Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. We heard the President--now the President--say back in a debate with Hillary Clinton in 2008, ``That's what I will do in bringing all the parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are.'' We know in the debate, when he was running against John McCain, our now-President said, ``I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies--they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN so that people can see who's making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who's making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.'' We heard the Speaker say repeatedly that when she was Speaker, this would be the most open government ever. So it's deeply perplexing, since we know they would never lie, why they're preventing what they promised from coming true.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it's interesting following the gentleman from Florida. In the spirit of Christmas, it sounds like accusing previously Members of Congress and now Members of the Senate of basically being responsible for deaths. I can't help but address that in this respect--ignorance is a dangerous thing, and the fact is, if you will examine, Mr. Speaker, the statistics of those, for example, you take numbers I'm familiar with of women who find a localized tumor, of breast cancer, they have a 98 percent chance of success, of complete elimination of the cancer. That's in the United States with our health care. If we go to what the gentleman from Florida is proposing, as we see in other countries like England, it's about 20 points less. In other words, the program the gentleman from Florida is advocating would be responsible for killing one out of five women who find those type tumors. And you can run those statistics throughout health care. So, despite what some have said--I know not intentionally trying to misrepresent, because I know the gentleman is an honorable man. As Shakespeare said, so are they all, all honorable men. But they're wrong about the facts. And the truth is, we have numerous proposals to reform health care and to provide health care for everyone. But one of the great misrepresentations that's been made this year in this House is that so-called health care reform is about health care reform. It is not. We've heard everyone from the President to lots of people on this side of the aisle say that yes, we want to insure 30 million more people. Well, the statistics tell us if they do their program, then they are going to be millions who lose their health care insurance. And even if you wanted to insure 30 million people, well, the statistics indicate those 30 million are in approximately 10 million households, and you can insure those 10 million households for potentially less than $10,000. So for $100 billion, you could insure all the people that they say they need to add to the health care insurance rolls for $100 billion. And yet the estimates are anywhere from $1.2 trillion to $2.5 trillion as to what they're proposing will cost. That makes it clear that the truth is their proposals are not about health care reform. They are about government control. And consistently, when you go through the statistics of the success rates with regard to different types of cancer, if you go to the programs being advocated, then people get on lists and they die waiting on those lists. People die waiting for the treatment, the therapy, the diagnostics that require lists in a socialized medicine setting. But I want to get away from the partisan politics and the nasty allegations that have been made in here just prior to me speaking, and back and forth throughout this year, because this may well be the last hour that we have here in the House before we recess for Christmas and before we come back next year. So, instead of getting into all this rancor, I thought it would be good to help address an area that some people have just not had education about, and that this is the appropriate place, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that the record is correct, because we have so much wonderful history in this building, in this House. For example, I hear people really concerned around this building, around the Supreme Court, across the way, around Capitol Hill here, about someone, my goodness, praying in public. Well, we begin every day we're in session here in the House and the Senate's in session with a prayer. Many are ignorant from the place in which that tradition started, where it came. You have to go back to 1787, the Constitutional Convention. The Constitutional Convention, people may recall, began in 1787 as a result of the failure of the Articles of Confederation. And for those that know history, they would know that the revolution was won in 1783. It was the Treaty of Paris in which England finally recognized the United States' right to exist as a Nation, and George Washington did something that had never been done in the history of mankind before or since then, and that is lead a revolutionary military, win the revolution, and then resign and go home when he could be Caesar, he could be king, emperor, whatever. That was not his goal. His goal, as he said, was to do his duty to God, basically, and his country, kind of like the Scout oath. Anyway, here they are in Philadelphia, Independence Hall, 1787. It's June. Benjamin Franklin is 80 years old. Now, many people say, Well, we know he was a deist from history. That means he believed there was a creator out there but that he believed God, the creator, created things and then stood back and let everything happen and that he never interfered. Well, those who also know history know that there were times in his life when Benjamin Franklin sowed some wild seeds, and that included some in Europe and in England. But by the time of the Constitutional Convention, there in Independence Hall in Philadelphia, 1787, Benjamin Franklin was between 2 and 3 years away from meeting his judge, meeting his maker, and he knew that. He was as brilliant as ever, as witty, an amazing man, the genius that he was, and there he sits. There is a picture right outside the House floor depicting that area in Independence Hall where they were meeting. Now, in the beautiful painting, the windows are open. Well, the windows were covered. It may have been by blankets instead of beautiful lined curtains depicted in the scene. But for nearly 5 weeks, they went without accomplishing much of anything. Finally, the 80-year-old Ben Franklin rose and was recognized by the President of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. And we have these words because James Madison recorded them as secretary of that convention. These are the exact words of Benjamin Franklin, June 28, 1787, in Philadelphia during the Constitutional Congress. Benjamin Franklin 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 human understanding. We, indeed, seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we've 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 have 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 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. 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 that 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 aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that, `except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' 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 little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we, ourselves, shall become a reproach and a byword down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter 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 blessings 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.'' His motion was seconded, and then Ben Franklin's motion was adopted unanimously. And from that day to this day, we do not begin Congress in this body without a prayer to begin. Now, for those who say Ben Franklin obviously was a deist who didn't believe, believed a God or creator created things but never intervened, his own words seem to defy that. He begged and implored Congress to begin with prayer every day because, as he said, ``Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered.'' So, Mr. Speaker, also, here again, in the spirit of bipartisanship, in the spirit, for me, of Christmas that has been so historically observed in this Nation, we want to just go through and make sure people understand our heritage. Now, the great thing about our Constitution, it does allow for freedom of religion and a freedom not to worship at all. That is because they're based on the teachings of Christ and his willingness to allow all men to make their own decisions for themselves, knowing, as he did, that one day, all people will meet their maker. But let's go back to the person that found the New World, as it was called. This was Christopher Columbus. You don't find many history books which have these kinds of quotes in it. This is Christopher Columbus in his own hand, in his own journal. He said: ``It was the Lord who put it into my mind (I could feel His hand upon me) the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies. All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me. There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because He comforted me with the rays of marvelous inspiration from the Holy Scriptures.'' Now there are those today who say the real lesson of Columbus is that it's amazing what you can do, even when you don't know where you're going, you don't know where you are when you get there, so long as you get the government to pay for it. But I would submit that there was a creator, a creator as Christopher Columbus believed, who put this into his mind to sail west and discover this area so that the greatest nation in the history of mankind could arise. Now if you go to the Pilgrims who came across, originally from the Netherlands to England and to America by way of stopping in England, this was 1620. Part of the Pilgrims' compact, these are their words, ``In the name of God, Amen . . . Having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and the honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together in a civil body politick.'' That was the Pilgrims on the Mayflower, November 11, 1620. I have had people I have met from Harvard University who are not familiar with their history and the fact that Harvard University, September 26, 1642, this was part of their code. It was part of their handbook. Harvard University: ``Let every student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth the wisdom, Let every one seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of him, Proverbs 2:3.'' That's Harvard University at its founding back around the year 1642. In George Washington's own personal prayer book, which he read from daily, this is one of the entries in that prayer book that was in Washington's possession when he passed away: ``O most glorious God and Jesus Christ, I acknowledge and confess my faults in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are come my sin and stand in need of pardon. I have heard Thy holy word, but with such deadness of spirit that I have been an unprofitable and forgetful hearer . . . Let me live according to those holy rules which Thou hast this day, according to those holy rules which Thou hast this day prescribed in Thy holy word . . . Direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ, the way, the truth and life. Bless, O Lord, all the people of this land.'' That's George Washington's prayer book. Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson, as we know, who wrote basically the Declaration of Independence at the urging of John Adams, and it was Jefferson who was the third President after John Adams. Jefferson in 1782--and for those who visit Washington, this is inscribed inside the Jefferson Memorial. Jefferson said: ``Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of people that their liberties are the gift of God?'' Jedidiah Morse, who is called the father of the American geography, also father of Samuel Morse--folks who know history know who that is. On April 25, 1799, Jedidiah Morse said: ``Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.'' James Madison, the fourth President, March 4, 1815, in his Thanksgiving Day proclamation said: ``No people ought to feel greater obligations to celebrate the goodness of the Great Disposer of events and of the destiny of nations than the people of the United States. His kind providence originally conducted them to one of the best portions of the dwelling place allotted for the great family of the human race. He protected and cherished them under all the difficulties and trials to which they were exposed in their early days. Under His fostering care, their habits, their sentiments, and their pursuits prepared them for a transition in due time to a state of independence and self- government.'' Then John Quincy Adams, who was the son of John Adams, John Quincy Adams was the sixth President. Some think he may have been the smartest President, but there's no way to know. He was a brilliant man, the youngest diplomat ever appointed in America when he was 11 years of age. He knew all the Founders. His father, John Adams, allowed him to accompany him to so many events and things. He knew the Founders. He knew the founding. And John Quincy Adams in 1821 on July 4 said, ``The highest glory of the American Revolution was this, it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of the civil government with the principles of Christianity, wherefrom the day of the Declaration they, the American people, were bound by the laws of God which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct.'' Noah Webster, 1833, said: ``The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from, vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.'' Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835, said: ``There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America; and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free Nation of the Earth.'' Again, John Quincy Adams, he was defeated in 1828 for a second term by Andrew Jackson. Then in 1830, he believed it was God's call for him to run for Congress, run for the House of Representatives, after having been President. He was elected and served for 17 years in the House of Representatives, just down the hall in Statuary Hall. It was John Quincy Adams who was retained to represent the Africans who were aboard the Armistad in their case before the Supreme Court. Anthony Hopkins did a wonderful job of portraying John Quincy Adams in the movie ``Armistad.'' I think in the movie his closing argument was around 10 to 12 minutes, whereas in real life it spilled into a third day. John Quincy Adams, 1837, after he had been in the House 6 years, he said, ``Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the Foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon Earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?'' And all of these people believed. People in America will be able to worship the way they choose or do not choose because the Nation was founded upon Christian precepts that allowed that freedom as no other nation in the history of mankind. Andrew Jackson, 1845, this was just a few weeks before his death, and of course, people that know Jackson know that he was quite a rounder and he had quite a life. But, again, as he was just a few weeks before his death, he knew he was going to meet his Maker. Andrew Jackson said these words: ``Sir, I am in the hands of a merciful God. I have full confidence in His goodness and mercy. The Bible is true. I have tried to conform to its spirit as near as possible. Upon that sacred volume I rest my hope for eternal salvation, through the merits and blood of our blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.'' That was Andrew Jackson just a few weeks before his death, May 29, 1845. Daniel Webster, considered the greatest orator probably of all times in this country, served in the House, served in the Senate, thought perhaps he might be President one day, but he urged a compromise which cost him the election. Whether he was right or wrong, he believed if we didn't have the Compromise of 1850 then the Nation was doomed, that there would be a civil war in 1850 from which the Nation may not survive. So he did a very selfless thing and stood up and urged the Compromise of 1850, knowing that he would lose his base. But he believed it was to save the country. Daniel Webster said in 1852: ``If we and our posterity shall be true to the Christian religion, if we and they shall live always in the fear of God and shall respect His Commandments, we may have the highest hopes of the future fortunes of our country. But if we and our prosperity neglect religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political Constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity.'' Daniel Webster, 1852. Now the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1853 stated this as a committee: ``We are a Christian people, not because the law demands it, nor to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education; and in a land thus universally Christian what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay due regard to Christianity?'' Senate Judiciary Committee, January 19, 1853. Abraham Lincoln, our 16th President, February 11, 1861, said this: ``Unless the great God who assisted Washington shall be with me and aid me, I must fail; but if the same Omniscient Mind and Mighty Arm that directed and protected him shall guide and support me, I shall not fail. Let us all pray that the God of our fathers may not forsake us now.'' Abraham Lincoln, February 11, 1861. We can skip over to the President's inaugural address, 1865, again, Abraham Lincoln. He said: ``Both'' talking about both sides of the Civil War, the North and the South. He said: ``Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. `Woe unto the world because of offenses; for if it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.''' Lincoln, in that same inaugural address, went on and said: ``If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which''-- and he knew it was an offense. He knew it to his soul that slavery was an offense and that it would be difficult for God to ever bless America as long as slavery existed. And Christian people in this country did not treat their brothers and sisters as brothers and sisters. So Lincoln goes on in that address. And you can feel the analysis that he did as he went back and forth within himself trying to figure out how a just and mighty God could allow this type of injustice. So Lincoln goes on and he says: ``If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the Providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God ascribe to Him? ``Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and 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 it must still be said `the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.' '' Lincoln went on: ``With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the Nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all Nations.'' Abraham Lincoln, 1865. Edward Everett, the Massachusetts Governor also served as U.S. Secretary of State, U.S. Senator, he spoke immediately before Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. He said this: ``All the distinctive features and superiority of our Republican institutions''--and he wasn't talking about the Republican Party, he was talking about the Nation. This is considered a Republic. Senator Everett said the ``superiority of our Republican institutions are derived from the teachings of Scripture.'' William Seward was a U.S. Senator, a Governor of New York, Secretary of State under Lincoln. And it was interesting, Lincoln had such a diverse cabinet. Many of them didn't like each other, didn't like him, and yet he took all of that information together and made executive decisions. William Seward said: ``I know not how long a Republican Government can flourish among a great people who have not the Bible. But this I do know: that the existing government of this country never could have had existence but for the Bible. And, further, I do in my conscience believe that if at every decade of years a copy of the Bible could be found in every family in the land, its Republican institutions should be perpetuated.'' 1862, Andrew Johnson, he was Vice President, and he said: ``Let us look forward to the time when we can take the Flag of our country and nail it below the cross, and there let it wave as it waved in the olden times, and let us gather around it and inscribe for our motto, `Liberty and Union, one and inseparable, now and forever,' and exclaim: Christ first, our country next.'' U.S. Grant, the 18th President, 1876, said this: ``Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet-anchor of your liberties; write its precepts in your hearts and practice them in your lives. To the influence of this book we are indebted for all the progress made in true civilization and to this we must look as our guide in the future.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, in reading these quotes, I think it is important for people to know I'm not trying to push my religion on anyone else. But I think it is imperative that we at least know where the Founders were, where the heart was of those who provided for this incredible government, the incredible Nation we have that I believe is the greatest in the history of mankind. This was in the case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. the United States, in the opinion, February 29, 1892. The Supreme Court said: ``Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian. This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. These and many other matters which might be noticed at a volume of unofficial declarations to the massive organic utterances that this is a Christian Nation.'' That was the Supreme Court in their opinion Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892. Theodore Roosevelt, 1917, our 26th President, said: ``In this actual world, a churchless community, a community where men have abandoned and scoffed at, or ignored their Christian duties, is a community on the rapid downgrade.'' Warren G. Harding, our 29th President, 1920 said: ``It is my conviction that the fundamental trouble with the people of the United States is that they have gotten too far away from the Almighty God.'' Calvin Coolidge, our 30th President, 1923, said: ``The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country.'' Franklin D. Roosevelt, October 6, 1935, said: 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. Again, Franklin Roosevelt, 1935. 1943, President Hoover, in a joint statement with former First Ladies Mrs. Coolidge, Mrs. Roosevelt, Mrs. Taft, Mrs. Harrison and Mrs. Cleveland, gave this statement: The whole inspiration for our civilization springs from the teachings of Christ and the lessons of the prophets. To read the Bible for these fundamentals is a necessity of American life. Harry Truman, our 33rd President, in 1952 said this: The basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a government which does not believe in rights for anyone but the State. Profound. That was Harry Truman, 1952. Charles Malik, our ambassador to the United Nations from Lebanon and the president of the U.N. General Assembly in 1958, made this statement in 1958: Whoever tries to conceive the American word without taking full account of the suffering and love and salvation of Christ is only dreaming. I know how embarrassing this matter is to politicians, bureaucrats, businessmen and cynics; but whatever these honored men think, the irrefutable truth is that the soul of America is at its best and highest, Christian. That was the U.N. ambassador and president of the U.N. General Assembly in 1958. Now, Ronald Reagan, our 40th President, 1984, said: The frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance, freedom, and open-mindedness. Question: Isn't the real truth that they are intolerant of religion? They refuse to tolerate its importance in our lives. Ronald Reagan, 1984. Now, I point out these quotes from our history. I could read volumes and volumes of quotes basically along the same lines, not trying to push Christian religion on anyone, but just so that people understand where we came from. It's incredible the amount of ignorance on the basis of this Nation, the foundation of this Nation. Let me go to some of our Founders directly. Sam Adams. He was called, back at that time by those who knew and knew well, the ``Father of the American Revolution.'' Samuel Adams was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. In the will of Samuel Adams he says this: I . . . recommend my soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins. That was the Father of the American Revolution, Samuel Adams. In a letter written by Charles Carroll to Charles Wharton, Charles Carroll was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, one of the 56. He said: On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits; not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts. William Cushing was the first Associate Justice appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court. William Cushing in his will said: Sensible of my mortality, but being of sound mind, after recommending my soul to Almighty God through the merits of my Redeemer and my body to the Earth. John Dickinson was also a signer of the Constitution. In his will he said: Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity. Again, John Dickinson, signer of the Declaration of Independence. John Hancock we know signed the Declaration larger than anyone else, President of the Continental Congress in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed and made public. In his will he said: I, John Hancock . . . being advanced in years and being of perfect mind and memory--thanks be given to God--therefore calling to mind the mortality of my body and knowing it is appointed for all men once to die (Hebrews 9:27), do make and ordain this my last will and testament . . . Principally and first of all, I give and recommend my soul into the hands of God that gave it, and my body I recommend to the Earth, nothing doubting but at the general resurrection I shall receive the same again by the mercy and power of God. Again, that was John Hancock. Patrick Henry, the Governor of Virginia, a patriot, made that stirring speech that I gave on the radio in fifth grade, made this statement: This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family-- this was in his will--the religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed. John Jay played such an important role in this Nation's founding and negotiations of treaties. I believe he helped negotiate the Treaty of Paris in 1783, and so many others, but he was also the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. In his will, Chief Justice John Jay said: Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved son. He has been pleased to bless me with excellent parents, with a virtuous wife, and with worthy children. His protection has accompanied me through many eventful years, faithfully employed in the service of my country; His providence has not only conducted me to this tranquil situation, but also given me abundant reason to be contented and thankful. Blessed be His holy name. John Jay. Daniel St. Thomas Jenifer was a signer of the Constitution. In his will he said: In the name of God, Amen. I, Daniel St. Thomas Jenifer . . . of disposing mind and memory, commend my soul to my blessed Redeemer. Henry Knox, Revolutionary War general, extremely important to the success of the American Revolution, said in his will: First, I think it proper to express my unshaken opinion of the immortality of my soul or mind, and to dedicate and devote the same to the supreme head of the universe--to that great and tremendous Jehovah--who created the universal frame of nature, worlds, and systems in number infinite. To this awfully sublime Being do I resign my spirit with unlimited confidence of His mercy and protection. John Langdon was a signer of the Constitution back in 1787. He also said: In the name of God, Amen. I, John Langdon, considering the uncertainty of life and that it is appointed unto all men once to die-- again, Hebrews 9:27--do make and ordain and publish this my last will and testament. John Morton, signer of the Declaration of Independence, said in his will: With an awful reverence to the great Almighty God, Creator of all mankind, I, John Morton, being sick and weak in body but sound of mind and memory, thanks be given to Almighty God for the same, for all His mercies and favors, and considering the certainty of death and the uncertainty of the times thereof, do, for the settling of such temporal estate as it hath pleased God to bless me with in this life. There are so many others, just one after another, vesting these same type things, signers of the Declaration of Independence, signers of the Constitution. Jonathan Trumbull said this in his will: Principally and first of all, I bequeath my soul to God, the Creator and Giver thereof, and body to the Earth, nothing doubting but that I shall receive the same again at the General Resurrection through the power of Almighty God, believing and hoping for eternal life through the merits of my dear exalted Jesus Christ. That was Jonathan Trumble, who painted four of the paintings that are out here in our Rotunda. One of the things that has run throughout this Nation, you go back to the Constitution, these were the Founders I've been quoting, those who were able to come together and have a Declaration of Independence, who sought, as Benjamin Franklin said, God's help in the revolution, and who sought him in the difficult, trying times after the Articles of Confederation were passed. And who they sought, as Benjamin Franklin pointed out in those great words I read, 1787, when afterwards they were finally able to come together with a constitution. But as we know from our history, the Constitution was not afforded to all people as it should have been. They said, as these Founders I've read, that they were Christians, and yet as Christians they should have recognized that we could not expect God to bless America while we were treating our brothers and sisters by putting them in chains and bondage. Martin Luther King came along after the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln, as I've read, made clear his beliefs in the Almighty and His grace and mercy and justice, and that's why he pushed for an end of slavery. But even still, it took Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and those who worked with him to bring about civil rights and an abdication of the supreme Constitution that we hold so dear to all people. It doesn't require that everyone receive equal things; it requires equal opportunity. I would remind my friends that Martin Luther King, Jr. was an ordained Christian minister. He said in his letter from Birmingham jail: But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the 8th century B.C. left their villages and carried their ``thus saith the Lord'' far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the four corners of the Greco-Roman world, so I am compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid. That was in 1963. Profound words, Martin Luther King. One of his quotes in 1963 from Birmingham jail: Whenever the early Christians entered the town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being disturbers of the peace and outside agitators. But the Christians pressed on, and in the conviction that they were a colony of heaven called to obey God rather than man, small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be astronomically intimidated. Powerful, powerful words, Martin Luther King. Well, I think it's worth noting also, we have an original copy of the Treaty of Paris, 1783, located in the Department of State in a glass case. I didn't realize how that started until I saw that copy there, but it made sense once I saw it. In big bold letters at the top of the Treaty of Paris--this is the one that was negotiated in Paris in 1783 after surrendering at Yorktown to get England to sign onto a treaty indicating they would observe the United States' right to exist as an independent Nation. It starts out in big block bold letters, ``In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.'' When I first saw that I thought, I wonder why they would start like that. And then you realize, you're asking the nation of England to sign a treaty and pledging not to ever attack or fail to recognize its right to exist independently of England. What do you get them to swear under that is so important and so manifest that they would not dare go back on their word? Well, they decided at that time it was to start with the words, In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity. Those who are familiar with the War of 1812, 1814, we're up here on Jenkins Hill, where the Capitol was built, and the British proceeded across burning every public building, proceeded to the Capitol, set fire down the hall in Statuary Hall, what was then the House of Representatives, went down and set fire to the Senate Inn, and went to the White House, set fire there. The White House was terribly damaged inside. The Capitol, by all rights, with the intensity of the fire and with the munitions that were spread to make the fire get more hot, should have collapsed and fallen in on itself, but it didn't because a rain came and put out the fire. By the way, the next day, there was such a huge, straight-line wind. Some thought it was tornadic, but most believed it was a straight-line wind. It was so intense that it blew their canons off their mounts. Some credit the wind with killing soldiers. ``As the British troops were preparing to leave, a conversation was noted between the British admiral and a Washington lady regarding the storm. The admiral exclaimed, `Great God, Madam! Is this the kind of storm to which you are accustomed in this infernal country?' ``The lady answered, `No, sir. This is a special interposition of Providence to drive our enemies from our city.' '' The weather drove them out. The American soldiers were not able to. A little history about the White House nativity scene: It's Italian-- made in Naples around the time of the United States War for Independence, the late 1700s. It has been on exhibit in the East Room of the White House during the holiday season since 1967. In 1999, a new tableau was made for the nativity scene. The design of the new display was inspired by historical Neapolitan presepios, which is the Italian term for ``Christ,'' from the Baroque period, which incorporated architectural elements found in the 1700s. That is a little bit about the nativity scene. There has been a lot said about that recently. As far as the history of the White House Christmas tree, in 1889, the tradition of placing an indoor decorated tree in the White House began on Christmas morning during the Presidency of Benjamin Harrison. It was in 1895 that First Lady Frances Cleveland created a technology savvy tree when she hung electric lights on the White House tree, which was introduced into the White House in 1891. There is just so much history with our Founding Fathers. Franklin D. Roosevelt, December 24--obviously Christmas Eve--1934, said, ``This is the second year that I have joined with you on this happy occasion. Then, as now, with millions of others, we celebrate the happy observance of Christmas. ``The year toward which we looked then with anticipation and hope has passed,'' Roosevelt goes on. ``We have seen fulfilled many things that a year ago were only hopes. Our human life thus goes on from anticipation and hope to fulfillment. This year again, we are entitled to new hopes and new anticipations.'' He goes on and he says, ``Just across the street is the house he occupied 100 years ago, the house the people of the country have built for their Presidents. From its windows, I see this monument to this man of courage.'' He is talking about Washington. ``It is an inspiration to me as it should be to all Americans. ``And so let us make the spirit of Christmas of 1934 that of courage and unity. It is the way to greater happiness and well-being. That is, I believe, an important part of what the Maker of Christmas would have it mean. ``In this sense,'' Roosevelt says, ``the scriptures admonish us to be strong and of good courage, to fear not, to dwell together in unity.'' He said, ``I wish you one and all, here and everywhere, a very, very Merry Christmas.'' Franklin Roosevelt. I have a number of other speeches that he gave on Christmas. Time will not allow me to read all of those. I will go to 1962, John F. Kennedy, when he said: ``Ladies and gentlemen, Secretary Udall, members of the clergy: With the lighting of this tree, which is an old ceremony in Washington and one which has been among the most important responsibilities of a good many Presidents of the United States, we initiate, in a formal way, the Christmas season. ``We mark the festival of Christmas, which is the most sacred and hopeful day in our civilization. For nearly 2,000 years, the message of Christmas, the message of peace and goodwill towards all men, has been the guiding star of our endeavors. ``This morning, I had a meeting at the White House, which included some of our representatives from far countries in Africa and Asia. They were returning to their posts for the Christmas holidays. Talking with them afterwards, I was struck by the fact that, in the far-off continents, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, as well as Christians, pause from their labors on the 25th day of December to celebrate the birthday of the Prince of Peace. ``There could be no more striking proof that Christmas is truly the universal holiday of all men. It is the day when all of us dedicate our thoughts to others, when all are reminded that mercy and compassion are the enduring virtues, when all show by small deeds and large and by acts that it is more blessed to give than to receive.'' He goes on to talk about the Christmas spirit. As my time grows short here, I want to finish with a speech Ronald Reagan gave, his Christmas message in 1988. He said: ``The themes of Christmas and of coming home for the holidays have long been intertwined in song and story. There is a profound irony and lesson in this because Christmas celebrates the coming of a Savior who was born without a home. ``There was no room at the inn for the Holy Family. Weary of travel, a young Mary, close to childbirth, and her carpenter husband, Joseph, found but the rude shelter of a stable. There was born the King of Kings, the Prince of Peace--an event on which all history would turn. ``Jesus would again be without a home, and more than once--on the flight to Egypt and during His public ministry when He said, `The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man hath nowhere to lay his head.' '' Ronald Reagan goes on. ``From His very infancy on, our Redeemer was reminding us that, from then on, we would never lack a home in Him. Like the shepherds to whom the angel of the Lord appeared on the first Christmas Day, we could always say, `Let us now go even unto Bethlehem and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.' ``As we come home with gladness to family and friends this Christmas, let us also remember our neighbors who cannot go home themselves. Our compassion and concern this Christmas and all year long will mean much to the hospitalized, the homeless, the convalescent, the orphaned--and will surely lead us on our way to the joy and peace of Bethlehem and the Christ Child who bids us come. For it is only in finding and living the eternal meaning of the Nativity that we can be truly happy, truly at peace, truly home. ``Merry Christmas, and God bless you.'' Ronald Reagan. Mr. Speaker, with that wish from Reagan, I do now hereby move that we adjourn.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, we were asked: How can we vote to have troops go to Iraq and not be willing to pay for them? Well, the problem is we keep having things added to the bills that will pay for these things. We keep adding things like Gitmo language, like we're going to move the people from Gitmo and spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars unnecessarily just to make some political point. We hear people across the aisle say, Gee. You know, we can't afford to lose respect around the world if we forfeit on the debt. Don't forfeit on the debt. You don't gain respect when you keep calling the credit card company and saying, I know I'm not making any payments, but if you'll just keep increasing my debt limit, I know you'll have more respect for me. No, that's not how it works. We are told across the aisle we have no solutions. Go look at the bills that are waiting to come to the floor. I've got a zero baseline budget that doesn't allow the automatic increases. That would make a huge contribution, and we could bring down the debt. Yet there are no indications, nothing to indicate that the spending is going to be controlled. It is outrageous what we are doing to future generations. Any parent who would go in and tell the bank, Keep loaning to me, and I promise my kids will repay it, would be considered an unfit parent. Yes, the people in America were promised change. What they have gotten is exponentially more spending than Republicans had done before. It's time for a change. Stop spending. Vote this down.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 11(b) of House Resolution 976, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. It didn't work out so well. The first winter, nearly half of them starved to death. And as the gentleman from California points out, they came up with this incredible ability of the people in America to come up and innovate. They came up with this great idea. They said, okay, we nearly starved half the people out. What we're going to do from now on is we're going to divide the property up and give everybody their own private property, and then everybody works their own property; you're responsible for your own upkeep, and if you have some left over, it's up to you. You can give it away, you can sell it, you can trade it or whatever. Remarkably, that's where the liberties we derive came from. And when Jefferson said the natural course or progress of things is for liberty to yield and government gain ground, he knew what he was talking about. He knew our history.

Mr. GOHMERT. If the gentleman would yield, we have no better example of just what the gentleman is talking about than the pilgrims. There's a marvelous, huge mural down the hall in the Rotunda of the pilgrims having a prayer meeting with the Bible open to the beginning of the New Testament. And I know the gentleman from California's heart, and I know his Christian faith, and I know there are many of Christian faith here, and we don't try to push our religious beliefs on others, but you have to recognize what a part of our heritage they are. Now, the pilgrims, being Christians, signed a compact, an agreement among themselves, because they thought we want liberty for everybody, but we're going to give that up, put that in a common pot, we're going to all own the land together, we're going to all bring into the common storehouse, and then we're going to divide equally.

Mr. GOHMERT. That would be the tax.

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman is so right. And it goes back to the beginning of the Constitution. That would go so much farther to secure the blessings of liberty. For, as they said, to ourselves and our posterity--posterity of the future generations. But you go back to this atrocious health care bill that was passed, there's even what's come to be called the wheelchair tax in that. How is that going to secure liberty for anybody?

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, I will.

Mr. GOHMERT. That's right. And it's going to have to raise taxes and raise costs for everything else in order to create the fund to pay the people that lose the jobs as a result of the bill. And there's other good news in there for Members of Congress, though, that voted for the bill--and it seemed a little self-serving to be in there--and obviously the people who said it wouldn't cost jobs just hadn't read the bill, but whoever's staff member or special interest group wrote that bill, they knew people would lose their jobs. But then also the fund is created to provide relocation allowances for those who lose their jobs to try to help them move to where their jobs are going. Unfortunately, it will not provide money for you to go to China, India, Argentina--the places where the jobs will really be sent if this bill becomes law. But that bill provides a self-serving aspect because I know in my heart, having read that bill, that when people across America get those huge energy bills that result from the cap-and-trade bill, when they start getting those bills, they're going to be so mad. They're going to vote Members out who voted for that bill, but the good news to the Members is when they lose their job as a result of this bill, they may be entitled to a relocation allowance and subsidies for losing their jobs as a result of the bill.

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend's point. I have been listening, and I have been very moved by the words from my friend from California. When you think about, as my friend from California pointed out, the Constitution and the words ``We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,'' then it says ``and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,'' and you look at the 1,990 pages in that health care bill, and you realize, as my friend pointed out, you're going to require people to purchase a policy just to live, and do it under the guise of helping them. When you read the bill, you find out if you're just above the poverty level in that bill, but you don't make enough money to buy the Cadillac policy required in that law, then we're going to add an extra 2\1/2\ percent income tax to you just to live in this country. And as my friend pointed out, so often we've heard the President talk about, Well, you have to buy car insurance. I would challenge anyone to find a State in this country that requires any individual--because there isn't one--requires any individual to purchase insurance to protect his or her own car for damages to his or her own car. No. Every State requires you to buy insurance against hurting another individual or property. It does not require you to buy insurance even to have the privilege to drive. As my friend pointed out, it is a privilege, but just to have that privilege they don't make you buy insurance to protect your own car. No. They make you buy it to protect somebody else in order to enjoy that privilege. And then we've heard so many people here say, We're worried about the jobs, and that's why we've got to pass climate change. And we have people come one after another to the floor and say this will not cost jobs. This is going to help people. It's going to provide green jobs. And what that said to everyone who has read the bill, when they heard someone say ``this bill will not cost jobs,'' what it said is they didn't read the bill, because if you read over past 900, between 900 and 1,000, there is something created called the--I believe it's the Climate Change Adjustment Fund, and it says very clearly in there it is designed for those who lose their jobs as a result of the climate change bill. And so, they obviously didn't read that.

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. Certainly I'll yield.

Mr. GOHMERT. That's it.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate that so much. The fact is, even on the health care bill, when the President had his town hall lady named Pam Stern--and I went and watched the video and typed this up myself--but she had pointed out she had a mother that was approaching 100 years old and she needed a pacemaker in order to have the other things she needed. And apparently the arrhythmia specialist-- he had not met her--decided nobody at age 99 should need a pacemaker, but then her own doctor recommended he meet her. So he met Pam Stern's mother and said, Wow, this lady is alive and going strong. She deserves a pacemaker. So he put it in, and she is 105 right now and going strong. And Pam Stern put this question, she said, Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody who is elderly, is there any consideration that could be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, quality of life, or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age? And the President went round and round, Well, we're not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care, and he goes on and beats around the bush. And he finishes his answer by saying, Well, at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking a painkiller. This is the government saying, you know, despite the Constitution talking about securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, this is the government saying not only are we not going to give you liberty, we're not going to give you what you need to have life. That is a government that, unless you committed a heinous crime, the government has no right to tell you that you can't get what you need to live of your own volition. And that is such a mistake. And we think we can do it on our own. The gentleman before, our friend from California (Mr. Lungren) and our friend from Iowa is so articulate about these things. But when you go back to our founding, you see that the Founders knew very well they could not do it within themselves. They hired George Washington to fight the revolution for them, and it went until 1783. Everybody knows about July 4, 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was made public. But he fought on as Commander, and he did something nobody in the history of mankind has ever done. He won a revolution, had the military under his control, could have been king, Caesar, emperor, generalissimo, czar--could have been ``the'' czar of America, but he did something, as depicted in a mural down the hall. He came into the Continental Congress with his outstretched hand, depicted in that mural, with his resignation. He said, Here is all the power back, because they passed a bill December 27, 1776, giving him basically all the power. They had to make contracts to enter whatever agreements, pay whatever they needed to pay, but there he was, 1783, tendering it all back. And in his own words--called the founder of our country--and actually, the whole resignation was so profound it was printed up. They got the resignation, printed it, and distributed it throughout the country because this was such an incredible document. This is what he thought; not the arrogance of people that say we know all. We do all. People in America are too stupid to do for themselves. They have to trust us in government because they're not smart enough. This is what Washington said--and this is not the whole thing because it would take too much time perhaps--but he said, ``I now make it my earnest prayer''--he thought it was okay to pray like that in public--``that God would have you in the state over which you preside in His holy protection.'' He goes on and he says, to entertain brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow citizens of the United States, particularly for their brethren who served in the field, and finally, ``that He would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, to demean ourselves with charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion''--he thought there was a blessed religion here and a divine author that he knew--``and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to have a happy nation.'' He signed it, ``I have the honor to be, with great respect and esteem, Your Excellency's most obedient humble servant, George Washington.'' And then, of course, for 4 years the Articles of Confederation were created after Washington left. That was too loose of a web. The country was falling apart. The military tries to get Washington to come back and preside as a ruler, a king, and he refused to have any part of it. In 1787, they finally talk him into coming back because they convinced him truthfully that the 13 colonies will not come back unless George Washington agrees to come back. He comes back for nearly 5 weeks in Philadelphia, windows covered, meeting there privately, trying to come up with a constitution that would hold, something that would work, something that they could be proud of. They had met nearly 5 weeks and accomplished basically nothing. And this is just the last point I wanted to share. I head back every weekend to my beloved east Texas, and will shortly, but after nearly 5 weeks, Benjamin Franklin stands up, recognized by President Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention--and most people that know history know that Benjamin Franklin did sow some wild oats, he did, and he did in France and England and somewhat here. But by this point he's 80 years old. He's about 2\1/2\ years away from meeting his maker, meeting the ultimate judge. He is just as brilliant, just as witty, charming, a real genius, but he has more thoughts toward the eternal. And so after Washington recognizes him, he stands up--and we have the whole thing because James Madison, as Secretary, recorded it all--and he went through and said, you know, we've been meeting for nearly 5 weeks. We have more noes than ayes on most of these issues. We've accomplished nothing. And these are his words, as recorded by James Madison. ``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 understanding? In the beginning contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine protection.'' Benjamin Franklin goes on and says, ``Our prayers, sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. All of us who are engaged in this struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind of 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 that we no longer need his assistance?'' Franklin goes on and he says, ``I have lived, sir, a long time. And the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: God governs in the affairs of men, and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writing, that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.'' Franklin said, ``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 little, partial local interests, our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages.'' He went on and said, ``I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers of heaven imploring the assistance of heaven and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this assembly every morning.'' He knew who governed in the affairs of men. They began unanimously having prayer. They had it every day as he moved, and it resulted in the Constitution that we still utilize today for those who still utilize it. I would recommend, as I know my friend has so many times, for those who have not read the Constitution or who have not read it recently, read it. I love the way it ends: ``Done in convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present, the 17th day of September, in the year of Our Lord, One Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-Seven.'' A great way to end a great document. I thank you and I yield back to my friend from Iowa.

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from Iowa so very much. The gentleman from Iowa makes such a great point; we think we're the be all and end all in this Congress. And as I said in here last week over the debate about the death tax, we have the power to pry money from someone's wallet when they're lying cold and dead. We have the power to do that; we do not have the moral authority to do that. But we even hear people, as they did last week and have in previous debates, who play on some of our Christian faith and say, well, it sounds like the Christian thing to do would be for our government to help everybody, take care of everybody. But you could go throughout the New Testament and you will never find one place where Jesus ever said, Go ye, therefore, take from other people and give to someone else. He said, You do it. With your own money, what you've earned, what you've made, you take and you give from your own self. Don't go take somebody else's money just because you've got the power. You don't have the moral authority to do that. Do it yourself. And there is a great deal of blessing derived from individuals doing that and helping others, but it is tyranny when you use the power and abuse the moral authority and take from other people to do what you, yourself, want to do. When you look at the bills we've been passing, including the bill passed today, ``financial reform'' so-called, it's not financial reform. It's like the health care bill wasn't a health care bill. It is a government takeover. I hear friends and very scholarly people say, well, this is a takeover by the government of one-sixth of the economy, of the health care. But the truth is, it's not even that. It's more than that. Because if you go to the trouble to try to get through the massive bill that's been brought here, it's about taking over and legislating and regulating restaurants. That's not health care. It's legislating vending machines. It goes into all kinds of things. I read a provision where it is required that the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall do a study of businesses. Study of businesses? It goes on to tell them what you've got to study for. You've got to make sure that certain businesses are making good decisions that will allow them to stay solvent. Do you want Washington bureaucrats coming to your business in Iowa--I know they don't in east Texas--and sitting down with you that has never balanced a budget, never made any money on their own, have been living on government welfare, and then they're going to tell you you think you have too much inventory? What do you know about inventory? You've never been in this business. It is kind of like the car czar and all these people that were appointed by the President, unaccountable to anybody. They made laws. They subverted the bankruptcy code. They just ignored the Constitution, the laws, and this Congress did nothing about it, let it go. The Supreme Court did nothing about it, let it go. They just supplanted all of those things and dictated things from behind.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I do appreciate this so much, and I appreciated the informative information that was provided by my friends and colleagues here. A lot of very helpful information. I do find it interesting. We were promised back in the first of the year by the administration that if we did not pass that $800 billion stimulus bill, then we could see 8.5 percent unemployment. We had to pass that stimulus bill. We could not wait, because people were losing their jobs by the thousands every day. It could not wait. People did not have time, we were told, to read the bill. It was too important to just pass it, because otherwise the unemployment rate, we were told, could get as high as 8\1/2\ percent if we did not pass it. Well, 8\1/2\ percent by not passing the stimulus bill sounds very good at this point. From last month, unemployment, 10.2 percent. We're hearing that there will be additional jobs that will have been lost come Friday when a potential announcement will be made. It is so frustrating to have had people on this floor come into this Chamber where there has been so much powerful legislation, lifesaving, life-enhancing legislation, and then be told, as we were earlier this year, there's no time to read the bills, you just have to pass them, because thousands and thousands of people are losing their jobs every day, and it could go to 8\1/2\ percent unemployment unless we pass it right now. And so we passed it and the President took 4 days to get the right photo op in Colorado to sign the bill. We could have used those 4 days to actually debate and amend the bill and make it actually into a jobs bill instead of a reward to people who had been faithful to the Democratic Party, because that sure appears to have been what it became, what it was, because it certainly wasn't a jobs bill. And if you go back to that stimulus bill at the first of the year and you look for people who saw it clearly for what it was, this was not a jobs bill, this was not a stimulus bill. Over half of it would not be spent for 2 years. It was around 7 percent was all that was going to be spent on infrastructure. It was sold to a lot of people in this body on the basis that we were going to enhance transportation and infrastructure. We had to build all these things, anyway, so why not do that to create jobs. And then 7 percent went to that. Less than 1 percent went to small business, SBA loans, programs. Less than 1 percent went for that. Yet we know that 70 percent of the new jobs are created by small business. It was clear that was not a jobs bill. So you would think that as we approach the end of this year, more and more people begin to see that really wasn't a jobs bill. Now who was it that was right about that bill? Who was it that read as much as they could in the limited time they had and was able to discern what kind of bill that was and how much damage would be done, that it wasn't going to help the economy, it was going to hurt it. That was clear to so many of us. You would think at this point as people start to talk about, okay, well, that sure failed, what we tried earlier this year, although we did put a lot of extra debt on future generations, because if you think about it, between the $800 billion stimulus, so-called, package and the $400 billion land omnibus bill that was passed right on its heels, you have about $1.2 trillion. That also happens to be, when you divide the number of households in America, it's about $10,000 per household that we just laid on in debt to every household on average in America. I mean, who in America can afford another $10,000 being added to their debt that at some point is going to have to be collected as debt, as taxes, or we will go the way of the Soviet Union and have to someday announce, you know what, we didn't listen to China when they laughed at us because we said we were controlling our deficit and we did not; we didn't listen to some of the European nations because they had never been very good at controlling their spending, and when they told us we should control ours, we didn't listen. We laughed at them when they laughed at us. But now it turns out they're not buying any more of our debt. Fortunately, they still are so we haven't had to do what the Soviet Union did yet and announce that we're bankrupt and we can't print enough money fast enough like Germany did in the 1920s that brought about that horrible dictator with the mustache that killed so many millions of people, innocent people. We haven't been listening as a nation, as a nation's leaders. But America is getting it. They're seeing. And that's being reflected by what's going on around this country. It is immoral what we are doing to future generations. What we did in here this very day, passing this extra death tax. There's going to be no death tax in 2010, that was going to be the case; and now this bill that passed the House, if it passes the Senate and gets signed into law, well, it will go to 45 percent. But we're told, well, gee, even though those people paid income tax at the highest rate in the country and even though there may be 40 to 44 percent, the way we're moving, who will pay no income tax, we're going to take away about half of what they've been able to accumulate in their lives, their family farms, their business. And those that are in small business know what I'm talking about, Mr. Speaker, because so many of them have known what it is to have the person that started the business, got them involved, pass away, and then there's a 55 percent tax for so many years. We were able to pass a bill, and it's a shame on the Republicans that we didn't permanently end the death tax. But we didn't have 60 votes in the Senate. It was passed out of the House to permanently end the death tax, and it didn't get but 56 votes in the Senate, so it didn't pass. Shame on the Republicans for not getting that done. But now shame on Democrats who are in charge and are going to go with a 45 percent tax. Mr. Speaker, I know you heard people during debate today in response to my pointing out that, as a judge, I have sentenced people who stole from deceased persons. We consider that reprehensible, despicable, for someone to steal from a dead person. And yet in this body we have the power to just pass a law and say, well, it may be immoral, but we have the power to take people's money when they die, so we're going to do it, anyway. We have the power, we passed a bill today, despite the objections of so many of us, but we do not have the moral authority to be taking other people's money that they accumulated after paying maximum amounts of income tax and redistribute what they earned with the sweat of their brow and their ingenuity and their risk. That's not right. That's not the way America became the greatest country in the history of the world. It's really immoral to be doing that kind of thing. And if we were not the Congress, we would be sentenced to go to jail for stealing from dead people the proceeds from a life's work. It isn't right. When you look at the response, it is to push a health care bill. We're going to add this additional tax and, by the way, that goes to those who generate the jobs, the small businesses. People like Warren Buffett, I don't know his personal situation, but the people that I have been aware of who are megawealthy had good estate planners and the ones I was aware of were able to put together estate plans that created life insurance situations that were paid for where they were going to be fine, their families were going to be fine when they passed on and left their inheritance because they had figured out innovative ways to address the death tax. The megawealthy, they're not the ones who will be hurt. The ones who have been hurt are those whose family built a business, and then the one who built it passes away, leaves it to the heirs and they don't have a lot of money. They own machines. They own property. They own the business. And now they've got to come up with a 55 percent tax--under the bill we passed today if it becomes law, big whoopie, it will be a 45 percent tax--on money that they paid personal income tax on, corporate income tax on if they were a corporation, individually if it was through a subchapter S. They paid lots of taxes, and then to take 45 percent now, 55 in the past, of their business meant that lots of families had to go borrow money against the business or sell part of the business to some outsider because they had to get the money in order to pay the tax. I mentioned my great aunt's situation. Some have wondered, but it was a very real situation. In 1986 when my great aunt died, her husband had predeceased her. It was July of 1986 she passed away, back in Texas. Over more than a hundred years, generations had accumulated around 2,500 acres, farm, ranch, raising corn, raising cattle. They had a good small business and employed people to help them run things. My aunt, my great aunt, Lilly, was a very good businesswoman. She was very astute, very careful, and she lived a very minimalist life. She was not extravagant. She didn't have a lot of cash. She would acquire nice things. She had some nice crystal glasses, some nice china, silverware. There were things that she had made clear she was leaving to certain family members. When she passed away, there were comparable sales in the area of around $2,000 an acre; but before the estate could be finalized and settled, there was a lot of FDIC or RTC land that was dumped and prices of the land fell to around $600, $700 an acre. Now the IRS was nice, they gave them a couple of years' extensions, hoping the land value would come back; but after a couple of years the IRS said, That's it, no more extensions, it's all got to be sold. It was a nearly $5 million evaluated estate, and when the land values fell to $700, I believe they got nearly to $800, if I recall correctly, that paid the tax. It didn't even quite do that. That's why the IRS ordered the land sold and then had an auction of all her personal assets. All of us in the extended family were encouraged to come out to the auction and try to keep as many of the family heirlooms in the family as we could. We didn't keep them all. There were some from the community, some who came from other places who decided they wanted some of my great aunt's property and they were able to bid higher, so we didn't protect all of the family heirlooms, family treasures. Not so much huge value, like over $500, but of great sentimental value. And we couldn't keep it because this nearly $5 million estate, valued when she died, was all taken. The family begged and pleaded with the IRS to at least, instead of taking the entire estate, how about just taking 55 percent of everything that existed? Take 55 percent of the land. That would seem fair. Oh, no, because, the IRS said, Congress had made clear that, oh, no, we take 55 percent of everything at the time of death, and if it's mainly land and it's not worth as much when it sells, we're taking it all. All the land was sold. It was a tragic situation. But I've heard people come down here and try to say all this talk about hurting family farms and small business, there's really nobody that's ever been hurt in a family farm or small business from the death tax. It's simply not true. People are hurt and have been hurt so often in small business and family farms because of the death tax. One of the things I did purchase at the auction was we got some of Aunt Lilly's crystal, and we wanted to let the closer family members who were told you will get this and this when I'm gone, we wanted to let them get the bid and get the things that were theirs; so there was reluctance to bid on things that were designated for someone else. But it was just a long, sad day. And I bought a little music box, a church, and you could wind it up, and the cross on top of the church turned as it played ``Amazing Grace.'' Well, God's grace is amazing, but that's certainly not true of the United States Government. There is no grace when it comes to the United States Government, which brings me back to the issue of health care. Mr. Speaker, I've got a box here. It's got the bill that we passed here in the House, and there's some great stuff in here. We had people come to the floor and say, for example, we didn't need to pass the Bart Stupak amendment, no, because there's no money in here for abortions. But if you open the bill to page 110, something apparently people who said there was no money for abortions had not done, but at page 110, subparagraph B, entitled ``Abortions for Which Public Funding is Allowed,'' it says ``The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted.'' Well, how about that? We were told there wasn't any money in there for abortions from Federal tax dollars. So how about the thought of someone not only taking someone's proceeds and property, money that they accumulated over the course of their life, paid the highest income tax rate on throughout their lives, and then they die, and throughout their lives they knew in their heart, they believed with all their being, that life begins when it's created, and that is not just when a baby is born but in utero, and this person who has passed away knew in their heart it's really murder when you kill this innocent helpless child who cannot defend themselves. They try. You see the hands and their trying to get away from having their brain sucked out, whatever method of abortion is being utilized. You see them fighting against it. But they're helpless. They can't fight against those trying to kill. Yet the Federal Government not only does the reprehensible thing of taking this deceased person's money that they accumulated from their own work, their own effort, paid tax on, and then uses those tax dollars, puts it in the general fund and uses some of the general fund to go out and pay to kill those innocent babies. We were told right here in this House, right here in this body, in a joint session, that basically if you like your insurance, you could keep it. We heard that said over and over. But if you look at page 91, that's section 202, ``Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage,'' subsection (a) right under that, all capital letters, ``GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED,'' and this is where it defines whether you get to keep it or not. So it says ``the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met: ``Condition No. 1, `the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage.' '' I had a person back in East Texas that I represent when I was talking about health care say, You know what? I know a lot of people are really concerned about it. I don't want to seem callous, but I'm not worried about it, because I retired. And I said what company, one of the bigger companies in the country. And he said, We have a great union that negotiated us great health insurance, and I've got great insurance. The President said if I like it, I can keep it. I'm not worried about everybody else. I'm in good shape. And I said, Well, is there any chance that anybody else will ever retire from your big company and be added to the insurance health insurance coverage that you have? He said, Oh, yes. People are retiring all the time. I said, Oh, bad news, because under subsection (a)(1)(A) if the individual health issuer offering such coverage enrolls any individual in the coverage after the date this bill goes into effect, you lose your insurance. Everybody that has it loses it, and you get kicked over into the Federal exchange program. But at No. 2, here at the bottom of page 91, it says, ``the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.'' So, very clearly, if the insurance terms and conditions change at all, if the benefits change at all, copayments change, any of the cost- sharing, premiums, whatever, if they change, tragic. You lose your insurance. You do not get to keep it. The government gets to tell you about your health care under the Federal exchange. And, yes, we've heard a lot about the panel that said, gee, if you're under 50, you don't really need a mammogram. If you're over I think 75, 78, something like that, then you don't really need a mammogram. That's the government telling you. I don't care what others say. You go read this bill, and it seems pretty clear that those panels are the ones that will determine under the plans what services are provided. So here at page 167, it says, ``The Commissioner shall specify the benefits to be made available under Exchange-participating health benefits plans.'' So the Commissioner will decide all of the conditions of the health insurance policies that are offered. Everybody has to offer the same insurance in each service area. And you go down to the middle of the page, ``Required Offering of Basic Plan,'' the entity offers one, and only one, basic plan for such service area. Then the next provision says, ``If and only if the entity offers a basic plan for such service area, the entity may offer one enhanced plan for such area.'' If you offer the enhanced plan, you may offer one premium plan. And then also if you do all that, you could offer a premium-plus plan. You have to get to the premium-plus plan before the panels dictate whether or not you can get a mammogram before you're age 50, or whatever panel the panel happens to indicate. Maybe if there's enough outcry, the panel withdraws and says, okay, we were just kidding; so we'll change that. But our experience is once the government is comfortable in its role of regulating, it gets to where it really doesn't care what the outcry is. It doesn't matter because they run things. Just as with the flood insurance when the Federal Government, if it sounds familiar, said, You know what? We think private insurance companies are charging too much for flood insurance. Well, it might have something to do with people who keep rebuilding homes on the coast where they get wiped out. Well, the Federal Government apparently decided we need to provide cheaper insurance than what can be provided in the private sector. So the Federal Government got involved. They didn't charge enough in premiums to stay in the black, so they went into the red. Well, private companies cannot compete with the government because they can't exist in the red unless the government takes them over, which I guess you could talk to GM about or some of the banks or some of Wall Street. But anyway, they ran the private insurance companies out of the flood insurance business, so nobody sells flood insurance anymore because they could not compete with the Federal Government, and that's going to be true of this as well. This will be a disaster. It's one thing to experiment with a novel--what really is a socialist idea here, the Federal Government's socializing medicine. It's not total socialism; it's just a socialist program because the government takes over a private-sector business, a massive amount of the economy, and controls it. But it doesn't stop there because if the Federal Government is paying for all your health care, shouldn't they have a right to tell you how to live? Oh, yes, of course, in this bill the Federal Government becomes the repository for everybody's medical records. Isn't that special? So the Federal Government will have records of your most private, personal, secret physical situation. The government will have those records. Now, you can be assured that if the Federal Government has them, the wrong people will never be able to get them, especially people in the government who may want to manipulate you. Oh, yes, there was that problem in the 1990s when 1,000 FBI files were found in the White House, which was a crime for which Chuck Colson went to prison for just having one. There were around 1,000, as I recall, in the White House, people's most personal, private information in FBI files. But the White House had it. They didn't have any incentive to try to use any of that information even though there were some Members of Congress whose files were there. Gee, wasn't that interesting? Maybe if they needed a vote? I know before this administration under the prior administration when the TARP bailout was about to be passed, I got an email from the White House liaison saying, Is there anything that can be added to the existing package that will get your vote? Well, apparently some people answered otherwise than I did. I was livid, furious with the question. My first response to the email was, There's nothing that can be added. Removing the biggest socialization of private assets in Western Hemisphere history would be a good start to get my vote. But apparently there were others who answered otherwise, so there was another $100 billion added to that bill. But think about it. If the Federal Government has all of your personal medical records. And you know the Internal Revenue Service is the enforcement arm. They'll collect the fees. They'll make sure you're doing right. They'll make sure the Federal programs are paid for. So, gee, they know what your cholesterol count is. Well, you think maybe they would need to know if you're buying bacon or things high in cholesterol if your cholesterol count is too high? Maybe they need to adjust your insurance rate up and tell you what you can and can't eat. Well, that seems almost ridiculous, doesn't it? It can happen. That is where we are headed. If you go over to page 1510--and you wonder why would you need 1,990 pages, another 40 or so of the manager's amendment. If you go to page 1510, section 2572, Nutritional labeling of standard menu items at chain restaurants and of articles of food sold from vending machines. And as you go through and read these pages, it is really interesting reading because a restaurant or similar retail food establishment shall place adjacent to each food offered a sign that lists calories for displayed food item or per serving. It talks about in vending machines, if you cannot read the food labeling information, then they have to post that on the machine. It will cost millions and millions of dollars, and if people know how the vending business works, there are a lot of people who own vending machines. They make their living doing that. They go around and keep them supplied. They make money from filling the machines. I had friends in college whose parents put them through college doing just that. They don't have the money to get these machines reconfigured and do all of this work on them so they meet these new requirements. Somebody is going to go out of work, be relieved of their ability to make money. And if there were plenty of jobs out there, that wouldn't be so bad, but that means they will go into the job pool with all of the other people who are out of work right now. And then we passed the crap-and-trade bill in here the last week of July, as I recall. And we had people come down here to the well of the House, some people stood back here at these microphones, and people said people aren't going to lose their jobs because of this bill. They are going to have jobs created. Good, wonderful, green jobs will be created. Well, they hadn't read that bill either, apparently. On page 900- something, if you actually read the bill, as I was trying to do on a very short time because we got the 300 pages that was added around 3:08, 3:09 a.m. and we didn't even have a complete copy of the bill assimilated with the amendments that were added in the wee hours. I was trying to read as much as I could as quick as I could, but page 900 or so, I believe it was, there was a fund. I believe it was called the climate change fund that was created to pay people, it said in the bill, who lost their job as a result of that bill. So whoever's staffer or special interest group wrote that bill, they knew people were going to lose their jobs and that is why they put that in the bill. There was even money in there to create a fund to pay people a relocation allowance in case they could be paid to go where the job was moving. But unfortunately, that didn't provide money to send them to China, Argentina, or India, the places where those jobs were really going to go, where there is four to 10 times more pollution put into the atmosphere for creating the same products. No, they wouldn't get money for that. But I still think the good news there is if that bill becomes law-- and I know when Americans find out what all is in that horrible bill, they are going to fire a lot of Members of Congress that pushed that through without knowing what was in it and knowing what was going to be done to Americans and put more people out of work. But the good news is the people fired here in Congress who lose their job as a result of the crap-and-trade bill, they might be entitled to some relocation allowance under the bill because they lost their job as a result of the bill. And they will be with so many other Americans who lose their job for the same reason. This is micromanaging in this health care bill to an unbelievable degree. On the other hand, I have a health care bill here that really is about health care. It is not about control, and control and micromanaging American lives like this huge, 2,000-page bill is. It is pretty basic. And it is interesting, I did have a nice conversation with Doug Elmendorf. The Congressional Budget Office has been sitting on this bill since the request was made August 19 to get it scored. And the reason we didn't get the request in until then was because we were told back in June, Congressional Budget Office, we don't score things that aren't bills. You have to have it in bill form. We had to push and push. We eventually got it through legislative counsel and got the bill drafted and filed so it could be scored. The bill was submitted to the Congressional Budget Office. We said officially, please give us a score because this should work. This should save money and not only not cost a trillion to $2 trillion like the bill on the table that passed the House, but this should actually save the U.S. Government money while, at the same time, for the first time since we have had Medicare and Medicaid, actually give seniors complete coverage and complete control of their own health care. Now, I am sure most people deal with someone in the health insurance business, and you know there is a lot of good people in the health insurance business, but they are not really in the health insurance business. They are in the health care management business, and that's what business the government is in with Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP. I don't want the government in the business of managing my health care. I don't want the insurance companies in the business of managing and making my personal health care decisions. I want to make those after consulting with my doctors. That is the way it should be. That is the way it used to be, and my bill would allow people to do that. It would provide the incentives to push people, young people, everyone actually, toward a health savings account with no limits on how much you can put in pretax. The employer pays in, and it is certainly a business deduction for him. It is a straight offset. And the health insurance policy under my bill would be owned by the individual employee. Since it would be owned by the individual employee, that means wherever they go, it is their policy. You don't need COBRA. I dealt with that when I left the bench to run for Congress. It was too expensive for a guy who was running for Congress who had cashed out all of his assets except his home and cars to run for Congress full time because I knew that we needed to make changes here. So even though it has been reported that out of, I think, 32 Members of Congress from Texas, I had the least assets of any Member from Texas, I think I am the richest guy in the world because of the friends and the people I get to represent and the people with whom I deal in east Texas. But it is not going to be so good. We are in hard times, but it is going to be worse. It is not even going to be this good if this massive drain on the economy, a government takeover of this much of the economy kicks in at the worst possible time. On the other hand, coming back to my bill, for seniors, we are getting scored what it would cost if all seniors elected and went to having the government put cash money in a health savings account that they control and then buying the catastrophic care policy above that. It is their policy. They control it. If they don't spend all of the HSA money, then it rolls over and they get to keep 10 percent of the money to encourage them to save. For many seniors, that won't be possible. They will go through the $3,500. That will be controlled with a debit card that they control. It will be coded so it will only pay for health care items. Then they will have catastrophic coverage to cover above that. They have control, and they have coverage. We know that the younger Americans in their twenties and thirties, if they start doing this, the vast majority of them should have so much in their health savings account by the time they hit retirement age, not only will they not want the government then stepping in and controlling their health care, they will not need it, because they will have enough money in their HSAs to make their own decisions even then and continue to buy their insurance and control the catastrophic care from there. And, under the bill, anything that is left in the health savings account can be left to the kids. If you want to gift some of your HSA out to someone else, whether you are related or not, as long as it stays health savings account money, it can go from one to another. Another problem we have in this country that we are not dealing with, nobody seems to be talking about a whole lot, is that we authorize people to come into this country, and even though it is intentional, come into this country, get free health care and not charge them as they leave. Well, that doesn't happen under my bill, because in order to get a visa, whether a travel visa, a migrant worker visa, any kind of visa we may create in the future, in order to get a visa to come to this country, you will have to establish that you have health care coverage, the insurance, the HSA, you have coverage so it won't cost the U.S. Government taxpayers any money. That will be the price of coming into America. So if you are going to live with somebody in the country, you can be under their health insurance. If you are going to be a migrant worker, your employer can buy the catastrophic care and provide a health savings account for the whole group. Those kinds of things can be done because we have to get off this course of bankrupting this country. It is not unlimited when you go spending money, spending money, spending money. The Soviet Union tried that. Apparently they were trying to get a $100 billion loan from the United States and from others back at the time when the Soviet Union was in so much financial trouble. There have been articles written, information provided that seems to indicate that the U.S. may have told the Soviet Union, you know, we know in the past when these insurrections have occurred, uprisings have occurred in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, Estonia, when they have occurred before, you roll in the tanks and you crush them. But if you do that, we are probably not going to be able to loan you that $100 billion to keep you afloat. That is what happens when foreign countries are owed massive amounts of money by another country, they get to dictate to you whether or not you will preserve and protect your union. Everyone in this body took an oath to do that, to follow the Constitution. We are supposed to protect this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and yet we are going out and begging the Chinese to keep buying our debt. There are indications that the Federal Reserve, although they have said they are not monetizing the debt, they have some third party buying debt that we put up for auction, and then the Federal Reserve buying that debt from the third party intermediary. So it is the same thing. We are monetizing the debt. That is the way it sure looks. That eventually causes inflation. But in the meantime, for countries around the world, they can begin to tell us what we can do in our country and what we can't because they determine whether we have to declare, as the Soviet Union did, we are bankrupt. We can't borrow enough money any more to take care of our obligations and we can't print it fast enough to pay for them, so we are out of business. The states are on their own. That is basically what the Soviet Union did. So the 15 states that comprised the Soviet Union became independent countries. You think about all of the blood that has been shed over the course of this country to get the opportunity to create a Constitution, to get the opportunity to govern ourselves. You go back to the letter that John Adams wrote to his wife, Abigail, after the Declaration of Independence was made public on July 4. He wrote that marvelous letter, and I don't have it down verbatim, but basically saying we have within our grasp the chance to do what great philosophers and thinkers have only dreamed of, to govern ourselves and not have this big, massive government that controls all of the areas of our lives. We will be free to make our own decisions about our lives. This is a day that should be celebrated with parades and picnics. Of course, he advocated the firing of guns. We do that with fireworks now instead of bullets, which I think is a better practice. But he recognized how incredible a gift God, our Creator, nature's God, all those references that were made in our founding documents. We were being blessed with something like never before in the history of mankind. I was a little surprised to see after I came to Congress over at the State Department the original copy of the treaty of 1783, the Treaty of Paris. Of course, hopefully, people know, Mr. Speaker, that it was the surrender at Yorktown which ended the hostilities, but not until the Treaty of Paris of 1783 did England actually sign on agreeing to recognize the United States as a separate, independent country. This was an incredibly important document. And I did not know, history major that I was, I didn't know until I saw in big, bold letters how the Treaty of Paris started. It starts out, the big, bold letters say this: ``In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.'' That struck me strange. Why would they start the Treaty of Paris with ``In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity?'' It is an interesting way to start the document where the enemy during the war was going to recognize our independence. But then you think about it. They needed to start that treaty with something so important to both sides that neither would dare break their oath. So they started with ``In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity.'' That is how the Treaty of Paris of 1783 started. We have come a long way. Now you can't even pray in public schools. Chuck Colson said it well, When you have the morals of Woodstock, you will have to expect some Columbines. If you think about that, when the morality of the country is basically ``if it feels good, do it,'' you're going to have some irresponsible people, some anti-social personalities just decide, I wonder how it feels to steal other people's money, I wonder how it feels to go shoot some people in my school. When that's the morality of the day, we have got so far from our morality. As we said, I personally think it is immoral for a government to go in and do what anyone else doing would be a crime, and that is, to pry cash from the cold, dead hands of a deceased on which he has paid taxes his whole life, and we take that money away through the death tax. One of the things that maybe was the most important in driving me from the bench to run for Congress was along these lines of morality of the Federal Government. Because I noticed it seemed like I was seeing more and more women coming before me to be sentenced for committing felonies back in Texas. The stories they would tell there in court were so often the same. The story I heard most often was, well, I was bored with high school. Sometimes it was a friend, sometimes, tragically, a family member, sometimes even more tragically, a mother said, well, heck, if you're bored with school, just drop out, and have a baby. The government will send you a check. You don't have to work. Just have a baby, and they will send you money. So they drop out of high school, have a baby, the government would send them money. But it was not enough to really provide for a decent way of living for the mother and child. So the story I would hear, it was repeated often, was, gee, maybe if I have another baby, get another check, I can live easier on that. And it didn't work. And another baby. One lady I had sentenced had 15 kids, didn't even know where they all were. How would that come about? Why would the Federal Government get into the business of providing incentives to lure young women into ruts from which they were given no hope of getting out? Well, it came about because of a well-intended Congress back in the 1960s. They saw a problem with single women who had deadbeat dads who were not helping financially to take care of the kids that they had helped procreate. And so out of a feeling of compassion and wanting to help, they said, you know what, let's just give them a check. Let's be sympathetic. You mean-spirited people who don't want to just give these poor women a check, how dare you. So Congress voted to give them a check for every child they could have out of wedlock. And over 40 years later we have gotten what we paid for. You pay people to have babies out of wedlock, you're going to have a lot of babies. And this is something that cuts across party lines. Both parties are guilty of participating in being accessories to what has happened and the incentives to do the wrong thing for the well-being of this country. We shouldn't have provided incentives to lure young women into a rut from which they could not pull themselves out and from which they would never reach their God-given potential. Since the government knew if they finished high school they had a much better chance of making more money, the statistics were clear, they were able to go to college, they would make even more money, on average overall, so why not provide incentives to finish high school? Help them do that? Don't just give a check for every baby you can have out of wedlock. Why not incentives to finish school? That would have been more appropriate. This week we took up and passed a bill out of committee. I did not vote for it. The intention, once again, is very good. I know the hearts of the people that are pushing it. They are good people. They mean so well. They want to help. They said, let's throw a billion dollars at trying to keep kids from committing crimes. It is so well intended. I know their hearts. They mean well. But it is another program that won't deal with the bottom line issue that when this government got in the business of breaking up homes and providing incentives for people to have single-parent homes instead of having a married couple in a home, we started doing terrible damage to the moral fabric of this country and this society. And it's ongoing. And we want to have studies done. Well, gee, why do you think these kids commit crimes? I kept my own separate survey for a number of months there; and I picked, I guess arbitrarily, 5 years of age, and it was well over 80 percent of the people I sentenced for felonies had no relationship with the father after age 5. I'm not sure what it was. Most of them had had no relationship, really, with the father. And that seemed to be the greatest common denominator in the people that I sentenced. So why was there a deadbeat father in so many situations? Well, the government had been paying people to create deadbeat dads that didn't help out. This Congress did that, well intentioned, but, oh, the havoc that has been wreaked and reaped here, because that is what has been sowed. Now, we come around here also, well intentioned, having met the President a couple of times, I believe he wants to do what he believes is good for the country, just like those people in the 1960s did, just like people this week in our Judiciary Committee did. They mean well. Look at history. It is very clear. When you pay people to do an activity, you're going to get more of it. If you penalize people, as we have for years, with a marriage penalty, you're going to get less of it. If you penalize an activity, you're going to get less of it. That is the normal course of things. And both parties are also guilty of saying, oh, we are going to fix the marriage penalty. Both have done this. I got sick of listening to it over the years. Before I got to Congress, I hadn't really talked about it much. Some of us keep bringing it up. Nothing is happening. Hopefully sometime it will, because it's a real easy fix. If you want to take care of the real marriage penalty in income tax, you say, do you know what? If you're married, it's your choice. You can file married filing jointly if that's better for you, or you can file as an individual so that there is no penalty for being married. Because when you combine two spouses' incomes, so often it kicks them up into a higher percentage category and they pay a lot of extra money just because they're married. I've seen it with a lot of teachers. The teacher's income combined with a spouse's income is enough to kick them up, and they have to pay more for the privilege of being married. That's not the way it should be. That's not what studies indicate it should be. I know the President and the Attorney General think they are doing a good thing for this country. If we are going to show the world how hospitable we are by bringing terrorists to our own soil because we are good and we want the whole world to see how good and noble we are, we will take people that have admitted killing innocent people, over 3,000, and we will give them more rights than they have ever been given in history. That is destructive. It puts our soldiers in harm's way. It is going to cause them to have to start becoming forensic experts while they are being shot at, in some situations they will also be expected to gather fingerprints, DNA evidence, this kind of thing. This was not well thought through. Down in Guantanamo, I cannot imagine issuing an order to close that without even visiting that, but that is what has happened. And I visited the courtroom proceeding where the trial was going on for some terrorists. And they were interrupted by the Attorney General and the President. They just called a halt in the middle of the trial. That facility there, that courtroom, the facilities around it had so much. There is not another place like that anywhere in the continental, anywhere in the United States. That is an ideal place to try the terrorists. And all those people who I know they were so torn up about what happened on 9/11. They really are very sincere when they say, I want to look them in the eye, I want to be the juror that says, You're sentenced to death. Well, I have done that. It doesn't bring the pleasure you might think. But what it will bring when people say that's what I want to do, it will bring about a change of venue if the defendants, which they probably will, request it, because that will delay it further. It will give them further platforms to spread their poison that is so toxic. I know these things were intended well, but they can bring about the demise of a country. They have before. They have brought about the demise of civilization. And you would have thought that when the stimulus package didn't do everything that it was supposed to have done--it didn't create any jobs. It created some hundreds of thousands, well, we have lost millions and millions--you would think that the people that had enough insight to see it wasn't going to do what was said that it would do, that the people that pushed that would come back and say, you were right. But that hasn't happened. I hope and pray it will. Mr. Speaker, you brought down the gavel indicating my time has expired, so I recognize that and appreciate your indulgence.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I do agree with my friend from Colorado: we all should be paying our fair share. However, this Congress has said in the past maybe 39 percent should not pay their fair share. They won't pay any income tax. And this administration apparently has indicated he wants to take that at least to 44 percent of Americans not paying their fair share. But what the death tax does is go after people who have paid at the highest levels of income tax throughout their lives and yet have still been frugal enough to build a business, build a farm, and then when they're dead, come in and take it away from them. They've paid their fair share. Even though the argument is made that this won't affect that many people, that not that many people pay the estate tax. When something is not right, you need to draw the line. That is what the Founders did. They said principle is worth fighting for, and we will not give in to these confiscatory practices of the monarch in Great Britain. So we had a revolution. Now, after someone dies, and someone comes in and steals from them, we consider that, in most societies, reprehensible. That is just despicable. I have sentenced people personally to prison for doing that. But when the government comes in, because we have the power to pass laws and legalize theft that otherwise would be considered reprehensible, it's okay. It is not okay. It is not okay. I have a personal family situation. A great aunt and her husband, who predeceased her, built through generations a family farm. They were land rich, but money poor. They had employees. They had things going on. They had a very active ranch. But when she died, the estate tax was 55 percent. And within the year, while the estate was being settled, the FDIC dumped land. The $5 million estate fell in value. Land that was valued at $2,000 at her death became valued at $700 an acre. The IRS came in and sold every acre of my great aunt's land, her wonderful home where she had a will, she promised things to her direct descendants, we all had to gather at an auction the IRS forced to buy things from my great aunt. This is morally wrong. And Jesus never advocated to the government, Go steal. He said, You do it, do it with your own money. Don't go steal it from somebody else. And that's why this should not pass.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I need to dispel some of the misinformation that's been put out about the health care bill that we passed in this House. For one thing, some have said, Well, States require you to have insurance on your car, so of course we can mandate that people buy health insurance. The bill we passed is not going to provide health insurance. It's going to mandate--it does mandate--that you buy it, and if you don't, if you're above the poverty line, it won't be provided. In fact, you have an extra income tax if you don't buy the Cadillac insurance the government mandates. If you want to know about the comparison, first of all, to States requiring car insurance, not one single State in the country requires that a car--your own car--be insured. They require that you buy insurance to ensure against hurting another car or damaging another car. This is a whole different thing. We're mandating that you buy insurance on your own car, your own vehicle, your own body. And that's not constitutional.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I was at Fort Benning when, in 1979, the President ordered a rescue mission. But he micromanaged. He dictated. They didn't need 12 helicopters; just go in with 8. They knew if they didn't get there with six, they'd have to abort. Well, they got there with five, and the aborted mission cost us lives. Back in the 1960s, President Johnson tried to micromanage Vietnam from Washington. What a terrible mistake. And now, it appears that the President will need to fire General McChrystal, because it is imperative that the President have generals he can trust. General McChrystal says, ``The impact of time on our effort in Afghanistan has been underappreciated, and we require a new way of thinking about it.'' He said, ``I believe the short-term fight will be decisive. Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months)--while Afghan security capacity matures--risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.'' Fire him if you don't trust him. Should have been acted on 3 months ago.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. And when you do verify, you see this is not a fix for the doctors, and it's going to have to be addressed next year. It's called a 10-year fix, but it's not really a fix that is going to fix anything for very long. It's just a game being played here in Washington, and we want something better. When I think about our seniors, the relatives of mine that are seniors, and think about somebody cutting the care to their doctors; and then I hear from doctors who say, ``Look, I'm younger than I anticipated retiring, but with the games you guys are playing, I'm about ready to hang it up.'' I know if they do, because of the areas of service they provide to our seniors, to those who need care, there's not going to be anybody there to fill those needs, and they're going to be in lines if we keep doing this stuff to our doctors. We can't be playing games like this with our doctors. It's unfair to the seniors. It's unfair to those who need health care. It's time to do a real fix of the health care system--not the games played with this ridiculous 2,000-page bill--but a real bill that will get people in the government and from insurance out from between patients and their doctors; give patients coverage, give them control, and let health care finally be healed of this government disease that has afflicted it for too long.

Mr. GOHMERT. And I appreciate my friend for yielding, and the great points that he's been making as a physician, someone who is used to healing people and taking care of people, and it's great to have your insights as a physician. But the points you've made are so right on target. As our friend knows, they added on what they call the PAYGO provision to the end of this bill, saying, all right, from now on we're going to start paying for things and having offsets so we don't add to the American deficit.

Mr. GOHMERT. After we don't pay. And that's the thing. They put the PAYGO provision in the rules when they took the majority and have repeatedly ignored it over and over. Well, this past summer there was a bill that they called the PAYGO bill, and it was, they said, now, we realize we put this in the rules, that we would have to provide, if we're going to add money to the deficit, well, we're going to have to come up with some way to pay for it so that doesn't add to the deficit. And so this past summer, there were 24 Republicans who were persuaded--you know, even though they haven't meant it for the last 2\1/2\ years, they've repeatedly violated their PAYGO provision, this time they really, really, really mean they're serious about PAYGO. And I knew they hadn't, when they were really serious, and when they were really, really serious they were going to abide by the PAYGO rules. But this time I thought, you know, they're going to put this in a stand- alone bill, so certainly they would not want the flak of coming back. And I voted with my friends across the aisle, the Democrats, that they couldn't just bring up a bill unless there was money provided in the bill that would make it deficit-neutral. And so I voted for that. Well, they fooled me. Here they come right back with a bill costing hundreds of billions of dollars, and they said, you know, what, that PAYGO stuff we passed in July? We still mean it, and we really, really, really, really mean it this time, but we're going to add it on and start applying it after this bill. Well, that is just so incredible. I mean, the American people, as we're seeing, are not stupid. They realize what's being done.

Mr. GOHMERT. It certainly will be. You figure that's what they'll do so that maybe people may not notice that they've yet again increased the deficit. And that was one of the things they ran on and took the majority for in 2006. There was too much spending. And now, they have just come in and taken that, as somebody said earlier today, I mean, it's deficit spending on steroids. But even more than that, coming back to health care, I don't want the government between me and my doctor. I don't want insurance companies between me and my doctor. And for a long time now, we have had not health insurance, but health insurance companies managing health care. And I appreciate insurance. I think it is extremely important to help us ensure against unforeseeable events. But some of us have talked about and have pushed, on our side of the aisle, the health savings account. Everything that--all of the bills that have been proposed from the other side make detrimental cuts and damage to the health savings account. That is the one area where people in their twenties and thirties now are given incentives, and their employers, and they start paying into health savings accounts now. Most of them, the statisticians tell us, by the time they're ready to retire, they will have so much money in their health savings account they could continue to pay out of that to buy a catastrophic care policy. But they won't need the government between them and their doctor. They won't need an insurance company telling them, well, that medicine is not covered, that treatment's not covered. They've got their own money. And in the meantime, we could even have health savings accounts. It would be cheaper than what we're doing just to let seniors have health savings accounts and buy them catastrophic care, provide the health savings accounts and the insurance, and then, for the first time in the history since we've had Medicare, seniors would have nobody in the government standing between them and their doctor, them and their treatment. That's the kind of thing I know, talking to friends on this side of the aisle, we want. We don't want an intermediary between patients and their doctors, not the government, not the insurance companies. And we've got plans, we've got bills, we've got suggestions, and everybody on our side of the aisle has been shut out. And this bill today, a ``Doc Fix,'' was a ``Doc Tricks.'' And I'm hoping and praying my doctor friends understand that this was not going to address their needs. It looked like a fix. This wasn't going to pass the Senate. This was an effort to drive a wedge between physicians and the people that believe politically in the Constitution the way they do.

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. I just had a quick question back to my physician friend, Dr. Gingrey from Georgia. If my friend were in his doctor's office in Georgia and somebody from Washington came and said, ``Look. I want to get this message out to all of your doctor friends. Here's what we're going to do. We're going to cut $500 billion in reimbursements to you and your friends, but you need to be ecstatic because we've got a bill that's not going to pass, it won't ever get through the Senate, but it will get you back $250 billion of that $500 billion we're going to cut. Aren't you happy?'' Would you really trust that person from Washington that came with that kind of news?