Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I have so much respect and abiding love and appreciation for my dear friend from Arizona, as well as my friend from Colorado and my friend who was here earlier from Iowa, my dear friend Steve King. Congressman King and I were down in Guantanamo together, and I heard him earlier talking about pulling back the privileges and punishing assaults at Guantanamo Bay against our own servicemembers. I did recall something that he may not have recalled. There is another severe form of punishment when such an assault is committed on our guards at Guantanamo, which apparently is pretty customary down there, of throwing urine or feces on our guards. They have to come up with creative ways to do that, and do so. One of the other ways--and it's the only other way in addition to taking some of their outdoor exercise time down to 2 hours. The other thing that they have been known to do in order to really punish them, to actually torture them, is to take away some of their movie-watching time during the day. It's just devastating, you know, to the Guantanamo detainees to have some of their movie-watching privileges taken away because they threw feces or urine on one of our gallant servicemen or - women. You've got to take away some of their movie-watching. It really teaches them a lesson. It just shows them we're not going to be messed with. If you mess with us, you won't get to watch as many movies today as you would have otherwise. We'll show 'em. I was also hearing on the news today that Uyghurs, Chinese Muslims who have been transferred out of Guantanamo, had given interviews, indicating, actually, they were a lot better treated in Guantanamo than they were at home in China. So, despite the way some people have tried to characterize the prison in Guantanamo, it is not quite as bad--in fact, not by a long shot. It provides better living conditions than many of these people have ever had in their lives. Then again, some of them wanted to blow themselves up, and they haven't had that opportunity down there. So, if their version of a great, abundant life is to blow themselves up and to kill a lot of innocent people, then, yes, they have not had that kind of abundant life of blowing themselves up and killing innocent people in Guantanamo Bay. But the messages that are coming out of this administration are particularly worrisome. When our own enemies perceive weakness in the President of this country or his administration, it propels them into action. It propels them into actions that harm the United States that they would otherwise be afraid to move forward with. In fact, when one thinks about President Bush, with support from Democrats and Republicans alike, going into Iraq, one of the things that came out of that was a country teetering once again on the edge of nuclear proliferation, a nuclear program going forward. When President Bush ordered our troops into Iraq, the potential terrorist-harboring state of Libya realized, uh-oh, this President is quite serious. He is willing to commit American troops into harm's way to take out a ruthless leader who at least says he supports terrorism and supports threatening the United States. ``Maybe I'd better cancel our nuclear program and make peace with the United States.'' One of the byproducts of the invasion of Iraq was a message that, at that time at least, there was a President who would step up and who was not afraid to take action when someone continued to try to threaten the United States. A friend who publishes in the Jerusalem Post--and I've had the opportunity, honor and privilege to read some of Caroline Glick's writing here on the House floor before--has great insight so often into areas of foreign policy, not only with regard to Israel but with regard to the United States and our place in international stability when we do show that we can and will be strong. There was an article that was published in the Jerusalem Post, written by Caroline Glick on November 26, 2010. Caroline's perspective and the things she has to say, I think, are important enough to read into our Record, Mr. Speaker, for anyone who may not otherwise have been privy to her observations. This is her article. It begins, ``Crises are exploding throughout the world. And the leader of the free world is making things worse.'' I'm quoting from Caroline Glick. ``On the Korean Peninsula, North Korea just upended 8 years of State Department obfuscation by showing a team of U.S. nuclear scientists its collection of thousands of state-of-the-art centrifuges installed in its Yongbyon nuclear reactor. ``And just to top off the show, as Stephen Bosworth, U.S. President Barack Obama's point man on North Korea, was busily arguing that this revelation is not a crisis, the North fired an unprovoked artillery barrage at South Korea, demonstrating that, actually, it is a crisis. ``But the Obama administration remains unmoved. On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates thanked his South Korean counterpart, Kim Tae- young, for showing `restraint.' ``On Thursday, Kim resigned in disgrace for that restraint. ``The U.S. has spoken strongly of not allowing North Korea's aggression to go unanswered. But in practice, its only answer is to try to tempt North Korea back to feckless multilateral disarmament talks that will go nowhere because China supports North Korean armament. Contrary to what Obama and his advisers claim, China does not share the U.S.'s interest in denuclearizing North Korea. Consequently, Beijing will not lift a finger to achieve that goal. ``Then there is Iran. The now inarguable fact that Pyongyang is developing nuclear weapons with enriched uranium makes it all but certain that the hyperactive proliferators in Pyongyang are involved in Iran's uranium-based nuclear weapons program. Obviously, the North Koreans don't care that the U.N. Security Council placed sanctions on Iran. And their presumptive role in Iran's nuclear weapons program exposes the idiocy of the concept that these sanctions can block Iran's path to a nuclear arsenal. ``Every day, as the regime in Pyongyang and Teheran escalate their aggression and confrontational stances, it becomes more and more clear that the only way to neutralize the threats they pose to international security is to overthrow them. At least in the case of Iran, it is also clear that the prospects for regime change have never been better. ``Iran's regime is in trouble. Since the fraudulent Presidential elections 17 months ago, the regime has moved ferociously against its domestic foes. ``But dissent has only grown. And as popular resentment towards the regime has grown, the likes of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, supreme dictator Ali Khamenei and their Revolutionary Guards have become terrified of their own people. They have imprisoned rappers and outlawed Western music. They have purged their schoolbooks of Persian history. Everything that smacks of anything non-Islamic is viewed as a threat. ``Members of the regime are so frightened by the public that, this week, several members of parliament tried to begin impeachment proceedings against Ahmadinejad. Apparently, they hope that ousting him will be sufficient to end the public's call for revolutionary change. But Khamenei is standing by his man, and the impeachment proceedings have ended as quickly as they began. The policy implications of all this are clear. ``The U.S. should destroy Iran's nuclear installations and help the Iranian people overthrow the regime, but the Obama administration will have none of it. ``Earlier this month, Gates said, `If it's military solution, as far as I'm concerned, it will bring together a divided nation.' ``So in his view, the Iranian people, who risk death to defy the regime every day, the Iranian people who revile Ahmadinejad as `the chimpanzee' and call for Khamenei's death from their rooftops every evening, will rally around the chimp and the dictator if the U.S. or Israel attacks Iran's nuclear installations.'' Continuing with Caroline Glick's article, she says, ``Due to this thinking, as far as the Obama administration is concerned the U.S. should stick to its failed sanctions policy and continue its failed attempts to cut a nuclear deal with the mullahs. ``As Michael Ledeen noted last week at Pajamas Media, this boilerplate assertion, backed by no evidence whatsoever, is what passes for strategic wisdom in Washington as Iran completes its nuclear project. And this U.S. refusal to understand the policy implications of popular rejection of the regime is what brings State Department wise men and women to the conclusion that the U.S. has no dog in this fight. As State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told The Wall Street Journal this week, the Parliament's bid to impeach Ahmadinejad was nothing more than the product of `rivalries within the Iranian Government.' ``Then there is Lebanon. Since Ahmadinejad's visit last month, it is obvious that Iran is now the ruler of Lebanon and that it exerts its authority over the country through its Hizbullah proxy. ``Hizbullah's open threats to overthrow Prime Minister Saad Hariri's government if Hizbullah's role in assassinating his father in 2005 is officially acknowledged just make this tragic reality more undeniable. And yet, the Obama administration continues to deny that Iran controls Lebanon. ``A month after Ahmadinejad's visit, Obama convinced the lame duck Congress to lift its hold on $100 million in U.S. military assistance to the Hizbullah-dominated Lebanese military. And the U.S. convinced Israel to relinquish the northern half of the border town of Ghajar to U.N. forces despite the fact that the U.N. forces are at Hizbullah's mercy. ``In the midst of all these crises, Obama has maintained faith with his two central foreign policy goals: forcing Israel to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines and scaling back the U.S. nuclear arsenal with an eye towards unilateral disarmament. That is, as the forces of mayhem and war escalate their threats and aggression, Obama's central goals remain weakening the U.S.'s most powerful regional ally in the Middle East and rendering the U.S. incompetent to deter or defeat rapidly proliferating rogue states that are at war with the U.S. and its allies. ``Having said that, the truth is that in advancing these goals, Obama is not out of step with his predecessors. George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton both enacted drastic cuts in the U.S. conventional and nonconventional arsenals. Clinton and George W. Bush adopted appeasement policies towards North Korea. Indeed, Pyongyang owes its nuclear arsenal to both Presidents' desire to be deceived and do nothing. ``Moreover, North Korea's ability to proliferate nuclear weapons to the likes of Iran, Syria and Venezuela owes in large part to then- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's insistence that Israel say nothing about North Korea's nuclear ties to Iran and Syria in the wake of Israel's destruction of the North Korean-built and Iranian-financed nuclear reactor in Syria in September 2007. ``As for Iran, Obama's attempt to appease the regime is a little different from his predecessors' policies. The Bush administration refused to confront the fact that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are to a large degree Iranian proxy wars. ``The Bush administration refused to acknowledge that Syria and Hizbullah are run by Teheran and that the 2006 war against Israel was nothing more than an expansion of the proxy wars Iran is running in Iraq and Afghanistan. ``Obama's failed `reset' policy towards Russia is also little different from his predecessors' policies. ``Bush did nothing but squawk after Russia invaded U.S. ally Georgia. The Clinton administration set the stage for Vladimir Putin's KGB state by squandering the U.S.'s massive influence over post-Soviet Russia and allowing Boris Yeltsin and his cronies to transform the country into an impoverished kleptocracy. ``Finally, Obama's obsession with Israel land giveaways to the PLO were shared by Clinton and by the younger Bush, particularly after 2006. Rice, who compared Israel to the Jim Crow South, was arguably as hostile toward Israel as Obama. ``So is Obama really worse than everyone else or is he just the latest in the line of U.S. Presidents who have no idea how to run an effective foreign policy? The short answer is that he is far worse than his predecessors. ``A U.S. President's maneuver room in foreign affairs is always very small. The foreign policy establishment in Washington is entrenched and uniformly opposed to bending to the will of elected leaders. The elites in the State Department and the CIA and their cronies in academia and policy circles in Washington are also consistently unmoved by reality, which as a rule exposes their policies as ruinous. ``The President has two ways to shift the ship of state. First, he can use his bully pulpit. Second, he can appoint people to key positions in the foreign policy bureaucracy. ``Since entering office, Obama has used both these powers to ill effect. He has traveled across the world condemning and apologizing for U.S. world leadership. In so doing, he has convinced ally and adversary alike that he is not a credible leader; that no one can depend on U.S. security guarantees during his watch; and that it is possible to attack the U.S., its allies and interests with impunity. ``Obama's call for a nuclear-free world combined with his aggressive stance toward Israel's purported nuclear arsenal, his bid to disarm the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and his ineffective response to North Korea's nuclear brinksmanship and Iran's nuclear project have served to convince nations from the Persian Gulf to South America to the Pacific Rim that they should begin developing nuclear weapons. By calling for nuclear disarmament, he has provoked the greatest wave of nuclear armament in history. ``Given his own convictions, it is no surprise that all his key foreign policy appointments share his dangerous views. The State Department's legal advisor, Harold Koh, believes the U.S. should subordinate its laws to an abstract and largely unfounded notion of international law. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Michele Flournoy, believes terrorists become radicalized because they are poor. She is advised by leftist extremist Rosa Brooks. Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to open criminal investigations against CIA operatives who interrogated terrorists and to try illegal enemy combatants in civilian courts. ``In all these cases and countless others, Obama's senior appointees are implementing policies that are even more radical and dangerous than the radical and dangerous policies of the Washington policy establishment. Not only are they weakening the U.S. and its allies, they are demoralizing public servants who are dedicated to defending their country by signaling clearly that the Obama administration will leave them high and dry in a crisis. ``When a Republican occupies the White House, his foreign policies are routinely criticized and constrained by the liberal media. Radical Democratic Presidents like Woodrow Wilson have seen their foreign policies reined in by Republican congresses. ``Given the threats Obama's radical policies are provoking, it can only be hoped that through hearings and other means, the Republicans in the Senate and the House of Representatives will take an active role in curbing his policies. If they are successful, the American people and the international community will owe them a debt of gratitude.'' That was as published in the Jerusalem Post posted November 26, 2010. Interesting. It is quite disconcerting when we realized that this administration is sending out signals we won't stand by our friends and thinking that if we send a message out that we will embrace those who want to destroy our way of life, destroy our country and have pledged to do so; if we just show that we're willing to be compassionate, they'll be deeply moved and they'll come around to our side. Hardly. History teaches us very clearly that when people who despise another nation get messages that that nation they despise is weak or will not defend itself, then they are provoked to action to destroy it, to take it over. Now, hopefully we're a long way from that happening because there are enough people here in Washington that believe that strength and a showing of strength and a showing of willingness to do what it takes to keep our oath to provide for the common defense of this country, that that is what keeps us at peace, that is what helps prevent wars. I believe it was Reagan who used to talk about no one was ever attacked because people believed they were too strong. They attack because they think there is a weakness they can take advantage of. That's why after we pulled out of Vietnam and that footage remains being shown to Muslims in an attempt to radicalize them, see, America flees in the face of danger. See what happened in 1983 after the Marine barracks was blown up and nearly 300 Marines were killed? They left Beirut. See what happened back in 1979 when an act of international law, what international law would say was an act of war, American soil was attacked when our embassy was attacked, hostages taken. We did nothing but beg for Tehran to let them go for over a year. That was another sign of weakness. When another act of war on the USS Cole was committed, we responded by lobbing some rockets doing virtually no damage to people who were at war with us. So what are our enemies who want to see the United States destroyed, who have sworn to destroy this country and our way of life, what are they to think when repeatedly we show weakness and we show that those who have nothing but hate, disdain, and contempt for this country will be met with a warm embrace? What are they to think but to have more contempt for this country? Now Caroline Glick mentions international law and that this President is advised by people who believe the U.S. should subordinate its laws to an abstract and largely unfounded notion of international law. I took a course in international law at Baylor Law School under a visiting professor from Japan. I did a research paper. Got an A on it by the dean of a Japanese law school who was visiting Baylor for that year. And in having a conversation with him after the course was over, I said, For all of the reading we've done, all of the studying, the discussion, the debate, I come back to the conclusion that basically in short international law is whatever the strongest nation around says it is. And he says in essence, you have learned from this course well. That's exactly right. International law is whatever the strongest nation around says it is. And yet in response to attacks, threatened attacks, threatened efforts to destroy our way of life, what we have seen is an effort to bow before those who want to destroy us, those who are not our friends. I filed in the three Congresses that I have been in office here, and I will file in the fourth one next year, the U.N. Voting Accountability Act that says a nation that votes against us more than half the time in the U.N.--they're sovereign nations; they can do what they want to. We're not going to tell them how they have to vote, but any nation that votes against our position more than half the time will not get a dime of financial assistance from this country for the following year. As I said, you don't have to pay people to hate you. They'll do it for free. And it's still true. America, the United States of America is truly the greatest nation in the history of mankind. There are more liberties and more freedoms in this country than have ever been observed by the citizens of any country. As great as Solomon's Israel was, it didn't have the liberties for the people that this Nation has. This is a nation that is supposed to be governed by the people who, on Election Day, go out and actually hire people to do their bidding for the subsequent years. For too long, not enough people have come on hiring day to make sure that the best people got hired. For too long people have not studied the applications, the resumes, done the interviews of those who are seeking to be hired as the servants to go do their bidding as the people are the government. And so as the old adage goes, democracy ensures people are governed no better than they deserve. So we've gotten what we've deserved whether anyone likes it or not; whether anyone likes the prior President, the Nation got what we deserved; whether anyone likes this President or not, the Nation got what we deserved. And absolutely a truism that you can take to the bank, Madam Speaker, is that in 2012's elections, we will have a President elected or reelected who's no better than the Nation deserves. Now, there is one area of tremendous ignorance in this country. And there is nothing wrong with ignorance in an area of someone's knowledge unless they persist in that ignorance and refuse to learn and fill that void. We are told by our President that this is not a Christian nation, and I will not debate that. Maybe we're not. But I know how the Nation was founded, and I know enough history. And there are so many wonderful books. This is another one by William Federer, America's God and Country. And I have read all of the things that I am about to enter into here in different areas as I studied history, was a history hanger major at Texas A&M. But Federer has put these together succinctly to help illuminate how we got started. So in going back to July of 1776--hopefully most people in America would know July of 1776 is when the Declaration of Independence was signed, made public. But in July of 1776, Benjamin Franklin was appointed part of a committee to draft a seal for the newly United States which would characterize the spirit of the Nation. Now, this was not adopted, but this was Benjamin Franklin's proposal. He proposed, and this is a quote, ``Moses lifting up his wand and dividing the Red Sea, and Pharaoh in his chariot overwhelmed with the waters. This motto: `Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.' '' That was Benjamin Franklin's proposal for our national seal. Of course what we ultimately had, going back to 1776, the Great Seal, two-sided seal, is reflected on the back of every dollar bill. On the one side the eagle with the ribbon through his mouth with the Latin words E Pluribus Unum, meaning out of many, one. We come from all over the world, immigrants loving immigration, immigrants coming from all over the world, come here to the United States and become one. One in language, one in tradition, one in our history, one strong American people. The intent was, back then as they came from all areas of the world, that there would be no hyphenated Americans. When you came here, whether it was Europe, Africa, Asia, you came here, you were no longer African, European, Asian, South American, you were American. You were brothers and sisters together in this land. And although you celebrate traditions of your rich culture from wherever your immigrant ancestors had come from, still you would be here and become one people. Well, in a letter that Ben Franklin wrote in March of 1778, Ben Franklin is attributed with this writing. ``Whoever shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.'' Another quote from Benjamin Franklin was, ``A Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district--all studied and appreciated as they merit--are the principal support of virtue, morality, and civil liberty.'' In Ben Franklin's pamphlet entitled ``Information to Those Who Would Remove to America,'' which was written to Europeans who were considering the move to America, or intending to send their young people to seek their fortune in this land of opportunity, Ben Franklin wrote the following: ``Hence, bad examples to youth are more rare in America, which must be a comfortable consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced.'' Ben Franklin went on to say, ``Atheism is unknown there,'' talking about America, ``infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an atheist or an infidel.'' Further with Ben Franklin's quote, ``And the Divine Being seems to have manifested his approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness with which the different sects treat each other; by the remarkable prosperity with which he has been pleased to favor the whole country,'' unquote from Ben Franklin. He was talking about the sects, s-e-c-t-s, and denominations. These were Christian denominations he was talking about. In a letter to Robert R. Livingston, 1784, Ben Franklin wrote this: ``I am now entering on my 78th year. If I live to see this peace concluded, I shall beg leave to remind the Congress of their promise, then to dismiss me. I shall be happy to sing with old Simeon, `Now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation.' '' In another letter that Ben Franklin wrote, April 17, 1787, he said, ``Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.'' Then on June 28, 1787, Ben Franklin delivered a powerful speech to the Constitutional Convention, which was embroiled in a bitter debate over how each State was to be represented in the new government. The hostile feelings created by the smaller States being pitted against the larger States was so bitter that some delegates actually left the convention. Ben Franklin, being the president (governor) of Pennsylvania, hosted the rest of the 55 delegates attending the convention. Being the senior member of the convention at 81 years of age, he commanded the respect of all present. And as recorded in James Madison's detailed records, he rose to speak in this moment of crisis. This is from Federer's book. But this speech that Ben Franklin gave in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention truly was given at a moment of crisis. They had been going for nearly 5 weeks, and nothing but anger and bitterness had persisted in the convention. They were nowhere close to coming to any kind of agreement on anything, much less a Constitution. Now, I was taught in school that Benjamin Franklin was a deist, that he believed some deity, some power, some something created the universe, created the nature that we have come to know, and then steps back and never intercedes, never lifts a finger, never does anything to interfere with the ways of man. Yet when you read his own words, you read letters he wrote, things he said, it's quite clear a deist he was not. Here he was about 2 years away from meeting his maker. He was suffering from gout at the time. He had, as the senior delegate, governor, president, whatever you wish to call him from Pennsylvania at the convention and considered the host, he still had to be helped in. He was not doing well physically. But mentally he was sharp as ever. His wit was amazing as ever. And this is the speech that Ben Franklin gave up in this time of critical crisis in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. He was addressing the president of the Constitutional Convention, President Washington--not President of the country yet because there was no Constitution, so there was no President under that--but the president of the convention was addressed. And he said, ``Mr. President, the small progress we have made after 4 or 5 weeks close attendance and continual reasonings with each other--our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ayes, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the human understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those republics which, having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution, now no longer exist. And we viewed modern States all around Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances. ``In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding? ``In the beginning of this Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. ``To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance.'' Ben Franklin goes on and says, ``I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aide? ``We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that, `except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' '' Franklin then says, ``I firmly believe this, and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our partial local interests, our projects will be confounded, and we, ourselves, shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. ``And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest. ``I therefore beg leave to move, that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.'' Franklin sat down. Federer notes, ``The response of the convention to this speech by Benjamin Franklin was reported by Jonathan Dayton, the delegate from New Jersey.'' Delegate Jonathan Dayton from New Jersey wrote these words. When he says ``the Doctor,'' he is talking about Benjamin Franklin, as some affectionately called him. Dayton said, `` `The Doctor sat down; and never did I behold a countenance at once so dignified and delighted as was that of Washington at the close of the address; nor were the members of the convention generally less affected. The words of the venerable Franklin fell upon our ears with a weight and authority, even greater than we may suppose an oracle to have had in a Roman senate.' ``Following Franklin's historical address, James Madison moved, seconded by Roger Sherman of Connecticut, that Dr. Franklin's appeal for prayer be enacted. Edmund Jennings Randolph of Virginia further moved: `` `That a sermon be preached at the request of the convention on the 4th of July, the anniversary of Independence, and thenceforward prayers be used in ye Convention every morning.' ``The clergy of Philadelphia responded to this request and effected a profound change in the convention when they reconvened on July 2, 1787, and Jonathan Dayton again records these words: `` `We assembled again, and every unfriendly feeling had been expelled, and a spirit of conciliation had been cultivated.' ``On July 4th, the entire Convention assembled in the Reformed Calvinistic Church, according to the proposal by Edmund Jennings Randolph of Virginia, and heard a sermon by Rev. William Rogers. His prayer reflected the hearts of the delegates following Franklin's admonition: `` `We fervently recommend to the fatherly notice . . . our Federal convention . . . Favor them, from day to day, with thy inspiring presence; be their wisdom and strength; enable them to devise such measures as may prove happy instruments in healing all divisions and prove the good of the great whole . . . that the United States of America may form one example of a free and virtuous government . . . May we . . . continue, under the influence of republican virtue''--and that's with a little ``r,'' not this Republican Party--``to partake of all the blessings of cultivated and Christian society.' '' With that prayer, Rev. William Jennings concluded, as requested, by the gentleman from Virginia, Edmund Jennings Randolph. And as a result of Franklin's speech, as a result of following through on Franklin's request to begin with prayer, as followed by Randolph's request for a sermon, and ending with a powerful prayer, we got a Constitution, although it's certainly ignored around this town so often. And even by the Supreme Court, as they did when they ignored the bankruptcy law and the Constitution to allow the travesty of the GM and Chrysler debacle to become law, as unconstitutional and illegal as it was, we still have a Constitution that we have got to get back to. We still have a situation that Franklin noted, that so many in our early days noted, can sustain us if we continue with the prayer, as Franklin sought, if we continue to hold to those values in which this Nation was founded. But a Nation in which you destroy the family, destroy the nuclear family, you've destroyed the building block for any great, truly great society. That has been broken down. You enslave people, basically, or make them indentured servants, by doling out money from Washington, luring young people into ruts from which they can never rise. It's disgraceful. It's immoral. This Congress, this city, this government should be propelling young people, encouraging, invigorating, incentivizing people to reach their God-given potential, for heaven's sake, not luring them into ruts from which they can never rise, not luring them into ruts from which they can only clamor and beg for more help from Washington. They are to be empowered, empowered with opportunity, not with handouts but with opportunity to reach their own God-given potential. A mother eagle does not continue to feed her babies indefinitely. The little hatchlings are not fed for the rest of their lives. They are nurtured, they are taught, and then they are given the opportunity to spread their wings and fly. It drove me from the bench as a judge to have seen repeatedly what this Congress' laws had done to lure people into holes and give them no way out. That was never the intention of the Founders. That should never be the intention of a moral society. You help those who truly cannot help themselves. But for those that can, you don't keep telling them to get in the wagon and continue to make fewer and fewer people pull the wagon until they can no longer bear the load and the whole system collapses of its own weight. You can't keep doing that. We have done so much damage to this Nation, 1 trillion 5, $1.6 trillion deficit last year, $1.3 trillion projected for this year, $3 trillion in 2 years? Incredible. Do people not know even modern history? The Soviet Union didn't even spend that kind of equivalent, but they spent quickly enough trying to keep up with our defensive posture through the defense system, and with their own socialistic programs, they could not get anyone to loan them more money. Gee, does that sound familiar? We are having to buy our own debt. We are not having to, we just won't quit spending. It's immoral. It's just so irresponsible. And I hear people saying, but it's just so hard to make these difficult cuts. It isn't. As a freshman here in 2005, in 2006, standing on this side of the aisle, I heard people rightfully on the other side of the aisle saying, you guys are running a deficit budget, between 100 and $200 billion, that's irresponsible. And the Democrats who said that were right. We should not have been running a deficit budget in 2005 and 2006. It was irresponsible. It needed to stop. Friends on that side of the aisle said, you put us in the majority, we'll end this crazy spending in such a deficit form. And yet, when the gavel was handed to Speaker Pelosi in January of 2007, what we began to experience was spending like this Nation has never known, until January of 2009, when the spending went on steroids, and instead of having a $100 to $200 billion deficit, in 1 year, we went to having nearly between a $1 and $2 trillion deficit in 1 year. How long before we face the same consequence that the Soviet Union faced when countries around the world said, look, we have been warning you that if you didn't get your spending under control we wouldn't loan you any more money? We won't. We're done. You're on your own. And then the Nation realizes, you can't print enough money to pay your way out of the debt the Soviet Union had created and the very kind of debt we are creating now. So they had to announce, we're out of business. The States are on their own. It can happen here. It has got to stop. And it's not that hard. All we have to do is go back to the budget of 2006 or even 2007, the Republican Congress created, and say, do you know what? We as Democrats condemned the Republicans for spending too much in the 2006, 2007 budget, and so let's go back to that budget. We condemn them for spending too much in 2006 and 2007, let's go back to that budget. Let's use that budget. And let's stop these automatic increases every year. I've been filing that bill every Congress. It's time it passed. I brought it to the attention of our leaders in 2006, in January, February, 2006, yet no action was taken by the Republican Congress, and obviously the last two Democratic Congresses haven't, a zero baseline budget bill, no automatic increases. Go back to 2006, 2007, no automatic increases, we get the spending under control, we get credibility around the world, we took care of our indebtedness. And we are still strong and even stronger. That's where we need to go. And then we send a message loud and clear, and I hope that Speaker Boehner will do as I have encouraged to be done, invite Prime Minister Netanyahu to come stand at that podium, address a joint session so the world can see both sides of this aisle standing and applauding the leader of our great friend and ally in the Middle East, Israel. Let the nations see that, and then that symbolism be followed by action where we don't reward our enemies and the enemies of our dear friend, Israel, and we don't punish our dear friends and dear allies. If you're our friend and ally, we work with you. If you're not, good luck. You're on your own. We're not going to keep propping up countries that hate us. It's irresponsible as well. There are so many lessons to be learned from history, both ancient, both our own Nation and foreign and current history. And may God have mercy on us if we do not learn those lessons. And with that, Madam Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend very much. Stirring words, and accurate at that. This being a time when we are recessing today through the Thanksgiving holiday, it is that time. We have so much to be thankful for. One of them is that we have a newspaper article--of course we've heard in the last week or so that it looks like the Obama administration was going to put off yet again the trials of the five charged in the 9/11 attacks as planning them. But the article from The New York Times says that the five Guantanamo detainees charged with coordinating the September 11 attacks told a military judge Monday they wanted to confess in full. And that was 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 Henley said he had received a written statement from the five men, dated November 4, saying they plan to stop filing legal motions and to announce our confessions, to plea in full. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said, ``We don't want to waste our time with motions.'' You had one of the detainees, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, tell the judge, ``We the brothers, all of us, would like to submit our confession.'' Mr. bin al- Shibh is charged with being the primary contact between the operation's organizers and the September 11 hijackers. In one outburst, Mr. Bin al Scheib said he wanted to congratulate Osama bin Laden, adding, ``We ask him to attack the American enemy with all his power.'' So that's the good news. They're going to plead guilty. We can be delighted with that. The tragic thing was that was their announcement, according to the New York Times, back in December of 2008. December of 2008. But no, this administration wanted to play games with this country's safety and with justice. And so now, 2 years later, they're going to put it off for another couple of years, wait till after the next election so that he doesn't have to deal with it. These guys were ready for justice. They were ready to plead guilty until this administration played games. And even in the pleading that was declassified, written apparently by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on behalf of all five, they have quotes in here like: We fight you with Almighty God. So if our act of jihad and our fighting with you cause fear and terror, then many thanks to God, because it is Him that has thrown fear into your hearts, which resulted in your infidelity, paganism, and your statement that God had a son, and your trinity beliefs. Another statement he makes is: We will make all of our materials available to defend and deter and egress you and the filthy Jews from our countries. God has ordered us to spend for jihad and his cause. This is evident in many Koranic verses. He also says: We fight you and destroy you and terrorize you. The jihad is God's cause and a great duty in our religion. So we ask from God to accept our contributions to the great attack, the great attack on America, and to place our 19 martyred brethren among the highest peaks in paradise. So, you know, they filed that, but this administration wants to play games with these guys who were ready to plead guilty, filed no more motions until this administration offered them a big show trial. So, we have a lot to be thankful for in that regard. They're in prison, where they should be. And justice should have already come swiftly, but at least they're behind bars. Well, I want to finish the time the gentleman has yielded to me. William J. Federer does such a great job of putting together much of American histories and proclamations and prayers and really a great job of our godly heritage, just like David Barton does. This book, ``Prayers & Presidents--Inspiring Faith from Leaders of the Past,'' among so many other things, has proclamations of Thanksgiving, and I thought it would be appropriate--though this will not be the last hour of today--today is the last hour before Thanksgiving, just so people know, Mr. Speaker, that this is our heritage. This President says we're not a Christian Nation. I will not debate that with him. But the Presidents of the past, before this President, knew that it was. Perhaps it's not now. George Washington, October 3, 1789, these are Washington's words: ``Where it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits and humbly implore His protection and favor, we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and ruler of nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all to render our national government a blessing to all the people, to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue.'' James Madison, who's given so much credit for writing the Constitution. You would think the guy would know what was constitutional and what wasn't. March 4, 1815: ``No people ought to feel greater obligation to celebrate the goodness of the great disposer of events and of the destiny of nations than the people of the United States. To the same Divine Author of every good and perfect gift, we are indebted for all those privileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed in this favored land. I now recommend a day on which the people of every religious denomination may, in their solemn assemblies, unite their hearts and their voices in a freewill offering to their Heavenly Benefactor of their homage of thanksgiving and their songs of praise.'' Now, we have these for virtually every year, every President, so I'm being very selective here because time is so short. Abraham Lincoln, July 15, 1863: ``It is meet and right to recognize and confess the presence of the Almighty Father and the power of His hand equally in these triumphs and these sorrows. ``I invite the people of the United States to assemble on that occasion in their customary places of worship, in the forms approved by their consciences, render the homage due to the Divine Majesty for the wonderful things He has done in the Nation's behalf, and invoke the influence of His Holy Spirit to subdue the anger which has produced and long sustained a needless and cruel rebellion.'' Andrew Johnson, 1865, October 28: ``Whereas, it has pleased Almighty God during the year which is now coming to an end, to relieve our beloved country from the fearful scourge of civil war and to permit us to secure the blessings of peace, unity, and harmony with great enlargement of civil liberty; and, whereas, our Heavenly Father has also, during the year, graciously averted from us the calamities of foreign war, pestilence, and famine, while our granaries are full of the fruits of an abundant season; and, whereas, righteousness exalteth a nation while sin is a reproach to any people, I recommend to the people thereof that they do set apart and observe the first Thursday of December next as a day of national thanksgiving to the Creator of the universe for these great deliverances and blessings.'' Ulysses S. Grant, October 5, 1865: ``It becomes a people thus favored to making acknowledgement to the Supreme Author from whom such blessings flow of their gratitude and their dependence, to render praise and thanksgiving for the same, and devoutly to implore a continuance of God's mercy. ``I, Ulysses S. Grant, the President of the United States, do recommend that Thursday, the 18th day of November next, be observed as a day of thanksgiving and of praise and of prayer to Almighty God, the creator and the ruler of the universe. And I do further recommend to all the people of the United States to assemble on that day in their accustomed places of public worship and to unite in the homage and praise due to the bountiful Father of All Mercies and in fervent prayer for the continuance of the manifold blessings He has vouchsafed to us as a people.'' Rutherford B. Hayes, October of 1877: ``The completed circle of summer and winter, seed time and harvest has brought to us the accustomed season at which a religious people celebrate with praise and thanksgiving the enduring mercy of Almighty God. Let us, with one spirit and with one voice, lift up praise and thanksgiving to God for His manifold goodness to our land, His manifest care for our Nation. I earnestly recommend that, withdrawing themselves from secular cares and labors, the people of the United States do meet together on that day in their respective places of worship, there to give thanks and praise to Almighty God for His mercies to devoutly beseech their continuance.'' And parenthetically here, in the midst of these Presidential proclamations, were it not for the teachings of Jesus and the fact that this Nation is based on biblical principle, you would not have a Nation in which people, whether Muslim or any religion, would be able to so freely worship. But it's because of that caring that we're able to do that here, because, as we know, in so many nations that are non- Christian, including Muslim nations, they don't have a lot of sympathy for those who practice Christianity. Chester A. Arthur, November 4, 1881: ``It has long been the pious custom of our people, with the closing of the year, to look back upon the blessings brought to them in the changing course of the seasons and to return solemn thanks to the all- giving source from whom they flow. The countless benefits which have showered upon us during the past 12-month call for our fervent gratitude and make it fitting that we should rejoice with thankfulness that the Lord, in His infinite mercy, has most signally favored our country and our people.'' There are just so many wonderful tributes before Thanksgiving. Let me go to one from Benjamin Harrison, November of 1891--and these are just partial. Most of them are not the entire proclamation: ``It is a very glad incident of the marvelous prosperity which has crowned the year now drawing to a close that its helpful and reassuring touch has been felt by all our people. ``It has been as wide as our country and so special that every home has felt its comforting influence. ``It is too great to be the work of man's power and too particular to be the device of his mind. To God, the beneficent and the all-wise, who makes the labors of men to be fruitful, redeems their losses by His grace, and the measure of whose giving is as much beyond the thoughts of man as it is beyond his deserts, the praise and gratitude of the people of this favored Nation are justly due.'' So many great proclamations. Over to William McKinley, 1897: ``In remembrance of God's goodness to us during the past year, which has been so abundant,'' and then he quotes from Scripture, ``let us offer unto him our thanksgiving and pay our vows unto the most high. Under His watchful providence, industry has prospered, the conditions of labor have been improved, the rewards of the husbandman have been increased and the comforts of our home multiplied. His mighty hand has preserved peace and protected the Nation. Respect for law and order has been strengthened, love of free institutions cherished, and all sections of our beloved country brought into closer bonds of fraternal regard and generous cooperation ``For these great benefits, it is our duty to praise the Lord in a spirit of humility and gratitude and to offer up to Him our most earnest supplications that we may acknowledge our obligation as a people to Him who has so graciously granted us the blessings of free government and material prosperity.'' Theodore Roosevelt, October of 1903: ``The season is at hand when, according to the custom of our people, it falls upon the President to appoint a day of praise and thanksgiving to God. During the last year, the Lord has dealt bountifully with us, giving us peace at home and abroad, and the chance for our citizens to work for their welfare unhindered by war, famine, and plague. Therefore, in thanking God for the mercies extended to us in the past, we beseech Him that he may not withhold them in the future.'' William Howard Taft, the only President to have also been elected to Congress and to have been on the Supreme Court, actually as Chief Justice: ``A God-fearing Nation like ours owes it to its inborn and sincere sense of the moral duty to testify its devout gratitude to the All- Giver for the countless benefits it has enjoyed. For many years, it has been customary at the close of the year for the national executive to call upon his fellow countrymen to offer praise and thanks to God for the manifold blessings vouchsafed to them.'' Woodrow Wilson says, in part, 1913: ``The season is at hand in which it has long been our respected custom as a people to turn in praise and thanksgiving to Almighty God for His manifold mercies and blessings to us as a Nation. The year that has just passed has been marked in a peculiar degree by manifestations of His gracious and beneficent providence.'' John F. Kennedy, October of 1961: ``The Pilgrims, after a year of hardship and peril, humbly and reverently set aside a special day upon which to give thanks to God. I ask the head of each family to recount to his children the story of the first New England Thanksgiving, thus to impress upon future generations the heritage of this Nation born in toil, in danger, in purpose, and in the conviction that right and justice and freedom can, through man's efforts, persevere and come to fruition with the blessing of God.''

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, tonight, since we have heard over and over about how destructive the deficits are from the President, I thought we would discuss some of the ways we can work on that. There are plenty of good solutions. We discussed yesterday the fact that this administration pushed through a $400 billion land grab bill that would allow them to spend $400 billion to just buy land. I like my friend from Utah Rob Bishop's proposal that before people from States that don't have much, if any, Federal ownership of land keep pushing through bills to buy up land in other States, that they should be required to sell land first to the Federal Government in those States, so that any State that has less than 20 percent ownership by the Federal Government needs to find out what it is like when the Federal Government takes over land in a State, deprives the local government of any tax base from that land, deprives the local area of any economic growth to speak of from that land. Yes, there are parks in certain ones that are very active and provide money to the area, jobs, things like that. But more often, when the Federal Government comes in and grabs land and puts it off limits, it just starves the local schools, it starves the local government of any assistance. Now, originally when the Federal Government started grabbing land and taking it away from local areas, yes, they paid something for some of it, but there was an agreement; look, we know we are taking away all of this revenue from local government, from schools, so tell you what: We will provide you with part of the revenue off of the land, whether it was from the trees, which are one of our greatest renewable resources, or whether it was from natural resources like oil, gas and minerals of different kinds. But that all changed, and so many local governments and schools have been left high and dry, which is often the case. The Federal Government makes you promises, and you rely on those promises to your detriment, and unlike in the law with any individual who makes promises on which you rely to your detriment, raising the legal issue of promissory estoppel, you can't use it against the Federal Government. In fact, all that you get is a look from some people in Federal Government that, well, it is all your fault, because you trusted us. Did you not know you can't trust our Federal Government? So we don't even know what land has been purchased with that $400 billion that we were borrowing from China and other places. But if we just quit buying, sold what we had, sold our interest in General Motors and Chrysler, sold our interest in Wall Street, sold off Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, sold off things that this government shouldn't be doing, opened up the Federal Reserve books so everybody could see what was going on, clean that up of anything that there is Federal involvement in that there shouldn't be in the way of assistance and ownership and money just flowing to Wall Street buddies of this administration, we could save a lot of money from that, $400 billion just from that one bill. Then when you look at the $10 billion that we are in arrears on maintenance and upkeep for our current buildings on national parklands, the reason is we are just squandering it buying more and more land, and in many cases we are buying land adjoining parks that really has no similarity to the characteristics that made it a park in the first place. Sometimes it was just some friend in Congress that some wealthy landowner was able to get to push through a bill to make it a part of a national park, which forced the Federal Government to buy it. We need to have a committee go through and examine exactly what is really characteristic of a national park for the reason that it was set aside. You have got some that will be enormous, whether it is Yellowstone or the Grand Tetons, some beautiful national parks, Grand Canyon and others. But for those that are not so big but we just added thousands of acres, we need to take a look at disposing ourselves of that land for a price and getting out of that business, and then using the money to actually help the national park facilities that we have, and with the rest of it, bring down the deficit. One of the other things that we could do to save money and actually would be a far better foreign policy is in a bill I introduced in this Congress, the 111th. It is H.R. 4636. I have filed it in the 110th and in the 109th Congress, this is the third time, and it doesn't look like it is going to get to the floor in this Congress, but I have hopes for the next Congress. What this bill does, and the summary of the bill at the top, officially it says ``To prohibit United States assistance to foreign countries that oppose the position of the United States in the United Nations.'' Basically in essence it goes through, it is a very short bill, just 5 pages, nothing like a 2,800- or 1,300- or 2,000-page bill, 5 pages, but in essence any nation that votes against the United States' position in contested votes more than half the time will receive no financial assistance from the United States the following year. Each year, on or about March 31st, we get a report from the U.N. on all the votes and how each member nation voted, so it is really easy to calculate after March 31st of each year exactly how nations voted. Now, some would say, oh, well, that is not caring and loving, and you have said before that you are a Christian. How can you treat nations like that? And it is very important that people understand the basis for a Christian approach to government. We don't use our office to shove our beliefs down on others. But just so people know where the philosophy comes from, it is helpful to take a look. In fact, I was noticing online regarding the book by Jerry Boykin, just a real national treasure, a national hero, a lieutenant general in the United States Army, part of the original Delta Force. It has been my honor and pleasure to meet with him and share a meal with him. But this is a real hero. And he has a book out, ``Never Surrender.'' Publishers Weekly went through and said, Lieutenant General Boykin's illustrious military career takes center stage in this personal account of religious faith in the proverbial foxhole. He was thrust into several harrowing encounters such as the events portrayed in the film ``Black Hawk Down,'' the Iranian hostage crisis, and the current war on terror. Boykin delivers frontline perspectives on the military missions in which he engaged, and the accounts are charged with excitement. Some may find his writing a bit polarizing. He's not subtle regarding his dislike for Democratic political figures like Jimmy Carter and John Kerry. Others will be inspired by how he faced death on a number of occasions and held tightly to his faith as a buoy through tumultuous and dark times. Toward the end of his career, Boykin began giving public talks, inspiring people to faith in God and to ideals of the United States. While Boykin is to be commended for his patriotism, bravery, and conviction, the book never successfully explains, this says, how his military career co-existed with some of the more pacifist tenets of Christianity. And so sometimes people hear debate on the floor, they hear people taking different positions, and a question like this being raised by Publishers Weekly is often helpful because we know where people are ignorant so that we can help bring them along so that you can understand where people are coming from the different faiths that exist here in the Members of the House of Representatives. But, regarding that, many know scriptures. I've heard friends across the aisle accusing people on this side--I've have had Democratic friends say, Jesus said you're to be kind one to another; treat your neighbor as yourself. The Golden Rule, of course, is often used here. Helping widows and orphans. Things like that. We are to turn the other cheek. We're to be humble as individuals. But when it comes to the government, the government has a far different role. The government's role is exactly as the oath we take in this Chamber and will do so on January 5, 2011, exactly what it says. One of the most important--I think the most important--is providing for the common defense. Protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. You have to go back to the founding of this country. It is easy to look at the back of a dollar bill and understand those are the two sides of our great seal on the back of a dollar bill. On the one side, the eagle with the ribbon through his mouth, e pluribus unum; out of many, one. We welcome immigrants. We do. Thank God for the immigrants that have come to this country. I asked my mother once--my late mother once--what we were on her side of the family, and she said, Son, you're a duke's mixture. I said, Well, that sounds good. What does that mean? And she said, Well, if we were in the dog world, son, you would be a mutt. So apparently I come from many different areas of the world in my genealogy. But that's what e pluribus unum was designed to address. We welcome people from all over the world. They come here and become one people. We welcome people that speak all kinds of languages. But in order to do as that phrase says that our Founders thought was so important, we need one language. You go do research. Or, as I was an exchange student in the Soviet Union, you find one of the problems they have was trying to make sure all of these people within the Soviet Union spoke the same language. They were very aggressive about it. Pretty mean-spirited about it. We're not. But we need people to speak the same language. And when I see people across the country saying, Let's teach these immigrants in their own language, let's teach these children in the language of the country they come from, I know they mean well. But what they do is condemn those children to manual labor jobs. Like my good friend Gus Ramirez back in Tyler, Texas, said, his parents immigrated from Mexico, and his dad was exceedingly strict about it. Gus said his mom and dad spoke Spanish in their home, but in essence he said, Son, if you're going to be anything in this country, you've got to speak good English. And that is why I expect you kids to speak English in the home. As a result, Gus has been city councilman, county commissioner, a successful businessman. But if you really care, you would want these young children to reach their God-given potential. Be the president of the company, not the ditch digger for the company. Just teach them English. And we can be one Nation under God, e pluribus unum; out of many, one. On the other side, though, you have the pyramid with the triangle above it and you see the all-seeing eye of God. The eye represents the all-seeing eye of God. And above it the Latin phrase ``annuit coeptis,'' meaning he, God, has smiled on our undertaking. They believe that. Because as Ben Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, during the contest with Great Britain when we were sensible of danger, Franklin said, we had daily prayer in this room. Our prayers, sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. They knew that. They knew that God was smiling on their undertaking. But underneath the pyramid are the words ``novus ordo seclorum,'' Latin, meaning in essence, ``new order of the ages.'' Now order of things. And the reason they had that was they knew there had been a parliament in England, of course. They talked about it. They knew that there had been a senate in ancient Rome. There had been other places where there had been legislating groups. But they also knew in all of those there was a king or a Caesar or somebody who could overrule whatever was done and even disband the legislative body. So what they were designing was a government where the people would be the government. The people would rule themselves. That's why this was a totally new order of things. This was not a new world order. It was a new order of the ages where people would get to govern themselves. And for most of this country's history people understood they were the government and that you would have the hiring day and you should prepare yourself for hiring day so that when you went and voted or hired servants to go do your will, that you, the people as the government, would hire successful servants who would do the will of the government. That was their thought. That's why it was a new order of the ages. People were going to govern themselves. So in that context, when we know that the government of this country was supposed to be we, the people, and that those of us who are elected and sent to this august body, we're supposed to be servants. That was the point. So if you look to a chapter that addresses the government's obligation, it's different from those of individuals--individuals being kind. But when you're government here, when you're the servants that are supposed to carry out the government job, you have an obligation to protect the people that sent you here. You're the servants that are supposed to protect the people. If you're in the military, you're the extension, you're the instrument of the government to protect the people. So when you look at Romans 13, and this is in the New American translation, you will find it says--Romans 13:1--let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Parenthetically, here, that means in the United States, in this new order of things, the people are that authority. It is the people who elect, who hire the servants, and so the collective will of the people is the government, as carried out by their servants, they send to places like Washington. Verse 2 says: Therefore, whoever resists these authorities opposes what God has appointed. Those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves. However, here in the United States, this government was created where the people are the government, so they are expected to do their jobs-- to hire good people. So, when the people get upset, they're resisting the servants in this country. They're not resisting the government. They are the government. They're resisting the servants and the arrogance and the atmosphere of arrogance that has so resided in this city for so long. Verse 3 goes on: that basically rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good. You'll receive approval from it. For it, the government, is a servant of God for your good; but if you do evil, be afraid, for it, the government, does not bear the sword without purpose. It is the servant of God to inflict wrath upon the evildoer. So, apparently, the folks at Publishers Weekly were not aware of that basis that I know our friend and our hero, General Jerry Boykin, was aware of. He was the sword. He was part of the sword as the military. So, if you do evil, whether it is in Iran or in Panama or wherever our military and the Delta Force was sent, Romans 13 says to be afraid because they don't bear that sword in vain. If you do evil, they're coming after you. Why would they do that? Because they are part of the instrument that is to protect the people in this country so that the people can go about carrying out the beatitudes that Jesus pointed out. Some say that Washington surely wasn't a Christian, but in his own resignation that he sent out to the 13 State Governors, he ends his resignation like this--and I won't read the whole thing, but it says: I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you and the State over which you preside in His holy protection and to entertain a brotherly affection and a love for one another, for their fellow citizens of the United States and particularly for their 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 peaceful temper of the mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy Nation. He signed with the words: ``I have the honor to be, with great respect and esteem, your Excellency's most obedient and very humble servant, George Washington.'' Well, he understood. He got it. He was the servant of the government. That was part of the new order of things, the New Order of the Ages-- people governing themselves--but the military is the instrument. It is the sword. Some people may not be aware, but a sword is not meant as a loving touch to people. Normally, it could be used to knight people in some places like England of old, but the sword is an instrument of war, and it's not wielded by the government in vain. If you come after this country, it's supposed to be wielded in response. When we are attacked, when an act of war comes against this Nation as attacking a Nation's embassy is--taking embassy personnel hostage is an act of war--then there should be a sword to execute wrath immediately. I was at Fort Benning when that happened in 1979, and our President did nothing but, in essence, beg the Iranians to let them go. It seemed that it was 2 or 3 days that the spokesman in Iran for the Ayatollah was saying, The students have them. The students have them. It seemed to me, as a member of the United States Army at the time, that he's leaving himself a backdoor. President Carter should have said, Okay. You're saying the students have them. You get our hostages out within 48 hours or we accept what happened as what it is, an act of war, and we are bringing the full wrath of the United States military to Tehran. If you harm those hostages, then to use the words of Romans 13:4, be afraid because we're not going to wield the sword in vain. You will pay a very heavy price. Since our President didn't do that--he allowed them to keep the hostages for well over a year--it has been a great recruiting tool for the terrorists for the last 30 years. Look. Remember 1979? We committed an act of war against the United States, and they did nothing. They, you know, just sat around and looked helpless. There was the disastrous effort in the desert, and from what people I know and trusted back at the time had told me and from what I've read since and from what I've heard from people involved since, President Carter scaled down the escape effort going into Iran from what was originally proposed. As a result, they didn't have enough helicopters when they got to the staging area. As we should have learned from Vietnam and as we should know in Afghanistan, unless you're going to have rules of engagement which say to our men and women in uniform that we're going to give you everything you need and that your life is precious to us, so you protect yourselves, and you go win the war, and do everything you can to win, and we'll give you everything you need to win--unless we're willing to do that, we shouldn't send them. Don't send them. This President hasn't shown sufficient commitment to those in Afghanistan, and if we're not going to do that, we need to get them out. We need to bring them home. Yet there are people who want to destroy us over there who we haven't adequately addressed, and it is turning into another Vietnam, it seems. That's not our role. If you believe the Biblical perspective, we're to execute wrath on those who have done evil, and we haven't finished doing that. So I have this bill in this Congress, H.R. 4636. I don't know what the number will be next year. Just so people know how things stand, I'll give you some of the numbers: Heck, Pakistan. I think we gave Pakistan $738 million, and they voted against us last year 87.5 percent of the time. Shoot, the Philippines. They've shown that as a government they don't have a lot of love and adoration for this country. They voted against us a majority of the time, and we gave them over $116 million. Russia, which just provided their best antiaircraft weapon from Lebanon to Iran, heck, we gave them nearly $100 million. They may have used some of that $100 million, since money is fungible, to build the S-300s to provide to Iran so they could shoot down Israeli or American planes. We might simply, if we have a courageous President, someday go after the nuclear threat that is looming in Iran. South Africa, they voted against us most of the time last year, and these figures say we gave them $574 million. Sudan, they voted against us 90 percent of the time last year. We gave them $337 million. Interesting stuff here. Let's see. You've got Yemen, Yemen which provided people who apparently attacked us in what was an act of war against the USS Cole. We didn't respond, really, as if it were an act of war. We didn't wield a sword and do what we should have, but we gave Yemen about $17 million last year, and they voted against us most of the time, naturally. These attempted terrorist attacks of the packages that were sent, apparently planned and emanating from Yemen, well, we're giving Yemen money to help that country as they attempt to fight everything we believe in, most everything we believe in, in the U.N. Venezuela, our dear friend Venezuela. We gave them $10 million. There may have been some other pockets we used money from, but from this pocket we gave them nearly $10 million, and, of course, they vote against us the vast majority of the time. Uganda votes against us most of the time. We gave them $351 million. Let's see, others. Bangladesh, they voted against us 80 percent of the time. We gave them $105 million. Bolivia, they voted against us 70 percent of the time. We gave them $103 million. Brazil, heck, we just provided a $2 billion loan for their deepwater drilling program. Probably didn't hurt that that was George Soros' single largest investment, as far as we know. So the $2 billion that the U.S. taxpayers are standing good for on a loan will sure help make him rich. That's a great thing, I'm sure, if you're a big Soros fan. Cambodia votes against us most of the time, and we gave them $58 million. Let's see, we've got--well, gosh, we gave Cuba $45 million. Wasn't that special? And they vote against us 90 percent or so of the time. Republic of the Congo, we gave them $104 million, and they vote against us most of the time. Heck, Egypt, we gave them just this pocket of money at $1.7 billion. As I understand, it's more than that, and they voted against us 81.8 percent of the time. Ethiopia voted against us 83.3 percent of the time, and we rewarded their opposition to things we hold dear by giving them $455 million. India, $100 million, and they vote against us about 89 percent of the time. Indonesia, where the President just visited, it seems like he got a pretty good reception, but when it came to his positions, they voted against him about 80 percent of the time in the U.N., but we did reward them with about $190 million. Now, people are out of work. They're struggling, they're trying to make ends meet as best they can, and yet we're just giving money away hand over fist, like we were just the richest folks in the history of mankind, that we got money to burn. We're just throwing it away, and as I've said previously, and it continues to be true, you don't have to pay people to hate you; they will do it for free. It's that simple. Why keep paying billions and billions of dollars to countries that despise us, that oppose everything we believe in, that oppose our love of freedom and liberty, that oppose our belief in equality of men and women and different races? Why do we keep giving billions of dollars to people that oppose that and are doing everything they can to make life an absolute hell for people based on religious beliefs, race, creed, color, national origin, gender, treat women like property? I mean, why do we keep giving people billions and billions of dollars? I know charities across America are hurting right now. They're not getting the contributions they do normally in a good economy, because when people lose their job, they run out of money. They're barely providing for themselves and their family, the people under their roof. They're not able to give like they do during the good times. And so charities are hurting here in the United States. But what we find with this government--and it's not new to this administration--this administration is doing it, but it's been going on for a long time. It's not new. With all fairness to the Obama administration, it's been going on a long time. We are in a world of hurt. We're being told by nations around the world that you're spending money like an irresponsible person. You've got to stop spending money in such a crazy fashion. So, normally, if we were acting as a responsible person or a responsible entity, we'd say, you know what, we're pretty broke right now, so we can't keep giving money to people that hate us and are doing everything they can, many of them funneling money to groups who use it to hurt us. That might seem strange. But then you look around the world. We recently just rearmed Lebanon. Let's see. Lebanon. Oh, yeah, that's right, they went to war against Israel. We're helping groups that keep attacking our dear friend Israel. Why are we giving them money? Do we honestly think we're going to buy their love and affection? You can't buy love and affection. When you try, what you purchase is contempt, because they know that we know they hate us, they know that we know they vote against us most of the time. So how could they think otherwise, that we're the most stupid, irresponsible people in the world to keep paying people to hate us? It makes no sense. You know, these nations are sovereign. We respect a nation's sovereignty. Make your own calls. Vote as you want to vote. If you're in the U.N., vote as you want to vote, but we're not going to pay you to oppose us at every turn. That's why I keep filing this bill, and that's why I am hopeful that eventually we'll get it passed. We mean no ill will to these countries who keep opposing us, who want to treat women like property, stone women to death, what they call honor killings, and what I would have found someone guilty of murder in my court back in Texas, because it sure looks and sounds like murder to me under our law, and under our law is where we're supposed to be found, not under sharia law, not under some other nation's law, but under our law. So why do we keep paying countries to mistreat women and children and torture their own people and to deprive them of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? They're sovereign. They can make their own choices, but we should not pay them to hate us. Now, in follow-up for the rest of this time, I know our President has said before we're not a Christian Nation, and I will not debate that with the President because he may be right, he may very well be right, but what I know is where we came from. As a student and a lover of American history, I know enough about our founding and apparently a great deal more than our President learned when he was in school in Indonesia and other places. He didn't learn the history of this Nation as I did. Well, what would you expect? Of course, in Indonesia they're not going to teach you American history, certainly not the best parts. They may teach you parts that make you think less of America, I can see that, and perhaps that's why Indonesia votes against us most of the time in the U.N. They just don't have our values, and, of course, in their schools they would teach their values, which include being against the things that we hold dear. But we have history to rely on, and so I'm just going to go through some historic writings and speeches just, Mr. Speaker, so people know a little bit more about our history and where they came from, because as great philosophers have said through the ages, if you don't know where you came from, you cannot possibly find the proper direction ahead. John Quincy Adams was the first son of a President to have been elected President. In September of 1811, in a letter to his son, who was a U.S. minister in St. Petersburg, Russia, John Quincy Adams said, ``So great is my veneration for the Bible, and so strong my belief, that when duly read and meditated on, it is of all books in the world, that which contributes most to make men good, wise, and happy--that the earlier my children begin to read it,'' the Bible, ``the more steadily they pursue the practice of reading it throughout their lives, the more lively and confident will be my hopes that they will prove useful citizens of their country, respectable members of society.'' That was John Quincy Adams. Another from Abraham Lincoln. This was March 30, 1863. These are Abraham Lincoln's own words. We have them in writing from him. This is March 30, 1863, his prayer proclamation. Lincoln said in part, ``We have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self- sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us. It behooves us then to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness,'' Abraham Lincoln. Forty-five days before his assassination in his second inaugural--and that's inscribed in the marble on the north wall of the Lincoln Memorial--he's talking about the North and the South. And I realize the President says we're not a Christian nation, but Lincoln was addressing what had been founded as a Christian nation and what had been founded upon Christian tenets. As a Christian nation, we welcome people of all walks of life, of all nations, all races, national origin, gender. We welcome them because that is part of the Christian teaching for individuals. But he was trying to theologically deal with the issue of a horrible, horrible war, like the Civil War, where brothers fought, family members fought and died at the hand of another. Lincoln's words, March 4, 1865, he said, ``Both read the same Bible,'' talking about the North and the South, ``and pray to the same God. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.'' Then he quotes from scripture and says, ``Woe unto the world because of offenses.'' ``Yet, if God will that the war continue until all the wealth piled by all the bondsmen's 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said 3,000 years ago, so still it must be said''--another scripture quote--``the Judgments of the Lord are true and righteous.'' I know that our current President reveres President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and so I figured he would certainly be rewarded in knowing Franklin D. Roosevelt's own words. So for the sake of this body and anybody that might happen to see, I will provide Franklin D. Roosevelt's own words. For example, March 4, 1943, in his first inaugural address, these were his words, ``First of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. In such a spirit on my part and on yours, we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision. And when there is no vision, the people perish.'' That, of course, Proverbs 29:18. ``The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. We face arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of national unity; with the clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values. In this dedication of a nation, we humbly ask the blessing of God. May he protect each and every one of us. May He guide me in these days to come.'' More words of Franklin Roosevelt, December 6, 1933. If I were asked to state the great objective which church and state are both demanding for the sake of every man and woman and child in this country, I would say that great objective is a more abundant life. Franklin Roosevelt, December 24, 1933. Roosevelt said, ``This year marks a greater national understanding of the significance of our modern lives of the teachings 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. 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.'' Continuing, Franklin Roosevelt's own words, this is December 24, 1934: ``Let us make the spirit of Christmas of 1934 that of courage and unity. That is, I believe, an important part of what the Maker of Christmas would have it mean. In this sense, the Scriptures admonish us to be strong and of good courage, to fear not, to dwell together in Unity.'' Another excerpt from Franklin Roosevelt, 1935. ``We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a Nation without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic. Where we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity.'' Continuing on with Franklin Roosevelt's words. January 20, 1937, he said in part of that inaugural address, ``I shall do my utmost to speak their purpose and to do their will, seeking Divine Guidance to help each and every one to give light to them that sit in darkness and to guide our feet in the way of peace.'' Again, Franklin Roosevelt, January 6, 1941. ``We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first in freedom of speech and expression. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way. This Nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God.'' Again, Franklin Roosevelt, January 20, 1941: ``A Nation, like a person, has something deeper, something more permanent, something larger than the sum of all its parts. ``It is that something which matters most to its future, which calls forth the most sacred guarding of its present. It is a thing which we find difficult, even impossible, to hit upon a single simple word, and yet we all understand what it is, the spirit, the faith of America. It is the product of centuries. It was born in the multitudes of those who came from many lands, some of high degree, but mostly plain people who sought here early and late to find freedom more freely. ``The democratic aspiration is no mere recent phase of human history. It is human history. It permeated the ancient life of early peoples. It blazed anew in the Middle Ages. It was written in the Magna Carta. In the Americas its impact has been irresistible. America has been the new world in all tongues to all peoples, not because this continent was a newfound land, but because all those who came here believed they could create upon this continent a new life, a life that should be new in freedom. Its vitality was written into our own Mayflower Compact, into the Declaration of Independence, into the Constitution of the United States, into the Gettysburg Address. If the spirit of America were killed, even though the Nation's body and mind constricted in an alien world lived on, the America we know would have perished. That spirit, that faith speaks to us in our daily lives in ways often unnoticed. We do not retreat. We are not content to stand still. As Americans, we go forward in the service of our country by the will of God.'' Franklin Roosevelt. Again, Roosevelt, January 25, 1941: ``To the Armed Forces. As Commander in Chief I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the Armed Forces of the United States. Throughout the centuries men of many faiths and diverse origins have found in the Sacred Book''--Sacred Book is capitalized--``words of wisdom, counsel and inspiration. It is a fountain of strength and now, as always, an aid in attaining the highest aspirations of the human soul. Very sincerely yours, Franklin D. Roosevelt.'' That's inscribed on the inside of the New Testament that my uncle got going into World War II that my aunt gave me. ``December 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy, the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by Naval and Air Forces of the Empire of Japan. Our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger. With confidence in our Armed Forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph, so help us God.'' And I have one other from Roosevelt. This was Franklin Roosevelt's radio broadcast June 6, 1944: ``My fellow Americans''--and for those, Mr. Speaker, that may not be aware, this is D-day, June 6, 1944--Franklin D. Roosevelt said, ``Last night when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our allies were crossing the channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far, and so in this poignant hour I ask you to join with me in prayer. And then Franklin Roosevelt prayed these words for the Nation over national radio. It would have been TV, but radio is what he had. Roosevelt said: ``Almighty God, our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization and to set free a suffering humanity. Lead them straight and true. Give strength to their arms, stoutness to their heart, steadfastness in their faith. They will need Thy blessing. Their road will be long and hard for the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again. We know that by Thy grace and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.'' Parenthetically, if I might insert into Roosevelt's prayer here, General Jerry Boykin had an outcry in this country from the left when he said words to the effect, at a church, we prevailed in Iraq with such speed because our God was stronger than their God. Had those same people and forces that attacked General Boykin at the time been around June 6, 1944, D-day, there's no question they would have had to attack Franklin D. Roosevelt for this type of prayer. Nonetheless, it's part of our history, so I continue with Roosevelt's words: ``For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest, they fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home. Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants into Thy kingdom.'' And for us at home, Roosevelt says, ``Fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters and brothers of brave men overseas whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them, help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice. ``Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer as we rise to each new day. And again, when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips invoking Thy help to our efforts.'' Roosevelt goes on. He says: ``Give us strength too, strength in our daily task, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our Armed Forces. Let our hearts be stout to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage into our sons, wheresoever they may be. ``And, O Lord,'' Roosevelt continues, ``give us faith. Give us faith in Thee, faith in our sons, faith in each other, faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters, of but fleeting moment, let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose. With Thy blessing,'' Roosevelt finishes, he says, ``we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace, a peace invulnerable to the scheming of unworthy men and a peace that will let all of men in freedom reaping the just rewards of their honest toil. Thy will be done, Almighty God.'' That was Franklin D. Roosevelt. What a powerful prayer. A couple of things to finish. Ronald Reagan, 1978, his own words in his own hand. He was talking about Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus Christ, and he says these things about Jesus. Reagan says: ``Either he was what he said he was or he was the world's greatest liar. It is impossible for me to believe a liar or charlatan could have had the effect on mankind that he has had for 2,000 years. We could ask would even the greatest of liars carry his lie through the crucifixion when a simple confession would have saved him? Did he allow us the choice, you say, that you and others have made to believe in his teaching, but reject his statements about his own identity?'' In 1981, in his inaugural he said, in part, Ronald Reagan's words: ``Your dreams, your hopes, your goals are going to be the dreams, the hopes, and the goals of this administration, so help me God. I am told that tens of thousands of prayer meetings are being held on this day, and for that I am deeply grateful. We are a Nation under God, and I believe God intended for us to be free. It would be fitting and good, I think, if on each inaugural day in future years it should be declared a day of prayer. ``The crisis we are facing today does require, however, to believe that, together with God's help, we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us. And, after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans.'' Reagan concluded with ``God bless you.'' Mr. Speaker, that is my conclusion as well.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. I appreciate so much that perspective from my friend from Texas, Judge Poe. It is outrageous what's going on. It is outrageous that we're allowing that kind of danger to permeate our border and we do nothing about it. It's time to get something done. One other issue that I would like to get into in the remaining 20 minutes that we have here tonight is the tax rates. I heard my friend across the aisle taking that up in a 5-minute speech he gave earlier tonight, and he was saying that Republicans want to cut the current tax rate for the highest wage earners to 35 percent. I have great respect for my friend. But the fact is, the highest tax rate right now is 35 percent. What we are trying desperately to avoid is the biggest tax increase in American history. Now, Art Laffer--I think one of the most brilliant economists in the United States--did an incredible job in helping President Reagan steer our economy out of an economy worse than we have now. Because I remember well, during my time in the Army, we had more than 10 percent unemployment, we had more than 10 percent inflation, and interest rates were far above 10 percent. It was a rough time in America. And yet with Art Laffer's advice and guidance, President Reagan was able to turn the economy around completely within 3 years. If President Reagan had taken Art Laffer's advice and in 1981 had cut taxes 30 percent, as Art Laffer points out, we could have had the whole economy turned around in '81. But since the Democrats had the majority and President Reagan had to negotiate to get to a 30 percent tax cut-- and that full 30 percent didn't kick in until the last 20 percent was added to the 10, and the half-percent from the 2 years before--in 1983, the full 30 percent kicked in, and that's when the economy recovered. If we had done the full 30 percent in 1981, the recovery would have been then. It would have saved 2 years of absolute disaster economically in this country. But we didn't do that. And, as Dr. Laffer pointed out back in January of this year to a small group of us, he felt like, by November, there would be signs of a recovery because on January 1, unless we do something quickly, the biggest tax increase in American history would take place. Capital gains would go up by 33\1/3\ percent from 15 to 20 percent. It will absolutely devastate this economy. Every marginal rate goes up. The death tax comes back in full from 0 to 55 percent. So his comment, as I understood him, was that it would look like a recovery because people were starting to sell things and cash things out and get in a position for the biggest tax increase in American history on January 1. And it would look like a recovery, but it wouldn't be a real recovery. It's just people trying to get in position, take gains now this year before this massive tax increase. So with respect and due deference to my friend, we're not talking about a tax cut here. We're talking about keeping the same tax rates. If my friends across the aisle--as the majority until the end of the year--were willing to talk about a true tax, a drop of 35 percent to 30, that would be fantastic. Because we know from history, when President Kennedy did it, President Reagan did it, President Bush did it, every time there was a meaningful tax cut, the Treasury of the United States exploded. It went higher than it had ever gone before each time. The problem was not in lowering the taxes, which increased the economy--it gave people more income. That was not the problem. The Treasury was bigger than it had ever been. The problem was that we began to spend money like we had never spent before, and each time we got into higher deficits because we weren't controlling spending. Had we increased the revenue by cutting taxes and controlling spending, we would have had a balanced budget immediately. It would have been fantastic. But that's not what happened. We have seen that in Ireland. They had a tax decrease previously, years ago, and manufacturing jobs flooded into Ireland. But they didn't control their spending as they should, and now they're in trouble. So that's the key, control spending. And I know there are those who say, We should go back to 2008 for the budget. I'm not one of those people because I remember as a freshman in 2006 being beat up by people across the aisle because we were spending way too much money. And since I know we could go back and capture speeches from the Record of friends across the aisle who said we were spending far too much money in 2006, we needed to cut that deficit spending. Since I know people across the aisle said that, then I submit humbly we go back to the 2006 budget, the one they complained about, saying it was spending too much money. We go back to that one. If it was spending too much money, then surely there couldn't be much objection across the aisle. If we're going back to that one, that they said spent too much money--of course that was before the ensuing budgets that the Democratic majority produced, which doesn't include this year when they didn't live up to the requirement to produce a budget. But these more recent budgets were just deficit spending on steroids, and it's got to stop. Solution, go back to 2006. You know, since my wife and I cashed out our assets, retirement accounts and all, for us to run for Congress, you know, that's what responsible people do when you have to pay things. You cash out assets. I agree with Art Laffer. It's time to start cashing out the things we bought as a government that we had no business, if we're a true free market country, of ever buying. We divest ourselves for a big price of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. We divest ourselves of the car company ownership we currently have. There's no way that's not a socialist activity when the government takes over private enterprise. And I know the President has such close friends in the current Speaker, and our friends across the aisle have such dear friends on Wall Street, and that's why they donated four to one--four times more to the President, current President and the Democratic majority, than they do to Republicans. I get it. They're the friends. They work together. In fact, they're such close friends, the guys on Wall Street don't mind so much when the President and the Democratic majority bash their friends over and over and over here in Washington because their friends know that's the price. Getting bashed verbally allows them to keep funneling money in massive amounts to Wall Street, including through the Federal Reserve, including managing government money so that Goldman Sachs, of course, was able to have the biggest profit in their history last year. Who knows how good it was this year. Good for Wall Street, good for Goldman Sachs. Heck, their investment of giving four times more to this President and the Democratic majority than they do Republicans paid in droves for them. It just was great. It may be another banner year for them now, but it's got to stop. Americans are getting hurt across the country. It's got to stop. And so one of the other things we've seen--people don't remember so much--but in January of 2009 when this President took over and the Democratic majority in this House had had a 2-year headstart, and because of the terrible example set by the prior Republican President in pushing through a $700 billion Wall Street bailout, they were able to push through what was thought to be about an $800 billion stimulus, porkulus, whatever one may wish to call it, which turns out now $900 billion, maybe $1 trillion. We're still not sure. It's through the roof. People notice that. It made voters irate, and they showed that in November of this year. But most people didn't notice the next week, the $400 billion land omnibus bill. What does that mean? It means the Federal Government was going to take $400 billion and buy more land. The Federal Government already owns more than half of the land west of the line through Texas to North Dakota. And yet they want to buy more land. When you run a deficit that this administration has been running, then it's time to say, you know what, we shouldn't be buying land. And we haven't found out yet just how much of that $400 billion has been squandered buying land, doing sweetheart deals with people they want to do them with and buying their land. But whatever has been bought ought to be sold. Whatever has not been spent needs to be cut off. Some have said, well, where would you get the $700 billion to avoid raising these massive taxes? They don't get it. They need to check the current news articles about States and cities that have raised taxes on wealthy people, like I will never be, but raised taxes on them. They ended up losing money by raising taxes, which takes you back to the Laffer Curve. You can only raise the taxes so much, which keeps increasing the Federal revenue. But once you cross that threshold where you've taxed too much, and you add tax beyond that, then you've hurt the economy and the tax revenue decreases. So my friends across the aisle may try, in this lame-duck session, to do the unthinkable and raise taxes on people, force taxes to go up by playing a class warfare game, playing the game that our Founders detested because all Americans were Americans. No Americans were hyphenated back then. They were just Americans; which is why, on our great seal, the ribbon on the eagle's mouth has three Latin words, E Pluribus Unum: Out of many, one. We come together as one. It's time to stop the class warfare. It's time to stop. It's time to stop luring young women into a rut from which they can never get out by saying, come on, come on, keep having babies out of wedlock, we'll keep paying you for them, and you'll get to a level of income as a single mom, with children, that will never go up. You have no hope of getting out of that hole. That's what we saw for 30 years from the Great Society legislation to the mid-90s, until welfare reform took place. Cast it any way you want to, but the fact is, when welfare reform took place, for the first time in 30 years, single women with children had income that, when adjusted for inflation, went up, went up dramatically. And now the unthinkable has occurred this year in the ObamaCare bill. They included the rescinding of the welfare reform that was done by the Republican--new Republican majority in the 90s. It was taken away. We have now sentenced young women, single moms, desperate to get out of their rut, to remain in their rut for the rest of their lives, or until such time as we remove those enslaving provisions from the ObamaCare, and allow single moms with children to once again get back on the uphill climb with making more income after adjusted for inflation than they had in the 30 years before with the Great Society legislation. I know it was well intentioned back in the 60s. I get it. I understand that. It was because of hearts full for young women trying to raise children with deadbeat dads that wouldn't contribute. I get that. But what was done instead was sentence these sad situations to a hole they couldn't get out of. It's time to do what a government is supposed to do. I know some don't believe in the Bible, but, for those that do, you look at Romans 13. A government is different from individuals. It's not to turn the other cheek. It's not to steal people's money by passing a law that allows you to steal their money against their will and give it to charities that only the government supports. That's not part of it. It is supposed to protect the people, punish evil, and really incentivize good conduct and to help people reach their potential. Instead of enslaving young women, as the Great Society legislation did, good grief, we should have incentivized them to finish their education. Instead of having 99 weeks of unemployment insurance to pay people not to work, and, yes, I know there are people who are out of work who have been trying for hours and hours every day to find new employment, but the overall studies don't indicate that that's the average. That's the exception. Generally, people only spend less than an hour a day or less than an hour a week until the last couple of weeks of their unemployment, then they begin to seek employment. If we're going to do what some would consider the biblical approach of government, to punish evil but reward and incentivize good conduct, then we would eliminate the marriage penalty. Why penalize marriage? And we would incentivize people finishing their education, not paying them to have babies out of wedlock and not to finish school. We would be incentivizing them to reach their God-given potential before it's too late. That's what a caring government does. That's what it should do. That's what it ought to be about. End the class warfare. Now, I was asked recently, well, now, you've advocated eliminating the Department of Education. And yet you've also talked about schools ought to provide vocational training. Right on both counts. $68 billion budget, throw another $10 billion in there this year, and for what? Pays the Department of Education, have lots and lots of bureaucrats, take a hunk of the money for themselves, dole out the rest. And I get it. I've got friends, Republicans, Democrats on school boards across the country who've said we've become so enslaved, so reliant on Federal money, we'll be broke as a school system if you cut off the funds immediately. So what I think would be more fair, would be more constitutional is just say, we eliminate the Department of Education, and then we'll take that money and we will have a formula to distribute it to the schools across the country. And they'll get a lot more money. And then over, say, a 5-year period--I'm flexible--we could compromise on what would be a good way to do it. You provide a formula that the States and the people, under the 10th Amendment, pick up their obligation to support education and take it away from the Federal Government. We cut the required contributions to other areas, whether it's Medicaid or something else. We incentivize them to take over their constitutional obligation. Since education's not an enumerated power under the Constitution, it's reserved under the 10th Amendment to the States and people. Let the local control take over, because when there was no Federal control and when I was going through school, high schools had vocational training. You didn't have to go to college to make a great living. You could study auto repair at our high school. You could learn to be a carpenter. You could learn to weld. You could learn all kinds of great trades and go immediately into a good job, and you're way ahead in income than those people that went to college. In four or five years eventually they catch up and went further with the money they received. But they were great livings. And we need people doing those jobs. And one final comment as my time is about to expire: I heard Donald Trump say on Greta Van Susteren that the solution is to put a 25 percent tax on everything we buy from China. I couldn't believe it. You're going to start a trade war with somebody we owe over $1 trillion to? You think that's smart? You don't realize we'll lose great jobs, union jobs, nonunion jobs across America? How about, instead, doing something that doesn't trigger a trade war, that doesn't cause us to be penalized around the world? How about, instead, eliminating the 35 percent tariff we put on our own products for people in other countries trying to buy them? It is called a corporate tax. If you eliminate the 35 percent tariff we have got on our own products, union jobs and nonunion jobs will come flooding back into America, because we could compete with anybody if you take off that insidious tax that tells people across America: You don't have to pay it; the evil corporations will pay it. Those corporations pass it on. If they don't, they don't stay in business. Yet they have lost jobs across this country, union jobs and nonunion jobs, flooding across to other nations because of the tariff of 35 percent we slap on our own products, making them uncompetitive. It is time to get this country competitive again. Bring back the jobs to America in the way that we know best, as a free market society, at the same time we protect our borders and stop the crazy deficit spending. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. As I'm sure my friend knows, Juarez, just across the border from El Paso, which you've been discussing, is now called the murder capital of the world. There were 2,600 deaths in one year, last year, in Juarez. We didn't have that many American soldiers die in Iraq in a year. Yet right across the border from El Paso, right across the little river, is Juarez, the murder capital of the world. It is outrageous. I never had the opportunity to be stationed at Fort Bliss. I had friends in the Army who were, and they always enjoyed Fort Bliss. I was at Fort Benning for my 4 years that I owed the military for my scholarship at A&M. It is amazing to me that we have the greatest military in the world, in the history of the world--they're the best equipped, the best trained military in history--and yet you go look at our border, at specifically the 32-mile stretch in Arizona that is national park area on the north side--Mexico is on the south side--and it's wilderness area. It's considered such. It's classified in the U.S. as wilderness area. So you can't take a vehicle. You can't take anything mechanical. The only people who use vehicles in that area are the violent drug smugglers. Then this administration, instead of helping Members of Congress and the President keep his oath--we're not providing a defense against all enemies foreign and domestic--they're putting up signs that, in essence, say, This area is used by violent drug smugglers who are illegally in our country, so we would recommend that American citizens use parks north of Interstate 8. Excuse me. This is American soil. When anyone armed attacks American soil, it's an act of war. We've got people who are coming into the United States who have taken over part of our property, and the best this administration can do is put up a sign that says, Why don't you American citizens use the area north of Interstate 8 because we've just given this over to drug smugglers. The only good news I see out of that is, for so long, I've been greatly concerned with the hypocrisy of this administration and its telling Israel, Just let Palestinians build illegal settlements and take over areas that are not theirs. Just let them take over. I thought how hypocritical for our U.S. administration to tell Israel, Just let people take over areas of your country they're not authorized to take over, because we would never allow that here in the U.S. This brings me to the only good thing about violent illegal alien drug smugglers taking over American soil: At least we're not hypocritical anymore when we tell Israel just to let people take over land that's not theirs, because now this administration can say, Look, Israel. We're doing it here. We're letting people take over American soil that they shouldn't, so you can do it, too. The fact is, of course, it shouldn't happen in either place. We have taken an oath to defend this country, this Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that includes illegal drug smugglers who are armed to the teeth at our border regions. We have an obligation. We took an oath.

Mr. GOHMERT. I will yield to my friend.

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend mentioning that, and certainly I know he travels to the border area of United States with Mexico on the Texas line, but just from personal example, I am routinely, at least once a year, down in that area. And for years, anytime I was down near Laredo with friends, we would cross the border into Nuevo Laredo and get some great Mexican food and walk around, and you could get some real bargains of different things around there. So my family always knew, when I came back from the area, I was going to bring back gifts from Nuevo Laredo, and yet I know at least in the last 10 years we have not crossed over into Nuevo Laredo. All the indications are that you just don't do that anymore; it's too risky. So I would like to get back to the point where our friends to the south had safe enough areas where we could go back and forth without worrying about it, but it's not to that point right now. I would also submit, I know there are people who have said repeatedly in the last year, we really wish that both sides of the aisle would work together, but now we've seen, you know, somebody is just not protecting the country, not protecting our sovereignty and our land, running up a $1.6 trillion deficit in 1 year, doing all those things. We understand you have got to fight that and it can't be bipartisan if one side is just insistent on doing that. But I have a strong feeling that my friend, Judge Poe, and I would absolutely agree that if this President stepped up and said this situation will not stand where violent people on the Mexico-United States border intimidate, kill, kidnap, come across into our side, bring poison through drugs into America, we will not let that stand, I wouldn't care that he's a Democrat. I would stand up and give the greatest standing ovation, do anything we could to help and support a President doing the job he was sworn to. And I hope and pray that this President doesn't wait for someone to replace him in 2 years, that he will step up and say, you know, folks, I know I haven't done it in the past and I've let the violence go on too long, but it comes to an end and here's what we're going to do to stop it and step up and actually stop it. I have a feeling my friend wouldn't care either what party he was from. We would be in total support and do anything we could to help him. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I appreciate your bringing that point up. I overlooked part B of that plan, but that's what has happened, and that's a great point. As my friend knows--but perhaps the Speaker is not aware--Judge Poe was one of the best known and probably would have been one of the best known judges, purveyors of justice, in all of Texas history, and I know my friend, Judge Poe, knows all about the case of Terry v. Ohio. From that case, we got what law officers were taught to be a Terry Stop, which is where they can stop people and get identification. If anybody cares to go back to the sixties and read that opinion and then read the Arizona law, they'll actually find out that what Arizona passed is not near as intrusive as what a Terry Stop can be. I mean they've got guards within that bill that keep it from even reaching the extent of a full Terry Stop and of the authorization of law officers to use a Terry Stop. So I've just been intrigued. Here you have an administration that refuses to follow the law, refuses to defend the law, refuses to defend sovereign American territory, and then takes that added step, as my friend points out, and sues a State that is just trying to protect its citizens. It is heartbreaking, as I know my friend and I have tried kidnapping cases, to find out that an American city is the second biggest capital for kidnappings in the world--Arizona. You would think that any President who is trying to do his duty to this country would be outraged that people were being kidnapped in numbers in Phoenix which were bigger than in known organized crime refuges around the country. Phoenix, Arizona? You would think a President would come riding to the rescue, and all America would thank him and be grateful that they had elected a man who would come in and follow his oath and protect them from having a city in his country in which so many people are kidnapped. We are hearing every day about ransoms being demanded after kidnappings in Third World areas and in the Middle East. We heard on the news this morning about another kidnapping incident and ransom and about a ransom being paid. Yet it's not halfway around the world. It's going on in Arizona. Then, as my friend pointed out earlier in his 5-minute speech about the poor Mexican investigator who gave his life just trying to look into the murder of an American citizen on Falcon Lake, I mean what does it take to provoke a President to fulfill his duty to protect this country? I really don't know. If that doesn't do it, what does it take?

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure and honor to be back here after our recess. Obviously there are matters of concern for all Americans. Obviously since we were here last, the voters have spoken, and spoken pretty loudly. But there are a number of things that concern Americans. There have been significant Tea Party groups and organizers here talking. It looks like those folks have found out that Americans have voices, and they can be heard. One of the great things I think that has been realized across America is once again it is being acknowledged that the people are the government. Every couple of years we have a hiring day to hire servants who will step up and do the will of the government, the people, as directed by the people. Well, they have forgotten for a while that hiring day is Election Day, and you shouldn't go into it unless you are properly prepared, as any good employer would be, by reading the resumes, talking to the candidates, doing interviews and seeing who would be the best hire to be the public servant from that area, the employee. Boy, their voices were heard this year. So it is quite reassuring. And I am pleased to work with folks across the aisle, I know we all are, to move forward with the things that the American people have once more said are very important. If you go back to November of 2006, you find out the people really haven't changed their opinion much. They made it clear in November of 2006 that they were not going to tolerate the deficit spending that the Republican majority was doing. They didn't care who was in the majority. They still don't. They want the deficit spending to stop. They wanted it to stop in November of 2006, so they made their voices clear and said, okay, Democrats, you have promised us that if we make you the majority, you have promised to end the deficit spending, because the Republicans, my goodness, they have run $100 billion, $200 billion deficits in one year. It was outrageous. Who knew that within 4 years that a Democratic administration would be deficit spending done by Republicans on steroids, ten times the kind of deficit that was anticipated in one year. We can't continue as a country with that kind of spending going on. It has to be stopped. But we were hearing in the last week the cry of people across America too about this lame duck session. Now, it is nice, we had some lovely votes tonight: The Copyright Cleanup, Clarification, and Corrections Act; recognizing the 50th anniversary of Ruby Bridges desegregating a previously all-white public elementary school--very worthwhile; and the third vote tonight, honoring the 30th anniversary of the Bayh-Dole Act, which it sounds like most people don't know what that was. But, nonetheless, people are scared that it is going to get a lot more serious than that, because they made their voices heard in the election. We don't want people coming at us with that crap-and-trade bill and saying we are going to shove this down your throats like we did the health care bill. They didn't want the health care bill. They thought they made it clear, but they were not listened to. They made it clear they don't want the elimination of what my wonderful elementary, junior high, and high school teachers, who nearly all of them were supporters of the Democratic Party, taught. All of those teachers made clear in my growing up that a very important foundation in any democratic republic like ours is the secret ballot. Now we still have this bill out there, the card check bill, that will eliminate secret ballots. We can just think back in our own Chamber here to the race for majority leader between Steny Hoyer and John Murtha, the late John Murtha. Speaker Pelosi, speaker-to-be Pelosi had made clear she wanted John Murtha to be her majority leader. They seemed to have worked closely on the issue of bashing President Bush over the military operations and trying to stop him at every turn. In return, he was named speaker-to-be by Pelosi as her choice to be majority leader. Well, who in their right mind would go against someone who is clearly so adept at using political power as the gentlelady from San Francisco, if she knew who was going to go against her choice? But the fact is, like the Republican Caucus, the Democratic Caucus used a secret ballot, so the people in the Democratic Party after the November 2006 elections were free to choose the person they most wanted to be the majority leader, and that ended up being the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer. Had a similar card check bill been shoved through this Congress to force the Democratic Party to have the secret ballot eliminated, then I think you could anticipate that the late John Murtha would have been majority leader, and the will of the Democratic Members in this body would have been overwhelmed simply because such a primary component to a democracy was removed, the secret ballot. We don't need to remove the secret ballot so that might will make right, instead of right standing on its own. The ballot has to be secret in any organization in which anyone wants it to be secret. Take Robert's Rules of Order, of the requirement to have a secret vote. Of course, out here when we are doing the people's business, it can't be secret, because we are employees, we are servants, sent up here to do the people's will, so it shines up on the wall exactly how we vote when we vote. But one of the things that people should have learned after this November election, including Senators that are up for election 2 years from now, is if you jam another one of these bills down somebody's throat, the people's throats across America, as you did health care, you will be looking for a place to retire or another job. Now, one thing: If they do ram through the crap-and-trade bill as it passed through the House with 300 pages of amendments filed at 3- something a.m. in the morning, where we didn't have time to read them all, I was able to get to the point in the bill, I think it was around page 900-something, where there was a fund created in there to help pay people who lose their jobs as a result of that bill. Although we heard from people across the aisle no one would lose their jobs as a result of that bill, it turns out the people that actually wrote that bill, whatever special interest group it was, perhaps Wall Street, because they are going to be engorged with riches if that bill passes and more union jobs will be lost, it will be a disaster for working America. But whoever wrote it realized there are going to be a lot of good Americans lose their jobs if that bill passes. And if you go over a little further, there was a fund that would pay for moving expenses if people lost their job as a result of that bill and they could move within the United States to a place to get a job. Unfortunately, it didn't help people move to China and India and Argentina and other places where the jobs really moved. So the good news for those in the Senate perhaps helped by anybody in the House, if they try to ram that crap-and-trade bill through during this short lame-duck session then the good news is there is a provision in that bill that will help them with their moving expenses and perhaps to give them a subsidy until they find another job because there is no question there's going to be people lose their job as a result of that bill if they vote for it during this lame-duck session when the public has made very clear, Don't you dare. So we'll see what happens. But I see my good friend from Texas, also a former district judge, as was I, and I am proud to yield such time as he may use to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we were assured of a number of things when this Congress started. For one thing, the swamp was going to be drained. We were told that. There have been a lot of allegations. There's been no draining of anything. We were told this would be the most open Congress in history. And yet, instead, the exact opposite. For the first time in the history of the United States Congress, we have gone right up, and as I understand we're not going to be back in session before this election, we will have gone through this entire Congress without having a single open rule for a vote, where anybody could make any amendments. The old saying is, ``Democracy ensures that people are governed no better than they deserve.'' The people have deserved better. They deserve bipartisan. When one chairman, Dingell, wanted to make a bipartisan approach to a bill, he was eliminated. We deserve better. And may God grant we get it.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor to be here. We have had quite a day of different suspension bills. It has been an interesting day all the way around. Also I was honored to have a visit from the new president of Baylor University, a man named President Ken Starr. I think he will do a great deal of good for Baylor University. In fact, I am wearing a green and gold tie in his honor and in honor of the school where I got my law degree. A lot has been going on. We haven't had time to take up the issue of extending the current tax rates for another year so businesses could be sure about what is going to be happening, so they could go ahead and make plans, go ahead and make those additional hires, take those folks off the unemployment rolls because they would finally know what the future holds in the way of taxes. But that was not to be. No, instead we have taken up 85, reduced by one, 84 suspension bills, all done today in a bipartisan manner. And it does bring to the fore the question as to why couldn't we do the same thing in a bipartisan way to help the economy? We are hearing over and over from business people, there is so much uncertainty. If we are really going to have this massive tax increase come January 1, we have got to hunker down and get ready. We may have to let some more people go so we can pay the additional tax burden that the Federal Government is going to lay on us. They made clear if we are going to pass what the well-respected on both sides of the aisle former chairman of Energy and Commerce, Mr. Dingell, called not just a tax, but a great big tax, the crap-and-trade bill, if that is still looming out there, then that is a potential albatross around the neck of employers. They need to move forward. But Mr. Dingell is exactly right; it is a great big tax. It is still looming out there. It is still a threat to be taken up in a lame duck session. In fact, the lame duck session, after the election in November, could be devastating to our economy, as if we haven't already done enough. We have got not only the crap-and-trade bill looming and being threatened as a potential lame duck session bill in which Members of Congress would be asked to vote who had already lost their jobs on election day, but we got other bills hanging out there that some have said they would like to see come up during a lame duck session. One such bill is on the other side of the aisle affectionately known as ``card check,'' which is really intriguing. Card check is quite a misnomer, because it would provide for the elimination of secret ballots in union elections, in deciding whether a group were to go union or not. I was intrigued. In the last Congress we were voting on card check, and the majority leader of the House of Representatives, the Honorable Steny Hoyer, came down this aisle right over here. And I was standing over there, and I said, ``Leader?'' He turned around and said, ``Yes?'' I said, ``The rumor is you are going to vote against your party, and you are going to vote against card check.'' He said, ``Well, the odds of that happening are infinitesimal.'' He has a great sense of humor. I pointed out, ``Well, it is just that everybody on the floor knows that if it were not for the secret ballot, John Murtha would have been elected majority leader.'' And he just laughs, ``Oh, you are so funny.'' He moved on. But the truth is, the Speaker of the House, she said she wanted John Murtha to be the majority leader. And we have already seen that this Speaker of the House is amazing at the wielding of power. She has been far more effective at the wielding of power, both with carrots and sticks, to get things done than our Speaker was my first 2 years here, in 2005-2006. She knows how to wield power. She said she wanted John Murtha to be majority leader, and yet Steny Hoyer of Maryland won the election. Why? Because there was a secret ballot, and the will of the Democratic Party here in the House was that Steny Hoyer be the majority leader. So because of the secret ballot, because there had been no card check bill that had been rammed through to change the rules in the House of Representatives, here in the House of Representatives there was still a secret ballot. Now, when I was growing up in Mount Pleasant, Texas, I went through public schools, and I am pretty sure most of my teachers I had voted in the Democratic primary, voted for Democratic candidates. And I had some wonderful teachers. They inspired me. They instilled in me that the secret ballot is such a foundational block of any society that wants to have free elections that to withdraw that would bring the whole political building down, would subject you to a tyranny. So it is absolutely staggering that people who would come in here and be protected with secret ballots in their own party elections would not grant that same right. Actually, they don't have the power to grant the rights; those are given by God. But they have the power to prevent people from enjoying the rights that were bestowed on us through our Constitution and with the grace of almighty God. We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. Apparently the President left out the Creator. It is understandable. When you rely heavily on teleprompters, as our President does, it is understandable that sometimes you just read past things, and certainly the person who fills in his teleprompter with the information would not have left that important part of the Declaration of Independence out. We are endowed by our Creator, because if it were otherwise, if we were endowed by the government with inalienable rights, then the government could certainly take them away anytime they wished. Yet, we go back to the founding of this country, to the time when those people gathered together and gave us the foundation of what we have grown from and grown into as this fantastic Republic, the greatest country in the history of the world. As Tony Blair recently said and as another member of Parliament said this week: this is an extraordinary country like no other in history, and we have so much to be proud of. I know there are those who have only recently been proud of America, but when you study its accurate and true history so thoroughly, there is so much to be proud of, and the Founders could see that. They had the vision. Proverbs tells us: Where there is no vision, the people perish. Yet those Founders had vision for the future. They stood firmly on eternal truths. One example is Peter Muhlenberg. Now, since the 1950s, Lyndon Johnson had gotten a tag into the Internal Revenue Code, which for the first time since our country's inception said, If you're a terrible institution as designated by the Internal Revenue Code, you cannot get involved in politics. That was new and different because, for over 170 years, it was the churches that were behind the most important movements, one of which was the Declaration of Independence. Before that, you had the Virginian Commonwealth laws that were put together. You later had the Northeast Ordinances. There was so much that the churches pushed forward. Peter Muhlenberg was a minister, a Christian minister, and he had already talked to Washington. Washington had made him a colonel, unbeknownst to Muhlenberg's congregation there in Pennsylvania. He was preaching that Sunday, in his black ministerial robe, and he was preaching from Ecclesiastes 3: ``There is a time to every purpose under Heaven.'' When he got down to verse 8, he recited the words in the last half of Ecclesiastes 3:8: ``There is a time for war and a time for peace.'' That is when Muhlenberg took off his black ministerial robe, as he is depicted doing in the statue here in the Capitol. Underneath, he had on a Revolutionary officer's uniform, including the saber. He had been carrying that saber around, wearing that and the uniform underneath his robe. Then he said, in essence: ``Ladies and gentlemen, now is the time for war,'' because they believed they were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and those were things worth fighting for. When you read those Founders' letters and their diaries and journals, when you read their speeches and their writings, you find out they knew they were on to something that would be something new, a new order of things, a new order of the ages. That's why the great seal has ``Novus Ordo Seclorum'' at the bottom, underneath the one side. In fact, it's on the back of everyone's dollar bills. This was a new order of the ages, a new order of things--not a new world order. This was a new order of the ages, a new order of things where people would get to govern themselves. For so long, this country has borne out the old adage that democracy ensures people are governed no better than they deserve. That was one of the hardest things for me to come to grips with in the 1990s. As a Nation, like it or not, we had what we deserved as a Nation. In fact, in every election, from the beginning of this country, whether we have liked it or not, regardless of which party has been in power, we have gotten what we deserved. I do not seek to ever use my position to force my religious beliefs on others; but when I was a judge, I was required to discern whether or not the people who claimed disqualifications had legitimate disqualifications from jury duty. I was struck over and over because I had Christians who would come up and say, I cannot sit on jury duty. I'm disqualified because I'm a Christian. I would explain to them, I'm not seeking to change your religious beliefs, but I need to find out exactly whether or not you're disqualified for religious reasons or whether this is just a personal preference. So I would have to inquire, Does this mean you believe what is in the Old and New Testaments? Well, Of course, I would be told. Well, does that mean you believe it to be true when Jesus said, in Matthew, if you say ``rock eye'' to your brother, you'll answer to the courts? Now, the verse was mainly about answering to the Father in Heaven for what's in your heart, but Jesus knew that, in an orderly society, there would have to be some form of government which would hold people accountable. They would say, generally, Yes, I believe that. You know, over in Romans 13, it makes it clear that, if you believe the Romans is supposed to be part of the New Testament and if you said you're a Christian, do you believe that Romans is and that Romans 13 is valid as part of your belief system? They would normally say, Well, yes, of course. Well, then, you have to believe that in Romans 13 God has basically ordained any government for good or bad and that in Romans 13:4 it points out: ``If you do evil, be afraid,'' because God does not give the sword to the government in vain. The government is God's minister to avenge evil, to reward good deeds, and of course, in our Constitution, it is to provide for the common defense. But I would ask the people who would come forward as Christians if those were their beliefs, if they believed those things in Romans, so I could try to make the judgment as to whether or not they were disqualified as jurors. The response was normally, Of course. I was in a position to point out, Then if you understand our history, you believe, then you understand, as a called juror, you've been given the sword. If you believe Romans 13, then when you're called for jury duty, that sword has been placed in your hand, and you're expected to come forth and administer and to make sure that people who have not done evil don't get punished and to make sure that those who have done evil are to be afraid, because they will be punished as they, as the jurors called forward, are the government. In fact, the Founders believed that the people would be the government and that every so often there would be a day in which the people, as the government, would come forward. They would say, We are going to hire new folks to carry out our will. We the people, as the government, will hire people to do what we tell them for the next 1, 2, 4, 6 years. Over the years, we've been told even still that the most widespread religion in America which people in polling data indicate is Christianity. If they believe the Founders and they truly believe the Old and New Testament, they have to understand they're the government. They have been given--in fact, we all as American citizens have been given--the source. Now, all of those in this body are hired public servants. We get hired every other year. The government, we the people, the government have the right to fire us every other year. And as the government, if you truly believe the responsibility is to carry out your duties as the government in the most effective and efficient manner possible, well, that would require coming out on hiring and firing day to see that the best people got elected, because when people stay home, they get what they deserve on hiring day. When people come out and vote, they get what they deserve on hiring and firing day. And when people don't bother to educate themselves on who all has applied to be the public servant to get hired on hiring day, then they're not carrying out their duties as a proper government. When people know that they would be a better candidate and be a better public servant, then it's their obligation under our founding documents, under the concepts on which this Nation was based, to step forward and run for office or to help others as they run for office, if they know they would be the best person to fill the job of public servant. But we have forgotten what role who plays. The people are the government. We're the public servants. And all too often that gets forgotten. Of course, Peter Muhlenberg, Peter Muhlenberg's brother Frederick, there are stories that he was not very pleased that his brother Peter had recruited from his church, because he recruited from the church. He got people there in his congregation to join the Army with him and recruited from the town, and they all came to the Army together. And there were stories Frederick wasn't that pleased with what Peter did from the pulpit. There were other stories that when Frederick's church was burned down, that he did likewise. He recruited. He joined the revolutionary forces and helped defeat the British, and, in fact, the Christian minister named Frederick Muhlenberg was the first Speaker of the House of Representatives. We also know that behind the abolitionist movement was the churches. There were many right-thinking people, but the primary groups were the churches; because when they really studied New Testament principle, they worried and feared that how could God continue to bless America when we're putting our brothers and sisters in chains and bondage, and they fought it. And Abraham Lincoln, so troubled by that battle, and, in fact, after he was defeated for a second term in the House of Representatives in 1848, new person took office early 1849, stories were that he did not plan to ever run again. But stories that John Quincy Adams had told and sermons basically that John Quincy Adams preached just down the hall on the evils of slavery and pleading with his colleagues to end the blight against America called slavery, those fell not on deaf ears but on a young freshman's ears, Abraham Lincoln, between the time he was sworn in in early 1847 to the time his successor was sworn in in early 1849. 1850 brought about the compromise of 1850. Other States were going to be coming in. They were going to be allowed to have slavery. This ate away at Lincoln because he knew, and those sermons John Quincy Adams preached on the floor of the House just ate away at him. We could not continue to go forward without stopping this terrible sin called slavery in America. He knew that was no way to treat brothers and sisters. And eventually he got back into politics, ran again as we know. Of course, got defeated by Stephen Douglas for the Senate but later elected in 1860 to be President. There's some historians who say that when Lincoln's son died, he believed it was God blaming him; because he knew when he got elected President that was ordained by God so that he could bring an end to slavery, and he waited too long to do that. There's always different versions of different historians, but that is one version of history, that Lincoln blamed himself when his son died, that he should have immediately sought to end slavery. But as the States started seceding from the Union, he felt, Okay, I will hold the Union together, and then I will end slavery. But he carried a heavy heart as President of the United States, as a Christian, and his second inaugural address that's inscribed on the north inside wall of the Lincoln Memorial is so profound, and it is an intellectual giant dealing with theology and this issue of how could a just God allow so much injustice and so much hate and war. And he goes through, deals with the issue, and ultimately says we have to proclaim God is righteous all together. We have an extraordinary history. Who was it that inspired Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior, to push for civil rights for everyone? Some people think, well, all he did was make sure that African Americans were treated like others, like everybody else, that he fought for minorities. But the truth is his theology as a Christian minister was so deep, he understood that in bringing about a society where people were judged by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin, that he was also freeing Anglos who were Christians, many for the first time, to treat people the way a Christian brother and sister is supposed to treat another Christian brother and sister. But that was in the 1960s, and the change of the law in the 1950s for the first time in our history saying churches could not be involved in politics had a profound effect. And then in the early 1960s, 1963, we have the Supreme Court say, you know, we're not real sure. We don't think that you should be having prayers in public schools. And yet, it was Ben Franklin that broke the logjam after 5 weeks in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 by being recognized. He was 80 at the time. He was 2 or 3 years away from meeting his Maker. He was suffering apparently from gout, had to have help getting in and out of Independence Hall for the Constitutional Convention, but he got recognized. And he pointed out they'd been meeting for nearly 5 weeks and had accomplished basically nothing. How does it happen, sir, he said, that we have not once thought of applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding? In the beginning contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room. Our prayers, sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. Franklin went on, and then he came to the point, we're told, that a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice. Is it possible an empire could rise without His aid? We've been assured in the sacred writing that unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. ``Firmly believe this,'' Franklin said. Then he said, ``I also firmly believe that without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in our political building no better than the builders of Babel.'' And he knew. This 80-year-old man in pain and suffering had a mind and wit as sharp as ever, though his body was deteriorating. He ultimately moved that we would begin each day with prayer, led by a local minister. And from then until now, today when we start, we have a minister start with prayer. So it was staggering, in the 1960s, that the Supreme Court, as they continue to do, say, Yeah, we don't think prayer is appropriate. Well, thank goodness I had a great legal education at Baylor University, and we learned about the Constitution. We learned about the Constitution's history, and it doesn't take much digging to find exactly where it came from. One of the things that the Founders pointed out was that ``we don't trust government.'' The people, as the government, in this new creation, this Republic, ``if we can keep it,'' as Franklin said, was going to rely on people being diligent and coming to the polls on election day, on hiring day, and making sure they hired good people to carry out the will of the government, the people. And over the years, we've lost that. Of course they wanted, not just one legislative body, a huge House of Representatives, big for that time. And then also, that was not enough, not some just elite or social elite in another body like, a House of Lords. They wanted a group they would call the Senate, and they would have the power to nix anything that the guys in the House of Representatives did. That's what the Founders thought: We want to make it as hard as we possibly can to pass laws because when it's too easy, then you have tyranny. And that's what we've seen a great deal of lately. We saw with the automobile bailout an auto task force. We had all these czars. We have an auto task force, unelected, unaccountable-- certainly to Congress. They wouldn't tell us what went on. They wouldn't give anybody any information about the conversations that took place, who said what. And yet they come out with a bankruptcy plan that turned the bankruptcy laws upside down. I mean, the law is supposed to mean something. There are businesses and individuals that have had to file bankruptcy, and they were forced to always play by the rules. And yet here were these automakers who got to just thumb their noses at the law. Why? Because the safeguards that were put in place by the Founders were just ignored. Well, there were checks and balances. You can't just have a czar or some task force that's unaccountable, just ignore laws and come forth with a bankruptcy plan that doesn't allow for any motions. It doesn't allow for any other alternative plans, does not allow the secured creditors to be treated as secured creditors but instead, flips them upside down so the secured creditors are treated as unsecured and the unsecured union is treated as secured. Nobody could get away with turning the law upside down like that. We have too many other checks and balances, we thought. But not here in Washington now, we don't. And that's why this body and the Senate allowed a terribly illegal bankruptcy plan to go forward. It wasn't hard apparently to find a bankruptcy judge that would welcome the chance to avoid ever having to have months and months or years of hearings. He would just simply sign off on that because, as we know, bankruptcy judges are subject to reappointment on a regular basis. And we also know many bankruptcy judges want to be district judges and other things. So it apparently wasn't too hard to find a bankruptcy judge to sign that order, giving it color of law. This body should have struck it down. We had the power. We turned our heads. There was one hope left. That was the Supreme Court, another wonderful check and balance put in place by the Founders. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to her credit, put a 24-hour hold on the deal that was born out of these private, secret meetings unaccountable, unelected people were having when they turned the law and the Constitution upside down. There were takings of dealerships born out of these private, secret seedy discussions. They took property rights away from these people. Some of them still owe money at the bank today, yet their dealerships were taken away. Their security was taken away. The banks that had loaned money to buy dealerships were harmed when the dealer's dealership was taken away by this anarchy group. But the Supreme Court let the 24 hours go, and an illegal, unconstitutional bankruptcy plan went through unimpeded. And lots of people suffered. I understand their claims, the claims being made currently, it sounds like, to me, legitimately by dealers who had a Federal taking without due process and without remuneration. It sounds like they're doing the right thing. And yet we've heard from people on the other side about how terrible the economy was that the Democrats inherited from President Bush. When if you go back to January 3, 2007, that was the day that the Democratic majority took over the Senate and the Congress. We can just visit that day. January 3, 2007, the Dow Jones closed at 12,474.52. The GDP for the fourth quarter of 2006, we found out after election day, had grown 3 percent higher than in the third quarter. The unemployment rate was 4.5 percent. Bush's economic policies had led to 40 straight months of job creation, more jobs than were being lost. January 3, 2007, was also the day that Barney Frank took over as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd, as Senator, took over the Senate Banking Committee as chairman. Over and over, the Bush administration had asked Congress to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to rein it in, and to Republicans' dismay and dishonor, it was not done. It should have been. And certainly the Democratic friends across the aisle were objecting. The man who became chairman, Barney Frank, was objecting. Of course we've seen the speech where he said, No, they were fine, in essence. They were fine. They were not fine. They were in big trouble, and nothing was done. It should have been. If we look back, we will find that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they weren't sitting dormantly on the side. Oh, no. They were actively involved in politics. And if you look at the period, as Open Secrets did, from 1989 to 2008 to find out who gained the most in political contributions during that period from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as they sought to try to entrench their futures, well the second-highest amount of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went to a Senator named Barack Obama. Things changed, didn't they? And now we have the book come out from Mr. Woodward. Who is to know exactly what is absolute truth and what is affected by unartful memory? As a judge, we would hear well-meaning witnesses all try to give their version of what they saw with their own eyes, and it was amazing. Eyewitnesses so often varied on details that occurred. But Mr. Woodward has a book out. I was deeply saddened to see what he had said about President Obama's discussion with Secretary Gates, that he could either endorse the President's idea of 25 percent fewer new troops going to Afghanistan, 25 percent fewer than the military had asked for in McChrystal's report, or the President could go with what he described to Gates as a ``hope for the best'' plan of 10,000 trainers, under which Afghanistan would almost certainly be lost to the Taliban. Woodward quotes President Obama as saying, Can you support this? And then he is quoted as saying, Because if the answer is no, I understand it, and I will be happy it just authorize another 10,000 troops and we can continue to go as we are and train the Afghan national force and just hope for the best. Woodward's comment was ``hope for the best.'' The condescending words hung in the air. Well, there were accounts, reports that supposedly, possibly, that McChrystal had originally orally said, We probably need 80,000 troops in Afghanistan to have as much effect as the surge in Iraq had had and to get things under control. I am not sure if those were true, but one account was that the President, or the White House, had asked, Let's cut that down from 80 to 40 because that's more reasonable, something more doable. But nonetheless, the request was in writing for 40,000. And the report made very clear that time was of the essence. And if we delay doing this, the whole outcome of Afghanistan could hinge within the next 12 months. And it was shocking to wait for 90 days. Thirty days, nothing happened. The President said he had been busy, been running around congratulating people all over the country. Kind of like in here. We don't have time to help the economy by assuring people and businesses we will keep the same tax rate for at least the next year or so. Oh, no. We had to do 84 suspension bills on various things today. No time to help the economy, though, by assuring businesses and people their taxes will not have the biggest increase in American history, which looms as of January 1. But anyway, 30,000 troops were authorized. And it's a shame if that ends up being true, that President Obama told Gates, either go along with the 30,000, 25 percent less than McChrystal said were absolutely essential to having a chance, the best chance to defeat the Taliban, and to win in Afghanistan. But the trouble is, my friend, Dana Rohrabacher, had let me know this past summer that there were some members of the northern alliance that we called upon, some call them warlords, tribal groups, who we had allied ourselves with when we first went into Afghanistan. We let them do most of the fighting, and they were able to defeat the Taliban. We provided weaponry and consultants, trainers, and they were able to defeat the Taliban. But then, as Afghanistan languished, the Taliban has made a resurgence. And there were stories that these people with the northern alliance, these leaders had heard that the United States was indirectly negotiating with Pakistan and with Karzai, as the leader of Afghanistan, and indirectly with the Taliban, basically, if you'll just let us out next summer and not make a fuss, you can have the country. You guys can work it out. That was what the northern alliance people were hearing. And what I didn't know until we met with a number of those leaders, these are brave warriors. These are brave fighters. But they were concerned for themselves and more so for their families and for those who looked to them for leadership, because what I didn't know was that after they had defeated the Taliban to help us, we demanded that they disarm and basically said, you know, you can count on us. You know, the Taliban's been defeated. You can disarm now. That's the only way to peace. And don't worry, we are around to make sure that the Taliban won't be back. They won't be bothering you. You defeated them. We are here. We will see that nothing bad happens. So they disarmed. And they said they really did. They trusted the United States, their ally. And now, the Taliban making this resurgence, because McChrystal didn't get the soldiers he asked for, and although the President said that is the war, that's where Bush is messing up, he didn't make that the central war. This President has not done any better and, instead, has announced to our enemies, not in so many words, but it's something any enemy would get. When you say we're going to pull out next summer, it tells the enemy, if you can just hang on until next year, then you win. And lest we forget, the Taliban was behind the training and the planning of 9/11 and the killing of 3,000 Americans. How quickly we have forgotten. Have you forgotten? Have we forgotten? They killed 3,000 people, and now we are going to let them--we are going to walk away from Afghanistan and let them have a stronghold there. And the northern alliance knows what that means. It means that they and their families are dead. Our allies will be dead. It isn't hard to figure out, if you're out there in the world, and United States representatives say, you can trust us, be our ally, you'd want to say, well, no, no thank you very much. I have seen what you have done to your allies. I have seen what your best friend, Israel, has had happen to them and the pressure you have put on them not to defend themselves, to give away part of their country; to keep giving away unilaterally, when there is nothing being brought to the bargaining table by the other side. Yeah, we have seen what you have done to your allies. We saw how you voted to demand Israel show off their weaponry, just like Hezekiah did as king of Israel when he showed the weaponry to Babylonian leaders. And for that, Isaiah said, in essence, you fool. Because you have done this you will lose it all. You don't show your enemies all of your defenses. You don't do that. And you don't make your friends do that either. You don't make your friends give away their ability to conventionally defend themselves like we have been putting pressure on Israel to do. And now, with Afghanistan. I don't know what the answers are. But I would have hoped that from Vietnam we learned, not that we couldn't win, because we find out from the true history, Vietnam was winnable, but we didn't have the will. Washington could have decided to win the Vietnam war whenever it got ready, but, instead, we kept sending people over there piecemeal to die. The message ought to be clear. If you are going to send American men and women into harm's way, you send with them everything they need to win, and you don't tie their hands behind them. You let them fight. And the rules of engagement in Afghanistan are causing losses of life because we are so tying our own hands that it puts our people at risk. Is there any wonder people are hesitant to be our allies? The Northern Alliance could tell them, watch out. I hope and pray that the Northern Alliance leaders were wrong, that our administration here is not indirectly sending messages to the Taliban: If you just hang in there, you guys can divide things up. Because it does mean our allies in Afghanistan will be dead. It is rather hard to hear people in this administration say that the Republican Party has no leaders when they took one of my ideas. And I did tell them, I don't care who gets the credit. But that was back in January of 2009--actually, November of 2008, when I pushed forward the tax holiday idea. It is a great idea. People would leave the money in their own checks. I emailed the idea to Newt Gingrich. He fired back: This is brilliant. I will push it. I don't get a lot of emails saying something I proposed is brilliant. Art Laffer had said more recently that would have been the best thing to do, a tax holiday. The trouble is the majority right now believes that the money being earned by people doesn't belong to them, it belongs to us, and we will decide what of this government's money they get to keep. That is not way it is supposed to work. And we have been told we are supposed to be for something. We have got all kinds of fantastic plans, but the majority has a choke hold on CBO so that they will come forward; if the President needs a CBO score to be under $900 billion, they get it under there and then conveniently find out later on that they missed it by a quarter of a trillion dollars. If the administration needs a scoring to be done in the time that the rest of us are told by CBO they can't score something in that amount of time or with what little is given, if this administration or this majority wants it, they get it done. I don't see how that is bipartisan. When you look at over 700 bills that they have scored and you find just barely over 100 Republican bills, including what Newt Gingrich had told me: You have got to get your health care bill scored. It could change the debate. It ought to have a good score. Well, CBO has shut out that possibility, as if they were the most partisan of all partisans, because they know by preventing alternative bills from getting scored, then they prevent a viable alternative from being debated here on the floor. Shame on CBO. There have been some great ideas, and they are so basic. Do you want to get the economy going? Let people keep their own money. You wouldn't have needed an automobile bailout if you had let people keep their own money for 2 or 3 months. People say: You guys on this side of the aisle are only out to help the rich. I am not. We are not. But what we want to do is focus tax relief only to the limited people who are paying the taxes, and we have the unmitigated gall to think that we should not engage in class warfare. That is divisive. Or maybe I should say divisive, derisive, dismissive. Tax relief should go to those who are paying taxes, pure and simple. And it is not a tax rebate if people didn't put any ``bait'' in in the first place. Art Laffer also says, as an economist that helped Reagan get the cart out of the ditch for this country: Quit buying all this stuff. Start selling off things. Yet every month that goes by, this government buys more and more lands, which takes the land off of the tax rolls for the local government and the schools. We do so much damage taking away tax dollars from schools, and we take away areas where we have got natural resources that could be mined or produced. I want alternative energy sources, and it would be easy. Instead of having the crap-and-trade bill that does so much more damage to the economy, heck, just start drilling what we have, making sure it is done safely. And that does not mean as it was being done when Deepwater Horizon blew up, where the part of MMS that was allowed to unionize was the offshore inspectors. And when I asked the question, ``What kinds of checks and balances do you have to make sure those offshore inspectors who are unionized and had a union contract to limit what they could be required to do, what kind of checks and balances do you have to make sure that they do the right thing?'' they said, ``Oh, the checks and balances? That is that we send them out in pairs so they are watching each other, and they will report each other if they don't do exactly what they are supposed to.'' Yet the last two people who were sent as offshore inspectors, unionized, to inspect the Deepwater Horizon were a father-and-son team. That is this administration and the union's idea of a good check and balance. We have apparently hundreds of billions, and now it is estimated even over $1 trillion, of Americans' money in foreign banks that was earned overseas, and it has been left there, and this government will never have a chance to tax that at all. So here we are in economic crisis. This was proposed in September of 2008 by some leading economists here: Instead of a TARP giveaway slush fund, don't get the government involved in the socialist action of buying into business, buying into Wall Street, engorging Goldman Sachs and AIG. Let them go through reorganization like everybody else does. But what you could do is say, okay, for you American people, companies that have money in foreign banks that has never come into American banks, here is the deal. You come in and purchase things that will get the economy going. And we could direct that. There will be no tax consequences, no penalties. So you, with private money, can get things going. And then, of course, once that money is here, it does get the economy going; and, once it is in this country, then it is taxable for the future. Or we could start selling off some of the land. You know, we have got to start thinking outside the box. One of the great things that happened under Abraham Lincoln was the Morrill Act. The Morrill Act allowed universities to be started with land grants. We have people on welfare. And I know there are some that just don't want to work, but there are some that do. How about if, instead of the welfare, we give them an alternative: We will give you so many acres that can provide land where you can live off of it and make a living. And we will give you seed money to start, but you have to sign an agreement you will never accept welfare again. How about that? We have got plenty of land. How about using the energy sources we have and taking 25 or even 50 percent of the royalty and designating that to go for research for alternative energy sources, so that it happens without the government taxing and destroying the American economy? And, how about dropping the corporate tax down to 15 percent, 2 percentage points below China? I am told by CEOs that have moved manufacturing industries to China that if we lowered our corporate tax rate to 17, 15, 12 percent, they would be building new plants back in the United States. Those jobs would return. We need to do that. We need to do that. We need a zero baseline budget, no automatic increases. I have that bill. I filed it each of the three times that I have been here, each of the three terms. I have got a U.N. voting accountability bill that simply says any nation, since they are sovereign they can do what they want to in the U.N., how they vote. They can applaud Ahmadinejad's crazy speeches, but for any country that votes against our position in the U.N. more than half the time, they get no financial assistance from the United States of any kind in the subsequent year. It is their choice. I said it before: you don't have to pay people to hate you. They will do it for free. There are so many things we could do to get out of the economic malaise we are in. We need a balanced budget amendment. That would help. I honestly believe we have got to pass a bill on Social Security that would shore it up. And, no, we didn't do it my first 2 years. I proposed it to some of our leaders back then, our leading thinkers. They said it was a bad idea, but I still say it is a good idea, and that is for the first time since the inception of Social Security, you require Social Security tax money to go into the Social Security trust fund, real money in there to draw real interest. We could create instruments that would not create risk, that would allow us to draw interest without affecting the bond markets. There are so many things we can do. We have been blessed so richly. I have said this before, but, Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude with it tonight, because people have been frustrated, I have been frustrated. But the message is clear. John Adams wrote to Abigail after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. He was so excited, and he talked about the celebrations, and he finished his letter with this: You will think me transported with enthusiasm, but I am not. I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure it will cost us to maintain this Declaration and to support and defend these States. Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is more than worth all the means, and that posterity will triumph in that day's transaction, even though we should rue it, which I trust in God we shall not. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. My friend from Iowa is so correct. I actually have one of my constituents who has got a lot of farmland in east Texas, and he told me a couple of years ago, You guys have got to do something about the death tax. He said, My kids are all grown. They're adults. They went and hired their own accountant, and they all talked to him. The accountant explained that, the way the law is set up, if I die before the end of 2010, there is no death tax at all. He said, you know, We're land rich and cash poor. We don't have a lot of cash. It's in land. The land keeps us going. We make money off of it; but if we have to pay the tax, we're going to have to mortgage the land, or we're going to have to sell the land. We can't keep it if I don't die in 2010. He said, Now, my kids are kind of smiling and kidding about it, but I'm starting to get a little nervous because they've said, You know, Dad, the accountant says, if you don't die before the end of the day on December 31 of 2010, we're going to lose 55 percent of our land. So we're kind of nervous about it, and we're kind of wanting to know where you're going to be during December in case we have to get with you. You know, he said, they're kind of kidding and kind of laughing, but I'm starting to get worried. I saw him just a few weeks ago. I asked, Are you still worried? He said, You haven't fixed the law. You bet I'm worried. Yes, there's a $1 million exemption, but it's still a 55 percent tax. It is outrageous. Now, my immediate family will probably never be affected at all by the death tax, but if you're a person of principle who believes the Founders had the right idea that socialism didn't work, it doesn't work and it won't ever work, then you have to know that the death tax is a Socialist notion that says you accumulated too much in your life, so we're going to take 55 percent away from you and give it to other people who didn't earn it. Now, I've mentioned this before, but it is so important. I was watching a replay of the different news shows from about 11 p.m. to 3 a.m. and I was hearing people talking about all the young people, all the students that wonder what's wrong with socialism. Well, I was exposed to what's wrong with socialism, why it doesn't work, in one little incident that occurred while I was an exchange student in the Soviet Union. We were out visiting a collective farm, a socialist farm in socialist Russia--actually, this is Ukraine--and it was about 20, 30 miles outside of Kiev. The farmers were sitting in the shade and the fields looked pitiful; I mean, any farmer in east Texas would have been embarrassed to have fields like that. And this is mid-morning. It's morning. It has still not gotten really hot yet. It's the time, if you work on a farm or ranch, you try to get your work done before that sun gets too hot, and they were all sitting in the shade laughing and cutting up. So I spoke a little Russian and I said, trying to be as nice as I could without insulting them, When do you work out in the field? And they all laughed. And one of them that kind of talked more than the rest said, I make the same number of rubles if I'm out there or if I'm here, so I'm here. Well, there it is. If you're going to pay somebody for work they don't do or you will pay them the same amount of money if they do work, most people aren't going to work, and the system always falls in on itself. The only way a free market system fails is when people start thinking, wouldn't socialism be a good idea? And they start moving toward people being paid not to work, and then it falls in on itself. As the old saying goes, back from the 1700s--Tytler, the author, was given credit, it may have been him, maybe not--but capitalism always fails and democracy fails when people find out they can vote themselves largesse from the Treasury. Then they always vote for the people that will give them the most money and then the system fails for lack of fiscal responsibility. So that's what we're looking at right now. Let me also say that these same folks that are saying we want to help small business and we did so today and this is how we're helping, we're going to let your tax rates go up higher than they have ever gone up at one time come January 1, but the good news is, with all that massive amount of money we're going to pry from you, we are going to loan it back to you and have you pay us interest on it. I don't know how anybody could think they're helping the middle class when you look at the 10 percent tax bracket. Now, those aren't people that are making a lot of money that are paying 10 percent taxes right now, but come January 1, their tax will go up 50 percent. How in the world can somebody say, Oh, we care deeply about the middle class, so if you're paying a 10 percent tax because you're scraping and struggling to make ends meet, so we've got only a 10 percent tax on you, but we are going to let it go up 50 percent, you'll pay 15 percent come the first of the year; and also, if you're in the next to the lowest bracket paying 25 percent, your taxes are going to go up 3 percent to 28; if you're in the 28 percent bracket, it's going to go up to 31; if you're in the 33 percent bracket, it will go to 36; and the 35 percent bracket it will go to 39.6. But it doesn't stop there. The marriage penalty will return from the first dollar of income. The Child Tax Credit will be cut in half from $1,000 to $500. I mean, that's $500 immediately out of nobody's pocket but the very middle class that this group is saying they're so dedicated to helping. I hear from the middle class every day saying, Enough already. We don't need any more of your kind of help. The standard deduction will no longer be double for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care tax credit will be cut. That's all middle class help that will go away. And then it will be higher taxes on people that are trying to save money and on people that are trying to invest money so they can elevate themselves. And what are we going to do? We're going to jump up the capital gains rate by 33 percent--15 percent will go to 20 percent. And then there are these other taxes like the tanning tax. It imposes a 10 percent excise tax on getting a tan from a tanning salon. And then there is the medicine cabinet tax, that Americans will no longer be able to use their health savings account or flexible spending account or health reimbursement pretax dollars to purchase nonprescription drugs. This is part of the deal that this administration cut with the big pharmaceuticals because they said, you know, you promised to give $80 billion, or whatever it is, but here's the deal we'll work out--not on C-SPAN like the President promised over and over, but in a private conversation they cut a deal with the big pharmaceutical companies. Don't worry about it. You give us $80 billion, you're going to make a lot more than that because we will make people with HSAs buy prescription drugs. So hayfever pills that I've taken since I was 8 years old when hayfever season hits in east Texas I will no longer be able to get for $2.84 for 100. I'm going to have to buy a prescription drug. Well, guess who that helps? And then there is the brand name tax that will kick in. We've got just all kinds of tax problems that are going to kick in. The alternative minimum tax, the employer tax hikes are all going to hit come January 1, and it will be a disaster. And just so people understand, if you are single, you have a 10 percent tax if you make less than $8,375. Well, good news for Americans. We're letting them know here tonight that this group cares so much about you for making less than $8,000 a year we're going to raise your taxes from 10 to 15 percent. Congratulations. And if you're married and you make less than $16,750 as a married couple, guess what? We love you so much, we're going to raise your taxes 50 percent as well from 10 to 15 percent. It's just incredible what we're doing to people. And people know back home--it's like Reagan used to talk about. There's nothing scarier than hearing the words ``I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you.'' These people across America don't need any more help like this. We're going to raise your taxes by 50 percent if you're in the lowest income bracket, but don't worry. We're going to loan you money back, your own money back to you, and let you pay interest to the government. I yield back to my friend.

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, my friend from Iowa poses a wonderful question, and to make such a judgment call as to the motive, what was the intent here of those now who are saying, you know what, we are going to probably extend the current tax rates. As a judge for a decade, what you would do is you would look at the evidence. And the evidence in this situation is that for 3\1/2\ years our Democratic friends across the aisle have had the majority, and they have not lifted a finger to try to do anything about the massive tax increase that is going to hammer small business, hammer families. I don't know why anybody who considers themselves homosexual would want to get married because you are going to get hammered with a marriage penalty. Anybody who is married is going to get hammered with a marriage penalty because the Federal Government, and it has gone through administrations of both kinds, Republicans and Democrats, and it has not been finally eliminated, as it should have been, but married people will get hammered. And small businesses will get hammered. So we figure it is only right now when there is a massive hue and cry, millions and millions of people have taken to the streets, have come to Washington, come to St. Louis, come from across the country to tea parties saying we demand tax relief, that now all of a sudden right before the election, all of a sudden there is the feeling, you know what, don't worry, we will deal with this tax increase after the election. Well, my friend, I believe it is time to worry because, and I do believe, I have talked to enough friends across the aisle, they know it is going to hurt business because they have talked to business people who have made it clear to them you are going to kill my business. The point about the small business bill today that just says volumes about the way this leadership looks at the American workers and business' money: They think it is theirs. So their idea is the best thing we can do for business is let your taxes go up higher than they have ever gone up at one time, let that happen January 1 and here is how we will help you. The bill we pass today will allow us to provide some of your money that we will invest in local banks so that we will be able to dictate policy to the banks because we will own part of them. Then we'll get those banks to loan you your own money that we ripped from your hands, come January 1, with this huge, massive tax increase; but we're going to loan it back to you. That's how much this majority-- I won't say ``this majority''--I'll say this majority's leadership-- loves small business. We are going to pry the money away from your hands at the worst possible time in taxes. But good news: we're going to loan it back to you. Congratulations.

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend from Iowa pointing out some of the problems with the ObamaCare bill and one of the things that just made it a dishonest bill from the beginning. We know this is language from the Constitution itself, Article I, section 7, ``all bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.'' Well, if you go back and look at the legislative history of the ObamaCare bill, you find out that actually that was a bill that was to help veterans with tax credits, as I recall, for the first-time home purchase. It was a bill that originated out of the House because you've got to comply with Article I, section 7, all bills to raise revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, and that bill obviously had bunches of taxes in it, even though the President assured us over and over that it was not a tax itself. Certainly it raised revenue. And the Senate knew that. And the President, although his attorney general now disagrees with him--certainly he didn't back at the time. The President said it's not a tax; it's not a tax. Well, now they are saying, well, maybe it is a tax. Regardless, there's revenue raised in the bill, so it should have had to have complied with Article I, section 7. But we all know that it was the Senate ObamaCare bill that came down here, and we had to vote for it without being able to amend it. The reason was it was a veterans' bill to assist first-time home purchasers who were veterans and so that the Senate could say, well, it did originate in the House. They took the bill for our veterans, to help our veterans, and they stripped out every blooming word, including the title, and substituted, therefore, ObamaCare. Nearly 3,000 pages were substituted for a bill that originated to help our veterans. Wow, what a juxtaposition that was. So anyway, that's why I say, of course, we know nobody in Congress is dishonest because the rules tell us that, but the bill was dishonest because it purported to be a bill to help veterans, but everything, including the title, was stripped out and substituted with that massive tax increase and the mandate upon all citizens that is just going to get worse and worse. You know, we were told there would be no rationing in the President's health care bill. And it turns out, the Dr. Berwick, who was put in charge after it became law, said something along the lines of it is not a question of whether we are going to have rationing, it is when and if and who, or something like that. So there is going to be rationing. And what does that mean? It means seniors who rely on Medicare to live are going to be told, You know what, you are at the end of the line. You probably don't have that many years to live anyway, so under the President's wonderful ObamaCare program, you are not going to be able to be part of who gets some of this rationed care. That is the kind of thinking that we are talking about. And if I might address something that just came up today, of course the Republican leadership rolled out The Pledge, and we will talk about all of that some other time. The thing that I wanted to point out was that I saw the Democratic leadership on the news before I came over saying here these Republicans were talking about wanting to help small business, and then they had to rush in from a hardware store so they could vote against this wonderful small business bill. Well, I guess it is all in the eyes of the beholder whether that is beautiful or whether it is just abominable, but just to mention a few of the things that bill that was passed today to help small business-- supposedly, purportedly, actually according to title II, there will only be a fraction of small businesses that will qualify for any tax relief. It would allow for full exclusion of the gain from the alternative minimum tax, but it is only going to help a small fraction. And when you get over to title IV of this bill, and the bill was actually to provide funds for loans to small business owners so they could hopefully stay in business. But you really get to the heart over in title IV, where it says there would be $30 billion in a small business lending fund, and it would authorize the Treasury Secretary to make capital investment in banks that have less than $10 billion in assets. Now, those sound like pleasantries, but the fact is when you are talking about the Treasury Secretary making capital investments, you're talking about people who have not had enough of buying up private business in America. We are talking about a government who tried to force TARP funds into the hands of small banks. The ones I knew wouldn't take it. They didn't want the Federal Government's grimy hands dripping down into their bank telling them what they could or couldn't do, and for the good reason that they were healthy before the government messed things up. They were doing fine until the government let the huge investment banks that give 4 to 1 to Democrats, let them run them amok, let them get in trouble, and nearly bring down our economic system. And because the investment banks got into trouble and our community banks for the most part were doing okay before Chicken Little Paulson ran around screaming the financial sky was falling, well now, this bill, purportedly for small business, is actually going to let the government get its grimy hands into ownership of smaller community banks that were doing fine until the Federal Government tried to mess up the economy. And also, the proposal does not require, this bill doesn't require institutions to lend to small businesses. It gives them incentives to lend, but it lets the government get their hands into the community banks. And so the bottom line: We know that come the first of the year, that there is going to be the largest tax increase in American history if we don't vote to stop it. We understand today Majority Leader Hoyer announced that there would be no vote on extending the current tax rate before the elections. And I am telling you, betting isn't legal in Texas, but if I were able to bet something, I would bet you that there are sure not going to be the current tax rates extended in a lame duck session. The only chance of having the current tax rates continue after January 1 is if the American public puts so much pressure on this leadership. And we have some Democratic friends across the aisle, and they really want to see the tax rates extended because they know it will cripple business. They have been hearing from people who say that, If you let my taxes go up, the biggest they have ever been up in my lifetime, you are in trouble. So there are assurances, don't worry about it. But I'm telling you, when the election occurs, the leverage is gone. People will be voted out of office who have been hurting small business, and there will be no pressure that can be brought to bear in a lame duck session to get the lame ducks to extend the same tax rates.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor to speak here on the House floor and have that opportunity that was provided by those willing to show the greatest love, according to Jesus, willing to lay down their lives for their friends, their countrymen, so that we could have these freedoms. And when you read the Declaration of Independence, it talks about we are endowed by a Creator with certain inalienable rights, and all men were created equal; now, not with equal talents, not with equal abilities, not with equal money or substances. That was not the point. In God's eyes, we are equal. In the eyes of the Creator, we are equal. And so we are supposed to do the best we can with what we've got. And as my friend from Missouri was talking about light bulbs, I couldn't help but scratch my head because here in Washington, we are told that the most environmentally friendly majority in the history of the country is in charge now. But I wanted a light bulb that was incandescent so I can see better, because it takes so dadgum long for those others with the curl in there to warm up where you can see. And sometimes, there's a tiny closet there, and I flip the light switch on, well, I just need to flip it on and off. Well, now I've got to leave the energy on long enough so the bulb warms up to where I can see what's in there. And it's interesting, you can't find, you will not be provided an incandescent light bulb. And we read in the past week that the last incandescent manufacturing plant in the United States proper has now gone out of business. So what have we done as the most environmentally conscientious Congress in history? We have got light bulbs that have mercury in them--mercury, the substance that does not go away. If you get mercury in your system, you don't get it out. If you get too much, it's lethal. It builds up over time. So what are we doing? We are raising the level of mercury as high as we can get it, this lethal substance, and you say, what is going on? How can we be environmentally friendly when we are forcing everybody on Capitol Hill to have mercury throughout their offices? It is just one of those things. If we are all created equal, and the thing we are endowed with by our Creator, inalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, nobody is guaranteed happiness, but the right to pursue happiness. Nobody is guaranteed, under our Declaration or under the Constitution, that everybody is going to share and share alike. That is called a socialist manifesto: from those according to their ability to those according to their needs. It is a lovely idea but it has never worked. It always goes bankrupt because as I found when I was in the Soviet Union as an exchange student talking to farmers who had not been out in their field all day on a great day, well, it was midmorning, but to that point, that was prime time to work. When I spoke a little Russian back then, I asked, When do you work in the field? They laughed. One of them said I make the same number of rubles if I am out there, pointing out in the sun in the field that really looked bad, or if I am here in the shade. So I am here in the shade. That is why socialism doesn't work. If you pay somebody the same thing to be working out in the hot field, sweating and wearing themselves out, and pay them the same as if they sit in the shade and cut up with their friends, they are going to be in the shade. The reason free market systems fail is not because a free market system doesn't work; it works beautifully. You do need a government to make sure that everybody plays fairly, not to take away from those who are able to produce more than others, not to kill the incentive for people to actually produce, but to provide a level playing field where everybody can compete equally. That is the job that we are supposed to have. That is the job of the government. And we have gotten too busy in this body trying to tell everybody what they can do, and as the President says share the wealth, spread the wealth, you kill incentive and you kill productivity. So when you get right down to it historically, what always brings free market systems to an end is when a governing authority begins to meddle and ruin the free market system and start converting it over to a socialist system. And once a governing authority is able to manipulate the free market system over into a socialist system where you are trying to spread the wealth, you are killing incentive and you are creating class warfare, you are creating all kinds of problems. You are trying to do the things that this government is doing right now, and then you kill the free market system. Not because it doesn't work, but because you have now converted it to a socialist system, which always fails by its own weight. And then that obviously requires a dictator, somebody who forces a sharing of the wealth, a killing of incentives across the board so people do all they can to sit in the shade and not do anything and not produce and not help out their neighbors because they don't have to. So it broke my heart to keep hearing our President talking about the rich, anybody making over $200,000. He is talking about small business people. He is talking about people I have had come pleading to me: Stop destroying what I have spent my life building. I had nothing. I had nothing, worked 20 hours a day, put what little bit I had at risk and eventually was able to hire another employee and another employee and another employee. And finally I have in some cases 20, 30, or 140 in one case, one man that was talking to me, 140. Now he is down to about 60, I think he said. But you are killing me. You are killing my business. And you make people hate me because of how hard I worked and how much I sacrificed to build this small business. And in the process, you made me put 80 people out of work. We should not be about class envy. The reason a free market society works is because there is fairness. When you have a government that is about fairness, then people compete. Entrepreneurship springs up all around and people comes up with ideas. It is worth risking what they have to make things work. That is free enterprise. And when we have an administration that is so busy stirring up class envy and trying to get people to hate the people that have come to me and said, yeah, I have been making over $200,000 a year. I have been pouring every dime back into my business. It grows and grows, and we have been able to hire more people. Now I have to lay them off, and you have got people hating me because they think I'm rich. And now you have a President that says I don't deserve the same tax rate that everybody else does. That I deserve to be punished because I took risk and I sacrificed and I grew my business and I hired people and I was fair to them and they loved their jobs and they worked hard, and it grew bigger and better and we had a great product. And now I have a President that is getting people to hate me and saying I don't deserve to pay the same rate as other people? I mean, how much must a person despise those kind of entrepreneurs who have built a business and created out of nothing. They worked hard with ingenuity and sacrifice, created a thriving business, how much must a President or an administration despise those people to say, I am willing not to help the people that I call middle class if I have to give the same rate to the people that make above $200,000. I am willing to punish the middle class and not let them have the same rate as they do now. I am willing to let their tax rates zoom up with the biggest tax increase in American history come January 1, I am willing to let that tax rate go up if you try to make me allow those entrepreneurs who have built a business on their own, if you try to make me give them the same tax rate as the middle class, because you see I want to punish them. They have made too much money. They took risks, they laid it all out there on the line. One fellow talked about how he didn't even own his own trailer, those kinds of things. And he built a business, and now our President says he is rich and he needs to be punished. That is the way you end a free market system. You spread the wealth evenly from those who have risked it all and give to those who have been sitting in the shade watching them work. You kill the free market system. You kill the jobs. So we have an administration out there saying we are all about jobs, that is our main focus. But by the way, we are going to push through this health care bill that the majority of America says don't, don't, don't, and they pushed it through. And then you see people laid off. So many people have come to me about family members, themselves, cuts in pay, laid off because the cost of the health care that was supposed to go down when this administration ramrodded and crammed this bill down America's throat without letting people truly understand all that was in it. You lose your country if it is based on a free market system when an administration and a Congress tries to make it socialist. Now, I realize some people think, oh, Socialist is such a horrible word. It's really a very nice concept, actually. If you look at it, you know, we want everyone to share and share alike. Sometimes we're told that growing up: we want to share and share alike. As a parent, I tried to make sure that all three of our girls shared and shared alike, but if one of those children could take what she was given and parlay that into something even better and more productive, that was hers. Whether she shared it or not was completely up to her. I would encourage her to use and develop the talents and what she has been provided. It is true, as an old preacher of ours used to say, that there are an awful lot of people around here who are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple, and there is an arrogance that goes with that. Sometimes, if somebody comes from a poor family and has everything handed to him, then he thinks he has hit a triple because somebody else placed him on third base. Either way, we're supposed to never forget that the Founders believed--and most Americans according to the polls believe--that the blessings we have are a gift of God; and if we turn our backs on him long enough, though he is long suffering, patient and full of grace, eventually, he will say, Okay, you turned your back on me long enough. Now I turn my back on you, and you disappear. You head to the dustbin of history. Now, I wasn't going to bring up this matter. I was very pleased that the President was talking about the tax holiday concept. The problem is he is bringing it up over a year and a half later than it was brought to his attention by me. I told him at the time, Look, you promised everybody a tax cut. You know, of course you put a $250,000 cap on income. I don't think it ought to be there. Moody's did an independent study. They said the tax holiday idea, the way I read it, increases the 1-year GDP more than any other stimulus proposal if we pass this stimulus, a tax holiday idea that just said, you know, for the next 2 or 3 months, every dime you make stays in your check and does not go to the Federal Government. You get to keep your income tax in your check. Whether you want to make it 2 or 3 months, you keep it. If we passed it today and if the President signed it today, tomorrow they would have that money in their checks. It wouldn't go to Washington. At the time, it was going to cost so little money compared to the money the government was spending. In fact, that's where I got the idea in 2008. Of course, we had the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, which was a huge mistake, and I hope our leaders do finally realize that, but it was a huge mistake. Both sides of the aisle had about half of their Members buying into it. $700 billion. That could have provided 4 months of every worker in America getting every dime of their income taxes back, along with all of their Social Security money for those 2 months, and it would have let the employers keep the 2 months of matching money that they normally would have to put in to match what the workers put in. That would have given businesses a boost, and it would have given employees this tremendous boost. We did a little survey of people in our districts: What would you do? Look at your check and at how much money is going to Washington. What would you do with it? Some said, Look, we've got a gas guzzler, and it's worth less than what we owe for it, so we can't trade it in. We can't get another car. We're stuck. Yet, if we got 2 months of our own income tax in our checks, we'd be able to finally buy a good, fuel-efficient car. We'd be able to save money on gas in the future. The truth is that GM and Chrysler wouldn't have needed to have been bailed out because people would have been out there buying cars. Actually, the idea for the tax holiday, when I had it in 2008, came from seeing that $700 billion for the Wall Street bailout and then hearing here in Washington that, between the Federal Reserve and the things this government was going to do, it would probably end up costing between $3 trillion and $9 trillion just to try to get the economy going again. That's when I inquired: How much do we anticipate will be paid for the whole year of 2008 in Federal personal income tax? It was around $1.21 trillion. $1.21 trillion and $3 trillion to $9 trillion over here, maybe more. I like the $1.21 trillion. It's at least three to 10 times cheaper, and it's people keeping their own money that they've earned. Then you wouldn't have needed all the bailouts, and everybody could have kept all of their income taxes for a whole year. I don't like a government's not paying its bills as it goes along. It's not a good idea, but to say no personal income tax for a year when that is so much cheaper than what the Bush administration pushed with the $700 billion bailout, with the $800 billion that is now a $900 billion porkulus bill, from January of 2009 under President Obama, and with the $400 billion land omnibus bill the following week--all these stimulus packages, so-called--man, it would have been so much cheaper to have said, People, just keep all of your income taxes for a year. Well, there weren't that many people here on Capitol Hill who felt like they could politically risk signing onto a full year of no income tax. Especially after January when we had the $800 billion or the $900 billion, my position was you could take the $800 billion stimulus package and what was left of the original $700 billion Wall Street bailout and pay for a whole year of no income taxes being paid. Just take the money from those stimulus packages and bailouts and use those to let everybody keep their own income taxes for a year. John Shadegg was one. He loved the idea of having a whole year of no income tax. Boy, you talk about a stimulated economy. People would have been buying cars. They would have been eating out. They would have been buying products, buying new homes. Even with 2 months of people's own income taxes, Newt Gingrich's folks ran the numbers for me. He was very helpful. As I recall, an average family, just an average household in America, in just 2 months, was going to have around $5,000 or so of extra money. Some people said, You know, we got behind on our mortgages when gasoline got to $4 a gallon the year before, and we just have not been able to catch up; but you let us have all of our income taxes for a couple of months, we'll catch up, and then you won't have to do all of these ridiculous government programs to try and save people's mortgages. There are other things that need to be done, but I brought this up when I met the President back when he very first came to our Republican Conference, which was held down in the basement here in the Capitol. I said, Look, I don't care who gets the credit. You can put your name on it. Do it. Moody's says it will help the GDP more in one year than any proposal that has been proposed. Even our own leadership's proposal wasn't going to do that much good in one year in the Republican Party. I don't care who gets the credit. I wouldn't have minded if he had taken the idea back then and had used it, but he waited over a year and a half and then started describing, virtually almost verbatim, the way I described it over a year and a half ago and then in some of the same speeches said, But you know what? The Republicans don't have any good ideas. Well, I don't care that somebody's taking credit. The old saying goes--Reagan said it often--it's amazing what you can get done here in Washington if you don't mind who gets the credit. So I don't mind other people taking credit for the idea. I do mind when it's followed or even preceded by the words, ``But Republicans don't have one good idea.'' I think we need to pray for the President's memory. I know the pressure is great. I know it's an awesome responsibility. It's easy to forget things. Boy, do I know that. My wife will sure tell you that. It's easy to forget things. But before you go alleging that Republicans have no good ideas, think for a moment where you got the idea you're proposing. That's what I would offer, Mr. Speaker. And we keep hearing the President and others here on the floor saying that Republicans have not one good idea. They're the Party of No. No good ideas. None at all. None at all? We need to pray for people's hearing, because there are a lot of fantastic proposals that are being tossed out there that would be wonderful. We do need major tax reform. I'll never forget how depressed I was after I left the Republican annual retreat in early 2006. I had been elected, sworn in in January of 2005, and started Congress with all kinds of hopes and dreams of making the country a better place. A year later we're told, look, there's a tiny chance we might not have the majority next year. It's possible we could lose. We don't think it will happen. We know we had talked about major tax reform this year, but instead we're going to just try to get through this year, not do anything big that will make people mad one way or the other, keep the majority next November, and then we'll come back in January 2007 and do the major stuff like major tax reform. Well, we've lost a lot of people who have been defeated since then, because America wants to see us keep our promises. There have been a lot of promises made by this administration, this majority, of things that were going to be done. Even on the crap-and-trade bill that passed here last year, the promises were made over and over: Oh, no, this bill is not going to cost jobs. It's going to create jobs. Create green jobs. After seeing what the people in charge have done in taking away incandescent light bulbs, it makes me wonder, are those green jobs going to have to carry around mercury, too, or what? The American people are letting it be known, they're not happy with people not keeping their promises here. Actually the truth is, I have a real fear as a Republican that we only get the majority back one more time in my lifetime and if we do not keep our word this time, we'll never get it back again in my lifetime. There are some great ideas. There are things that should be done. We've talked about balanced budgets for years. And there are some in the prior administration that equated compassion with paying money. There are an awful lot of people in the current administration that equate compassion with giving away somebody else's money. But that's not compassion. That's hurting free enterprise, killing incentive, killing jobs. And when you take away somebody's job, you have hurt them. Psychologists say that's one of the most devastating blows to a person mentally, emotionally, to lose a job. Losing a spouse is up there. Losing a child is right up at the top. But losing a job is one of the most devastating things that can happen. And here we keep doing things over and over. The crap-and-trade bill is still hanging out there. The rumors are there could be a lame duck session and people that have lost their seats, who were afraid to vote for it before in the House or Senate will vote for it in a lame duck session because they've already been voted out, they've got nothing to lose, and maybe hoping if they vote for it in November or December, maybe the administration will give them a job if they really cater to them and help them do that. That would be disastrous. But if you go back and read the crap-and-trade bill, as I did, you find out that back there it seemed like--and I read from it, standing right over there--around page 900 and something, there was a fund that was created in the bill that would reimburse people or give them a little allowance for those people who lost their jobs as a result of that bill being passed. Now I know my friends across the aisle who stood up over and over and said, no, this isn't going to cost jobs, this is going to create green jobs, they obviously had not read the bill because I know them well enough to know, they wouldn't have stood up and intentionally lied. They wouldn't have done that. It's just that they had not read the bill so they were not aware that whoever's staffer or special interest group wrote that bill, they knew people would lose their jobs and that's why they were creating a fund in the bill to give an allowance to people that lost their jobs as a result of the bill. And as I pointed out then, the good news, I guess, to those that voted for that bill is that if it becomes law, no doubt in my mind, a lot of the people that voted for that bill will lose their job as a result of voting for that bill, and they've got an argument that they're entitled to funds from the bill for losing their job as a result of the bill. So they may have created a fund that will help them out. But we should have a balanced budget amendment, and it's a shame on the Republicans for not getting that done when we had the White House, the House and the Senate. We should have gotten it done. Shame on the Republicans for in the last administration when we had the majority agreeing to tax cuts that we knew would stimulate the economy and but for those tax cuts we would have gone into a massive depression. But the economy was stimulated, and we brought more money into the Federal Treasury than had ever been brought into the Treasury; but the problem is we spent more than had ever been spent in history--up until, of course, this administration. And whereas I can remember being over here on this side and hearing colleagues beat up on Republicans because we were in the majority and to have a $160 billion deficit was unthinkable, it was just so irresponsible--until, of course, the Obama administration, the Democratic majority, and then actually 10 times that much of a deficit is okay. It was not okay at $160 billion and it's certainly not okay at 10 times that. People in the American public were promised change, and yet what they got was not really change; they got 10 times more of what they had before. I don't know why President Bush is being demonized, because this administration and this Congress is pushing 10 times more of exactly what the prior administration did. So instead of condemning the Bush administration and the Republican majority, they ought to be rightfully saying, you know what, we thought you had a good idea when you ran up a $160 billion deficit, that was such a good idea, we have gone 10 times that, and we're really running up a deficit now. Shame on Republicans when we had the chance in 2005 and President Bush ran on shoring up Social Security. Now there was all kinds of discussion of privatization; what does it mean, what is it really going to do? And by September of '05, it was obvious the President's political capital was gone and what he had hoped to do would not be done. But I still had hope, because I knew what had been done with the Texas employment retirement system. They took real money from people's checks that were supposed to go toward retirement and put it in a retirement account. Real money in a real retirement account. Now that was invested and it got hit pretty hard after 9/11. It got hit very hard after ``Chicken Little'' Paulson ran around and said the financial sky was falling if we didn't give him the $700 billion slush fund he wanted, and so the market fell 777 points in one day, a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the money lost by everybody that had anything invested. There was one Republican that I went to because he was so well respected for his business and financial mind, and I said, Look, I've talked to a lot of Republicans and I've talked to some Democrats. Something we could get through here even in September of '05 was a bill that had one thing in it that just said, Social Security tax money for the first time in the history of Social Security, since its inception in the late 1930s, will require that that Social Security tax money be put into the Social Security trust fund. I don't want to hear any ridiculous talk about lock box. There's never been one. I want one. I want there to be Social Security tax money put into the Social Security Trust Fund and stop putting IOUs in there, markers that are noninterest bearing, and we have to borrow 42 cents out of ever dollar that we spend. Stop it already. Now, to put the Social Security tax money into the Social Security Trust Fund will require us to actually make some tough calls. And since this majority condemned us all the time for spending too much money, then I think a good idea would be to go back to the budget of 2006. I know some are talking about 2008. I think it ought to be 2006. We'll go back to that budget. And I think that would help us maybe take care of the issue and get us a good start of being able to put all of the Social Security tax money into the Social Security Trust Fund. Now, the Republican is so brilliant he told me that we could never do that. I was shocked. Why not? Because the government would probably buy bonds with it. They'd be the biggest bondholder. We could never allow that to happen. Well, not really. We could create a treasury note that's interest bearing. So it's not risky. It doesn't put the Social Security Trust Fund at risk. That money makes interest. And it's there, and we stop having a Ponzi scheme. A very simple idea, and a Republican has proposed it. But when we were in the majority, our leadership didn't go for it, but I hope and pray they will if we get the majority again. Health care. Boy, we've seen what the ObamaCare bill has done to health care. And even though people were promised there would be no rationing, then we put a doctor in charge of it who's talked about, as I recall, not whether there would be rationing but when and who would be rationed. So all of the promises about no rationing, apparently those were not true. And it could be going back to the problem I alluded to earlier. We need to pray for the President's memory so he can remember those things that were promised. Now, another Republican idea--and I think everybody on this side of the aisle has signed on to it, is in support of it, is an energy bill, an energy plan that says use what we've got. Make sure that when coal is used that it doesn't harm the environment. Put scrubbers on there to make sure that it goes in the environment clean and we don't harm the environment. We can do that. Use uranium. Use nuclear facilities like we do with our ships and our submarines. It works. That's why we have sailors who are able to go underwater on submarines and stay submerged for 6 months. I was told by some of my friends from A&M that went in the Navy and were on subs underwater 6 months at a time. And he said, You know why we have to come up every 6 months? I said, I assume, to refuel. Oh, no. Those submarines could stay underwater just on and on and on. We have to come up so that the crew doesn't go crazy, because the nuclear subs could just stay under there as long as they needed to from a practical standpoint. But there's a source. Most of America didn't notice when our committee voted to put the second-largest source of uranium in this country off limits. People in Louisiana, Republicans and Democrats alike, have been screaming out, You are doing more damage to our State with the moratorium on gulf drilling than the oil spill did. And when you hurt an economy and you put people out of work, tragically they don't care about the environment. They're just trying to survive. The only countries that can really do much about the environment are those who have such a prolific economy that they can take care of it. But when you have people out of work and they're just living hand to mouth and they're trying to get by, they don't care about the environment because their economy doesn't allow it. Now, I and, as far as I know, everybody on this side of the aisle wants to develop alternative energy sources. But what a great idea, and it's been proposed, and we pushed it over and over. Instead of raising taxes and--as the President's promise would happen when he was running for office--having energy prices skyrocket if we use coal to make power, instead of doing those things--and as one 80-something-year-old lady told me from east Texas, I was born and raised in a house with no electricity. We had a wood-burning stove. And now the price of energy has gotten so high, I'm going to have to let it go. I can't pay for it. And it looks like I may end up going out of this world the way I came in, in a home with a wood-burning stove and nothing else, no other power, because people are wanting the prices to skyrocket. And that poor woman, not to be able to pay for her energy bill. No, that's no good way to do it. God bless this country with more natural resources than any other country in the world. Yeah, the Middle East, they may have more oil with things that are being found around the world, who knows. But we have massive amounts of natural gas, maybe the most coal in the world. We've got nuclear power. We've got wind power. We've got solar. We've got all kinds of things, so many things that can be harnessed. But if you use the energy with which we have been blessed and designate--I don't care if it's 25, 50 percent of the royalty that we get back from the energy or from the mining or whatever it is, designate that that will all be used to find and research and develop alternative energy sources, so that when we run out--it will be well before we run out. We've got over 100 years of natural gas that's been found and finding more all the time. Before we run out, we'll be able to convert to alternative energy without raising anybody's taxes, without making any 80-year-old women living alone have to go without power, keep the power prices down. That's a Republican solution. And I have friends on the other side of the aisle over here that would sign on to that if their Speaker wouldn't punish them for doing so. Another idea. I know it's not popular with the administration, but we call it the U.N. Voting Accountability Act. Very simple. It says, in essence, recognize the fact, first of all, that every country is sovereign. You can make your own decisions. We're not going to tell you what to do in your country. We shouldn't. But any country that votes against the United States' position in the U.N. more than half the time, the following year will get no financial assistance from us. As I've said before, you don't have to pay people to hate you. They'll do it for free. And there are some countries that we keep pouring cash into thinking they'll end up loving us because we'll buy it. Not only do they not love us, they have even greater contempt because they know we know they don't like us and yet we're just pouring money into them. It makes them not only not like us; it makes them have no respect at all for us. It's so unnecessary. Something that should have been passed in 2006 when we had the majority and we had the chance and some of the people that said they would not let it go through are no longer here--some are--it's a zero- baseline budget bill. It just says there are no automatic increases in any Federal departments' budgets. There's a Republican solution for you. If you want your budget increased in the Federal Government, you have to come justify it, and we ought to put those budgets online where people can watch them like--I think the President put it this way, that he was going to go through the budget line by line with a fine-tooth comb. He was going to put Joe Biden in charge of doing that, too. They were going to get rid of everything that was waste. Well, that hasn't happened yet. Since he is an honest man, I am sure it will eventually happen. But it sure hasn't happened yet. But it would sure happen if you let Americans see every Federal department's budget, how they were spending their money, put it up online, make them put those purchases online the way Congress is now doing. There would be people watching all right. And if we had a tax holiday and people saw for a couple months how much money they were actually sending to Washington, they would demand it. And they would be watching to see how every Federal department was spending money. And hey, I got another one for you. This is a Republican proposal from this Republican. Our leaders have not endorsed this. I am just tossing this out. But you know, we had to come in here in August, it cost an awful lot of money to turn all the lights back on, do everything to go back into session, but we did just so that we could get $10 billion extra to go to the Department of Education to help so- called teachers. Well, it turns out across America only about 50 percent of all the public education employees are teachers. Well, if you did away with the Department of Education here in Washington and kept that, $68 billion I believe is what we are spending this year, and divided it among the less than 14,000 independent school districts in America, I am open to a good formula how to do that, just average it would be between $5 million and $6 million dollars for every school district in America. Most school districts could really use that money. And boy, that would help education. You wouldn't need near as many bureaucrats because there wouldn't be as many decrees from on high here, Mount Olympus here in Washington. The local school districts would be able to comply with the Constitution, because the Constitution does not enumerate education as a power in the Constitution, which under the 10th Amendment means it's reserved to the States and to the people, the local folks. Another idea--they say we've got none--another idea, after having been to China years ago and having talked to CEOs about why you went. The corporate tax here is 35 percent. You lump on some of the State income taxes, you lump on local property taxes, all of the taxes, some of them are paying 40 percent, 50 percent in tax for their companies, competing with countries like China that don't exceed 17 percent. And if they are a big enough company moving over from anywhere in the U.S. to China, they'll cut you a deal, no income tax for a while, because they get it. If we dropped our corporate tax to 12 percent, I have had CEOs with major companies say we would be rebuilding a plant in the U.S. almost immediately when we went to a 12 percent corporate tax. And what would happen? More and more people would go back to work, and more and more people would be able to pay their taxes. And more and more revenue would come into the Federal Treasury. And then we would be able to buy more and more of those mercury lights that are going to create such a problem for the environment. There are a lot of very good solutions. And so I don't mind somebody taking my idea. I love it. I think it's the highest form of flattery. But I don't appreciate it when it's followed up with a comment that we have no ideas, no solutions. We've got a lot of them. We just aren't allowed to make amendments on the floor to get those to the floor where they could pass. I want to finish tonight with a tribute. It is a great honor for me to recognize one of America's greatest songwriters in our Nation's history, who turned 70 years of age this week. He is a man to whom we are indebted for many of the songs that lifted us, especially those of us who are baby boomers, from our low points because his songs spoke our feelings. They spoke our despondence, our hopes, our joy, and especially the joy that comes from loving other people. I had not met Paul Williams until recent years, but I knew the man well through his lyrics. I have known the man through his lyrics for decades. The hauntingly clear and comforting voice of Karen Carpenter shared some of his songs and expressed our hearts that we had only just begun to live. White lace and promises. A kiss for luck and we're on our way. For those of us who have loved, he expressed for us to the one we love that we won't last a day without you. And that all we needed was just an old-fashioned love song coming down in three-part harmony, one I am sure they wrote for you and me. Or that we had so much in common because we were all building a home for the family of man. Paul Williams expressed for us through the voice of Barbra Streisand that wonderful love could be soft as an easy chair, love fresh as the morning air, one love that is shared by two, I have found with you. Like a rose, under the April snow, I was always certain love would grow. Love, ageless and evergreen, seldom seen by two. Even though Paul had not yet recognized that he had a drinking problem, he forecast years down the road as a recovering alcoholic in that song with the words every day a beginning. Paul has now done that for over 20 years, as he has made each day a beginning. He knew for many of us that rainy days and Mondays always get us down. And some days it truly did feel that it was, through Helen Reddy's voice, you and me against the world. Sometimes it feels like you and me against the world. When others turn their back and walk away, we could always count on you to say just the right thing, Paul Williams. But for all the times we cried, you always felt the odds were on our side, and we found consolation in that. Paul Williams asked the ongoing question through the voice of Kermit the Frog as to why are there so many songs about rainbows? And what's on the other side? Well, someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection, because Paul is a lover, a dreamer like me. Paul, of course, is widely considered one of our most prolific, talented, creative singer-songwriters. He has won awards called Oscar, Grammy, and Golden Globe on multiple occasions, and was nominated for these awards--more than 20 times he has been nominated over the span of his illustrious musical career. Even though he also wrote the theme for ``The Love Boat,'' he nonetheless is deeply loved by so many like me who carry his lyrics in our hearts for life. As a further attestation of his talent and wide-ranging artistic scope and appeal, his songs have been recorded by a diverse array of our most famous classic and modern musicians such as Elvis, Frank Sinatra, Willie Nelson, Ella Fitzgerald, Ray Charles, Tony Bennett, Sara Vaughan, Luther Vandross, R.E.M., and Jason Mraz, among so many others, in addition to the ones I mentioned already tonight. But this House has time restraints, so there is not enough time to mention all of them. But additionally, Paul has appeared as an actor in many movies and has been a favorite on television shows. He was one of the most frequent guests on Johnny Carson's ``Tonight Show.'' I used to love to watch him. Always he had the most contagious sense of humor that caused viewers instantly to smile when he was introduced as a guest, because you just knew you were going to laugh. You always knew you were going to laugh with him in the room. On one such occasion he was a guest on ``The Tonight Show'' with Burt Reynolds. The chemistry was extraordinary and hilarious. It was only days later when Burt Reynolds called Paul, impressed with how much fun they had had together. He wanted to get with Paul, with Johnny Carson's beloved writer Pat McCormick, plus a few other favorites like Sally Field, Jackie Gleason, and Jerry Reeves and others and make a movie. They did. And the fun they had making that movie came across from the screen to the audience, which made it one of the most successful movies in history. It was called ``Smokey and the Bandit.'' There were other Smokey sequels, but that first one was the best. Paul said, Billy Bob Thornton told him that in the South ``Smokey and the Bandit'' is not considered a movie, it's considered a documentary. Though some identify him in the movies as the short guy, I personally know him to be a full 10 feet tall. In recognition of Paul's significant and long-lasting musical impact, he was inducted in 2001 into the Songwriters Hall of Fame, and he is currently serving as the president and chairman of the board of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, ASCAP. But Paul will tell you that having hit rock bottom through his drinking, God blessed him even still, He lifted him and gave him new life with an even more infectious joy. He became a Christian and although some alcoholics fear that they will not be nearly as creative without drinking, Paul showed that's absolutely not the case. Like virtually all creative geniuses, though, he has known times when he had trouble writing. On one such occasion he went to Nashville, collaborated and out came one of the most touching and autobiographical songs which became a huge hit for Diamond Rio. The words reflected a part of his own struggle with alcoholism and his recovery, though the woman who made him face the truth was not waiting for him when he completely sobered up and dried out. The words say it better than I can: ``I said, Hello, I think I am broken, and though I was only jokin', you took me by surprise when you agreed. I was trying to be clever, for the life of me I never guessed how far a simple truth would lead. You knew all my lines; you knew all my tricks; you knew how to heal that thing no medicine can fix. And I bless the day I met you, and I thank God that He let you lay beside me for a moment that lives on. And the good news is I'm better for the time we spent together. The bad news is you're gone. ``Looking back it's still surprising, I was sinking; you were rising, and with a look you caught me in mid-air. Now I know God has His reasons, but sometimes it's hard to see them when I awake and find that you're not there. ``You found hope in hopeless; and you made crazy sane, you became the missing link that helped me break my chains. And I bless the day I met you, and I thank God that He let you lay beside me for a moment that lives on. And the good news is I'm better for the time we spent together. The bad news is you're gone.'' And Paul knows, however, that all things work together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose. But that doesn't mean that everything is good; it's certainly not. But thankfully things have worked out so that Paul has been a gift to this planet and to the millions that he has touched. Paul has a true driving passion for his family, for his work as a drug rehabilitation counselor with Musicians' Assistance Program, a nonprofit program created by and for the benefit of musicians to help them overcome their substance abuse issues. In 1989 Paul obtained his certification as a drug rehabilitation counselor from UCLA and has for the last 20 years been actively imparting the lessons to others that he had to learn himself the hard way. He has been given a number of awards for his humanitarian efforts and remains a shining example of someone who has used fame not for self- centered ends but to promote the well-being of others. He is indeed devoted to his church, to the Lord, and just as I found out after I got dumped in college by my girlfriend, God had something else waiting that was supposed to have been all along. One of the great mysteries in this world, though, is that it is only after a broken heart so often that our hearts are stretched enough and then mend even bigger with a greater capacity for loving others. And so it was with Paul. Subsequently he met and married Mariana. They are happily married and have the deepest love for and pride in their wonderful family. Though he is a Democrat by political affiliation, he, just as Jesus did, can mingle and feel right at home even with the least of these, like me. His favorite anonymous quote, apparently he is one we can all take to heart with our interactions with one another, ``Care deeply; give freely; think kindly; act gently; and be at peace with the world.'' One of my favorite quotes is: ``Before the rising sun we fly; so many roads to choose, we start out walking and learn to run. We've only just begun.'' We are so grateful that the good Lord led Paul down a road of expressing what we felt, though Paul expressed it in a way we never could. But we can certainly sing, even though some of us should do so only privately. But it is also true, as Paul wrote, ``Time won't change the meaning of one love.'' And though 70 years of age this week, Paul Williams is ageless and ever, ever green. Here in the Congressional Record for all the world to read, as long as there is a United States, it will ever be recorded that Paul Williams lived, laughed, loved, and was immensely helpful to those around him doing the same thing; and hopefully he will be around the rest of my life to add the music to my life. And, yes, to borrow from another of his songs: ``As a traveling boy, Paul was only passing through, but we will always think of you.'' God bless you, Paul, for blessing us. Happy birthday. I yield back.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, at a time when we're billions of dollars behind on what we need to spend to keep up our parks and the Federal land that's owned right now, this bill irresponsibly adds $900 million per year for 30 years. It's not enough that we're going to put children in debt for generations; now we're going to keep spending money they don't want spent. They want us to stop the bleeding so the body can get healthy again. One thing about this CLEAR Act is clear: It's going to cause more people to lose jobs, it's going to hurt more State and local governments by buying more land the Federal Government can't take care of, but takes that land off the rolls. Please, for goodness sake, let's stop the bleeding--and in this case the gushing forth of this Nation's blood and its tax dollars--and vote this down.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chair, you know, at a time when 42 cents out of every dollar we are spending, we are allocating here in this body is having to be borrowed and someday paid back by children and the children's children, some of whom may be watching right now, it is absolutely critical we do it right. Here we have got all of these amendments lumped into one so we can't debate them, and we can't take one thing out. That's not right. And when I heard my friend from West Virginia saying, There they go again, apologizing for BP, I will challenge anybody to find any comment by anybody on this side of the aisle in this debate today who has apologized for, to, or about BP. Some of us think they ought to be strung up when we find out who's most responsible. So I know my friend from West Virginia would never intentionally misrepresent the facts, but whoever prepared that statement that he read sure did.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, the last 2 days we have seen some extraordinary things on this floor. There was a bill, well intentioned, to help those not only first responders, but anybody who may have suffered from inhaling what happened on 9/11. September 12 was an amazing day when people came together all over the country, and we were Americans together. Our hearts went out to the New Yorkers, and in fact people stood in line in my hometown for hours to give blood. We gave generously, we continue to give. And never mind that there's no concern about first responders around the country, we'll continue to want to help New Yorkers. But when the pay-for is going to cost thousands and thousands of jobs around this country to pay for that fund, have a little sympathy. People shouldn't have to lose their jobs to pay for the New York fund. We will continue to be generous. Don't ask for us to continue to give up jobs to do so.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I do thank my friend from California and my friend from Louisiana. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution for the wonderful, outstanding job the United States Men's National Soccer Team did in representing this country. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 1527 to congratulate the United States Men's National Soccer Team for its valiant performance in the 2010 FIFA World Cup. In a country where baseball is said to be the National pastime and the NFL draws the largest TV viewership, this year's World Cup team showed Americans how exciting the game of Soccer can be. As our United States team seemed to overcome insurmountable obstacles, the American spirit showed through time and time again. When all seemed lost against Algeria, and the prospects of even moving out of group play seemed dim, Landon Donovan scored a goal that will be on highlight reels for years to come. That goal ensured that the team would win its group in the FIFA World Cup for the first time since 1930. I was a judge for many years, and part of my job was to discern right from wrong, and I can unequivocally say many of the calls that went against the US team were dubious at best. But did our players quit? No, just the opposite. In circumstances that would cause many teams to hang their heads, quit and look for someone to blame, they showed their resolve to represent America well and show the rest of the world the values that we as Americans stand for. Despite two goals being wiped off the scoreboard, our players rose to the challenge, took the game into their own hands and displayed their indomitable spirit. It was in these times of perseverance and fortitude that I couldn't help but be proud as an American and proud to be represented by the fine players on our team. When these guys put on their red, white and blue jerseys they represented more than themselves, more than their team, they represent a nation. A nation that prides itself on the things that our founders spelled out in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Though we did not achieve the ultimate goal of winning the World Cup, our team handled themselves with class. We owe a debt of gratitude to each and every one of them for their hard work in preparation for this tournament and for also representing us as a nation so very well. I would also like to recognize my constituents and members of the United States Men's National Soccer team, Clint Dempsey of Nacogdoches and Francisco Jose Torres of Longview, on their performances in the World Cup. Clint Dempsey began kicking a soccer ball around in the Texas town of Nacogdoches with his family and neighborhood children. He attended Furman University in South Carolina and was a star player--starting 61 out of 62 games and scoring 17 goals. After college, Clint joined the Boston based-New England Revolution, an American Major League Soccer club. He was named the MLS Rookie of the Year for 2004 after having a spectacular first season playing 24 of 30 games and scoring 7 goals. He led the Revs to three Major League Soccer Cup playoffs in 2005, 2006 and 2007. At the 2006 World Cup in Germany, he won the Honda Player of the Year for 2006, the highest individual honor in USA soccer, for being the only American player to score in the tournament. He has also been awarded the 2007 U.S. Soccer Athlete of the Year and the FIFA Confederations Cup Bronze Ball in 2009 for his performance during the Confederations Cup Final against Brazil. On June 12, 2010, Clint Dempsey scored a goal in an intense opening match against England to insure a 1-1 tie during the World Cup in South Africa. Clint or ``Duece,'' as many of his teammates know him, is known for his toughness, dribbling abilities, and versatility on the field. Jose Francisco Torres grew up in Longview and attended Longview High School. He joined Pachuca, a Mexican football team that competes in the Mexican Primera Division, where he won a championship in 2007 and appeared in all three matches at the 2008 FIFA Club World Cup. He was also a member of the United States team in the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics. During the 2010 World Cup, the young, quick midfielder appeared during the Slovenia v. U.S. game. He is a star on the rise of whom East Texas is extremely proud as are all Americans. We wish both men the best of luck in their future endeavors. They are local as well as national heroes and role models to many aspiring young soccer players. Although our U.S. team didn't prevail in our final game, the teamwork and passion inspired millions of Americans and speaks volumes about soccer in the United States. We offer our thanks and congratulations the United States Men's National Soccer Team, and know that all members of Congress will likely be supporting this resolution.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, this is in tribute to and in honor of the Boy Scouts of America Troops 1524 and 1525 along with other Scouts and Scout leaders, located in my District in East Texas. This week they are participating in the National Scout Jamboree at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia. This year's Jamboree carries on a long tradition, where just steps from the Capitol Building, the first ever Jamboree was held on the National Mall in 1937. Over the years, the Jamboree has become the pinnacle of all Scouting camps. Every 4 years or so, Troops descend from all over America to celebrate the tenets they all hold dear and to develop even further the life lessons Scouting is so effective in teaching. The entire process has traditionally done an outstanding job in molding boys into outstanding young men, while building character and instilling notions of personal responsibility, all of which have helped make America the envy of civilized nations. This year's Jamboree also holds special significance because 2010 marks the 100 year anniversary of Scouting in America. Over this period they have grown into a premier youth organization and had very positive effects on millions of young males. Individual Boy Scouts throughout Scouting's 100 year history have gone on to do great things and serve our country in manners that have brought great honor and credit to the United States. More than 50 percent of all NASA Astronauts were Boy Scouts. More than 30 percent of graduates from the Military, Air Force and Naval Academies were involved in Scouting in their youth and five of our Presidents were once Boy Scouts. Even within Congress, 199 of our current Members once participated in Scouting, with 22 achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. America is truly a better nation because of Scouting. As an Eagle Scout and Member of Congress, I can truly say that the wisdom and leadership I gained in Boy Scouts still benefit me every day. All those who take up the mantle of effective Scouting can be identified by the traits named in the Scout Law as ``trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.'' If America is going to continue to be great then, in the paraphrased words of Alex de Tocqueville, America must continue to be good. The Scouting doctrines clearly assist in making America ``good.'' If we continue to see the young people in America living a morally sound life following the tenets supported by 100 years of Boy Scouting while dedicated to family values and country, then surely God will continue to bless America as He has during the last 100 years. To that end, the words from the Scout's Oath are as meaningful today as they were throughout Scouting's rich history: On my honor, I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country; To obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight. Participating in this, the historic Boy Scout Jamboree of the United States during the I00th Anniversary of the Boy Scouts, are the following Boy Scouts from the 1st Congressional District of Texas: Thomas Alberts, Brian Allen, Beathan Andersen, William Arnold, Alex Baker, Peter Ball, Rusty Bell, Zachariah Brown, Nate Cargile, Christopher Carlin, Hartley Coker, Paul Cook, Robert Cooper, Brian Cousineau, Carter Crump, Charlie Cullen, Myles Elbel, Michael Fedell, Michael Fedun, Joshua Fields, Chris Finlay, Danny Fisher, Garett Froats, Bryan Gilliland, Jacob Gage, Kyle Gage, Wyatt Gay, David Gean, Thomas Gunn, Rielly Hassell, Clint Hearn, Stratton Hibbs, Kaleb Hively, Trent Hood, Jacob Houck, Luke Hughes, Brian Humphreys, Andrew Kazlow, Kerrigan Keele, Nicholas Kottwitz, Francis Gene Lewis, Trevor Ligon, Garrett Manning, Noah Morrill, Koehler Munoz, Payton Myers, Kacee Newman, Taylor O'Bryant, Richard Olds, James Olson, James Pike, Lyle Potter, Tyler Reed, Blake Richey, John Hunter Sattler, Jack Schaeffer, Brady Schuh, Colbert Sheard, Jeremiah Slaughter, Spencer Smith, Brandon Spears, James Tyler Stricklin, Connor Tate, Travis Tate, John Timaeus, Andrew Walker, Jeffrey Dylan Watson, Elliot West, John West, Robert Westmoreland, Mason Wheeler, Zach Ziegelgrube. In addition, these Scouts of which their U.S. Representative Louie Gohmert is immensely proud, as should be the Nation itself, the following outstanding leaders have participated to lead these wonderful young men to the fulfillment of this scouting dream are the following: Paul Dunaway, Rory Hassell, Stephen Head, Jeffrey Jones, Matt Lindsey, Chris Peurifoy, Lyle Potter, Jim Reed, Greg Tate, Clinton Willbanks, Geoffrey Willbanks. The foregoing Boy Scouts and leaders have, by their demonstrated excellence and zeal, not only expanded their horizons and abilities, but they have also made it possible to create a better world in which to live for all those who follow hence. Accordingly, their names and participation are hereby memorialized in the Congressional Record of the United States of America to bear witness of their valiant participation to all those who may draw near. May God bless every one of these fine individuals just as He has so richly blessed these United States of America to this time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. They made you learn to do it with one hand. In case you were hanging from a rope on a mountainside, you could reach up with the other hand and tie that bow and be able to suspend yourself, just hanging with the rope, without having to hold on for dear life. So there are amazing things you learn in the Army--from the stars to Morse code. I don't remember that so well anymore, but what phenomenal training. One of the facts we have indicates that, in 2009, Boy Scouting recognized their 2 millionth Eagle Scout. We know that the Eagle Scouts are only a tiny percentage of all of those who actually go into Scouting and who benefit from Scouting. So that's quite an accomplishment. There are 2 million Eagle Scouts in the Boy Scout program. Another thing that is worth noting is, when you see a Boy Scout get to be a Tenderfoot and as you work your way up to Second Class, First Class, Star, Life, and Eagle, you don't attain those badges, those accomplishments, by representing only yourself. No Boy Scout ever has or ever will. It represents the millions of people who have helped Scouting over the years. In my case, my parents were so encouraging, and my mother was actually more than encouraging. She was downright pushy--my late mother, rest her soul. My Scoutmaster--rest his soul, Sam Parker--had more influence on my life than any man besides my father, I think. I've had such wonderful men and women help teach and encourage me; but my Scoutmaster, who was also an American history teacher, instilled just a love of American history and of America's greatness, not because America just all of a sudden appeared and did these things, but because it was blessed by God. Those things are in the Scout Oath. My daughter Katie prepared a collage some years back, and it had all kinds of things on there from the music I liked to different things I'd accomplished. There was high school football and all of these different things that were pasted, and there were slogans and things. Well, right in the middle, on a small piece of paper--in the center of everything and with all the other things emanating out from it--was the Boy Scout Oath: ``On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.'' When I saw that and saw that that was the centerpiece of everything, I asked, ``Sweetheart, do you think of me as a Boy Scout?'' She said, ``Daddy, you'll always be a Boy Scout.'' I take that as quite a compliment, as I know my friend Mr. Thompson, likewise, is proud of the accomplishment. One other thing before I yield to my friend about becoming an Eagle Scout: The people in my hometown who contributed, the churches and businesses that helped make our Scout troop a success and the volunteers who worked and made it go and who gave us that opportunity deserve such accolades for what they did and for the difference they made in all of our lives as boys. When it came time for the Eagle Court of Honor, which is where I received my Eagle Award, I was the oldest of three boys. I have another sister who is older, and I just lost my younger brother a few months ago. We each, in turn, became Eagle Scouts. After my mother passed away in 1991, we were looking through her jewelry box. She had some jewelry pieces that were very nice; but in a small area, she had the most valuable pieces of jewelry she'd ever owned. There was a ring that had some rubies and diamonds on it. There was a gold nugget necklace, which had real gold nuggets. Then there were the three Eagle Pins that Eagles pin on their mothers at the time they're awarded the Eagle. It made it pretty clear that, not just for me but in my mother's life, her boys-- all three--becoming Eagle Scouts was one of the most treasured things that she had. I yield to my friend, Mr. Thompson.