Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate the gentlewoman from North Carolina pointing that out. I was in the back, jotting down a few notes. But I have had some concerns about some of the things that I had heard. For example, it is inappropriate under the House rules for someone in this body to call another person in this body a liar. That violates the House rules clearly. It's inappropriate to call names in here and engage in personality destruction. That's not appropriate. I've had constituents wonder why those of us on the floor don't call each other names, like Gordon Brown was called in Parliament in England. I have explained to them, Well, we have rules in the House. We don't do that kind of thing here. It's entirely inappropriate, and you can be called down. You can be censured for inappropriate conduct here on the floor and name calling, engaging, as the Speaker said, in attacks on personality. But there was a comment I did hear in the discussion amongst my colleagues across the aisle about energy; and what I noted when I wrote down the comment was, ``If we do nothing like those on the other side say,'' and I attribute no ill motive or intent to that comment. But the trouble is, that is not accurate; and obviously, it indicates just an ignorance with regard to what has been proposed on this side. For example, in the area of energy, we have proposed bill after bill that would provide this country more energy. For example, 80 percent or so of our coast is off-limits to drilling off that coast. You can drill off the coast of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi. There are some areas where drilling is going on. But we have found in Texas that despite all the naysayers who have said it would kill off fishing, when I was growing up in Texas, they allowed platforms off the coast. We ended up having platforms off the coast of Texas, drilling for oil and gas. Lo and behold, guess what happened--fish proliferated out there. They used the platforms as an artificial reef. So if you go out fishing in the Gulf with a guide, they're likely to take you to an oil and gas platform because the fishing abounds around there. Lo and behold, man and environment can work together for the good of both. Not only would we produce great amounts of energy and avoid this country going back to $4 a gallon gasoline, which we are going to go to because of the policies of the current administration and the current Speaker who want to put more and more--not just want to--they are constantly putting more and more of our natural energy resources off-limits, just constantly. Some of us have had bills, supported bills that have used the information available to say, If we allow drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf, it will do a number of things. For one thing, it will provide tremendous amounts of money for the Federal Treasury because of the royalties coming from that. Not only that, there are estimates that if we allow Outer Continental Shelf drilling, that it would produce at least 1.1 to 1.3 million jobs. Well, the President originally promised that he would create 3 million jobs, and he backed off of that and said, well, he may save that many, or 4 million, may save them. And obviously you can never document that you saved a job, only if you created them or didn't. So that's why it was important to inject the word ``save'' in there. But with regard to drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, there would actually be real jobs created, not just on the platforms--there, of course--but it would create jobs in every single State. Then also if we allowed drilling up in ANWR--and it's not this beautiful mountainesque area up there. It's not. You go up there, and there's nothing there. Nothing lives there. The caribou may go through once a year, but they can't live there. There's nothing to live on. Birds may fly through every now and then, but there's nothing there for them to live on. That's the area that Jimmy Carter designated for drilling because it was an ideal place, and there was plenty of oil there. But if we allowed the oil to be pursued there, it would create a tiny footprint; and compared to the massive size--and it gets smaller constantly with technology--there would be another 1 million jobs created around the country, the United States, more Federal money, more jobs, which actually would create more Federal money. Then also there are some slopes in Alaska where drilling for natural gas has not been allowed, and that's estimated to create another 1.1 to 1.3 million jobs. We could have between 3 million and 4 million jobs without taxing an extra quarter of a penny. It would cost nothing extra if we just used the resources we've got.

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, I will yield. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. That's what they're saying. But I just went and printed this off Speaker Pelosi's own Web site, and I apparently need help with what's linguistically appropriate. This is on the official Speaker's Web site under the title, ``Honest Leadership and Open Government.'' The first sentence is, the culture of corruption practiced under the Republican-controlled Congress was an affront to the idea of a representative democracy, and its consequences were devastating. Now, I have a little trouble, and I'm glad I'm here with such bright minds, including our wonderful chairman of our conference. But how is it a little bit too political to use government resources to say the words government-run health care, but it is entirely appropriate for the Speaker of the House to say the culture of corruption practiced under the Republican-controlled Congress was an affront to the idea of representative democracy, and its consequences? But that's not all. Led by the House Democrats on the other hand, and apparently this is not considered political, this statement, House Democrats have acted to make this Congress the most honest and open Congress in history. Well, besides being factually wrong, that's----

Mr. GOHMERT. Our time has expired, and I appreciate being a part of this. This is too serious to let the bureaucrats control people's lives.

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, because in the discussion about what's linguistically appropriate, and the discussion about how political, supposedly, it is, how politically inappropriate to have a chart that lists all the levels of bureaucracy that the new bill is going to propose and how they think it may be a bit too political to say that it's government-run health care.

Mr. GOHMERT. And I do appreciate you yielding. And obviously I was being facetious and perhaps rhetorical for my friend from California because the point is no government bureaucrat should ever be able to look at any American and say, I don't think you ought to get this treatment. I don't think you ought to get this surgery. That is the last thing you want is the government intervening. And what has really gotten outrageous and got my attention is when we got the latest numbers we could for 2007 and the total amount of Medicare and Medicaid tax dollars spent and you divide it by the number of households in America, it's about $9,200, over $9,200 per household. You look at what President Obama is proposing. CBO says it will be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion? You divide just a very conservative amount of that by 117 million households that are estimated right now in America by Census, and you have $10,000 more per household for every household in America they have to come up with to pay for this plan on top of the $9,200 in Federal tax dollars they are paying now.

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you for yielding. I wanted to have time to ask my friend from California: Do I sense there is a concern that, if someone with the Federal bureaucracy had seen you move athletically before the hip replacement, they would have said giving you a hip would have been wasted?

Mr. GOHMERT. That's on top of the $9,200 average per household in America right now. Around $19,000 per household.

Mr. GOHMERT. If the gentleman would yield, let me just say that that's on the Speaker's Web site in the reverse, meaning the Republicans took the Nation in the wrong direction, and too many Americans are paying a heavy price. So, anyway, it sounds like, if Republicans said that about Democrats, as my friend says, it's probably true, and it would be politically inappropriate under the Franking determination, but it's okay if the Speaker does it, apparently.

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. I'm still perplexed. Since Republicans are not allowed to comment on anything that's a governmental resource, and so I am wondering, if we phrase in any mail-out or on any Web site, if we say that the Democrat- controlled Congress is taking the Nation in the wrong direction and that too many Americans are paying a heavy price for those wrong choices, including paying record costs for health care, I'm wondering if that would be something that would also be found objectionable for its being a little too political. I'll yield to find out what you think.

Mr. GOHMERT. Yeah. Let me just read another statement. With honest leadership and open government, America's leaders can, once again, focus on the needs of the American people. So that's as political, it seems to me, as could be.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, we heard from CBO that the President's plan for health care could cost an extra $1 trillion to $2 trillion. That's on top of what we're already spending. Well, I started looking at that this year and asked my staff to help me gather the statistics. What we got from the CRS and also the Census Bureau was the estimate for the last year that we had a full year's numbers, for 2007, of how much Medicare and Medicaid cost in tax dollars. We took the estimate from the Census Bureau of how many households there were in America in 2007. There were 112 million households estimated. You divide the number of households in America into the amount of tax dollars spent for the year 2007, and it's over $9,200 for every household in America being spent on Medicare and Medicaid. When you realize that every house on average is coming up with $9,200 in order to pay for Medicare and Medicaid, what struck me is we can do so much better than this. This is atrocious. We've got seniors all over the country who are buying wraparound or surplus coverage to supplement their Medicare coverage, people on Medicaid; and that didn't even include the amount being paid for SCHIP. So I have asked for the latest projection from the Census Bureau as of today. The Census Bureau is projecting that for right now in America there are about 117 million households in America. We were told that the President's health care bill would cost somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. So I got this chart. I want to do some simple division here. We've got $1.170 trillion because we feel like that is a conservative estimate since the President's projection would cost somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, and we know there are 117 million households in America. Well, let's see how much the President's plan is going to cost every household in America. It's easy if you have a good public school education like I did back in the day. We'll take that off of both sides, cancel that off of both sides, then divide 117 into $1,170,000. Folks, the President's plan is going to cost an additional $10,000 for every household in America on top of the $9,200 per household we're paying in America right now. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, how much we could do with that kind of money? Well, that's what hit me. So the point is we finally got back tonight the plan that I had submitted. Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful to Leg Counsel. I trash- mouthed them a little bit the last few days because they stonewalled my plan, I thought; but they pushed. They got it through. We got it tonight. For much less money, this plan will buy every household in America that has people on Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, it will buy them private insurance with a $3,500 deductible and put cash money in a debit card account for their health savings account. They will for the first time in over 40 years have control of their future, control of their health care; and, by golly, they will have complete coverage. Not in America ever have they had complete coverage. This will give them control. Then we don't have to read articles like the one in Politico about the President's plan promoting euthanasia. Will it or will it not? We don't need to go there. We don't have to go there.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, the latest numbers we have are for 2007. You divide the total number of households in America into the total amount of money spent on Medicare and Medicaid, it is $9,200 for every household in America. We are not getting our money's worth with this government-run health care. And now the President wants to spend another $1 trillion? Well, there is a Republican plan that we can't get from legislative counsel to bring to the floor or even have CBO score it that would say, you know what? For the first time ever, we are going to give senior citizens complete control of their health care. We are going to give them cash money in a health savings account they control with a debit card, not the government, not an insurance company, and then we will buy them the best private insurance you can have for everything above that. That gives them complete coverage; no wrap-arounds they have to buy, no surplus insurance. That is a plan that won't make America sick.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I'm looking at the list of the things to be covered this week. It has, ``Friday, health care legislation???'' I hope that the American people will let their voices be heard. This is not good for America. It is going to cost tremendous amounts of money, and then our seniors, especially, get particularly vulnerable. They go on lists and they are not prioritized, and then they die waiting in line, just as the man I met here recently from Canada, just as his father did after being on the list for 2 years to get a bypass surgery. We don't need to go here. People don't need to be dying in line. We can have a better plan, and we have a better plan, but it's been shut out with Leg Counsel and I can't get it out in the form of a bill. That's what we need to do. The plan's there. Just let us get it to the floor.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to Republican Leadership standards, the following information is submitted regarding funding received in the first district of Texas as part of H.R. 3326-- Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010. Regional Geospatial Service Centers. Stephen F. Austin State University, Box 6078 SFA Station, Nacogdoches, TX 75962, OM,ARNG account, $2,156,000 for the continuation of an initiative to establish Regional Geospatial Service Centers in Nacogdoches, Texas; El Paso, Texas; and Beaumont, Texas, and to provide emergency geospatial information services. The Center provides critical geospatial information to support emergency managers, planners, resource managers, landowners, individuals and policy makers, as demonstrated through its dramatic usefulness after the Columbia Shuttle disaster. These applications are now also assisting with national needs and have extremely important national security relevance. Organic Semiconductor Modeling and Simulation (COSMOS). The University of Texas at Tyler, 3900 University Blvd., Tyler, TX 75799, RDTE,A account, $1,100,000 for the Organic Semiconductor Modeling and Simulation Initiative--a collaborative research and development project. The funds will provide for research to improve the ability to design and fabricate flexible electronics, leading to the production of electronic textiles with far-reaching benefits to the Department of Defense, particularly for our armed forces, with demonstrated potential to revolutionize military uniforms and equipment to levels previously only seen in super-hero comic books. Yet, the research thus far has been very promising for producing electronic threads that receive light, convert it to energy, discern the colors or shapes around it, and morph accordingly.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to Republican Leadership standards, the following information is submitted regarding funding received in the first district of Texas as part of H.R. 3293-- Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 LeTourneau University Air Traffic-Collegiate Training Initiative. LeTourneau University, P.O. Box 7001, Longview, Texas 75607, Department of Education Higher Education (includes FIPSE) account, $350,000 to purchase needed radar and control tower simulators for the new Air Traffic-Collegiate Training Initiative program. This Initiative would benefit the nation by training students in a simulated real-world environment where air traffic control procedures and techniques can be learned, practiced, and refined, to help fill the national shortage. Keeping America Competitive: Consortium for STEM Preparation for Engineering Project. The University of Texas at Tyler, 3900 University Blvd., Tyler, Texas 75799, Department of Education Higher Education (includes FIPSE) account, $300,000 for researching and developing products and solutions to reform STEM education and build capacity to address the extremely critical shortage of world-class engineers, while lessening reliance on foreign engineers. Angelina College Health Careers Program. Angelina College, 3500 South First Street, Lufkin, Texas 75904, Department of Health & Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)--Health Facilities and Services account, $200,000 for the expansion of the Health Careers program. This project will serve the valuable purpose of providing trained and licensed professionals in areas of shortage to address the health care needs and lessen the ongoing need for American healthcare providers having to recruit outside the United States. This will assist in providing Americans to supply the professional shortfall.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, this body passed a cap-and-trade bill, and we had people coming down, friends across the other side of the aisle, saying this isn't going to cost jobs, that it's going to create jobs. Well, they telegraphed, every time that was said, that they'd not read the bill. They assured America that this was going to create green jobs and that it wasn't going to cost jobs. If they'd bothered to read the bill, they would have seen that, before the 300 pages were added and, unaffected by the 300 pages, there was a fund created to pay an allowance to people who'd lost their jobs because of the bill. It also created a fund that could help them with relocation after they lost their jobs because of the bill. They just hadn't read the bill, so they were able to come down and, with righteous indignation, say it wasn't going to cost jobs. I knew they were being honest. They were just ignorant about what the bill said, but it will cost jobs, and now we're told that some of us don't care about seniors. Mr. Speaker, I'm here because I care about seniors, and I know what that health care bill is going to do to them. It is going to put seniors on lists to get treatment. The lists will be for those who are not considered too old to be put on lists. If you'd followed the President's own presentation in that townhall, Ms. Pam Stern pointed out her mother was nearly 100, and she needed a pacemaker. Her doctor said, because of the joy and quality of her life, she should have one, but the arrhythmia specialist said, no, not somebody her age until he met her. Then he said, Well, of course, she needs to have one. So they did and she's now 105. So Ms. Stern asked the President, Is there any consideration to be given for a certain spirit, joy of living, quality of life, or is it just a medical cutoff? He went into a long explanation, and ended by saying, You know what? We at least can let 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. Taking a painkiller, when we've already seen that she had another 5 years, and the President wants to say, Well, maybe we'll just give you a painkiller and let you die? This is going to allow seniors to die who could have a much more ongoing, productive life. There is no reason to do this. Now, when I and my staff looked at this, the latest numbers we were able to get were from 2007 of, roughly, 112 million households in America. If you divide that into the amount of money paid into Medicare and Medicaid, it's $9,200 per household for every household in America. Well, once I saw that, I realized, boy, there is a way for the first time in 40-something years to give seniors control over their own health care and over their own lives. You give them $3,500 in their own health savings accounts that they control. You give them a debit card. They have exclusive control. No insurance company can tell them what to do with it. Then you buy them private insurance, and they won't have to do like my mother-in-law did and buy supplemental insurance on top of that. You buy them good insurance. They don't need to do that. On top of that, you save the country hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Now, that puts control in seniors' hands, and it saves the country money. This isn't about that. It is about control. This health care bill is about control. It's about taking charge of people's lives. We had the EPA already say, since carbon dioxide is a pollutant, this body has the right to control any entity that puts out carbon dioxide. Well, maybe there are people here in the majority who can pick out individuals and say, You know what? I'm tired of them putting out carbon dioxide. It's time for them to stop. I mean that's how ludicrous it gets, except that, once you can control whether people put out carbon dioxide, you can control whether they live or not. Once you can control their health care, you can have the right to say, You know what? I noticed on your credit card purchase you bought some Twinkies last month, and therefore, we're not going to provide health care unless you quit buying those. I mean this is going to get so intrusive. The one thing that's clear is that Orwell was 25 years early, because this is going to be so Orwellian with Big Brother looking into everyone's lives and having the right to do so once they pay for your health care. This will allow seniors to die, waiting in line for lists. Do you think that's over the top? I had a Canadian man tell me that just a few weeks ago. His dad got put on a list for bypass surgery, and he had to wait 2 years. I said, Why did it take so long? He said, Well, the bureaucrats kept moving him back. Let's don't kill our seniors. Let's give them control. That's what Americans should do.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, during the American Revolution, often Voltaire was quoted for saying, I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Man, the revolution has been turned on its head. Now we're told that you cannot use government resources to use the term ``government-run health care'' because that offends the majority, so they are censoring the mail, censoring the resources here. But now we are, until they turn off the mikes and the lights again this year, we're able to hold posters here on the floor. Here's another thing that's been censored. Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous. Just because anybody disagrees with what we say, it's no reason to shut down our right to say it. This country can't proceed with this kind of censorship.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I realize the gentleman's time is going to expire at 11:30, but I just wanted to finish. This is about freedom of life, pursuit of happiness. This is about freedom and life, and Mark Levin's book Liberty and Tyranny, he has got so many tremendous quotes, but I just wanted to make this final comment. President Reagan--this quote's in the book--said ``Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.'' That's why we're here fighting. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. My friend from Iowa's words are exactly right. Like my friend from Iowa said, this is after the fact, after we know it's helped, he still says that at least we can let the 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. But let me also point out, the President is a very smart individual, well educated, extremely articulate, obviously very good and persuasive, but he won't be the one making the decisions. It will be some bureaucrat who is not as smart as the President. That's where this is going. I have shared on this floor before about a gentleman from Canada I've talked to whose father died in the last year or so, whose father was on a list to get a bypass surgery for 2 years, and some bureaucrat kept moving people in front of his father. I said I thought it was a crime to move up the list in Canada. He said it is illegal to pay somebody to move you up, but it's not a crime. In fact, it's required that the government has bureaucrats in little cubicles somewhere that are not nearly as smart as President Obama who read these things, look at this stuff and say, you know what, let's move this guy in front of his father and this guy. They kept moving people in front of him for 2 years, and he died because the bureaucrat was wrong. His father really did need the surgery. So it's scary enough that the President would say about a woman who had successful pacemaker surgery 5 years ago that, you know what, maybe we just should have said to her, You're better off without the surgery. Take a painkiller. Well, imagine somebody who is not even as smart as he is making those decisions for you. So this is really dangerous stuff before us. And if I might add one more thing, you know, some people say that this debate over health care is all about politics. I just want to say, if this debate over health care were really just about politics, the smartest thing that my friend from Iowa and I could do is sit back, say nothing and let this bill pass, not point out all the dangerous stuff in this thing, the life-ending stuff in this, the freedom-ending stuff in it, just sit back and not say anything, because what would happen is the bill would pass if we didn't stand up against it and didn't let the people in America know how bad it is so they didn't inform their Congressman. Just sit back and let America find out how many freedoms are taken away, how many loved ones they lose because they're in this system. The American public, I believe, would be so irate, they would turn out the Democratic majority for at least two or three more generations, they would be so irate. That's the political side of it. But the factual side is, this is so bad, and we care so deeply because we know where this goes. I saw socialized medicine in the Soviet Union as an exchange student there in '73. I don't want this. I know how it goes. I would rather stay in the minority and be free of this kind of government intervention that ends lives and takes money for abortions and takes money to have people take a painkiller and die instead of having the pacemaker they need. I would rather do that and stay in the minority than have people endure this kind of plan. That's politics. And if we were smart politically, we wouldn't point out all the problems. We would just go home and let America find out and then put us in the majority party.

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend from Iowa yielding and that is something I did want to mention, as I am still so deeply disturbed by the fact that this Congress would be censored, where we did not have the freedom to debate, when that ability is what gave us this country, is what started this country. If you go to the Speaker's Web site, you will find all kinds of references that are clearly political and clearly demeaning to Republicans. Yet I don't know of any Republican that has said that she needs to personally pay for her Web site since it's political. Yet here we find out today that we're not allowed to use the term ``government-run health care'' because that is considered political and demeaning to the Democrats' plan and, therefore, if we're going to put that in any correspondence, then we have to personally pay for it. We can't do like the Democrats have done, when they send out all this mail trashing Republicans, some of it valid, a few years ago, that we were overspending. And so I thought perhaps the silver lining would be when they got the majority they'd do what they said and cut spending, but it's gone the other direction. Nonetheless, in the chart, as I'm sure my friend from Iowa has pointed out, that has these 31 different new created entities, we're not allowed to put that, we're told, on our Web site. Otherwise, we'll have to pay for the Web site. We're not allowed to send that out in any literature because the fact of the business is, that might educate people on just what it is that's going on here. But we were told we have to use the term ``public option'' rather than ``government-run health care.'' John Carter was told today that if he was going to use the term ``government-run health care,'' he would have to pay for his mail-out. He couldn't use franking to do so. That he would have to use the term ``public option.'' It is so outrageous that in this body we're being censored by people who have made a living out of being political. It is just outrageous. And I've got too many friends on the other side of the aisle that I can't believe would condone that kind of conduct. Because they should have the freedom to criticize any Republican plan. We should have the freedom to criticize any Republican plan. And we both should have the freedom to criticize the Democratic plan. That's supposed to be constitutional. Yet, we're told we can't use political, demeaning terms to their health care plan. I'm telling you, it is socialized medicine on its way. It is nationalized health care. It is the government's effort to take over your body. I've got three daughters, my friend knows. While somebody is under my roof and I'm paying their health care bills, then I feel like I've got the right to tell them you need to eat better, you need to do this, you shouldn't do that, because I'm paying for their health care bill. And if they're going to run it up doing something, then I have a right to have some injection and control over that. That's what this is about. I've said it months ago, that what we're running into in this body is the GRE, the Government Running Everything. And that's what is taking over health care. Once the government has this government-run program, let's face it, you cannot in the private sector compete with a government, especially a Federal Government program. Because it can run in the red and it can count on being funded by the government. You can't compete with that if you're in private business because you can't run in the red. You've got to run in the black or you go bankrupt. Well, it used to be you went bankrupt, unless the government wants to run in and bail you out because you're good buddies with people in the government. Nonetheless, I talked today, this morning, with a lady from Tyler. And I love her delightful British accent, because she's originally from England. And she had called wanting to speak with me, really needing to speak with me about health care. She told me that her mother died of cancer and she herself was later found to have breast cancer, and that if she had been under the system her mother was, she would have died. But she's alive because she's in the United States and is a citizen here. Her mother is dead because her mother was in England and she didn't get the kind of care she would have here in the America that Sue got. I don't want people dying like that unnecessarily. And the government has to put you on lists. I will yield to my friend from Iowa. Have you quoted the President on that town hall? I see my friend shaking his head. This was Pam Stern was on the town hall meeting with the President and talked about her mother, that she's now 105, but over 5 years ago her doctor said that he couldn't do any more to help her unless she had a pacemaker. But she's nearly 100 years old. And the daughter felt like--her doctor--that she ought to get a pacemaker. Everybody was in favor of it, except her arrhythmia specialist, who had never met her. So her s doctor said, He needs to meet you, because that's going to be worth a thousand words. So he makes an appointment with the arrhythmia a specialist. He meets with Pam Stern's mother and he realizes--and, according to Pam--that because he saw her and her joy of life, then he said he was indeed going to go forward with the pacemaker because this woman had a real zeal for life and was enjoying life and doing well. And so Ms. Stern went on and said to the President--was asking about his plan and was wondering what treatment someone elderly could have, and asked this, basically: Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for someone who is elderly, is there any consideration that can 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 I went online early this morning and watched this YouTube and typed it up myself and went back and forth to make sure I got everything right. I left out two or three uhs. Anyway, he says, ``We're suggesting--and we're not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end of life care. A lot that is going to have to be--we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and--and--for ourselves.'' I've have got to pause here. The woman is 105. She got a pacemaker 5 years ago, and her quality of life is excellent. How does she need to make better decisions within her family? Her family is supposed to tell her you can't have a pacemaker because it's time for you to just roll over and die? But the President goes on. He says, ``But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that 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--a painkiller.'' The woman got a pacemaker and has had a wonderful quality of life, a zeal and a joy for life and, according to this President, maybe what we just should have told her is, You don't need a pacemaker. You need a painkiller. It is just unconscionable. We value life more than that in this country. And what grieves me most--and I heard on the news; I don't know if it's true--that AARP is now endorsing this. If they are, then at some point, bless their hearts, they're going to owe their members an apology. Because if we go to this proposed plan that supposedly on the news they said today they were endorsing the President's plan, then the people who will be hurt dramatically will be the seniors. They will go on lists like Sue's mother did in England and they will die because that's what will happen. That's how you keep a socialized medicine plan from going broke. You put people on long lists, they stay there, and then they die.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to Republican Leadership standards, the following information is submitted regarding funding received in the first district of Texas as part of H.R. 3288-- Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. Veterans Shuttle Service Project. The Brazos Transit District, 1759 N. Earl Rudder Freeway, Bryan, Texas 77803, $300,000, Federal Transit Authority Buses and Bus Facilities account, to provide round-trip shuttle service for Veterans who need to go to the Veterans Administration (VA) Outpatient Clinic in Lufkin, Texas and/or to the VA Medical Center in Houston, Texas. This shuttle will provide many of our nation's ailing Veterans vital access to both medical facilities. Angelina County Cassells-Boykin County Park Project. Angelina County, Texas, 606 East Lufkin Avenue, Lufkin, Texas 75902, $500,000, Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Initiative account, to make improvements and renovations to the Cassells-Boykin County Park on federal Lake Sam Rayburn in Angelina County. This project will finally make improvements necessary to make the federal investment in the lake more accessible and available. Discovery Learning Center. Texas College, 2404 North Grand Avenue, Tyler, Texas 75702, $250,000, Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Initiative account, to establish a Discovery Learning Center to serve pre-school students and train teachers studying Early Childhood Education. The initiative will help fill the void of quality trained professionals in Early Childhood Education, while also elevating families' first-time college attendees from poverty to the realm of the productive. Texas State Technical College (TSTC) Marshall Transportation and Industrial Manufacturing Building. TSTC Marshall, 2650 East End Blvd. South, Marshall, Texas 75672, $200,000, Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Initiative account, for assistance with construction of a Transportation and Industrial Manufacturing Technology building, which would assist the community with a hands-on training facility for welding, computer-aided manufacturing, transportation technology, diesel equipment technology, small engine repair, light/medium duty truck and motorcycle driving school, and a truck driving school. This would be far more beneficial for our economy than paying unemployment benefits as it will train and retrain workers for available jobs.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, $700 million for wild horses last Friday; $50 million for rare cranes and rare dogs and cats that don't even live in this country. We've got habitat problems in this country. The $800 billion stimulus hasn't stimulated anything except unemployment. I just left a crime hearing and we found out that out of 207,000 people in Federal prison, 53,000 of them are not citizens. They're non- U.S. citizens. They're here--most of them, they said, were probably illegal. So there's 53,000 jobs Americans didn't want, committing crimes in America. We had to outsource that. But this is too serious. I know as a former judge, if somebody had come in and said, Here's a mom who has all these kids and grandchildren and she's gone to a bank and said, Give me money, loan me money, I can't control my spending, you would take those beautiful children away and give them to somebody that would be responsible. We can do better.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the nobility of the effort to help wild horses at this time. But Americans are losing their habitats. We found out for June, another 400,000 Americans have lost jobs. In 2009 already, since President Obama has taken office, we've lost 1.9 million jobs--I'm sorry--1.9 million foreclosures. We've got 14.7 million unemployed. And that doesn't just represent individuals. That's families we're talking about who are desperate right now, and we're hearing from them. You know, what about my habitat? I understand you want to help wild horses and burros, but what about my habitat? How about American individuals getting help? We are squandering money like never before in history. And folks, you can lose a country by overspending. Go ask the former Soviet Union if you can find any of those people. They lost their country because they spent until nobody would lend them another dime. They were irresponsible. And so here we want $700 million for horses? And I appreciate the chairman's comment that this amendment by Doc Hastings is a dollar short. But it's actually $699,500,000 short, basically. This is incredible. But I thought about when you get on an airplane, we're told, in the safety instructions, that if the cabin loses pressure, an oxygen mask will drop. Do not put it on someone else first. You put it on your own face first and save yourself. Then you'll be in position to save your children and those around you. But if you don't save yourself first, you can't help anyone. And that's where this country is. If we don't save this country by this reckless overspending, we're not going to be in a position to help anybody. Immigrants won't have any place to come for safety and for jobs because we have wiped ourselves out. No wonder the Chinese laughed when Geithner said we were going to reduce our deficit. I'm telling you. And then jobs? What about American jobs? Well, there's one little part in here, and it provides for enhanced contraception for the wild horses. Maybe there are jobs in there. Maybe somebody out of work can apply for how you apply enhanced contraception to a horse. I'm familiar with artificial insemination. I was not familiar with enhanced contraception. Maybe there's a green job or some color there. But we need to help Americans.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, the economy is in a tough situation, 9.5- plus percent unemployment, 14.7 million people are unemployed. Actually, the number is higher than that. Since January, 1.9 million foreclosures have occurred. People are losing their homes. Foreclosures are up 9 percent since this President took office. And today we take up the welfare for wild horses. That's right. We are going to spend $700 million for wild horses' habitat. But how about the habitat for Americans? We have got the health care effort to socialize medicine. And do you know who gets hurt? The seniors get hurt. We owe them so much better. We got the bailout. Goldman Sachs had record profits the second quarter. Well, isn't that special? It looks like Geithner is wrong. If it is good for Goldman Sachs, it is not good for the country. We owe the American people better than what we are giving them. We should take a pledge like doctors and do no harm. We are doing too much harm.