is why there are so many things to address in resolutions and letters. If you can't get Republican Senators to do the right thing under these conditions, then when? ``One more related point.'' Mr. McCarthy says, ``Based on my argument in yesterday's column that the Senate may not unilaterally rewrite treaties or enact amendments that alter treaty terms, a friend suggests there is daylight between my position and that of Bolton and Yoo. There is none. Yes, Bolton and Yoo recount Senate action that has resulted in treaties being altered, but here's what they say: `` `When it approved the Jay Treaty in the 1790s, which resolved outstanding differences with Britain, the Senate consented only on condition that President George Washington delete a specific provision on trade. Washington and Britain agreed to the amendment, and the treaty entered into force. In 1978, the Senate demanded changes to the text of the Panama Canal treaty as the price of its consent.' '' McCarthy goes on and says, ``This is no different from what I am saying. The Senate in these cases did not claim the power to change treaty terms or enact resolutions that pretended to fix deep problems without altering treaty terms. To the contrary, Senators told Presidents Washington and Carter that there would be no consent unless they went back to the countries in question and got the problematic terms changed. ``The Senate can pass amendments that amplify American understandings about a treaty; the Senate cannot unilaterally alter the core understandings in an agreement--that latter would render it no longer an agreement, and hence not a treaty. Thus, did Messrs. Bolton and Yoo conclude: `While the Constitution gives the President the prime role in the treaty process, the Senate has the final say. If 34 Senators reject a treaty, no President can override them.' ``Voting to reject is the Senate's duty when confronted with a treaty that disserves the national interests. It is the current Senate's dereliction on New START--a fact no resolution or Presidential letter can paper over.'' It does no good to pass resolutions saying we think it means this or that when the words clearly enunciate the fact that missile defense is tied and part of this. It is affected. If the Senate were to come back and say, all right, as they did in the 1790s, we will only consent if the President and Great Britain change these terms--in this case, if the President and Russia agree to change these terms--then we give our consent, have a condition precedent. But that's not what's going on here. We're writing letters. We are putting resolutions, this is what we think. That doesn't make any difference at all. People need to understand the role that they play in this government under our Constitution because, otherwise, they're doing a great deal of damage. Now, it's just staggering. We have no business entering a treaty when we're still just leaving Iran hanging out there, trying to get the centrifuges going, developing nuclear weapons, cutting deals with other countries who also hate us. And we in America, what are we doing? We're paying billions of dollars to countries that would like to see us fall. We're supporting a U.N. that thinks it's fine to treat women and children like property and allows the worst kinds of abuses to go on and, not only that, puts countries who have massive civil rights abuses in charge of their civil rights, the human rights. It's just incredible what's going on. So I will continue in the next Congress to push my U.N. voting accountability bill. We mean no ill will to countries that hate our guts, but we don't have to pay them to hate us. So it just says any country that votes against our position in the U.N. more than half the time in 1 year will not get a dime of financial assistance of any kind from us the next year. Those are the kinds of things you do when you're representing a country and your oath and your obligation require that you protect that country, not lay down your arms, not lay down your defenses and think that the wonderful good will of others will see how wonderful you are in unilaterally dropping your weapons. You don't do that. There are consequences. Even going back to ancient Israel--and I realize there are people like Helen Thomas who don't realize there was an ancient Israel, but there was. And in fact, hundreds of years before there was Mohamed, there was an ancient Israel. But if you go to the days of Hezekiah, when the Babylonian leaders came over, and of course, we had the account in the Old Testament of Isaiah coming to Hezekiah. He knew what he had done. He said, What did you do? Oh, these wonderful leaders-- this is, of course, Texas paraphrase--these wonderful leaders from Babylon came over. So we showed them all our treasure, and we showed them all of our defenses. In essence, Isaiah pointed out, you fool. Because you've done this, you will lose your country. You don't show your enemies your defenses without a severe cost. In the case of Israel, it cost them everything. You don't do that. Individually, you can love and care and nurture. As a national part of a government, we have an oath and obligation to the people that live here to provide for the common defense, and that means you don't give away the defenses. You don't lay down your arms. You do what you can to protect America. In fact, I pointed out before, but I heard friends say today that, you know, people who consider themselves Christian, especially this time of year, should be in favor of all kinds of bills of Federal money being given to wonderful charitable causes. Well, individually, that's correct. But as a Nation, we get a good indication from the story of Zachias, because after Zachias met Jesus, he was so overwhelmed with guilt for how he had abused his taxing authority, that he gave back the money, in fact, gave a four to one rebate to those from whom he took too much money. Now that would be an interesting thing to see. And I had advocated for a payroll tax holiday 2 years ago. According to Moody's, it would have increased the 1-year GDP more than any other proposal, including our official Republican proposal. I'm not for it now. We've squandered way too much money. And we're running up debt like nobody would have ever dreamed, $3 trillion in 2 years? My word, my first year in 2005, I was hearing people across the aisle beating up on us because we had at one point $160 billion deficit, and that was outrageous. And my Democratic friends were right, we shouldn't have been running $100 billion, $200 billion deficit. Who would have ever dreamed that 5 short years later, they would have run up a $3 trillion deficit in 2 years, 10 times the deficit they were complaining about just 5 short years ago. Well, those are some things that are great cause for concern. Did Republicans not learn anything from the election? Did people think that once the election was behind us, it was business as usual? Do Democratic and Republican Senators who are up for election in 2 years think that people across America are not watching? They're watching more today than they've ever watched in this Nation's history. They're paying attention. Who's doing what? And for those who are found to have had one big last zesty giveaway program after another, there will be a price to pay. And for those who rushed in and cut a deal with the Russians that the Russians didn't agree with; therefore, it is not binding. The only thing that's binding is what they consent to that the President has already agreed with Russia on, that will be the treaty, and it limits our missile defense. And it will be no consolation to anyone someday that--whoops, incoming--and we agree not to develop our missile defense with the Russians. Sorry, these missiles aren't coming from Russia, but the Russians got us to agree not to develop missile defense; therefore, we have no defense to what these enemies of America are sending. That's irresponsible. We should not be doing that. And I had hoped to end on a more positive note tonight. Madam Speaker, if I could inquire how much time I have left.

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the Speaker. I would like to finish by going through some of the Christmas proclamations by U.S. Presidents. I touched on some of these last week but was wanting to read some different messages this week because I think they're very helpful to Americans who believe, unfortunately, as the President does, that we have never been a Christian Nation. I won't debate whether we are or not now because we may very well not be now. But fortunately, this country was established under Christian notions that allowed people the freedom to worship as they choose. Because heaven help us if we had a Constitution based on sharia law, then obviously there wouldn't be a Don't Ask, Don't Tell because that's a capital offense, to commit a homosexual offense under sharia law. So no need for Don't Ask, Don't Tell. No need for appeal under sharia law. Apparently it is a capital offense if you commit a homosexual act. But also under sharia law, there's no room for Christians to worship any way they choose. The only way you can have all religions worship as they choose is to have a country based on Christian tenets. And that's what we started with. And we seem to be trying to get away from that, and it seems to be eroding people's freedoms of religion, particularly Christians. So how ironic that we seem to be coming full circle, 360 degrees, so that we can eliminate the freedom to worship publicly in the public square, which are the very Christian tenets that allowed us to have and become the greatest country on Earth in Earth's history. So these are words from Franklin Roosevelt in 1933. This was his first year as President. Franklin D. Roosevelt, December 24, Christmas Eve 1933, provided us these words. Roosevelt said, ``This year marks a greater national understanding of the significance in our modern lives of the teaching of Him whose birth we celebrate. To more and more of us, the words, `Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,' have taken on a meaning that is showing itself and proving itself in our purposes and daily lives. May the practice of that high ideal grow in us all in the year to come.'' Roosevelt finished by saying, ``I give you and send you one and all, old and young, a merry Christmas and a truly happy new year. And so for now and for always, God bless us, everyone.'' Moving to 1947, another one of the Christmas messages I did not mention last week. This is Harry Truman, December 24, 1947. And I won't read the entire message. But these are Harry Truman's words. He said, ``There can be little happiness for those who will keep another Christmas in poverty and exile, separation from their loved ones. As we prepare to celebrate our Christmas this year in a land of plenty, we would be heartless indeed if we were indifferent to the plight of less fortunate peoples overseas. We must not forget that our revolutionary fathers also knew a Christmas of suffering and desolation. Washington wrote from Valley Forge 2 days before Christmas in 1777, `We have this day no less than 2,873 men in camp unfit for duty because they are barefooted and otherwise naked.''' Truman goes on, ``We can be thankful that our people have risen today, as did our forefathers in Washington's time, to our obligation and our opportunity. At this point in the world's history, the words of St. Paul have greater significance than ever before. He said, `And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three. But the greatest of these three is charity.''' Truman said, ``We believe this. We accept it as a basic principle of our lives. The great heart of the American people has been moved to compassion by the needs of those in other lands who are cold and hungry. We have supplied a part of their needs, and we shall do more. In this, we are maintaining the American tradition. In extending aid to our less fortunate brothers, we are developing in their hearts the return of hope. Because of our forts, the people of other lands see the advent of a new day in which they can lead lives free from the harrowing fear of starvation and want. With a return of hope to these peoples will come renewed faith, faith in the dignity of the individual and the brotherhood of man. The world grows old, but the spirit of Christmas is ever young. Happily for all mankind, the spirit of Christmas survives travail and suffering because it fills us with hope of better things to come. Let us then put our trust in the unerring star which guided the wise men to the manger of Bethlehem. Let us hearken again to the angel choir, saying, `Glory to God in the highest, and on Earth, peace, goodwill toward men.' With hope for the future and with faith in God, I wish all my countrymen a very merry Christmas.'' Christmas Eve, 1949, President Harry Truman gave us these words: the first Christmas had its beginning in the coming of a little child. It remains a child's day, a day of childhood love and of childhood memories. That feeling of love has clung to this day down all the centuries from the first Christmas. There is clustered around Christmas Day the feeling of warmth, of kindness, of innocence, of love, the love of little children, the love for them, the love that was in the heart of the little child whose birthday it is. Through that child love there came to all mankind the love of a divine father and a blessed mother so that the love of the holy family could be shared by the whole human family. These are some of the thoughts that came to mind as I gave the signal to light our national Christmas tree in the south grounds of the White House. President Truman goes on and says, sitting here in my own home, so like other homes all over America, I've been thinking about some families in other once-happy lands. We must not forget that there are thousands and thousands of families homeless, hopeless, destitute, and torn with the despair on this Christmas Eve. For them, as for the holy family, on the first Christmas, there's no room in the inn. We shall not solve a moral question by dodging it. We can scarcely hope to have a full Christmas if we turn a deaf ear to the suffering of even the least of Christ's little ones. Since returning home, I've been reading again in our family Bible some of the passages which foretold this night. It was that grand old seer, Isaiah, who prophesied in the Old Testament the sublime event which found fulfillment almost 2,000 years ago. Just as Isaiah foresaw the coming of Christ, so another battler for the Lord, St. Paul, summed up the law and the prophets in a glorification of love which he exalts even above both faith and hope. Truman says, we miss the spirit of Christmas if we consider the incarnation as an indistinct and doubtful, far-off event unrelated to our present problems. We miss the purport of Christ's birth if we do not accept it as a living link which joins us together in spirit as children of the ever-living and true God. In love alone, the love of God and the love of man, will be found the solution of all the ills which afflict the world today. Slowly, sometimes painfully, but always with increasing purpose, emerges the great message of Christianity. Only with wisdom comes joy, and with greatness comes love. In the spirit of the Christ child, as little children with joy in our hearts and peace in our souls, let us as a Nation, dedicate ourselves anew to the love of our fellow men. In such a dedication, we shall find the message of the child of Bethlehem the real meaning of Christmas. That's Harry Truman. And I'll skip forward several years. Let me read this from 1976, from Gerald Ford: the message of Christmas has not changed over the course of 20 centuries. Peace on Earth, goodwill towards men, that message is as inspiring today as it was when it was first proclaimed to the shepherds near Bethlehem. It was first proclaimed, as we all know, then. In 1976 America has been blessed with peace and significant restoration of domestic harmony. But true peace is more than an absence of battle. It is also the absence of prejudice and the triumph of understanding. Brotherhood among all peoples must be the solid cornerstone of lasting peace. It has been a sustaining force for our Nation, and it remains a guiding light for our future. The celebration of the birth of Jesus is observed on every continent. The customs and traditions are not always the same, but feelings that are generated between friends and family members are equally strong and equally warm. God bless you. This is from President George H.W. Bush's message December 8, 1992: during the Christmas season, millions of people around the world gather with family and friends to recall the events that took place in Bethlehem almost 2000 years ago. As we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, whose life offers us a model of dignity, compassion and justice, we renew our commitment to peace and understanding throughout the world. Through his words and example, Christ made clear the redemptive value of giving of one's self for others. And his life proved that love and sacrifice can make a profound difference in the world. Over the years, many Americans have made sacrifices in order to promote freedom and human rights. Around the globe the heroic actions of our veterans, the lifesaving work of scientists and physicians and generosity of countless individuals who voluntarily give of their time, talents and energy to help others all have enriched humankind and confirmed the importance of our Judeo-Christian heritage in shaping our government and values. Moving on to 2002, December, George W. Bush's message. He said, throughout the Christmas season, we recall that God's love is found in humble places, and God's peace is offered to us all. For nearly 80 years, in times of calm and in times of challenge, Americans have gathered for this ceremony. The simple story we remember during this season speaks to every generation. It is the story of a quiet birth in a little town on the margins of an indifferent empire. Yet that single event set the direction of history and still changes millions of lives. For over two millennia, Christmas has carried the message that God is with us; and because He's with us, we can always live in hope. Our entire Nation is always thinking, at this time of the year, of the men and women in the military, many of whom will spend this Christmas at posts far from home. They stand between Americans and grave danger. They serve in the cause of peace and freedom. They wear the uniform proudly, and we are proud of them. That's George W. Bush, December 2002, Presidential Christmas message. And I might interject at this point, we know from our Declaration of Independence, we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among them is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Then why, some would ask, if we're endowed, if these are given as an inheritance, why then do people all over the world not have life and liberty and the opportunity to pursue happiness like we do in this country? It is an endowment. The Founders had that right. But as with any inheritance that's left to heirs, if the heirs are not willing to protect their inheritance, if they're not willing to fight the forces of evil, forces of greed, forces of lust and power lust, they will lose their inheritance to other evil people who will be glad to take it from them. Thus it comes to us, the sacred, really sacred obligation that we owe this Nation to ensure our common defense so that the inheritance of all those alive today will be passed on to future generations. We don't have these freedoms because we earned them. We were not born to freedom because we deserved it. We were born to freedom, others came to this Nation, to freedom, because of the sacrifice of others who went before us. And so we enjoy the freedoms and inheritance, the endowment we have today. We can fritter away this endowment or we can protect it. We can avoid unilaterally disarming and protect the American people in this blessed country so that future generations can enjoy that same inheritance. Another message, Christmas message from George W. Bush was this: ``During Christmas, we gather with family and friends to celebrate the birth of our Savior, Jesus Christ. As God's only Son, Jesus came to Earth and gave His life so that we may live. His actions and His words remind us that service to others is central to our lives and that sacrifice and unconditional love must guide us and inspire us to lead lives of compassion, mercy, and justice. The true spirit of Christmas reflects a dedication to helping those in need, to giving hope to those in despair, and to spreading peace and understanding throughout the Earth. ``As we share love and enjoy the traditions of this holiday, we are also grateful for the men and women of our Armed Forces, who are working to defend freedom, secure our homeland, and advance peace and safety around the world. This Christmas, may we give thanks for the blessings God has granted to our Nation.'' We took an oath to provide the protection for this Constitution, in essence this country, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We did not take an oath to legalize theft from people who earn money to give to our favorite and many extremely deserving charitable causes. That's not what we were supposed to do. We need to defend this Nation so that others can be as philanthropic, as charitable as only Americans seem to reach the full height of doing. In this Christmas season, we want all people of all religions to be able to worship as they choose freely so long as they do not threaten the freedoms of this country. We have an obligation, we took an oath, an oath before God below those words, ``In God We Trust.'' Well, the people have trusted us not to shirk our duties to defend this Nation. And so that means individually we should be charitable, individually we should serve and help others, but as a Congress and as a Nation we should provide incentives for people to reach their God-given potential. We shouldn't be paying people for every child they can possibly have out of wedlock so that we encourage nearly 45 years of people having babies out of wedlock. No one cares for deadbeat dads. It's despicable to have fathered a child and to not help in any way with the upbringing and the sustenance of the child that a father helped bring in the world. And yet the answer lies not in providing a financial incentive to lure young single women into a rut from which they cannot extricate themselves. It's immoral to lure young women into ruts with no hope of getting out. And as a judge, I was prompted to leave the bench when I first started about thinking about running for Congress as I saw these young women who came before me for welfare fraud or for selling drugs, and their stories seemed so hopeless. But they were told if you just have a child, forget high school, you can start getting a check. And there are young women around the country who are going into this Christmas week feeling they have no hope. I saw them in my courtroom. And this Congress is to blame, the ones that preceded us are to blame. You meant well. Congress meant well. But instead of helping, we hurt future generations. Not just one, future generations. It's time we undid that. It's time that in a spirit of Christmas we don't legalize taking somebody's money that doesn't want us to have it and giving to our favorite charity. What we legalize is incentives for people to reach their full, God-given potential, regardless of their race, creed, color, national origin, gender. We make sure that they have that opportunity. That's our obligation. And as we go and approach Christmas, I close with the words of Benjamin Franklin in 1787. Suffering from gout, 80 years old, the Constitutional Convention was falling apart. There seemed no hope. Eighty-year-old Franklin, brilliant as ever, witty and clever as ever, but who had to have help getting into Independence Hall, was recognized by the president of the Constitutional Convention, President George Washington. And he pointed out we have been going for nearly 5 weeks, we have more noes than ayes on virtually every vote. Franklin said, ``How does it happen, sir, that we have not thought of once applying to the father of lights to illuminate our understanding? In the beginning contests with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room. Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered.'' That's not a deist, by the way. He went on and eventually said, ``If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it possible that an empire could rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writing that unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.'' Franklin went on and said, ``Firmly believe this.'' He said, ``I also firmly believe without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in our little political building no better than the builders of Babel. We will be confounded by local partial interests, and we ourselves shall become a byword down through the ages.'' He eventually moved that henceforth we begin each day with prayer in Congress. It was seconded by Mr. Sherman, unanimously adopted. And then Mr. Randolph added not only that, since this was the end of June, he added a provision that everyone in Congress be required to go hear a Christian evangelist on July 4th before they return and begin again in the constitutional making. And one of the diaries reported that after that, and after they heard that Christian message, after entering into joint prayer as a Congress, led by a local minister, there was a new atmosphere, there was a new spirit, and as a result we got the Constitution that is the greatest founding document of any nation in the history of the world. Now, that is something that we have to thank God for. So at this time of blessings, and thanks giving, and this Christmas season, Madam Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Franklin D. Roosevelt, December 21, 1941, said these words--I won't read the whole thing, but he said, ``Sincere and faithful men and women are asking themselves this Christmas how can we light our trees, how can we give our gifts, how can we meet and worship with love and with uplifted spirit and heart in a world at war, a world of fighting and suffering and death? How can we pause even for a day, even for Christmas day, in our urgent labor of arming a decent humanity against the enemies which beset it?'' He goes on and he says, ``I do hereby appoint the first day of the year, 1942, as a day of prayer, of asking forgiveness of our shortcomings of the past, of consecration to the tasks of the present, and asking God's help in spirit, but strong in the conviction of the right, steadfast to endure sacrifice, and brave to achieve a victory of liberty and peace.'' He said, ``Our strongest weapon in this war is that conviction of the dignity and brotherhood of man which Christmas day signifies. Against enemies who preach the principles of hate and practice them, we set our faith in human love and in God's care for us and all men everywhere. And so I am asking, my associate, my old and good friend, to say a word to the people of America, old and young, tonight, Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of Great Britain,'' at which time Prime Minister Winston Churchill gave a Christmas message for America because they thought Christmas was a national treasure. And so it was. In 1942, Roosevelt said these words, ``It is significant that tomorrow, Christmas day, our plants and factories will be stilled. That is not true of the other holidays we have long been accustomed to celebrate. On all other holidays work goes on gladly for the winning of the war, so Christmas becomes the only holiday in all the year. I like to think that this is so because Christmas is a holy day. May all it stands for live and grow throughout the years.'' In 1944, Franklin D. Roosevelt said, ``It's not easy to say `Merry Christmas' to you, my fellow Americans, in this time of destructive war, nor can I say `Merry Christmas' lightly tonight to our Armed Forces at their battle stations all over the world or to our allies who fight by their side. Here at home, we celebrate this Christmas day in our traditional American way because of its deep, spiritual meaning to us, because the teachings of Christ are fundamental in our lives, and because we want our youngest generation to grow up knowing the significance of this tradition and the story of the coming of the immortal prince of peace and goodwill.'' Those are Franklin D. Roosevelt's words, 1944. He went on and said, ``They know the determination of all right- thinking people and nations, that Christmases such as those we have known in these years of world tragedy shall not come again to beset the souls of the children of God. This generation has passed through many recent years of deep darkness, watching the spread of the poison of Hitlerism and fascism in Europe, the growth of imperialism and militarism in Japan, and the final clash of war all the over the world. ``Then came the dark days of the fall of France and the ruthless bombing of England and the desperate battle of the Atlantic and Pearl Harbor and Corregidor and Singapore. Since then, the prayers of good men and women and children the world over have been answered.'' He goes on and says, ``We pray that until that day when peace comes, God will protect our gallant men and women in the uniforms of the united nations, that he will receive into his infinite grace those who make their supreme sacrifice in the cause of righteousness, in the cause of love of him and his teachings.'' Roosevelt went on and said, ``We pray that with victory will come a new day of peace on Earth in which all the nations of the Earth will join together for all time. That is the spirit of Christmas, the holy day. May that spirit live and grow throughout the world in all the years to come.'' Harry Truman, in his message on December 24th of 1946, included these words. He said, ``Again our thoughts and aspirations and the hopes of future years turn to a little town in the hills of Judea where on a winter's night 2,000 years ago the prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled. Shepherds keeping watch by night over their flock heard the glad tidings of great joy from the angles of the Lord singing `Glory to God in the highest, and on Earth peace, good will toward men.' '' Truman went on and said, ``The message of Bethlehem best sums up our hopes tonight. If we as a nation and the other nations of the world will accept it, the star of faith will guide us into the place of peace as it did the shepherds on that day of Christ's birth long ago. ``I am sorry to say all is not in harmony in the world today. We have found that it is easier for men to die together on the field of battle than it is for them to live together at home in peace. But those who died have died in vain if in some measure at least we shall not preserve for the peace that spiritual unity in which we won the war. ``The problems facing the United Nations, the world's hope for peace, would overwhelm faint hearts. But as we continue to labor for an enduring peace through that great organization, we must remember that the world was not created in a day. We shall find strength and courage at this Christmastime because so brave a beginning has been made. So, with faith and courage, we shall work to hasten the day when the sword is replaced by the plowshare and nations do not learn war anymore.'' He went on and said, ``He whose birth we celebrate tonight was the world's greatest teacher.'' He said, ``Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets. Through all the centuries since he spoke, history has vindicated his teaching. In this great country of ours has been demonstrated the fundamental unity of Christianity and democracy. Under our heritage of freedom for everyone on equal terms, we also share the responsibilities of government.'' He went on and said, ``We have this glorious land not because of a particular religious faith, not because our ancestors sailed from a particular foreign port. We have our unique national heritage because of a common aspiration to be free and because of our purpose to achieve for ourselves and for our children the good things of life which the Christ declared he came to give all mankind. We have made a good start toward peace in the world. Ahead of us lies the larger task of making the peace secure. ``The progress,'' Truman said, ``we have made, gives hope that in the coming year we shall reach our goal. May 1947 entitled us to the benediction of the master, `blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.' Because of what we have achieved for peace, because of all the promise our future holds, I say to my fellow countrymen, Merry Christmas.'' He didn't say ``happy holidays,'' but Truman said ``Merry Christmas.'' ``Merry Christmas, and may God bless you all.'' There are so many wonderful Christmas messages over the generations from different presidents. I love Truman's comment in '48 when he said, ``The God that made the world and all things herein hath made of one blood all nations of man for to dwell on the face of the Earth.'' Truman said, ``In the spirit of that message from the Acts of the Apostles, I wish you all a Merry Christmas.'' In 1953, Dwight Eisenhower had these words for us. On December 24th, 1953, he said, ``This evening's ceremony here at the White House is one of many thousands in American traditional celebration of the birth almost 2,000 years ago of the Prince of Peace. For us this Christmas is truly a season of good will and our first peaceful one since 1949. Our national and individual blessings are manifold. Our hopes are bright, even though the world still stands divided in two antagonistic parts. ``More precisely than in any other way, prayer places freedom and communism in opposition, one to the other.'' Eisenhower said, ``The communist can find no reserve of strength in prayer because his doctrine of materialism and stateism denies the dignity of man and consequently the existence of the God. But in America,'' Eisenhower says, ``George Washington long ago rejected exclusive dependence upon mere materialistic values. In the bitter and critical winter at Valley Forge, when the cause of liberty was so near defeat, his recourse was sincere and earnest prayer. From it he received new hope and new strength of purpose, out of which grew the freedom in which we celebrate this Christmas season. ``As religious faith is the foundation of free government, so is prayer an indispensable part of that faith.'' Eisenhower said, ``Would it not be fitting for each of us to speak in prayer to the father of all men and women on this Earth of whatever nation, of whatever race and creed, to ask that he help us and teach us and strengthen us and receive our thanks? Should we not pray that he help us; help us to remember that the founders of this, our country, came first to these shores in search of freedom, freedom of man to walk in dignity, to live without fear beyond the yoke of tyranny, ever to progress; help us to cherish freedom for each of us and for all nations. Might we not pray that he teach us, teach us the security of faith. And may we pray that he strengthen us. Should we not pray that he receive our thanks, for certainly we are grateful for the opportunity given us to use our strength and our faith to meet the problems of this hour. And on this Christmas Eve, all hearts in America are filled with special thanks to God that the blood of those we love no longer spills on battlefields abroad. May he receive the thanks of each of us for this, his greatest bounty, and our supplication that peace on Earth may live with us always.'' Now, at that time we were at peace, when Eisenhower spoke those words. But, of course, we have men and women losing their lives in uniform for our benefit and our freedom and we should, as Eisenhower said, remember them in prayer both for their safety and thanks giving. President Kennedy had wonderful, wonderful Christmas messages, as did other Presidents. But let me make sure people understand who don't understand Christianity and don't understand that it is possible to love someone and not agree with their lifestyle; that it's possible to even lay down one's life for people they love even though they disagree completely with their lifestyle. I serve with colleagues here, as the gentleman from Massachusetts pointed out, who serve here and are openly avowed homosexuals. And I understand that. I have friends who practice homosexuality--people I love, care about. There are people who practice adultery as heterosexuals. And in all those cases, as a member of the military, I would gladly lay down my life for them and their freedom because, as Jesus taught, you don't have to embrace or love somebody's lifestyle to love them with all your heart. But as we approach this Christmas season, I hope that we will re- engender a love for those yet to take a breath in this world, who are in utero; that we will have a love and affection for those who are being overwhelmed with taxes before they even get their first job; and we will act responsibly to show that love and to cease the damage we're doing to this country. Those are adequate matters of prayer. And in this, the last hour of this week before we approach the week of Christmas, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As always, it is an honor and a privilege to address this House, especially when you know the history of this place. I would like to comment about my friend across the aisle who was talking about the 9/11 first responders. Those were heroes. They are heroes. They are really true testaments to the good in America. So many first responders were going up the stairs to rescue people as most everyone else was fleeing. They are true heroes. What is not as heroic--in fact, it isn't heroic at all--is to bring a bill before the floor and say, Here is a bunch of heroes we need to help. We're not going to cut spending in any other areas. We know there is massive waste, fraud and abuse all over the place. We know there are entities that really have not been able to show any real benefit to the American economy, to American freedom, to American security; but we are not going to cut those, because those are favored in our eyes, too. We want you to borrow more money from the Chinese and from whoever is willing to keep buying bonds; and apparently, some people aren't willing to buy bonds at all or aren't willing to finance our continued astronomic debt. So, even though Chairman Bernanke had assured us in a private meeting that he wasn't doing it, whatever he wants to call it, it sure sounds like monetizing the debt when you print money and buy our own debt, whether you do it directly or buy it from a third party who has just bought our debt. Those are the kinds of things we are doing. We are saying, We see these heroes who deserve to be cared for and who deserve to have their health needs met. We agree on that. There was total agreement on that as far as I know. What we didn't agree on was saying, So, as to these little children being born now, these little babies who are in their cribs all over the country, we're going to load them down with tens of thousands of dollars of debt before they ever even get their first jobs. We are going to load them up with debt because we don't have the financial responsibility to carve out money that is being wasted and to say this is where we need to send it. Had that been done, I know the people on my side of the aisle, who I know and talked to about that bill that was so noble in its intent, would have voted for it as well. It doesn't even have to be that heroic. Just carve out some of the waste, fraud and abuse that this government is involved in, and pay for these things. That was another problem with the so-called ``tax extender bill'' that came before the House this week. There were 36 Republicans who voted against it--not terribly heroic even though most of us knew that there could be consequences. I hear there are those who want to further take away committees. Some of us have been told we won't be subcommittee chairmen in the new Congress. It is ironic to see that those who have the most affiliation with tea party groups and the most conservatism, except for a precious few, are pretty much being shut out. So we understand there are the consequences of being shut out of any type of leadership power on this side of the aisle when we stand firm on our convictions. We needed to extend the tax rates. It wasn't going to stimulate the economy, but it was going to help prevent a disaster, a recession--a double dip recession, a triple dip, whatever you want to call it. Extending the current tax rates was the thing to do. It should have been done months or years ago. The problem was we didn't have enough courage on our side of the aisle to stand firm and say, We ran on being financially responsible. We ran and won the majority, making it clear we were going to stop the deficit spending. We made it clear that, if you give us just one more chance in the majority, then we are going to be responsible financially. We are not going to rush bills to the floor no matter the heroic or noble purpose. We need to protect those children being born and those to be born in this country from having to shoulder the debt that we irresponsibly would not address. That was the concern of the 36 I know who voted against it. We weren't keeping our promise. Now, I know the tax extension's current rates were absolutely critical. I also know that the Members on our side of the aisle who I know voted for that bill are just a bunch of wonderful folks who have the best interests of this country at heart. They love America. I know people on both sides of the aisle love America and want to do what is best for America, but we have dramatically different visions of how you do that. Frankly, the Democrats won the majority in November of 2006 because we had been doing some deficit spending. And even though there were wars going on, it needed to stop, and America said that: Okay, Democrats, you've made clear you're going to stop the deficit spending so we'll give you a chance to do that. Four years later, the deficit spending had gone on steroids like nothing anybody has ever seen anywhere in the world. $3 trillion in deficits in 2 years? It's just unfathomable. So to come in when we've already saddled that much debt, where we're borrowing over 50 cents of every dollar this majority across the aisle was spending, that's just irresponsible. It's just wrong. So I deeply regret that my friends across the aisle that brought forth the 9/11 first responders bill did not also carve out the money from things that were not worthy and say this money can be better spent for heroes in this country, and we're going to responsibly do it without adding debt to those who come after us, because in our position, our generation, those of us who are serving in Congress now, we're only here not because we deserve to be born in this country, or those that emigrated to this country deserved to emigrate into here. We are here because of the grace of God, the blessings of God and because this Nation was blessed for over 200 years as a Nation and 200 or 300 years before that going back to Columbus, 1492, and his sacrifice and his courage and even putting his life on the line when the crew was ready to turn back and putting his life on the line in an effort to keep the crew on track, to give it a few more days, which they did, and as a result, we have so much for which to be grateful and thankful. But we've been irresponsible, and there are those of us that knew by taking a stand against unpaid-for spending that we ran the risk of being further ostracized by our own party, not getting committees, being removed from committees, not getting chairmanships. We understand that. But this was an important principle. It was important that we try to keep our word when we can. And I appreciated what my friend from Michigan Thaddeus McCotter had said in talking and justifying his vote against this massive deficit growth because, as we all know, we won the majority. The Republicans won the majority. Come January 5, we will have the majority in this House. It will be a Republican Speaker, John Boehner, who will be in the Speaker's chair up there. We will control the House of Representatives for the first time in 4 years. Still won't control the Senate. We'll have additional Senators we didn't have 2 years ago and 4 years ago, and President Obama will still be President, but we will hold the majority in the House of Representatives. So what Thaddeus had to say was that forcing us to vote for a bill, even though it had this extension of the current tax rate that would help avoid a massive recession, is a bit like Custer saying, Come on, boys, let's attack before there are more of us. Didn't make a lot of sense to some of us. We were going to have more leverage to do what was right and best for this country before we had a majority because it seems to me that once we had the majority, if we will stand on principle then, that we can tell the Senate we're not going to deficit spend. You can't dangle things that we know in our hearts at this end are good for the country and expect us to buy into your deficit spending--we're not going to do it. That that would have been an awful lot of leverage. And we also know that taxpayers at the lowest tax-paying levels were going to see their income tax go up 50 percent. People that pay 10 percent in income tax were going to have their taxes go up to 15 percent. That's massive when you're not making very much. And the highest wage earners were going to see their taxes go from 35 to about 39\1/2\ percent. It was an increase but percentage-wise not anything like at the lowest wage earner level. So there was going to be leverage. And I appreciate Mr. McCotter's comment. It's like Custer saying, Come on, boys, let's attack now before there are more of us. Well, the tax extension bill was passed, and there are those who said, Louis, you were the one who came up with the payroll tax holiday, and this bill had your bill, your idea in there. It did not. It had a 2 percent reduction from 6.2 percent down to 4.2 percent as the Social Security tax rate. So it was clever, but that also gives Members of Congress over a $2,100 raise because our Social Security tax--and I guess by saying that, some people in America are shocked. They don't know that we've been paying Social Security tax the whole time I've been in Congress for the last 6 years, but like everyone across America, our Social Security tax will be dropped by 2 percent down from 6.2 to 4.2. But here again, it was not paid for. We're going to do that on the backs of our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren. It's wrong, and it needed to be paid for. We ran on the fact that we would do that, and I know the people I talked to that supported that felt like it was what had to be done, but some of us saw it differently, and it may cost us politically but it was the right thing to do. The Social Security so-called tax or payroll holiday was not paid for, and that was never my idea to have an unpaid-for tax holiday. Because the fact is, that we had enough money from the porkulus, stimulus, whatever you want to call the nine-hundred-and-something billion dollar bill that the President passed immediately, got through Congress, his demand and Speaker Pelosi's pushing, Majority Leader Reid's pushing. They got through that monstrosity of a debt increaser. We could have taken that money and had a tax holiday. In my bill, I proposed taking the money from TARP, and I know, I've read the data. Yes, Wall Street contributes to my Democratic colleagues 4-1 over Republicans. I get it. I understand. So obviously they would be for helping Wall Street, so many of them. I've got dear friends who were as offended as I was at what was happening, and I'm grateful for their friendship and for their stance and it did cost some of them. But we didn't need to be running up the debt, and that's why my tax holiday bill would have allowed people to keep their own money in their own paycheck and, instead of allowing the Secretary of the Treasury-- and I agree with Newt Gingrich that probably Hank Paulson was the worst Treasury Secretary we've had certainly in my lifetime, and now Timothy Geithner, he's enjoying having a slush fund where he can throw out, dole out as he sees fit. To Secretary Paulson's credit, he was able to bail out his buddies at his firm Goldman Sachs and see that they not only avoided bankruptcy but got mega wealthy on the backs of the American taxpayers, and also that AIG was kept from having to reorganize in bankruptcy so they could stay wealthy as well, and also pay like $9 billion, whatever it was they owed, Mr. Paulson's buddies at Goldman Sachs. But anyway, four-to-one contributions to Democrats over Republicans from Wall Street, and it has really reaped them benefits. The only thing they've had to endure on Wall Street is having the President, having some of the Democrats, by words, accused them of being greedy and money-grubbing and all those words. But they've been able to endure all the slings and arrows that words have brought from the Democratic leadership, including the President, because they knew they were getting megawealthy from their friends they helped elect in the Democratic Party. A tax holiday needed to be paid for. It would have stimulated the economy. And I realize there are political calculations, and I will readily admit--I may be wrong, but I believe that those who think that having the tax rates extended for 2 years so they have to be debated as the Presidential election is coming up in November 2012 will help Republicans. I didn't see it that way. I still don't see it that way. I think Republicans are going to pay a price because that 2 percent reduction on Social Security is going to push Social Security more quickly toward bankruptcy or default, and it will enable our friends across the aisle to say, Uh-huh, it's about to go broke. Now you have to raise taxes. Let's do it on those who create jobs. Let's do it on the wealthy. Let's do it on those in small business. Let's pop them hard, raise their taxes. And because people will not want to see their tax rates go up, including their Social Security rate go up, then there will probably be more political interest in raising taxes than our friends across the aisle were not able to do in the last few months. They may be able to do it through the Senate and through the things that are sent down here in late 2012 because, as one of our friends here on this side of the aisle had said, we've got to be careful, because as this tax extender/stimulus bill showed, when we send the clear message to the administration in the White House and to our friends in the Senate that we stand firmly on our principles, we will not yield, we will not give in to deficit spending unless you give us something in the bill that we know will be good for America, then we'll keep deficit spending, so we get a net wash and maybe net damage. That's not a message we needed to be sending, that if you'll give us something that we know helps America, like extending the current tax rates, we'll forgo our principles on standing firm on stopping deficit spending. It's very unfortunate. But I would also submit that with regard to the unemployment benefits, 13 more months that were added, I understand, the thought was that this was out of compassion, to help those who are not working, when real compassion would be creating jobs. The best Christmas present you could give so many Americans this year would be a job--that would have been the thing to do--instead of paying people to continue staying at home. Now, I know people who have been looking constantly for employment, but because of their age, the things that they have been doing for a living, they can't find a job. I understand that. But true compassion would have been to say, You know what? We went from a matter of months of unemployment insurance we would pay to 2 years, 99 weeks of unemployment that our Democratic friends had pushed through. And now we've added unpaid-for deficit spending, 13 more months of unemployment on top of what we've already done. Compassion would have said, We're more interested in you getting a good job than paying you to continually lose more and more of your self-esteem because you can't find a job, continually go into more depression, as so many I know are because they can't find a job. We would have been better off saying, You know what? In 26 weeks, a year, 99 weeks, another 13 months on top of that, you know, you haven't been able to find a job 6 months or a year? If you haven't, then this is what we need to do. Instead of paying you to sit at home and not work because there are no jobs in your area of expertise, we're going to pay you to retrain in areas where there are jobs. That would be more compassionate. Re-create some self-esteem in people who have lost theirs. That would be more compassion. Now, we're coming back next week into session, and of course it costs money every time we bring this body back into session. People fly back in from all over the country, drive back in from some places. Some people stay here and don't go home much and lose touch with their constituents. But those of us who go home when we're not in session, it costs money to come back and forth. It shocks people sometimes to see us flying commercially because they think just because Speaker Pelosi had her own 757 that we all have private planes and fly on those. We don't. And to soon-to-be Speaker Boehner's credit, he's giving back that 757 to the Air Force. That's going to be a big deal. That's going to be so helpful to those who are serving in our military service that have been without that plane for the last some years now. We're coming back next week. It really wasn't necessary, except that there are Members in the majority of the Senate who are not satisfied to have a continuing resolution that would extend the current rate of spending into next year. What was discussed in here, some of our friends across the aisle, they were willing to have a 2-, 3-month--some less, some more--but are probably going to have a 2-month continuing resolution to continue the current level of spending into, say, next February, and that would give Republicans a chance to get in here. We wouldn't get much time. It's going to mean a lot of work to figure out the proper appropriations to fill in, carry forward after that resolution runs out. But that was going to be agreeable, it sounded like, to this House. However, the Senate says, You know what? We're not satisfied. We want to pull out more Christmas presents from the American public, from the taxpayers, even though we realize they don't have the money now. We don't have it in the Treasury. We'll have to borrow it. We'll have to print it. We've got too many more Christmas presents we want to come up with to help our buddies with. And so we're not ready to just continue this current level of spending. We've got too many Christmas ornaments we want to put on that spending resolution. That's why we're coming back next week. We've got a 5-day resolution to keep spending at the current level, and we'll have to come back next week because the Democrats in the Senate--and I can really understand. You know, Majority Leader Reid, he had a tough-fought race and had tough opposition, lots of people helping, narrowest race that he might have expected, but he won. And so, by golly, as the old saying has gone for centuries, to the victor goes the spoils. So he is wanting some of these spoils to be put on these bills and not have a clean spending resolution. I get it. I understand that. But it sure would be better for America to stop the runaway spending, stop all the pork being added to these bills, stop all the special earmarks, whether they are going to Republicans or Democratic Senators. It needs to stop. Let's get our spending under control. So there will be a Christmas present there. My friend, Dr. Gingrey, was speaking in the well about Guantanamo Bay. I can't think about Christmas without thinking about the Christmas present to the five people that have self-admitted that they planned 9/11 and that they were, as of December 8 of 2008, had indicated to the judge at Guantanamo that they were ready to plead guilty. They would enter no more motions. They were ready to get this over with. And then Senator Obama was elected President, and they immediately sent out the word that they were going to probably be bringing these people to New York City, costing no telling how many billions of dollars to try to protect the city, no telling how much money would have to be spent to prepare facilities. They couldn't be as safe as they are in Guantanamo. I have been there. I have been through them. As a former judge, those were well-thought-out judicial facilities there, well-thought-out facilities for consultation between the defendants and their attorneys, well-thought out facilities both from a protection aspect and from a judicial aspect. But Senator Obama made clear that they were going to give them a Christmas gift. They didn't call it that, but obviously that is what it was. Certainly those five don't celebrate Christmas, but they sure did get a Christmas present because after they announced they were going to plead guilty, the administration made clear they were going to give them a good show trial in New York City. So they withdrew their indication that they were going to plead guilty and move forward. So they have had a wonderful Christmas present. It is good to see the charity for others, and that is interesting charity that was provided by this administration to those who planned and plotted and were able to see 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11. It was wonderful to see the charity, but the problem is we take an oath to defend this country, basically the Constitution, against all enemies foreign and domestic; and it is a problem when you don't do that. So they got a Christmas present 2 years ago, and they have continued to have a Christmas present. The administration, Attorney General Holder and the President, have given them another one because they have announced we don't know when we are going to get around to trying you so you can't get the death penalty for the foreseeable future because, heck, here is a gift--life. You didn't give the gift of life to those 3,000 Americans on 9/11; you took theirs, but we are going to give it to you and perhaps there is some feeling by us showing them such wonder and gratitude and love and affection that perhaps they will end up embracing us. But the pleadings that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has filed on behalf of himself and the other four planners of 9/11 make pretty clear, as they say in their pleading that was filed in March of last year, they praise Allah. If we caused you terror, they say praise Allah. And that it is not over. They say they will defeat us, and we will be destroyed just as surely as those Twin Towers were on 9/11. But the administration has given a gift to them that seems to keep on giving. We took up the DREAM Act this week. There are people who came over, were brought over as children and who had no control of being brought into this country. So it is easy to understand the warmth and the compassion for people like that. I have met some. They have done well in school, some that I have met. The problem is that they were brought here illegally. And a bigger problem is that still we have not secured our border. And as we found in 1986, with all of those promises, okay, we will do this, one time in American history, we will give this amnesty to everyone who is here illegally and then we will never do it again because nobody else is getting amnesty. One small problem: they did not secure the borders so now there are millions and millions and millions of people here illegally. Now we are talking about amnesty again. Some of us had a problem with the bill because it created the ability for people to say, you know what, I meet the criteria here. I am under 16. I have been here more than 5 years and so make me a citizen and then I can turn around and declare that I need my parents here so I can use chain migration to add those who came illegally. So that is a problem. You say, no, under that DREAM Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security was going to make the determination of whether they fit the criteria. But when I read the bill, I was shocked to see that Homeland Security, the Secretary of Homeland Security, had complete authority. Nobody else had it, undivided authority to grant or not grant the existence to stay here under the DREAM Act and amnesty and the ability to ultimately become citizens. It didn't give it to the Department of Justice because under the Department of Justice is where you find immigration judges. The bill doesn't allow for them. It gives complete authority to Homeland Security. Now having been a judge, I know if someone were to come before me with an affidavit that says I am under 16 and I have been here for more than 5 years, and if I were looking at the person who provided the affidavit or the sworn testimony, that I might say: But sir, your hair is white or gray or you are balder than I am and your skin is more wrinkled than mine from many, many years out in the sun. I don't believe you are under 16. Perhaps he would be met with words, sometimes through an interpreter: Oh, yeah, I have lived a hard life. That is why my hair is so white and my skin is so wrinkled. Well, an immigration judge would know that unless there is some extraordinary disease, this person is not under 16 years old. However, when the Secretary of Homeland Security has complete unadulterated authority to decide anything she sees fit, and not only that, a provision that even if they don't meet any of the requirements, she can waive them, that is not a good bill. And especially when they add a provision that whether or not you meet a single one of the requirements to allow you to have the amnesty in the DREAM Act, the mere act of filing the petition will stay enjoined basically any effort to remove you from the country. Well, we can have some pretty heinous folks around here who should be removed; but under the bill, once they file a petition, even though they are clearly not under 16, that effort is stayed. They have to allow them here pending a decision by the Secretary of Homeland Security. It is not a good idea. Now, with regard to the Don't Ask, Don't Tell damage we have done this week in the House, I understand there are many who mean well. There are some who think it would be a great thing to give all of these civil rights to people in the military. But anything that is an impediment to the good order and discipline of the military is not good for the military. The military does not have the civil rights everybody else has. That is why under the Constitution Congress is allowed to do as it did and create the Uniform Code of Military Justice so when I was in the military if I had been arrested for something, I didn't have a right to a random selection of jury panel. The same person who signs the order ordering you to court martial is the same one who gets to pick the jurors who will sit on your case. Now people in civic life in America would not stand for that. Civilians would not. It would be unconstitutional. But not in the military because they don't have the rights that we do. I know when I was in the Army at Fort Benning, a young man there in the barracks could not control his overt feelings of homosexuality and so he misread indications from another person in the barracks and found out that he had misread when he crawled into his bunk with him late one night and his advances were not met with the kind of affection that he had hoped. That's not good for the good order and discipline. When we have people who cannot control their hormones, no matter whether it's heterosexual, homosexual, whatever, they are an impediment to the military. And we out-processed people at Fort Benning when I was there who couldn't control their overt sexuality, whatever it was. There are some people across America that mean well with this but don't realize this is being shoved down the military's throat. It would have been far more appropriate to have done a survey where the respondents--all of those in the military--are asked and submit a ballot to give their feelings about what effect it would have and whether or not they would reenlist, they would re-up, they would do another term, find out so that it could not be adversely affected in their OER or their enlistment ratings. And then take that result-- because we have a voluntary military some have lost sight of, they don't have to stay in. So when we talk about losing hundreds or thousands of people who want to practice homosexuality openly in the military, there has been no regard for how many thousands or tens of thousands--or who knows how many because a survey wasn't properly done--we don't know how many we will lose, but it will be a lot of people as they have certainly conveyed that to some of us privately. And there were no solutions in this bill for how you deal with living conditions. Do you put gay men and heterosexual men together? Do you put gay men together? There are all kinds of questions that needed to be properly studied and have not been. But I understand before this group lost the majority across the aisle they had to pander to people who were demanding this kind of thing, but it sure wasn't the military making that demand. And just as I know there are proponents of this bill who thought they knew what the majority in their district felt, and then it turned out they didn't know what the majority of the people in their district felt because they got beat, and just as there were people in leadership across the aisle who thought they knew what the majority of America was thinking and that tea parties were ``astroturf,'' and then it turned out they completely misread America, there is a decent chance they were misreading the military on this as well. But we rushed headlong, not giving proper concern to the vast majority of those in the military and whether or not they would reenlist, whether or not we would do damage to the good order and discipline. But you can expect, if Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed--it's working fine; if you can control your sexuality, whatever it is, then you stay, you serve. You love your country, it's not overt, then you stay and you serve. Certainly there were homosexuals that were good soldiers in the military when I was there, but it was a private matter and remained that way, and so it did not affect, unless it became overt, the good order and discipline of the military. You can expect though, if that becomes law, there will be demands by those in the military saying, hey, now that we can be overt in the military, we demand to have barracks, we demand to have quarters where we can live together as husband and husband and wife and wife, and now you've got to redo that. And then of course once that is rammed through the military as well-- because they don't have a choice, they can't object to anything the Commander in Chief throws their way because that is a court martial- able offense--they give up their right to free speech, in fact, in the military. It's going to have a tremendous effect across America, which is what was desired. I also know that there are people across America, including at the White House, who say this is not a Christian Nation. And I will continue not to debate that point because maybe they're right, I don't know. But I know the foundation of the country, I know how we got started. And so we are coming back, we're told, next Tuesday into session perhaps for part of one day. I could not be sure that we would actually have Special Orders during that one day we come back to deal with the Christmas presents that the Senate Democrats want to convey to people, so I wanted to make sure that this was in the Record this year. And so, Mr. Speaker, if I might inquire at this time how much time is remaining?

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Parliamentary inquiry, then.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GOHMERT. My parliamentary inquiry is, since the rules of the House allow for someone in opposition to claim time in order to speak on a bill, is that rule being abrogated now, or can we follow the rules and have someone like me, who is opposed to the bill, claim time?

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, there's not much time when there's 3 hours and most of that is dedicated to pushing this bill. But the fact is, following up on Social Security tax, it's reduced by 2 percent, from 6.2 percent, for 2 years, which dramatically does affect the solvency of Social Security. When I proposed the payroll tax holiday, I was going to pay for that--it's in the bill--pay for it with TARP. We were going to take that money from the Wall Street bailout and give it to the people that actually earned it. That would have worked. This isn't paid for. We were elected into the majority to stop the deficit spending. We do need to extend the current tax rates so that we can give some stability to this economy. But two years, analysts say, is not going to push businessmen to run out and fix the economy. This is a mistake. We can do much better for the economy. This is no time to sell out just to get some extensions. We can do better.

Mr. GOHMERT. I'm sorry. I did not understand.

Mr. GOHMERT. So this is set up now, the rules have been abrogated, so no time is allotted to anyone in opposition? Did I understand that correct, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. GOHMERT. Under the rules of the House, going back to the Thomas Jefferson rules of the House, as adopted by this majority in this term, someone in opposition to a bill is always given the right to claim time. So I am asking the parliamentary inquiry if that is now the case, or if that rule--the standing rule--is not going to be allowed at this time?

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman's premise is incorrect? So someone can claim time in opposition? Thank you.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. One of the things about this 13 months of unemployment insurance is that if people haven't found a job already, rather than pay them not to work for over a year, train them to do a different job where there are jobs. That is the more caring thing to do. And one more comment about the tax policy that took all of my great aunt's land. I bought at the auction her music box that was a church that played Amazing Grace. At the end of the auction, most everybody had left, and the observation I had is there was nothing amazing or graceful about that policy.

Mr. GOHMERT. Exactly. Anyway, my great aunt's husband predeceased her. When she died, she had left a will that set aside one section of land to be sold to pay off the estate tax. Unfortunately, this was 1986, and that also happened to be a time when FDIC and the SLIC, later the RTC, they started accumulating and they started dumping land around that area. Land had been valued around $2,000 at the time of her death in 1986, but within a year or so when the estate was being settled, because of the land being dumped in the area, it fell to $600, $700 an acre. The IRS took every acre of the estate, because at the time the land fell to $600 or $700. The IRS did allow a year or two extension hoping the land value would come back so they would get to save an acre or two. But out of 2,500 acres, it was around a $5 million estate at 2,000 acres, and there were some comparables around that when she died to show it was that value. But when it fell to $600, $700, the IRS said, ``It is all ours, because it will take every acre of land to pay your 55 percent estate tax even after the exemption.'' They forced the sale of every acre of land, and her home, where she had designated specific bequests: I want you to have my china; I want you to have my crystal; I want you to have these beautiful pieces of furniture, you to have the table. Well, we got a cry from her immediate family, ``Please come, because the public is coming to this auction. The IRS is auctioning every single item from her home.'' I was one of a number of family members, and we had an agreement between ourselves: If the individuals that she had specifically bequested things to were able to bid, we let them bid on those things and stayed back. But it was heartbreaking to see item that Aunt Lilly loved after item she loved being bought by the general public who had come with lots of money to take aunt Lilly's things, all because a greedy Congress couldn't care less that they took every acre, they took her homeplace, and her heir that was willed the home had to buy her home. That is the IRS, and, of course, the IRS is nothing more than the designee of this Congress to go steal things from people, and we make it all legal by what we pass here. Morally, it is not right what we do in taking people's property, in prying their wallet from the dead carcass of someone because we can, because we have that power. It is not right. I can tell you, in my immediate family I will never be affected by the estate tax. Not in my immediate family I won't be. But I know as a moral factor, it is wrong. It is just wrong. It is incentive killing. And speaking of Congress and the things we do, you know, we may be voting as early as tomorrow on this so-called tax extender bill. Leave it to this Congress to figure out a way, when people across America have said, hey, people across America didn't get a pay raise. Social Security, they didn't get a pay raise. They got no COLA. You guys don't get any COLA, you don't get a pay raise. And this Congress, the Democratic majority said, you are right, we are not going to get a pay raise. We hear you. We are not going to get a pay raise. But, you know what? In this tax extender bill we are going to cut 2 percent off the Social Security tax. In other words, we are going to give ourselves well over a $2,000 raise next year if this thing passes. I mean, how ingenious was it for this Congress to come up with a way to get a pay raise, when we promised people we weren't going to do that this year?

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend from Iowa yielding. In fact, exactly what you are talking about was a real-life case in my extended family. There was a great aunt, predeceased by her husband. They had 2,500 acres in south Texas. It had been built up over a number of generations, over 100 years. They have done exactly what you are talking about. They worked. And, by the sweat of their brow and all the sweat equity, scraping together money, they kept accumulating land and would pass that on. Well, along comes a greedy Congress that decides: When you are dead, we are going to do as our friend Ted Poe has talked about happened in a case tried in his court where a guy died in an accident, and a thief came in and stole his wallet out of his pocket while he was dead. Well, that guy went to prison for a long time because he was caught. Well, the government is doing that.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I would submit the military is inconsistent with American values. It does not have freedom of speech, it does not have freedom of assembly, it does not have the freedom to express its love to those in the military the way you can out here, because it is an impediment to the military mission. You can't do that. Can you imagine military members being able to tell their commander what they think of him, using freedom of speech, or assembling where they wish? It doesn't work. So this is one of those issues that is so personal to the military, we need to have an accurate poll. And to my friend who said history will judge us poorly, I would submit if you will look thoroughly at history, and I am not saying it is cause and effect, but when militaries throughout history of the greatest nations in the world have adopted the policy that it is fine for homosexuality to be overt, if you can keep it private and control your hormones, fine; if you can't, that is fine too, they are toward the end of their existence as a great nation. Let's look at this more carefully before we harm our military.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of questions asked. One question that we did not just hear that was expressed as important is, is a person an impediment to the good order and discipline of the military or the military's mission? That is important. I heard the Speaker say earlier, in essence, we need to allow or honor the service of all those who want to serve. That is not true. Every day people who want to serve are not allowed to serve because they will be an impediment. We heard the leader talk about how we can work together in this body, even though there are homosexuals in this body. That is right. This isn't the military, and I can promise you, if people did some of the things that have been done by Members of this body, they would never have been allowed and would not be allowed to continue serving in the military. We have that margin to work with here. In the military there is the military mission. There is not that margin to work with. We are talking life and death. Now, we have heard, how does it make us safer to lose thousands from the military? A good question, because the hundreds I have heard from that I didn't bring their quotes down here have said, you pass this, and I will tell you personally, but I will not say it in the presence of my commander, you pass this, I will not reenlist. I won't say it publicly because it may affect my assignment after that, because we know what this President, this Commander in Chief wants, just as does the Secretary of Defense. The two people that the President appoints said let's do it, because they know the President appointed them. He is their boss. And then all of those who do not answer directly to the President, they said this is a terrible idea. You want an accurate poll? Take one where military members can answer privately, with no ability of the commanders to figure out who answered where. And then let's find out how many thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands we can lose with this activity. That is important. Now, we were told Don't Ask, Don't Tell is inconsistent with American values.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, it's been an interesting day here on the floor. And as always, an honor to have a chance to speak here. What we have just witnessed was not a pleasant event. It was terribly sad. It's tragic when anybody in Congress, especially a leader, a chairman, is found to have engaged in conduct inappropriate to such a degree as a Member of Congress, particularly as the chairman of the Tax Code- writing committee. We have heard some things that were a little bit surprising. I heard Chairman Rangel say there was no self-enrichment. I heard people talk about the lack of precedent for something like this, to have such a horrible sentence as to have to stand before the Speaker and be told to pay the taxes that were actually due and owing, or should have been paid previously when they were due and owing, and how horrible that was. So a little surprising that I would hear a fellow colleague make a comparison to the death penalty and life in prison. I have had the unenjoyable responsibility to sentence people to death before and to life in prison. And I would daresay you could bring back those sentenced to life--you couldn't bring back those sentenced to death where it's been carried out--but they would not agree that standing before the Speaker and being told to pay the taxes that you didn't pay back when you should have was anything equivalent and fair to be compared with a life sentence in prison. With regard to precedent, all kinds of precedents come back to mind, all types of displays of integrity. We heard people say across the aisle that because someone conducted themselves in such a heroic and noble fashion in war that they deserve to be left alone and to be honored, and in fact apparently deserving of a standing ovation for failing to comply with the laws that he himself helped create. Precedent? You want to know precedent in this country? You can go down the Hall from this Chamber and go to the rotunda and look around and see massive paintings that evidence precedent. You see 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence who pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor. And they didn't withhold any of those. We are reminded of I believe it was Thomas Nelson, a signer of the Declaration, who pledged his life, his fortune, his sacred honor. I believe it was Nelson who, during the siege of Yorktown, had indicated that since the British officers were in his home, his home should be fired upon, that that was the British headquarters. The soldiers apparently responded that, sir, this is your home. He said, this is where the enemy is. Take out my home. Precedent? People who pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor, who lost family members, who lost everything, all for the sake of us having liberty and freedom some day. And say that we have not--it's okay to just flagrantly fail to abide by the laws that we ourselves create. Precedent? There is the big mural of Washington standing there with a piece of paper in his hand. And people file by that by the thousands every day and don't really understand the precedent that that established. Precedent? I will tell you precedent. George Washington was made commander of the Revolutionary military. Many of the soldiers enlisted around the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July of 1776, which means that their enlistment was to be completed in January of 1777. Most of that time was spent in retreat in front of vastly superior British forces. December 24, things were so desperate Washington talked to his generals, and he believed they should move across the Delaware. Even with all the ice, even with so many of his men not equipped, many without shoes, they should travel across the Delaware and engage the most feared mercenaries in the world. His generals said there is ice in the river. We could lose the entire revolution if we do this. Washington said if we don't have a victory, it's going to be lost anyway. He himself came up with the challenge words. If a soldier was to be challenged that night, ``Halt, who goes there?'' The challenge words that would allow the challenger to know that this was an American would be, ``Victory or death.'' It was that important. They traveled across the icy Delaware. And, no, George Washington knew better to stand up in a boat, especially in an icy river. They caught the Hessians off guard and routed them, took them prisoner. Some were killed. It was a major victory. But many of the American soldiers felt like they were not going to reenlist when their time was up. On December 27, 1776, the Continental Congress did the unthinkable. They were seeking a democratic republic where people would govern themselves, and yet they passed a law to give Washington basically all the power, all the financial power he needed to win the war. Do whatever you need, pay whatever you've got to pay, because the Continental Congress knew that, if these guys didn't reenlist, they were all dead. Their families would be dead. They would be dead. Everything would be gone. Everything they had worked for in their lives would be gone. But they had pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor, and here they put them in the hands of one man. They sent a cover letter with a copy of the bill to Washington, in essence, explaining that we are giving you all this power, but because we know you, and we know your absolute integrity, that when you have no further need of this power you will give it back. Precedent? That was a precedent. No man has ever been given that kind of power in the United States' history. Paulson came close with his Wall Street buddy bailout that he was able to wrangle. But they knew Washington. There was a precedent. He didn't get the copy of the bill in the letter until the men either had to reenlist or go home. Washington urged them to reenlist, and virtually no one did. He made a second plea, not knowing he had the power to raise their salaries. And his plea was so heartfelt, because they knew this man's heart, that most of them reenlisted anyway. Then he later found out the power he had. Precedent? The precedent came when George Washington won the Revolution and did what no man before or since has ever done. He did what's depicted in that picture where he is standing there with his resignation in his hand, and he says, symbolically, here is all the power back. I did what you asked with absolute integrity, and now I'm going home. That's a precedent. That's incredible humility and integrity that we haven't seen around here in a long time. That's a precedent. Talk of precedent, during Chairman Rangel's hearing. Compared to those kinds of precedents? You know, when George Washington resigned, he had sent a resignation letter to the 13 Governors. And at the end of that resignation letter, and it was printed, circulated throughout the 13 States, he said, he ended with these words. What a precedent this is. ``I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in His holy protection; that He would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow-citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for brethren who have served in the field; and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation.'' He signed it, ``I have the honor to be with great respect and esteem, Your Excellency's most obedient and very humble servant, George Washington.'' There is a precedent. There is absolute integrity. There is humility. You would never have heard Washington stand up and say, hey, at least I didn't self-enrich. There was no self-enrichment even though Washington, in his case, it was truth. Precedent, we are told. We are told about precedent here when you have this historic building where you have so many acts of selflessness that have been carried out. You know, Webster probably should have been present. I am not sure that he was right in what he did. I think he was wrong when he urged other Senators to join in the Compromise of 1850. But apparently Webster believed, even though he was a strict abolitionist and believed, as we all should, that no one should be enslaved, no one should be owned by another individual--precedent. Well, I am just taken aback. In this hallowed Hall, no self-enrichment. Webster stood up knowing that if he urged the other Senators to join in a Compromise of 1850, though he probably would be President, if he said that, he would not be. He tried that after he urged them to do that, but it didn't work out. He figured it wouldn't. That was selflessness rather than selfishness. There was a case where there was no self-enrichment or self- deprecation. He never became President, and historians point to that act. Right or wrong, he believed that there would be a civil war if they did not have the Compromise of 1850, and he believed that in 1850 the Nation would not be able to withstand a civil war. Maybe it wouldn't have. It almost didn't when it began in 1861. But that was a precedent. That was selflessness. That was a case of no self- enrichment. Or how about in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson when a man is carried on a gurney so that he can cast a vote and the vote failed by one? There are all kinds of cases of precedent, of selflessness, of cases in which there was no self-enrichment. Yet that's brought up in this case of Chairman Rangel. I like Chairman Rangel. He is a fun guy to talk to. He is a fun guy to be around. Until this episode, I thought he was a very, very smart individual. But for his statements to be true, that he had no idea that he was doing anything wrong, then there would have to be a vast amount of ignorance. There is no law against ignorance. We are all ignorant in some areas. But after I heard the comment ``no self-enrichment,'' I asked for the case evidence. Well, it turns out in Punta Cana, in the Dominican Republic, the respondent, Chairman Rangel, purchased a villa at the Punta Cana Yacht Club in 1987. It talks about he had quarterly payments due, 10.5 percent interest. He could use the villa for up to 9 weeks a year. The remaining weeks it could be rented out by the resort with proceeds from the rentals going into the rental pool from which he received benefit or, some might say, self-enrichment. For his portion of the rental pool, it's income. Obviously, we can't call people a liar, so we will say, okay, he was telling the truth. He had no idea that when he was provided money or that that money was paid toward a home which he purchased to pay off his mortgage he had no idea that that was income. Now I would think to help make that kind of an assertion, it would help if the chairman of Ways and Means also came into this body and in addition to saying, there is no self-enrichment, I had no idea at the time that I was making these mistakes, I would think he would add, Do you know what? Since I'm chairman of Ways and Means and I can't figure this stuff out, and even I am completely ignorant of what is accrued income to me, what we need to do is either have a flat tax or a fair tax where I never have to fill out another document again, it's just taken care of, there's no mistakes. Because this obviously is so confusing that even the chairman of Ways and Means cannot figure it out. Well, the evidence goes on that in late 1992, early 1993, the management of Punta Cana decided to eliminate any remaining interest due on the mortgages of the respondent with some early investors; and in 2009, by that year, the respondent's, Chairman Rangel's, rental pool's earnings paid off his original mortgage and the financing of the third bedroom addition. See, most people would realize that if other people are paying money to rent out your villa and you're getting checks, as apparently came at some point directly from the rental pool to Chairman Rangel, some would say, do you know what? I'm getting this extra money into my pocket, do you know what? That is probably income. Some would realize that when people are renting your villa, and that money is going into a pool from which your mortgage is being paid an additional equity, every quarter it's increasing, that that would be accrued income or self-enrichment. But apparently that was not realized. So as a former judge, I know we look at other evidence to see if there are indications that anything might have been discerned about the classification of this obvious income or benefit to most people, and the evidence points to a January 1993 letter written to Reiniere at this Punta Cana resort in which Chairman Rangel said, I hope you can provide me with a copy of the contract we have with the Punta Cana which includes the third bedroom addition, what equity has accrued and if there is an outstanding balance. He wasn't sure that there was an outstanding balance because even though he may not have been paying the mortgage, it was getting paid from somewhere, and then though he apparently did not realize that by others paying his mortgage for him that it was income, he said in this letter, his words, as I mentioned to you, the House Ethics Committee requires the disclosure by Members of Congress of any assets and unearned income, and while I enjoy a good relationship with the committee's chairman, it certainly would be politically embarrassing if I were unable to provide an accurate accounting of my holdings. Apparently, at the time he wrote the letter, he realized they were holdings. He realized that there was equity accruing, which many would consider a form of self-enrichment. He indicates that since Members of Congress are required to disclose assets and unearned income that he would need the information from Punta Cana to indicate what income had come in. As we understand, there has also been the issue raised, well, gee, statements came back in Spanish, and so we really didn't know what it all meant. However, the evidence indicates on a letter that was sent to Chairman Rangel, please find enclosed your statement of account as of June 30, 1996, for the CO owners' rental pool that shows a total net income, and apparently the word ``income'' in English in the letter did not resonate with Chairman Rangel that ``income'' meant it's income, and it didn't trigger the thought that maybe since they're saying it's income, I should report it on this thing called an income tax return. But it says there was net income of U.S. dollars $3,294.95. So I understand since that's spelled out in English that can be a little confusing, especially where they say the net income to Chairman Rangel was this specific amount. But then again, maybe self-enrichment means something other than what I understand. And I think most people understand that you made money off something. Well, the original financial disclosures--I didn't even ask about this stuff until I heard Chairman Rangel use the term that there was no self-enrichment. So I asked for the documentation here just this afternoon, because I was struck by ``no self-enrichment.'' That doesn't sound right. But apparently the 1998 original financial disclosure--this was after the letter was sent to Punta Cana saying I have to disclose all assets on my financial disclosure I have to disclose as income, and even after he got a letter saying here is how much in U.S. dollars you had in income, he doesn't disclose it on the financial disclosures for 1998, 1999, 2000 per letter agreement. And then finally in 2001, he does start reporting the income between $5,000 and $15,000, that's the category, until 2004 when the category was $2,500 to $5,000. But also in the evidence in the record, it shows that for 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 no income was reported from this income as described from Punta Cana on the original income tax returns of Chairman Rangel. I suffer from the problem of having, before I was a judge and chief justice, having been in a Federal courtroom of a judge who was known to tell people he sentenced who had not reported every dime of income they actually had. So found guilty of failing to pay all of their income tax, income tax fraud, he would instruct them that they had committed this horribly heinous crime. The reputation was that they would be lectured that they had committed this heinous crime by taking food out of the mouths of children who couldn't feed themselves or shelter from those who had none by this heinous crime and then be sent to prison, doing hard time in prison. So I didn't get as concerned about this until I heard the chairman himself saying here on this floor there was no self-enrichment; they were just innocent mistakes. Yet in his own words, in his own letter, he acknowledges he needs to know what is his income from Punta Cana, from his villa there. He indicated he has to disclose these things, even though he didn't, and didn't report for years on his income tax return the fact that people were paying rent to his villa and that money was going to pay off his mortgage. See, I think most people across America who may not even know what the Ways and Means Committee is and that it writes the tax laws, they have an idea that if they buy a home or they buy a villa, whether in the Dominican Republic or here in the United States, and it is leased out, and after paying expenses for the home there is additional money left that is used to pay off the mortgage and then is eventually sent in a check to that person who brought the home, they kind of get it, that that is income, that is self-enrichment. And that is why so many people do that if they can afford it, because they like the idea of renting out a facility, having others pay off their mortgage, and they end up owning it. But they understand when people are paying off their mortgage for them, that is income. Now, it is true I have the luxury of having sold, cashed out, virtually all of my wife's and my assets, retirement accounts, because I believed so strongly in the need to change the direction this country was going. So as it gets reported annually in papers back in Texas, I have less assets than anyone. Right now, because we have such a wonderful nice home, we are trying to sell that. We are in the black when it comes to net assets, but without the home we are not. But I don't have the difficulty that Chairman Rangel does because I cashed out my assets to live on while I ran to be in this body. But I took income tax law in law school, and I have read through the income tax forms before. Now, for a number of years, we have an accountant do it. But it is staggering how many people that I have talked to, some who never went to college, but they get the idea that if you buy a home, buy a villa and rent it out, and that rent pays your mortgage and then eventually the rent is sent to you, that is income. In both places, when it is used to pay off the mortgage and when it comes to you, it is income. And it sure looks like, from the chairman's letter in 1993, that he knew it was, too, at least at that time. But maybe a short time after he wrote that letter, maybe he forgot. And when we hear the stories about the information being in Spanish--and I don't speak Spanish--that makes some sense. But most people would say, I need to get somebody who speaks Spanish to read these documents. There is a lot more evidence, but that is pertaining to the villa in the Dominican Republic. I think it is wonderful that he was able to have a vacation home like that and have people pay it off for him, but it certainly ought to be able to be discerned by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee that that is income. So when we hear talk during that proceeding about precedent, and, you know, even a little modicum of the history about this place, how we got this because of the sacrifice of so many who pledged everything, just as our soldiers do, and then we have someone say, hey, don't forget I served honorably. Well, it broke my heart every time I had to sentence someone to prison who had served honorably but then later was convicted of a felony and came before me as a judge. It was heartbreaking. And I bet if Duke Cunningham had it to do all over again, a former Member of this body and extremely decorated, as I understand the greatest ace of a pilot that we had in the Vietnam War, I bet he would like to know that the Rangel defense is that if you served honorably before, you don't get in trouble other than having the Speaker tell you to pay back taxes that you owe. What kind of a censure was that? You would think that a censure is saying you did wrong in very blunt terms. Instead, it sounded like, hey, go pay the taxes that you obviously owe. It's amazing, just amazing. I did not intend to get into this tonight, but I was so taken aback that someone would here on this House floor and say there was no self- enrichment when the evidence seems to speak for itself. I know that I am limited by the rules as to what I can say about it, but the evidence speaks for itself. How can there be such ignorance about what self- enrichment is? It is staggering. And then, before I speak, I have to listen to a colleague from across the aisle who tells us that actually Bush gave us $4 gas, in his words. It is nice when people take responsibility for what they have done. It's not so nice when people blame others for the mistakes they themselves have made. And it is interesting that since the Democratic majority took control of this body and chairmanship of every committee, that they could still blame Bush for everything that happened in 2007 and 2008 even though the Constitution puts the responsibility squarely on Congress to have a budget, to make appropriations, not the administration. They can submit one. But constitutionally, it is this body's obligation to appropriate and not to spend too much money. So how do you keep blaming Presidents? And yet we know when the Republicans took the majority in 1994 and were sworn in with the majority in 1995, if you believe the Constitution, then it was the Republican Congress that balanced the budget in those days. And if you go back historically and look, although President Clinton takes credit, oftentimes he was rather upset about the things that this Congress did to get the budget balanced. Now he takes full credit and congratulations. And apparently there was something to having a Congress that was in different hands than the President, because certainly when President Bush took office in 2001, although I wasn't here, there apparently was a giddiness. Wow, we have the House, Senate, the White House. Now we can just spend like we never have before. And all of the restraint the Republican Congress had used in the late 1990s seemed to go out the window. And so we ran deficits, and Democrats were proper to point those things out in my first two years of 2005 and 2006. They are right. We should not have run a deficit budget. But the claim was, if you give us the gavel in January of 2007, we will fix all that. And instead, that is not what happened. So to continue to correct things that have been said here inappropriately this week, including today, I even heard the Speaker, Madam Speaker herself, say a number of times, once in here, but said many times, it is, in essence, irresponsible to have across-the-board tax cuts, just extend the current tax rate as it is into the future, even though the lowest rate is 10 percent and those that earn the highest amount of money pay 35 percent, and even though common sense would tell you if the rate were 10 percent across the board for poor and rich alike, the rich would still pay more money. The more you make, the more you pay. Except what many people don't realize is that the people on Wall Street that make so very much money, that contribute to Democrats 4 to 1 over Republicans, they as Art Laffer explains, rich people like that have control over the amount of income they bring in in a given year. They have control over where that income is paid. They have control over the manner in which it's paid. They can control all kinds of things about their income; whereas, someone who is a wage earner, a brick mason, as Laffer has pointed out, has to lay the bricks where they are. He can't control where he derives income. The wealthy can and have moved from States or cities that increase their taxes too much. The rich can control those things. So, Warren Buffett, how noble for him to say he should be paying more taxes. Well, it would seem to me to be a whole lot more noble if he'd just pay them, instead of allowing his accountants and lawyers to come up with all kinds of schemes and ways to manipulate the income so he doesn't pay the taxes that he would if he were paying a 10, 15, 20, or 35 percent tax. When you are wealthy, you are in a position to control how you receive income and what years you receive it in. Many people who are wealthy have been receiving income this year before the rates go up on January 1. I've heard from people who are wealthy that they have money to invest, that they have money that they would like to spend to create housing developments and things; but, you know, there is just too much uncertainty with regard to the taxes, so they're not going to do the building. It would be insane. They don't believe, I think rightly, in starting to build homes when nobody is buying them because nobody is sure what the future will hold in the way of taxes. So those who are in a position to create jobs are not creating them because of the uncertainty created by this majority and this administration. We've been told, even though we are in December now, that the tax rates will go up greater than they ever have in the history of this country on January 1, so there is all this uncertainty. Capital gains rates shoot up and all of these marginal rates. Every rate of income tax goes up. The thing to do is just extend the rates to give that certainty. But oh, no. We probably would have done that, but there was just too much we had to cover. Today, for example, we had to take up a debate and deal with the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010. Well, obviously, airports are important. We had to take up a debate and take a lot of time to have a recorded vote supporting the goals and ideals of National GEAR UP Day. I mean, some of these things that we took up are nice, worthy things, some of which are very helpful to people. But how much more helpful would it be to give some certainty to the economy so people could have a real job before we get to Christmas? Give them a job. Give them the hope. But oh, no. We're too busy to give some certainty to the economy so people can start creating jobs again. We had to take up a bill and debate it on expressing support for the designation of the month of October as National Work and Family Month. That's wonderful and that's fine, National Work and Family Month. But how much better would it have been to have taken up the issue of the tax rates and made sure they would be stable on into the next year so that jobs would be created? Wouldn't that have been better than spending all this time debating and voting on the congratulations and how wonderful it is to have a National Work and Family Month? I mean, that's nice, but wouldn't it have been better to have actually created jobs and created work so that people could have money to spend on their families? You know, we passed a bill that gave unemployment benefits for 99 weeks, for goodness sakes, which is expiring. It would have been better to say, You know what? It has been 26 weeks, and you haven't found a job because there isn't one in the area in which you're trained. So, rather than pay you to sit around the house for another year and a half--and I know people are hurting. I know. I understand--it would be better to say, So you didn't find a job in your area of expertise and training and experience in 26 weeks, over 6 months, so we're going to see that you get trained in an area where there are jobs so you'll have the expertise and training in an area where there are jobs so you don't have to sit around the house. Because people get depressed. They lose their sense of self-worth and value when they don't have a job. Yet this government prefers to keep people as indentured servants and to keep having them reach out to the government for help because we refuse to incentivize people to reach their God-given potential. Instead, we lure them into ruts from which they cannot extricate themselves. That's what we have done for 45 years with young, single women. Hey, you're bored with high school. I've had women tell me this in court. We're bored with high school. I've heard a defendant say it was her mother who said, Hey, just drop out. Have a baby. The government will send you a check. What? This government is incentivizing people not to finish high school? I know that the Great Society legislation was born out of the best of intentions because there were deadbeat dads who were not helping, and they should have had to have paid a high price; but for goodness sakes, don't incentivize luring people into a rut. These young women would come in before my court, charged in some cases with felony welfare fraud and others with drug dealing because they would find out, Well, gee. I can't live on this little check for one child who was born out of wedlock, so maybe I'll have another and another and another. Eventually, they are in a hole and they have no hope, and our government lured them into that. I know there were good intentions, but good intentions are immoral when they deprive people of chance and opportunity and when they lure them into a hole they can't get out of. That is not a government function. That is not what we are to be about. Then there is all of this talk, over and over, about how are we going to pay the $700 billion it will cost if we keep the same tax rates into next year. Well, it flies in the face of the facts, and the facts are very clear. I know we've heard a lot of opinion on this floor about, gosh, it will be a $700 billion loss. Why? Because that's the kind of thing the CBO says. Why? Because the CBO doesn't deal in the real world. They deal in an area of Keynesian economics where they are not allowed to look at the facts to make predictions for the future. How stupid is that that this body relies on a group like CBO, which has their hands tied, which can't look at history to determine the future? So they're able to come out and say something ridiculous like, Gee, if you allow the wealthier people in America to have the same tax rate, it's going to cost the American treasury $700 billion. There is no evidence in our history that that has ever happened in reality, that when you have a lower tax that it actually costs revenue. The fact is--this is when you get into the so-called ``Laffer curve'' that Art Laffer came up with, and it's amazing that some people, particularly MSNBC, cannot figure this out--if you tax zero, you will get zero revenue. It's pretty basic. If you tax 100 or 150 percent-- let's say 100 percent. If you tax every dime people make, then they're going to quit working. Why should they work when the government is going to take every dime and they don't get to keep any of it? Why would they work? They won't. It's very clear. It's one of the reasons the Soviet Union fell. So somewhere between zero percent tax and a hundred percent tax, you have a percentage that will maximize the return of the revenue to the Federal Government that the Federal Government can then use to carry out its government and its governmental functions. So there is a point. It's ridiculous for somebody to say, so I guess at zero percent tax, we'll have all kinds of revenue coming in. That's ridiculous. What a bogus thing to say. It's between zero and a hundred. You find the point, and that was the point of the Laffer curve. You get to one point here where you continue to tax beyond that, you discourage people working and making more money, then they have less money to go out and pay others to do things, like feed them at restaurants or clothe them or to buy a bigger, nicer house or to buy more cars, those kind of things. It stimulates the economy when people have more of their money and they can buy more, do more with their own money. Of course you don't get more revenue at zero percent. But obviously as John F. Kennedy found when he cut taxes, and as Reagan found when he cut taxes, and despite the misinformation spewed on this floor, the fact is that when taxes have been cut, revenues go up--each time it's been done. But we have such an ignorant way for CBO to operate. So for this political animal--and I know people say, oh, it's bipartisan. Baloney. CBO is not bipartisan. They can say what they want, but if CBO were really bipartisan, the facts wouldn't be as clear as they are about what CBO has done. They are quite partisan. And I know that Director Elmendorf was not happy when I previously pointed out how well they cooperated with the White House in misconstruing the cost of like ObamaCare after he was woodshedded at the White House, but sometimes the facts hurt and that one obviously did. Because whether CBO and the director realize it or not, they have done the President's bidding. They came in at 200, $250 billion under where they should have been if they had used their own ridiculous rules. We need bills scored by groups that can look at history and look at reality. And CBO, the Joint Tax Commission, they need to be done away with. We could save money and have more accurate projections, more honorable, reliable projections if we hired that out to independent entities that are allowed to look at real world facts. So here are some real world facts for all of my friends that are ignorant of the facts of what happens when you cut high tax rates and make them a bit lower. We know that in 2003, these were the tax rates that took effect that have been extended and that we're seeking to extend. Not tax cuts but just to extend the same rates. When those tax cuts were fully implemented after 2003 in which they occurred, we should begin to get some idea of what the real world facts are that CBO cannot rely on, because they're not a realistic entity because of the rules under which they operate. So 2003, before the tax rates kicked in, those that were operating under the 2002 tax rates and rules, in 2003, the Federal Government took in $1,782,321,000,000 approximately; about $1.8 trillion. The following year the so-called Bush tax cuts had taken effect, so after the $1.782 trillion Federal revenue and the tax cuts went in, gee, did we lose $700 billion? No, we did not. Actually what happened is the Federal revenue climbed to $1.88 trillion. In '05, it jumped up again-- to $2.153 trillion. And the next year it jumped up yet again in '06--to $2.406 trillion. Massive gains and increases in Federal revenue after the tax cuts took effect. There is no reality in losing $700 billion when you continue these same tax rates. But, boy, we will create disincentives for those who create jobs if we don't extend the tax rates across the board for everybody. And for those who are concerned that, gee, they should pay more, they'd be paying more if it was across the board a 10 percent income tax. But they're sure paying more when the lowest tax rate for the poorest Americans is 10 percent and the highest tax rate for the wealthiest is 35 percent. But when that shoots up about another 5 percent come January 1, there's not going to be the incentives to create new jobs. People are going to have to pull back in their horns because they're going to have 5 percent less money to deal with. Not the Warren Buffetts. They'll still have the accountants and lawyers to figure out how they can move income to different places, how they can take it at different times, how they can make it as part of something that is not taxable. All that will happen for the superwealthy. But there was a book I recall back in the nineties, I believe, about millionaires in America; and I recall reading that the most popular vehicle for millionaires in America to drive was not what one might think. Not a Lexus, not a Mercedes, not a really high-powered car. The most popular vehicle according to what I read for millionaires in America was a Ford F-150 truck. And yet friends across the aisle try to paint millionaires as being these mean-spirited people that just want to take all the money for the poor. They'd like to hang on to what they built in their lifetime and they paid taxes on, but these aren't the Warren Buffetts or the Bill Gates or the Michael Dells where they can adjust income the way they take it and avoid paying taxes at the same rate as people even in the lowest tax rate. These are people who build businesses from nothing and then along comes the Federal Government at the end of their life, and it will start again January 1, and the Federal Government says, ``You know what, you worked too hard, you saved too much, and we're going to take 55 percent of everything you saved.'' So for most of these small businesses that are built from scratch and most of the family farms that are built over generations as my great aunt and uncle did, over generations, the Federal Government comes in and says, you know what, like in the case of my great aunt, Lilly, you know what, you got 5,000 acres--I'm sorry, she had around 2,500 acres, valued originally at the time of her death at around $2,000 an acre, it was approximately a $5 million estate. And so we're going to take 55 percent of that, we'll give you an exclusion and take 55 percent of that. But within a year the values, because there was a lot of dumping of land around there, FDIC, dumping land, values fell six, $700, so the IRS took every single acre of that farm that took over a hundred years and generations to build. It is immoral. It is immoral for this body to say, you worked too hard, you saved too much, you accumulated things for your family, so we're going to take over half of it. That's outrageous. It needs to stop. But the gavel was handed to the Democratic majority in January of '07, so we have to give some credit where credit's due, despite what my friend across the aisle said about Bush giving us $4 gas. Actually he was trying to do things like drill in areas that would have brought down the price of gasoline. Yet this administration and this majority, this majority beginning January of '07 began to take actions, it seemed like it was basically monthly, where we were putting more and more land off-limits to drilling, off-limits to production of minerals and oil and gas and things that people relied on to have lower gas prices. So let's give credit where credit is due. Then I heard on Greta Susteren's show, when she interviewed Donald Trump, he had the solution to creating more jobs in America. He said, What you have to do is create more jobs in America. He kept saying, What you've got to do is just create more jobs in America. It's like what comedian Steve Martin used to say, I'm going to write a book on how to have $10 million and not pay taxes. Okay, I'll tell you how it goes: First you get $10 million, and then you just don't pay taxes. I mean, to say the way to solve the problem is to create jobs, well, of course. But eventually she pinned him down and asked him, what specifically would you say to do? He said, I would put a 25 percent tariff or tax on everything that we buy from China and that will solve the problem. As smart as that man is and as well as he has done, obviously he hasn't spent his life in government service because unless you are able to figure out things I haven't that you can do legally, you don't make a lot of money. You know, $170,000 sounds like a lot, but not compared to what you could do. But 25 percent tax on everything we buy from China? He doesn't realize that triggers all kinds of penalty provisions of all kinds of treaties that we have? He doesn't realize what that would do in starting a trade war that we probably could not win? Shocking. You want to get jobs going, the thing to do is to eliminate the 35 percent tariff on every American good produced by an American company in America. Get rid of the 35 percent tariff--because that's what a corporate tax is now, let's be real about it; it's a 35 percent tariff on every American corporate good that we sell. You cut 35 percent off the price of American goods produced in America by American companies and they will be able to compete worldwide. Madam Speaker, thank you for the time. I hope we will eliminate the 35 percent American tariff on American goods.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. My dear friend from Iowa has made some really important points. But it seems to be part of a pattern, what we have seen for the last 4 years, of the majority here in the House dividing America, playing class envy, trying to just really take--it is not Robin Hood, because Robin Hood took money back from people that stole it to give it back to the people who had actually generated the money. So I know there are some friends on the other side of the aisle who think that they are being a bit of Robin Hood, but they need to understand Robin Hood better. He didn't take from people who earned the money; he took from people who basically stole it and gave it back to people that generated it. And yet that is the kind of stuff we see going on. There is so much fraud in Medicare and there is so much fraud, waste, and abuse in the government itself. And yet still we hear this class envy being trumpeted. I know my friend from Iowa agrees 100 percent with me, if anybody in America makes more money, they should pay more income tax. If you had a flat income tax, that would be the case. You do have people like the renowned Warren Buffett who says he should pay more taxes. Many people like him pay less money in income tax than somebody making $30,000, $40,000 because they have all kinds of great ways of getting around having to pay taxes. But I just am so deeply grieved to my soul that this class envy that is being played up by people across the aisle to avoid helping the economy by giving some certainty to people who are wondering whether they will be able to afford to hire people right now when it comes January 1 because they know the capital gains rates are going up, every marginal rate is going up. It is outrageous that we have played games for 2 years now--4 years under this majority--and we have done nothing to give certainty to employers so that people will not have to file suit to try to get a job. There will be jobs created because there is certainty out there. Most people who know about job creation know the old saying: ``Capital is a coward. Capital goes to where it feels safest.'' But to feel safe, investment money has to be placed where there is some certainty under the law. It is why it's not pouring into Mexico, because they don't know who is going to be in charge, who is going to be killed, who is going to be corrupted. So all that the community is needing to know is: Is there going to be some certainty? Are our taxes going to go through the roof come January 1 as they are currently scheduled to do? The fact that this majority would play this kind of gamesmanship and class warfare when people are out of work--they need jobs, and they want to have a Merry Christmas. There would be no better Christmas than to have a job for Christmas, but we've got this tremendously high rate of unemployment, particularly when you figure those who are underemployed. Yet this majority, even now in December, is still not willing to just say across the board that we're going to not create tax cuts--that's not even out there--but just extend the current tax rate and say we're not going to play class warfare. Of course the people who make more money should pay more money in taxes. That's why their rate is 35 percent instead of 15 percent or 10 percent at the lowest rate. So it just grieves me. I know people who are out of work, and I know there are businesspeople I've talked to who say, I've got to find out what my taxes are going to be, what the tax rate will be for next year, because if it's going up, I can't hire anybody. If it's going to stay where it is, I can hire some people. Now, that's a Merry Christmas when you give people a job. You limit all the bogus class warfare going on in this body, and just say, Forget the games. This is too serious. We are playing with people's lives. We are tired with the gamesmanship about how we can squeeze more money out of the Federal Government. Forget the Federal Government. Just get out of the way so that we can create jobs in America and put people back to work. Still, unless my friend from Iowa knows differently, as far as I know, we're not taking it up, as we didn't on Monday. We congratulated some people. We, I think, named a post office, and we did a bunch of stuff yesterday--nothing, you know, breathtaking. With the Child Nutrition Act, we're going to run up the Federal Government costs. Why not give these people an opportunity to have a job so they can pay for their own nutrition? As far as I know, the tax extension, at the current rate across the board, is not coming up tomorrow. It may not come up Friday. We don't know when it's coming up. So, anyway, I have been grieved to my soul as I think about the people I know who don't have jobs and about the people I know who would hire people if they knew that the tax rates were not going up. I just had to point it out one more time to our friends across the aisle. Please don't leave another day leaving the tax rates in limbo. Give some certainty. Allow jobs to be created that are not government jobs. Perhaps you know when this is going to come up.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I have the same concerns my good friend from Arizona has. As has been discussed here, people around the world, nations around the world watch everything we do to determine are we serious about providing for a defense for America. Are we serious about providing a defense for our allies. Are we serious about standing up against rogue nations, against attacks on freedom and liberty. I know there is some disagreement among historians, but there are those who believe that when the Secretary of State 60 years ago gave a speech which in essence indicated that Korea was really outside our sphere of influence, North Korea had been massing and they had been preparing, but it happened that they began moving south after that speech. People notice when there is a weakness evidenced in America's leadership, and often it leads to acts of violence. Do you think it was any accident that the flotilla went against the Israeli blockade of Gaza where thousands of rockets had flown into Israel, destroying, killing, terrorizing Israelis. We agreed originally that the blockade was necessary because of all of the death and destruction. Was it any accident that the flotilla ends up setting sail to try to at least challenge that blockade after this White House snubs the prime minister of Israel, treats them worse than Chavez or some Third World dictator, treats them so shabbily, and begins to side with Israel's enemies, like in May voting with Israel's enemies to make them disclose all of their weaponry. I mean, was it any accident that is when those who want to challenge Israel's very existence sent the flotilla south? I don't think so. When it comes to strong leadership that protects America, I mean, my friends have been discussing this issue of Guantanamo. I know that you would be as delighted as I was to read the headline, ``5 Charged in 9/ 11 Attacks Seek to Plead Guilty.'' A New York Times article, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: ``The five Guantanamo detainees charged with coordinating the September 11 attacks told a military judge on Monday that they wanted to confess in full, a move that seemed to challenge the government to put them to death. At the start of what had been listed as routine proceedings Monday, Judge Henry said he had received a written statement from the five men dated November 4 saying they planned to stop filing legal motions and to `announce our confessions to plea in full'. Speaking in what has become a familiar high-pitched tone in the cavernous courtroom here, the most prominent of the five, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said, `We don't want to waste our time with motions.' '' That was what they said. This administration, unfortunately, came in after, just a month after this because this is December 8, 2008. These guys were ready to plead guilty. They were ready to be put to death. They had already proclaimed, as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did, as well as authorized by the other four, they were ready to plead guilty and take their punishment. Oh, no. The strong leaders in this administration came in and said, whoa, whoa, not so fast. We want to give you a show trial in New York City, cost ourselves billions of dollars, put New Yorkers at risk so you can have a big show, and we can pound our chest and talk about how civilized we are. What civilized nation would not protect itself so it can remain civilized instead of being overtaken by barbarians? The civilized thing to do is to protect the civilized people that put you in office. But that is not what this administration did. They came in and basically said, you know what, hold off on that guilty plea. Once these guys heard they were going to get a show trial, well for heaven's sake, they pulled back on their guilty pleas and here 2 years later, 2 full years later, this administration has now announced basically that we are not sure when we are going to get around to bringing them to trial. We are not sure where we are going to try them. It has shown weakness in leadership. I just remind my friend, and I know he knows the quote from John Stuart Mill, who said in the 1800s: ``War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.''

Mr. GOHMERT

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