Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Certainly.

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, in this body, wise is such a relative term. I appreciate my friend yielding. But wisdom seems to be in short supply. I may not have it, but I know it when I see it. I'm not seeing it being utilized in this House, in this Congress these days--not with the salt water harvest mouse. And I come bearing news. Of course, my friend from Iowa knows, Mr. Speaker knows, there are 14.7 million jobless Americans right now. If it weren't for the suffering that's going on right now in America, some of the things we were doing would just be comical. But we just had a job fair. I had a couple in my district. On the one hand, when you have a function and lots of people come, you're really excited people turn out. This is great. But when you realize each one of these represents somebody who has lost a job and they're hurting and their family is hurting, it breaks your heart. Then, when I saw cars line up for blocks, people coming to a job fair, looking for jobs, from people who do manual labor to airline pilots to engineers, I mean just the full spectrum looking for jobs, it breaks your heart because you know they're hurting, you know they're suffering. There are 14.7 million jobless Americans right now. The unemployment rate now climbing up over 9\1/2\ percent. We have got a trillion-dollar deficit, we find out this week. And there are some indications that we haven't gotten a report recently as we should have from the OMB because maybe somebody is trying to stifle it because it may be that we're way over a trillion-dollar deficit. We already set the record this year under this President and this Speaker with the kind of deficit that's been run. We know that there's been 2 million jobs lost since President Obama's stimulus package. I know people here will recall we weren't given a chance to read the stimulus bill because we were told that if we waited another day, more people would lose their jobs. So you guys can't read the stimulus bill. Some of us wanted to. Some of us, like me, read the bailout bill. And that's why we knew this was not something, no matter what kind of pressure was brought to bear, not something we could vote for. But we couldn't read the stimulus bill because everyday people were losing their jobs. So you can't read it. Just pass it because we were told that this will start working immediately. So it was rushed through, passed through this House without our doing any kind of diligence, much less due diligence. Then the President sat on it for 4 days until he went to Colorado to have a photo-op to sign it. What happened to all of those people who would have lost their jobs every day if we had taken the time to read the stimulus bill? Now we hear much later, well, nobody expected it to work immediately. Well, that's what you said. You said it was going to work immediately. In fact, the President said, not only was it going to go to work immediately, but we've heard just in recent days that it has done its job. Now we find out it hasn't done its job. People are still losing their jobs every day. So 2 million jobs have been lost since that stimulus was passed, the stimulus that we were not allowed a chance to read or to amend. It was not done properly.

Mr. GOHMERT. I was not aware of us in Texas having enhanced contraception, certainly not for wild horses. It doesn't stop there. It will be interesting to find out from the studies how many green-, brown-, whatever colored jobs these will be that will be created to help the horses with their little contraception issues. In addition, we are going to provide an additional 19 million acres of public and private land for wild horses, and we're going to have $5 million within the bill for repairing horse damage to the land. So that will be interesting. Then also, before any Americans can adopt these wild horses, there are millions in this bill to allow for the home inspections of potential homes that may wish to adopt these wild horses. If you want a wild horse, we're not going to trust you to have a wild horse until we do a home inspection to allow us to check on you. You have to let Big Brother come into your home to see if yours is a fit place for these wild horses. Now, the thing that really gets me here--again, if it weren't so serious and if people weren't losing their jobs as we speak and if there weren't people hurting, this would be comical. I do know I'll get some nasty letters from people: How could you seem so insensitive about the wild horses and about their needs for enhanced contraception? The fact is that this is going to be voted on tomorrow. It will be debated on the floor. We haven't been allowed to read, to amend or to deal with some of the most pressing issues in this country with habitats for Americans. Americans are losing their habitats right and left in this country as they lose their jobs, and we're worried about the wild horses. The thing that came to my mind for people, Mr. Speaker, who may be listening is: when you get on an airplane, one of the first things they do is walk you through the safety instructions. One of the things they tell you is, in the event of an emergency and in the event of a loss of cabin pressure, an oxygen mask will drop down for each passenger. Then they tell you to put your own mask on first. You may have a small child, and you may want to first put it on your child, but unless you put your own mask on first, you may not be able to help the child. Put your own mask on first. Save yourself, and then you'll be able to save others around you. So I thought about that example with application to what's been going on in Congress. You know, if we do not save Americans, save their jobs, save their habitats, then how in the world will there be an American government left to help the wild horses? You want to help the environment, you want to help wild horses? Save the country first. Once the country is saved, then we can get around to saving the wild horses and helping them with enhanced contraception. But until we save this country from bankruptcy and people from losing their homes, we are not going to be able to help anybody, not the wild horses and not their enhanced contraception needs. Those wild horses will be devastated when this country goes bankrupt, and we can't help anybody, much less a wild horse.

Mr. GOHMERT. Absolutely, and I do appreciate my friend for yielding. The takeover of health care by the government will be not just figuratively, but literally, a death knell for so many in America, because the only way socialized medicine has been able to work ever is by putting people on lists, rationing health care, having more general practitioners, getting rid of so many specialists that have made such great strides forward, and then people dying on the list waiting to get health care. That is where we are headed. And it breaks my heart to know so clearly where this goes and what will happen. The way that some of this is being pushed is with class envy and creating this friction among Americans that used to be so much the antithesis of what being an American was. But that has been fracturing America. We are Americans. We need to get rid of being hyphenated Americans and go back to being Americans. Mark Levin was here on the Hill earlier today, and in his great book, ``Liberty and Tyranny,'' he has a quote from Ronald Reagan. And it has so much application today. He said, and this was a quote from Reagan, ``How can limited government and fiscal restraint be equated with lack of compassion for the poor? How can a tax break that puts a little more money in the weekly paychecks of working people be seen as an attack on the needy? Since when do we in America believe that our society is made up of two diametrically opposed classes--one rich, one poor--both in a permanent state of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expense of the other? Since when do we in America accept this alien and discredited theory of social and class warfare? Since when do we in America endorse the politics of envy and division?'' That is what is being driven here. And as my friend knows, some months back I said instead of throwing money at Goldman Sachs, AIG and that kind of thing, how about letting people keep a little of their own money in their own paychecks, let them have their own withholding back for even a couple of months, and you'll see stimulus that was never seen. That wasn't listened to by this administration or this House majority. And we are paying a severe price. And I yield back.

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, ``enhanced contraception'' means we're going to help the horses control the process by which little horses are created. I know it's late, you know, 11:35 here on the east coast, but there could be little children watching out in California, and I'd rather not get more descriptive on the process of how those wild horses are created and on how this enhanced contraception will keep them from creating little wild horses.

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate the gentleman's comment and for yielding back, but I come bearing news. I believe my friend from Iowa, Mr. Speaker, has seen the schedule for tomorrow. We got that tonight. Well, the schedule has a bill on it that is going to be taken up. Let's see. I'm looking for the formal name of the bill, but basically, it's welfare for wild horses. We're going to vote on that tomorrow. We've got people who are losing their jobs every day--devastating households, devastating people--and the bill coming to the floor tomorrow is welfare for wild horses. That's why I say, if it weren't for how serious this is in knowing that real Americans are out there hurting and are having problems with their own habitat, this would be comical. You're going to spend $700 million on welfare for wild horses. In fairness, there's an even late-breaking report that says, well, actually, we're thinking, by the time the smoke clears and by the time all is said and done, it may only be as much as $2 million in welfare for wild horses. This is what's in the bill. We will conduct a wild horse census every 2 years. Yes, the Constitution requires that we have a census for people every 10 years, but in the wisdom of this body or lack thereof, depending on your perspective, we've decided we need a 2-year census to deal with the wild horses. This bill will also provide enhanced contraception. Now there will be a fun job. We were told by this administration that there were going to be green jobs. I don't know if that will be a green job or just what color it will be, but we're going to provide enhanced contraception. That's in the bill, enhanced contraception, and there will be birth control for the wild horses.

Mr. GOHMERT. As my friend from Iowa knows, we don't do things halfway in this Congress. If we're going to provide contraception for wild horses, it will be enhanced. That's what we want to do.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I thought the question mark on the end might have helped it become one. But anyway, I understand it is confusing to the Chair, so I guess no answer is an answer.

Mr. GOHMERT. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Mr. GOHMERT. I understand it is confusing to you as well. But were we designating the month just passed as Home Safety Month?

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, we just voted on H. Res. 543. I voted present because I was confused. This indicates that we are designating June as Home Safety Month. By designating the month that just passed as Home Safety Month, would this be an ex post facto law that would be prohibited by the Constitution?

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I know we have disagreements on some of these issues and I know what the intent is of the Democratic-proposed health care bill. And I know the intent is not to hurt the lower-wage earner. But this bill that's being proposed is going to hammer employers with an 8 percent penalty if they don't provide health care. Well, so they're going to turn around and provide health care because the people I know are saying, We're just hanging on. We've got these good workers. We don't want to lose them. So if I'm going to be penalized 8 percent, I'll have to provide health care; but I'm going to have to reduce their wages by the amount the health care costs. It may be $5,000 or $6,000. And I'm begging my friends on the other side--this is my plea, Mr. Speaker--don't take $5,000 or $6,000 of wages from the lowest-wage earners right now. Don't force small businesses--and I know there is an exemption at the low end--but smaller businesses are still going to have to either lay people off, pay an 8 percent penalty, or take wages away. Don't hurt our lower-wage workers.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my request that the words be taken down since they are withdrawn and I appreciate my friend doing so.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, of course we have heard our President say we are not a Christian Nation. People can decide for themselves. But I thought it was worth pointing out that when the Washington Monument, right down the Mall from us, was dedicated, they put an aluminum-capped stone on it, four sides, there's writing on all four sides, but on the side that faced the Capitol were the Latin words ``Laus Deo,'' Praise be to God. Now, the reason they put that facing the Capitol was so that every day when the first rays of God's sun hit the very first thing in this Nation's Capitol, it was the words ``Praise be to God.'' Every morning, the first rays of God's sun hit the first thing in the Capitol is ``Praise be to God.'' Just thought you ought to know.

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. 3183, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. Cypress Valley Watershed Project. The Red River Valley Association, P.O. Box 709, Shreveport, LA 71162, Corps of Engineers, Investigations Account, $100,000 to resume the Cypress Valley Watershed study. This project examines the current and projected water resource needs of the Caddo Lake wetlands and evaluates how Lake O' the Pines reservoir could be operated to potentially meet a broader spectrum of water resources needs in one of the nation's premier natural lakes which is rapidly disappearing because of non-native invasive species.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. We heard our President say that we're not a Christian Nation--and he may be right, but for those like the President whose education was lacking a great deal in the fullness of our history, I wanted to refer to the greatest resignation of all times. When George Washington led the military in the Revolution, he did what no man has ever done before or since--won the Revolution and resigned and went home. In his resolution, the last paragraph on this document said, ``I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in His holy protection, that He would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow citizens of the United States, and particularly for the brethren who have served in the field; and finally, that He would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the divine author of our blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy Nation.'' That was George Washington.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Do you think there is any chance that something as ridiculous as amendments being filed in the middle of the night might happen? Do you think it is possible around here?

Mr. GOHMERT. I wanted to thank my friend, Dr. Burgess, and to be among such wonderful physicians. And I have been listening, a trained judge, I got to listen a great deal. And I heard so much wisdom from my friend Dr. Price, Dr. Fleming, Dr. Gingrey, Dr. Broun and Dr. Burgess over the last 4\1/2\ years I have been here, and I have come to know their hearts and know their heart is for the good of America. When we hear about transparency, and we look at what's been happening, look at the Federal Reserve. My goodness, what's going on? And you look at the auto task force and what they have done with that, and now they are going to do that with health care? It's the doctors that save our lives. It's the health care that will save lives. Well, that's what it used to be. And so then we hear, and I don't know if, Mr. Speaker, if the American public knows what former Chairman Barton was saying, but manager's amendments have been filed after committees have done their work, and what little work was done. And the manager's amendment just completely replaces all the work that was done, and it's put in at the last minute. And then we have amendments, as we did on crap-and-trade, that were filed at 3:09 and then supersedes everything and then right up here at the Speaker's desk. There was not a complete copy, as that was made clear. And I have been listening to these things, and I appreciate so much the work of all of these people trying to come together with a plan. And I have been trying to get alleged counsel to put together a compilation of these ideas in a bill, but they will not. They have not so far. Former Chairman Barton has submitted this request, and I hope we have a bill so America can know about what's out there. But I think Dr. Fleming has a great point. Congress ought to be part of anything we make anybody else comply with. And that's why how about a system where instead of Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP, we just put money in a health savings account that the patient controls and get out of what Mr. Shadegg was pointing out, all this bureaucracy, all these insurance companies coming between the patient and the doctor, and then have catastrophic care to cover everything above the health savings account amount where the patient and the doctor decide on treatment. These are things we could do. These are things that will be good for America. These are things that all of us, we have talked about, we would be willing to do ourselves. That's what we ought to do for America. And I am broken-hearted for what this body is going to cram down into the lives of people. And if they think they didn't like some of the things that were dictated from Washington, wait till Washington gets to control your life, because I am guaranteeing you, when the government takes over health care, they have every right to tell you what to do, what to eat, how to live. They will have a right to monitor your credit card receipts. Oops, you had too many Twinkies you bought last month. I mean, that stuff is coming once the government controls your health care. It controls your life.

Mr. GOHMERT. Or 3:09 a.m. perhaps?

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on what my friend from Georgia was saying, about tyranny in this House. We were promised the most open government in the Nation's history. That's what we were promised. There is the Speaker's Web site that even talks about how open it is going to be. Well, it isn't. And as a result, the Nation is being punished because some of the things that our friends across the aisle said before they were elected to the majority to control this city and this country were true. You do better when you have open government and open amendments and can debate these ideas. But that's not what we've gotten. Oh, no. We've had an abuse of the rule process. Why? Because they can. I was asked, as I was around the district this last week, Why do you let them get away with all these things that are going on? And I said, Well, you're not following what's going on. Every time we make a privileged motion, we try to enforce the rules, it's tabled every time, so it's not going anywhere. So no one is held to account for abuses. Why? Because they can--and they didn't want an open government. You know, the founding of this country tells so much. Those guys were so brilliant. They were so much better read than most of the people in this body now. They knew what government led to. They knew what the abuse of power led to. And so they weren't content to have one body elected, they said, let's have two. And not only should we have two bodies, let's make them at odds with each other. We need friction so that there is not this abuse. And not only that, we don't want to do like we've seen some parliaments do where they elect their executive. No, no, no, no. We want the people to elect an executive, and then he will be at odds with those two houses and he will be able to veto what they do. That will give us some protection--because you can't have enough protection from government--but that's not enough. We want another branch. We will have a judicial branch, and then they can veto things that are inappropriate and outside the Constitution. They saw all this coming, and they knew it could be abused if they didn't have these safeguards in the way. But what's happened? Well, we can have an executive that the Congress just says, well, whatever you want. Oh, you wanted an Auto Task Force that will meet behind closed doors, be accountable to nobody? Put together a bill, a plan that is signed by a lazy bankruptcy judge because he doesn't want to have all the hearings the law requires, and it puts people out of business. It's a constitutional taking, but where is the Supreme Court? They start to stop the process and then they say, Go ahead, we'll let you be unconstitutional, we won't stop it. And what has the Congress done? Well, look, Mr. President, if you'll let us keep abusing and running this country into the dust heap of history then we will let you keep doing what you want. It's abusing the process. That's why we had a bill this evening that should have been clean, it should have given money to a friend, a good friend like Israel, but, oh, no, we've got to put all this baloney in there that ends up doing more harm to the purposes for which this Nation was founded than good. So I couldn't vote for it in the end. The stimulus. We couldn't do anything with that--presented at the last minute where no one could amend it. I tried to tell the President and friends in here, look, how about a tax holiday for the people that earn the money? How about that? You let them have it, then you'll see stimulation. And what happened? The President liked the idea. And I heard him on the radio talking about, We're going to leave money in your check--except he said if you jump through all the obstacles, then you could have $65, maybe, in your check. I was talking about $6,000, not $65. Then you would have seen stimulation of the economy. But the process won't let us do that. With the ``crap and trade'' bill, we're driving jobs out of America. We're sending manufacturers to countries that pollute four to 10 times more than we do. How does that help the environment? It doesn't. And a health care bill that's being written behind closed doors so that we will not be able to get the best ideas in there. I'm trying to get a bill put through. Leg counsel said, Well, the Democratic leadership is taking all our time, we can't put yours in a form to bring to the floor. So we're having to try to go around behind other ways to get it done. There are Nation-ending things that are happening, and the Founders put in place ways to stop it. We need to start following those ways.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from Iowa, and I appreciate the chance to participate here. The prior Republican hour, we discussed health care and this socialized medicine that is coming and supposedly is going to be jammed down America's throat next week, at least as far as the House is concerned. And then I got back to my office and listened to my friend from across the aisle talk about his socialized--well, he called it progressive, but you look at the history of the progressive movement. It is a nationalization of things; it is a socialization of things. That is where it is all headed. I was intrigued as I listened to my friend from Iowa talk about these horror stories from Canada and we keep hearing horror stories from England and other places that have socialized medicine, and I was struck by our friend on the other side of the aisle saying this isn't Canada, this isn't England, this is America, we are going to do it right. We are going to do it better. I was struck, and if it weren't so tragic and if it didn't mean that going to socialized medicine as they want, we are going to have people I love dying unnecessarily, it would be a joke. But it is no joke; it is tragic. Because for years, for years we have listened to people say we need to have nationalized health care like Canada. We need to have nationalized health care like England where everybody has all the care they need. That's what we have heard for years. So some of us, like my friend from Iowa, have gone to the trouble to find out more about this socialized medicine, this nationalized care, this public care in Canada, in England, in Europe and in other places. What we find is this isn't something we want. So now we are no longer hearing we need to be like Canada and England and just have public health care, whatever the term is they want to use that particular day, because now we know more of the truth. I talked to a man from Canada last week who was visiting with me. He was telling me about his father who died a year or so ago from a heart attack. And his father knew he needed a bypass surgery and he had to go on the list to get a doctor's appointment. When he finally got the appointment and finally got the diagnostic care, he found out he needed a bypass. So then he went on the list to get bypass surgery. And he was on it for nearly 2 years. I said I knew the lines were long, and my friend from Iowa pointed out there are people in Canada that will just fly you down to Houston if you are with a company that makes enough money that they can do that, but rank-and-file Canadians can't do that. Rank-and-file Americans have no place to go. They can't do that. They would stay in the line and they would die, like his father did. I asked, How was it he stayed in the line so long? Well, he said, bureaucrats moved people in front of him. For over a year, they kept moving people. I said, Wait a minute, I know enough about Canadian care, and I know this bureaucratic, socialized piece of crap they have up there, it gives them a generalized standard of care. And I know they are very caring doctors. In fact, back 30-some years ago, my mother after a brain tumor was found had checked with one who was revolutionizing some areas of brain surgery. Not any more. You come here for that. But anyway, my mother got the best care that medicine could provide because there are very caring doctors in this country and because there were no lines. But with his father, I said as I understand, anywhere you have socialized medicine, you have to have people waiting in line because if you don't, the system goes broke. You can't give people all the care they need when they need it or you go broke because the government can't collect enough tax to pay everything like that. The government can't do that because the government has no money of its own, it has to rely on taxes until it goes socialist completely--as the Soviet Union did, and then they were able to last 70 years because they would kill people and put them in prison if they didn't do exactly what they said. So they set a record, 70 years of socialism. We won't last that long once we get there, if we don't get it turned around. But anyway, you have to put people in line, let them die waiting for treatment and care. But I also know you have to make it a crime for people to move themselves up the list or pay somebody to move them up the list. And so how was it that people kept moving in front of your father, they kept bumping him down the list to get the bypass? And he said, Well, you're right, it is a crime to do something to get yourself moved up. But bureaucrats are allowed to sit in their little cubicle or office somewhere and at their whim decide whoever they may guess ought to be moved up; this guy may need bypass surgery worse than he does, and they kept moving people in front of him. Well, the bureaucrat guessed wrong. The man that needed the bypass surgery the worst died because some bureaucrat wouldn't let him move up the list in a timely manner. That stuff is coming to America. And so when we were promised about this great, nationalized or public--you know, people have figured out socialized care is not something they want, and so now we're hearing it's public, it's a public care thing. Well, I heard my friend across the aisle say, well, an hour before me they talked about a bureaucrat being between you and your doctor. And he said what they talked about an hour ago was fantasy. Well, if we go to the program they're proposing, it may end up seeming like it's fantasy, but it will be a nightmare, and there will be no waking up and walking away from it. You get stuck in that system until it breaks your country because none that I know of have ever been able to successfully come out of it. I was an exchange student to the Soviet Union back in 1973. I visited their medical schools. I visited with doctors. I met with doctors. I met families of doctors. People were embarrassed to tell me one of their parents was a doctor because they didn't pay them much. Now, if you were an assistant to the factory manager, you got a couple of weeks on the Niobrara River and you got some benefits, and that was a good thing, but people were embarrassed because doctors didn't get paid much. Folks, that's where this goes. And I know we've even got some doctors that have said we ought to go to this thing--you know, insurance companies, we hate them, they delay payments, and things need to be done; maybe we need a public health care insurance. The problem is, they may reimburse for a little bit, but eventually you'll get to the salary, eventually the salary does not cover the education it takes to have the level of care we get now and so you have to dumb down the education. Your best and brightest don't apply. I like the top people in my class being the ones that go to medical school. I was encouraged to do that. I had one doctor saying, Lou, you would be such a good doctor, please don't throw your life away and go to law school, but I did. But nonetheless, we're talking about a nightmare for the American people. And when I hear the sob stories about, you know, if we just had public health care, if we had socialized medicine, then these people would be able to get the mammograms, and they would get the care and they would find out about their breast cancer, and they would get treatment. Well, I've got some hard news for you. The fact is that in this country, for localized tumors we have a 98 percent survival rate at 5 years. That is incredible the progress that's been made. Things like the Komen efforts for the cure, I mean, just done great work. Ninety-eight percent survival at 5 years for a localized tumor. Well, if you go to the socialized medicine countries, you find about 20 percent worse results. You get it? One in five people have to die because they went to socialized medicine. Now, I've got three daughters and a wife, I would hate to think that among five women, one of them is going to die because we go to socialized care and we have to have these long lists to get a mammogram, once you find it, to get treatment. It is insane. Now, I agree with my friends, we need change. And I have been to the emergency room, and I've been with my kids, and I've been with my in- laws, and it is not a fun place to be sitting there in long lines. But what you realize is the lines are long because we are having to provide free health care to people that don't pay. And many are undocumented, illegal aliens--whatever you want to call it, and that's why the plan that I proposed is one in which you have to deal with that because that is causing unnecessary pain and suffering in the health care being provided to people that need it, who pay their way, who have health insurance, who have Medicare and Medicaid and SCHIP, they shouldn't have to wait and pay for people who are here to get free care. Now, the plan I have starts with the fact that if, because we know that we are moving to, as one of my friends, Jim Frogue, just pointed out in some research he has done, we're moving toward a $22 trillion a year Medicare/Medicaid system, $22 trillion--we got about $2.5 trillion in income tax last year, you cannot sustain a Nation at a $22 trillion socialized medicine or Medicare/Medicaid system. We have got to do something. We can make it better and cheaper, but we can't have the government bureaucracy handling it. So the proposal says, first of all, this is a matter of national security. Our health care is a matter of national security. We saw what happened in the Soviet Union; when you can't pay your bills, you go broke and you cease to exist. So if we're going to continue to attract people from around the world, then we need to have a country that is not going broke. So under my proposed plan that we're trying to get into a bill--there have been other more pressing things, you know; we had to get a resolution for Michael Jackson, other more pressing things--but under this plan it makes clear that we have to deal with this issue. So if you're going to ask for a visa into our country so that we will continue to have a country that you will want to come to, then you have to show proof that you will have a health savings account which you will be part of when you get here, and you will have catastrophic coverage to cover everything over that. And if you don't have proof of that, then you don't get a visa and get to come into this country. Now, we've been told by the Supreme Court that the law of the land is that if you're here in this country, even if you're here illegally, then we have to provide you health care. So that is what we'll do, we'll follow the law. If you're here illegally, you have no health savings account, you have no insurance, then, yes, we will treat you, we will get you well enough to transport, and then you will be deported. And then because this is a matter of national security and our country is entirely at risk here of going broke and ceasing to exist, if you come back into the country after we've given you free health care and you present for further health care or you're caught here, then you're a risk to our national security to break the country and you will be put in jail. It will be a felony offense if you have taken free health care, been deported, and come back. It's too serious not to make it a Federal felony.

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, I will certainly yield.

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate that. And just on a follow-up on what he's pointing out about transparency, a personal situation, a person I know--I had permission to know about--got hit by another driver. It was totally the other driver's fault. She had 2 days of hospitalization, had all the diagnostic tests, the ambulance, the doctors that she saw. And when all the bills were gathered from all those sources to deal with the car insurance company, it was right about $10,000 in health care. You say, Well, that's kind of consistent with the kind of bills I've seen, people that have been in a hospital 2 days, all the tests and doctors they see. That's about normal. Yet when it came down to the conclusion and the determination had to be made as to how much was actually paid and by whom, all of those health care provider bills that added up to $10,000 said they had been paid in full, consistent with their contract with the health insurance company. So then in checking with the health insurance company as to how much they were actually out of pocket in paying those $10,000 in claims in full, it was $800. Now, if we get to the transparency that my friend from Iowa is talking about, then everybody in America gets the same deal that health insurance company did at $800. So you could have 2 days of hospitalization, and it doesn't even take but a fraction of your health savings account up. The other thing I wanted to point out that kind of segues into a topic that I think my friend wanted to get into before he concluded, that is this business of the same costs. And what we saw in the last 2 weeks over the crap-and-trade bill that got shoved down America's throat through the House, at least--and I am hoping and praying that it won't get through the Senate--we're talking about skyrocketing electric bills, as the President promised a year ago back when he was a Senator running for President. We are talking about skyrocketing gasoline prices. What is so very tragic about what my friend from Iowa pointed out is that with gasoline, it is the same price whether you're rich or poor. Those high electric rates, those high gasoline rates and the high propane rates are going to be inconvenient for Bill Gates. But they are going to devastate the people I know in east Texas and the people I have met in Iowa. They are going to devastate rank-and-file Americans. We really need America to respond and say we can't handle that. Inconvenience for the rich is one thing, but devastation to rank-and- file Americans is something we should not have Congress do. I yield back to my friend.

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate so much my friend from Iowa and those wonderful illustrations of exactly what we are talking about. I know that there are some people in America have concern and I have heard people say, well, I'm afraid, you know, there are so many immigrants coming in, especially from south of the border, that we are going to lose our American culture. And my own personal feeling is that really I think America was blessed with three really central things. One is a faith in God throughout our history, another was a love and devotion to family, and the other was a very good, hard work ethic. So when I see most of the people I know that have come from south of the border up here that have faith in God, that have got a love and devotion to family, and they've got a strong work ethic, I'm actually hopeful that that will strengthen our American social scene here where people have lost faith in God, where they have lost devotion to family, where they don't want to work. But the problem is we have to be unified. Out of many, one means we speak one language. And that means you don't teach kids in some foreign language. You teach them in a language so they have got a chance to be president of a company, not the manual laborer for the company. So I'm still hopeful that when people come legally and assimilate, it is going to make this country stronger and better. But it has to be legal. We cannot ignore the rule of law. That is what has allowed us to be maybe the greatest economy in the world or maybe in history. And the country just south of us should be one of the top 10 economies in the world, but it's not because they pay no mind at all to the rule of law. There is graft and corruption. I appreciate the efforts of the President across the border trying to clean things up, and I hope and pray he has some success. But I wanted to also respond to my friend from across the aisle who said it's time for change now. It seems like I heard a Presidential candidate saying that last fall. And then what we have gotten is about 10 to 20 times more deficit spending than we had when he took office and is about to break the country. So I agree it's time for a change, and let's quit having so much deficit spending. I agree it's time for a change in health care. We cannot allow our government, our country to be brought down because of runaway health care costs. And there's a way to fix this, and it's an American system. I mean, for somebody to come in here and say before God and America and everybody, we are not talking Canada or England here. We are talking about a uniquely American, basically, socialism. My friend from Iowa knows I was a history major. I'm a student of history. And sometimes I am just amazed by the thinking in this body that somehow we are so smart and so much better than all of those who have gone on before us that we can do the same thing that's been done throughout history and get a different result. But if you're smart enough to learn from history, you know, and everybody in this body is smart enough to learn from history, if they just will. And you learn that if you do the same things that historically over and over and over have been tried and gotten the same result, you're going to get the same result too, and you should try something different. So that's why we've got to fix Medicare, we've got to fix Medicaid, and we can't keep on this course of SCHIP getting bigger and bigger and bigger. So what I came up with, after consulting with experts in all these different areas, is, you know what, for 2007 the latest numbers we've got--we've spent $9,215, with the best Census Bureau estimate of how many households are in America--$9,200 roughly for every one of the 112 million households in America between Medicare and Medicaid. So you look at it, and you put your pencil to it, and you realize that, at most, there were 93 million Americans who either got Medicare, Medicaid or some form of SCHIP or some form of combination. We're better off saying, Folks, we want you to have the best care possible. I want my mother-in-law, who's still grieving over the loss of her husband last August, I want her to have the best care. If you're in America and you are an American legally here, then we want you to have $3,500 in your health savings account that you will control with a debit card, and we'll put that $3,500 cash from the government in your health savings account. You control it with your own debit card, and then we'll pay for catastrophic insurance to cover everything above that. Now that's health care that people can believe in and deserve and look at the cost. Less than a third of Americans would need that or be entitled to that. Those who are on Medicare, Medicaid, that are below the poverty level that we really need to help because they can't help themselves, we're better off doing that. Then not only will it cost less than $9,200, as it is now, but you're doing it for less than a third of the American people. So we should be able to save hundreds of billions of dollars, not this $100 million like the President. We will eventually get to that. Man, we're saving hundreds of billions of dollars. We'll get the country on track. We'll get people the health care they deserve. But of course one of the problems is, you can't keep allowing people to immigrate into this country legally or illegally and give free health care because it's not free. It costs everybody. So that's something I came up with. Hopefully there are not too many other resolutions being drafted by Leg Counsel so that they can get around to putting ours in the form of a bill, where we can get a CBO score on it because you can't get a CBO score unless you have it done by Leg Counsel and get a real bill. So we're trying to get that done, and I hope we can get that done. Then one other thing, if I might. You've got to have complete transparency on health care costs because we don't have them now. You get a notice from the hospital, the doctor, you know, $10,000, $20,000, whatever the cost was. ``Wow, thank goodness I had insurance or Medicare. I would have been bankrupt.'' That's not what it costs. It costs a fraction of that. So under this proposal, every health care provider will have to give the exact cost that they charge different entities. They don't have to give the names but the descriptions and how much they charge so that you know what it's going to cost you when you go up there before you give them your debit card to swipe. The card would be coded for health care only. If you try to pay something that's not health care, it wouldn't accept it, and people will get back to controlling their futures. We'll save this runaway health care cost, as it is, and I think save the country as a result. My friend from Iowa has been so very patient and lenient, but this is something that is so passionate to me. I've known too many people who need good health care, and I am sick of insurance companies or government being between me and my doctor. I want patients to be able to get with their doctor, and I don't want socialized medicine. I've seen that. I've seen the results. You can look at the numbers. My friend from Iowa has all these wonderful examples that just break your heart. I don't want my American friends and our kids and their kids to suffer on our watch in this body because we didn't have the nerve to stand up and call it like it was. So I appreciate my friend for yielding, and I yield back to him.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding funding received in my district as part of H.R. 2997, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. Stephen F. Austin Medicinal and Bioactive Crop Research Project. Stephen F. Austin State University, Box 6078 SFA Station, Nacogdoches, Texas 75962, $280,000, in the National Institute of Food and Agriculture RE/FA account, for the continuation of medicinal and bioactive crop research at the National Center for Pharmaceutical Crops. The initiative seeks to discover anti-cancer agents from plants and develop new crops for securing nationally strategic pharmaceuticals. Successful implementation of this research will improve human health, secure the U.S. supply of critical pharmaceuticals that currently come from foreign suppliers, and establish high value crops to revitalize the U.S. rural economy, while ultimately saving and improving America's lives.