[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 8, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H4237-H4242]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  JOBS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, interesting news came out Friday about 
jobs. There was a good Wall Street Journal article June 4. It talked 
about this wonderful news that we heard from Washington that last month 
the job total increased by 431,000. That is fantastic news, just 
wonderful. But there's a little problem in it. The U.S. Department of 
Labor released statistics saying, yes, there were 431,000 jobs created 
last month and that's fantastic and all, but unfortunately, 411,000 of 
them were temporary census worker jobs. Well, it's just hard to feel 
really good about the economy when out of 431,000 new jobs, according 
to the U.S. Department of Labor last month, 411,000 of them were 
government jobs. Not just government, temporary government jobs.
  I've talked to some census workers. We had a job fair in my district 
in Marshall, Texas, at the East Texas Baptist University. They're very 
cooperative and helpful. We had one previously at Laterno University. 
Texas Workforce Commission does such a great job. We've partnered 
together with them and Laterno and Longview and many other partners to 
have a job fair previously. We've had one in Lufkin, partnered with 
Angelina College and the Texas Workforce Commission, and this one was 
in Marshall.

  On one hand, anytime you throw a party and a lot of people show up, 
you're thrilled; this worked out great. But on a very human basis, you 
know that every one of the people that come seeking jobs have broken 
hearts. Most of them have families who need them to get jobs. So many 
of them, you know, long-time employees somewhere, and we have not done 
them any favors by the work that's been done here in Congress going 
back to failing to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which really put 
us to the brink of economic collapse. Complete failure to do that, to 
reform them.
  Then in September, October of 2008, as a potential meltdown began, 
many people don't know but there were more homes sold in September of 
2008 than in any month in the last 5 years before that. But of course, 
once the Secretary of Treasury went out and said unless Congress gives 
me $700 billion, there's going to be a total meltdown, but give me $700 
billion in a slush fund and I'll pay off my buddies on Wall Street and 
I'll get everything going good, and you know, basically inferring 
that--and I think he legitimately believed, if all the people that he 
had worked with and knew so well on Wall Street maintained their 
wealth, continued to get rich or richer, didn't go bankrupt, then it 
surely would be good for the rest of America.
  Little did he know that that was not the case. We bailed out folks, 
and you know, it's interesting. It also said something about the 
morality in America because there was a time in America if you got 
greedy, a little hasty, and drove your cart off in a ditch and your 
neighbors helped you get your cart out of that ditch, then you felt a 
little guilty. It was a moral thing. You had a conscience and you felt 
guilty because your neighbors helped you get your cart out of the 
ditch, and they did not contribute at all in you getting it there. It 
was your own negligence, your own greed.
  And so nowadays we've gotten to the point where AIG, Goldman Sachs, 
Wall Street, some of them at least--they let Lehman Brothers go because 
they were a competitor of Goldman Sachs--but anyway, they got greedy, 
extremely greedy, careless, and ran their cart into a ditch, and there 
was no way they were going to get out. They should have been forced to 
go into bankruptcy and reorganize like every other entity but they 
didn't.
  America, most of us didn't like the idea. We didn't support it. We 
were totally against it, but nonetheless we were forced to get Goldman 
Sachs' cart out of the ditch. And what has happened since? Well, 
they've gotten in their cart, motorized it, and run over the rest of 
us.
  So that didn't work out so well, and in January of 2009, when we 
heard that Timothy Geithner was going to be appointed to be Secretary 
of the Treasury, well, what we heard from folks down the other end of 
the hall was, well, we need to confirm him as Treasury Secretary 
because he worked with Paulson on the plan. To my way of thinking, this 
meant this guy should not get near the Treasury Department, but that's 
not what happened.
  So we've continued to have the Federal Government continue to take 
over more and more authority, usurp more of individuals' moneys, their 
credit, the potential capital out there to create private jobs, just 
sucked it up in Washington, and in the meantime, the Federal Reserve 
apparently is printing lots of money. And so we're just doing all kinds 
of good things, and it is continuing to drive us toward a cliff.
  And for anybody to stand up and try to make it sound like great news, 
431,000 new jobs last month, that's the most in a number of years, it's 
fantastic, it's great, and not realize or not be forthcoming enough to 
point out that nearly all those jobs, the vast majority of them, were 
temporary census jobs is just not right, and it's not doing right by 
America.

[[Page H4238]]

  So in this article, The Wall Street Journal points out some of the 
problems. This says, because the temporary workforce is more 
productive, the bureau is closing some offices earlier than planned. So 
it goes on to talk about the Census Bureau. Really tragic. That's the 
best we've got. That's the best we can offer to America.
  I yield to my friend from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentleman from Texas broaching 
this particular issue. Some people have asked me what is the Federal 
Government going to do about jobs. It's very clear the Federal 
Government has two options. One is you can actually create Federal jobs 
and fund them and run them and hire people for them, and the second is 
the Federal Government can create an environment that encourages the 
private sector to create jobs.
  Indeed, at the beginning of the Great Depression in the 1930s, one of 
the problems that the country had was there were a great many people 
that had money that did not invest that money. They sat on the money 
because they were watching what the government would do and had a great 
deal of anxiety as to what the government would do, would it attack 
business or would it build a climate that was favorable to business.
  In some respects, I think we have that same situation today where 
there are people out there with money that could invest and expand the 
economy but, indeed, are waiting and watching to see what the policies 
of this country will be with some level of anxiety as to what that 
policy actually would be.
  If I can try and put this on a very personal level, I'm doing a 
history of my family and my father. My father, who was older when I was 
born, went 2 years at the depths of the Depression without a permanent 
job.

                              {time}  2000

  I have sometimes wondered what it would be like to be in that 
situation. Indeed, in the depths of the Depression, he was finally 
bailed out by collecting a job that was actually a government job. He 
got one of the New Deal-era jobs.
  As much as he was grateful for that, he always warned me to be wary 
of those types of jobs created by the government, for he told me that a 
government that could create the job to give to you is also a 
government that can create and defund the job and take it away. Indeed, 
that is exactly what happened to him a few years later. The government 
decided to change courses, and that job was no longer there.
  I thought it was very wise of him to recognize that those distinct 
possibilities were there and the Federal Government has two things we 
can do: one is create jobs, which is temporary at best; or one is 
create climate and an atmosphere that expands the private sector. I 
think I would at least argue at this point that that would be the 
wisest approach for this government to take.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I really appreciate that point. Of course, it's the 
problem we have right now. When the Federal Government is moving toward 
a 1.3 to $1.6 trillion deficit in 1 year, they are sucking the capital 
from every corner of the world, printing some, and there is not money 
for the private sector. We have had meetings with the Federal Reserve 
people, including Chairman Bernanke. We have had meetings with people 
in the OCC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and from the 
FDIC.
  In the last couple of years we have had a number of meetings, and 
what we hear from people who are trying to borrow money to stay in 
business, people that have had lines of credit at their local bank for 
20 years are now being told we are not going to continue your line of 
credit. And when they asked, have I ever been late, have I missed a 
payment, what is the problem?
  Well, our banking regulators have told us that they are going to, you 
know, be all over our bank and we can't handle the pressure if we keep 
loaning you money, extending your line of credit.
  We broached that subject with Chairman Bernanke, that some of the 
regulators are requiring more capital and more money in reserve than is 
required under the law, and they are putting pressure on the bank not 
to make loans that they made for years, and it's loans that make banks 
most of their money. If you don't allow them to loan money, then they 
are not going to make money, and they are going to go under.
  Then heaven help us, the FDIC insurance account will be hit more, and 
we will have to bail out more banks and what-not, all because we had 
some silly regulators who were concerned that a bank they were 
supervising might some day go under and it might look bad for their 
career advancement, and so they put too much heat on a local bank.
  Now, there is greed, there is avarice that has gone on in some 
places; but most of that was in the investment banks, not in the local 
community banks, which were doing okay until ``Chicken Little'' Paulson 
started running around screaming the financial sky was falling. And the 
next month we went from selling more homes than any time in 5 years to 
selling no homes. We went from people buying cars to people not buying 
any cars, and it put us in a terrible funk.
  It was all because this so-called financial genius that was chairman, 
and his protege is now running Treasury now, wasn't smart enough or 
educated enough in the ways of the world that when you go out and say 
we are going to have a depression, banks are going to fail one after 
another. When you create panic yourself, it is a self-fulfilling 
prophecy.
  That's why, when they went out, and he talked, bless his heart, he 
talked President Bush into going out and joining ranks with him and 
getting on the chicken little brigade, that the financial sky was 
falling and scared America. When you go out and the President and 
Secretary of the Treasury are saying that if they don't pass this 
particular bill, whatever, it wouldn't matter--if they don't pass this 
bill on Monday in the House, then the market is going to crash a lot 
worse than 1929.
  It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It fell 777 points; people panicked. 
Many Republicans got talked into voting for the bill and joining most 
of the Democrats that voted for the TARP bailout bill. It should have 
been ended long ago; it was a big mistake.
  But, boy, everybody needs to feel good, though. Goldman Sachs had 
their biggest profit year in their history last year. So their jobs are 
secure; they are doing good.
  But for the rest of America, there is a problem with capital; there 
is a problem with too little regulation over the investment banks, no 
reform over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none. It is not even in this 
so-called financial reform that's really a financial deform bill, 
because it has a systemic risk council that allowed the Federal 
Government, in complete abrogation of what my friends were talking 
about in the prior hour about the 10th Amendment, and the power 
reserved of the States and people, just a complete ignoring of all of 
that. They are going to pick and choose winners and losers.
  Your company is too big too fail; we will never let it fail. So that 
means they can run in the red; they can run their competition out of 
business. They will be the last business standing in that particular 
area because our systemic risk council from Washington, their lofty 
Mount Zion realm, said we picked this one to be the systemic risk.
  The government was never supposed to have that kind of power. This 
country never got to be the greatest country in the history of the 
world by having Washington pick and choose winners and losers, and 
that's what that financial deform bill does, and I hope that it doesn't 
come with many of the provisions that are in there now, but it looks 
like that's what is going to happen.
  But, anyway, we're sucking the capital out, we are preventing the 
private sector from creating the jobs. And then they saw this health 
care bill, they saw it passed.
  As our Speaker pointed out, we had to pass the bill so we could find 
out what's in it. Some of us actually read most of it, so we had a good 
idea what was coming and that's why we fought so hard against it.
  There are going to be more jobs lost. There have already been jobs 
lost because of that bill. There's going to be more jobs lost.
  When I hear people who didn't read the bill and didn't know what all 
it did, but they just took the word of people pushing it, they really 
believed when they said here on the floor, it's going to help the 
working poor. It's going to

[[Page H4239]]

help those hardworking folks that don't have enough money. If you read 
the bill, you find out that actually if you don't make enough money to 
buy as good a policy as the government is mandating, we know you are 
working poor, we know you are struggling.
  If you had the money, you would buy better health insurance. But 
since you don't, we are going to pop you with another additional income 
tax. We are going to add a couple of percent to your income tax. Merry 
Christmas. You don't have enough money to buy the insurance, we tell 
you, bless your heart, you are working poor, you are going to be poorer 
because of this health care bill.
  During the job fair last week, I was talking to an employer who was 
saying, you know, we have got a number of jobs that are entry level so 
they are making minimum wage, but it's a good entry-level place and we 
provide some good health insurance. So it's minimum wage, but we 
provide them health insurance. It's a great place for somebody young 
just starting out, get their foot in the door, get experience and be 
able to advance up from there.
  Well, guess what, under the health care bill that was passed and 
signed into law this spring, he can't do that for people that make 133 
percent or less of the poverty level. So those people who would go take 
that job because even though it's minimum wage, provides health 
insurance, bad news. Under the bill, they are going to have to go on to 
Medicaid, not Medicare, but Medicaid.
  Now, some States have increased some of the reimbursement rates under 
Medicaid. Well, that's coming to an end real quick because of all the 
additional unfunded mandates on the States that's going to add billions 
to what they have to come up with. They are not going to be able to do 
that.
  We already saw there was polling, New England Journal of Medicine and 
others, doctor polling that indicates 35 percent, some as much as 55 
percent of the current physicians, when this kicks into law, will 
retire and quit practicing medicine. Oh, well, that's great, that's 
really going to be good for the working poor and how about the 
President's own words when he said on the day before the bill passed 
here, his own words: where as in the past you went to the doctor and 
you got five tests, now you will go to the doctor and you will get one 
test. Well, wasn't that good news?
  Some of us know that's not a good idea. In some cases, there are 
tests that are given, purely from doctors practicing defensive medicine 
because of lawsuits that are threatened and that they worry about. But 
on the other hand, there are doctors who conduct tests because they 
know there is something there. They know there is something there. And 
one test doesn't show up, well, let's try this, because I know there's 
something there.
  That's what was the case with my mother in 1976. It took them 6 days 
to find her brain tumor. Our local doctor, one of the local doctors 
where I grew up, had told my dad that if she gets much worse you may 
just end up needing to commit her. Well, it was very tough for a woman 
as brilliant as my late mother to think that she was going crazy. But 
that's what the local doctor thought because he was a general 
practitioner; he didn't have the expertise of terrific experts.
  But after 5 or 6 days of testing, they found she had a little brain 
tumor. She wasn't going crazy; she had a little brain tumor that was 
causing her problems. Because they found it when they did, we got to 
keep my mother for 15 more years.
  So I would kind of have hated for my mother to have had one test, 
like that's some kind of good news. That means she may well have been 
committed to an insane asylum on the recommendation of a general 
practitioner.
  But if you look at what the health care bill does, it pushes people 
more and more to general practitioners and thank God for them. Some of 
my closest friends are general practitioners. They do an incredible 
job. They have to know so much about so many different areas of 
medicine. Then they are able to figure out, ah, you have got that 
problem, let's get you over to the specialist. Then the specialist can 
home in for their whole career on a specific problem. Under this health 
care bill, that's not going to be the case.
  But I got off on this from the job situation. Well, you don't have to 
worry about your health care; we are going to fix it to where we cut 
$500 billion out of Medicare. You don't think that's going to help pay 
or that's going to be funded partially by what the President promised? 
In the past, you go to the doctor and get five tests and now you go and 
get one test. Okay.
  Then how about the $500 billion in new taxes? Well, I have talked to 
employers. Last week, we were not in session. I talked to employers 
that say, there is so much being stacked on top of my head, and I can't 
get my line of credit extended. You know, there is no sense in me 
continuing this. This is nuts. I am not hiring.
  Then because of the provision in the bill, in the health care bill, 
which starts popping a tax above a certain level of employees, lots of 
employers that I have talked to are going to start making sure they 
don't go over that. They could use more people, but they are not going 
to go over the limit because they don't want to start paying that 
$2,000 per employee tax that you get popped with once you have too many 
employees.
  You know, and it--I just wonder, do we not notice what kinds of 
incentives we are putting in place? We are putting incentives in place 
to hire fewer people. We are eliminating capital, making it, that would 
have made it easier for the private sector to hire people than 
for Congress and for the Federal Government.

  But these Census jobs, as this headline in The Wall Street Journal 
says, Census jobs end all too soon, and they will, and it's going to be 
tough when they do, 411,000 temporary workers hired last month by the 
Census. We are going in the wrong direction.

                              {time}  2015

  This is not a good thing. We are doing more damage. And even before 
Republicans lost the majority in 2006, there were so many of us that 
were pleading, Look, we're in a hole. It's time to stop digging. And in 
November of 2006, because Republicans had the audacity to run up a $100 
billion, $200 billion deficit in 1 year, it was outrageous, and 
Democrats rightfully won the majority because Republicans had not been 
as conscientious about making sure we didn't run this government into a 
ditch ourselves. And with the promise that their majority would see 
there were no more deficits, we would get this country on track, we 
would stop the craziness that the Republicans had in this deficit 
spending, we now find this year a projection of a $1.3 to $1.6 trillion 
deficit in 1 year. It's just hard to get my mind around--not that I 
have much of a mind to get around anything, but that is such an 
extraordinary amount of money to be in the hole in 1 year.
  I read an article somewhere where around the world people are 
starting to say, Well, one thing we know for sure, since the United 
States is willing to run up over a $1 trillion deficit in 1 year, then 
clearly they're not serious about paying their debts. Well, some people 
can't remember what happens when a government spends so much money that 
it doesn't have that no one will loan them money again. And we've also 
forgotten a lesson from history of what happens if you try to print 
your way out of debt by printing money. Germany tried that, and it just 
created such runaway inflation--remember the cartoons, the wheelbarrow 
full of money to go buy a loaf of bread? Well, we're printing money at 
record rates. We are running a deficit at never even comprehended 
rates.
  For those who can remember, basically, the Soviet leader had to stand 
up and say--this was basically the essence--We can't borrow enough 
money anymore to stay in business. We can't print enough money to stay 
in business. We're out of business. States are each on their own now.
  Well, there are some in this country that think that might be a good 
idea. But this Nation got to be the greatest in history because we were 
together as a Nation, all 50 States, fussing and disagreeing among 
ourselves as family, but never before in history have we come so close 
to voluntarily going over a cliff. I mean, World War II, record amounts 
of money were being spent. We were fighting for our very lives, for 
liberty and for freedom.
  Some don't remember. There were Germans that came ashore. One 
American citizen was with them, and of

[[Page H4240]]

course they were captured. They were going to commit war crimes here in 
the United States. They were captured, tried--by military commission, 
by the way--but under the rules of law, you can hang on to them as long 
as there's a war going on. That's a whole other issue, but it's a way 
in which we're not learning from history. We're thinking that when 
people are at war with you, you can treat them better than our own 
soldiers are being treated in courts martial, give them more rights 
than our own soldiers have.
  It's because people don't understand the Constitution. They don't 
understand the Constitution embraces the congressionally passed Uniform 
Code of Military Justice that embraces, as the Supreme Court 
pronounced, the Military Commission Act of 2006, as amended last year. 
Of course, the amendment mainly required us to quit calling them 
``enemy combatants'' and now, under the new law last year, we call them 
``unprivileged alien enemy belligerents,'' not ``combatants.''
  We're not learning the lessons of history. And when nations fail to 
do that, it becomes clear, eventually, that they are well on their way 
to the dustbin of history. We don't have to do that. This country could 
last 200 more years, 400 more years, but we have to learn the lessons 
and the mistakes of the past and grow and learn from them. We haven't 
done that.
  We are not going to see private sector jobs created as long as the 
Federal Government is sucking up all the money, sucking up all the 
capital. There's not much left to loan. And the private sector can do 
so much more creating jobs than the Federal Government does because 
obviously--you know, the Federal Government itself is a giant Ponzi 
scheme. You know, adding 411,000 workers in 1 month, you can't keep 
doing that and still pay for it. The Ponzi scheme known as the Soviet 
Union went out of business. That's what will happen to us as well.
  So, anyway, one of the things that we have failed to learn from 
history--I wanted to talk about jobs a little bit and then spend the 
remaining time talking about another area in which people just don't 
seem to be learning here in Washington from history. It's not hard to 
find. It's more accessible than it has ever been in the history of 
mankind. We've got the Internet. You can find all kinds of credible 
information. You want to go back and read John Quincy Adams' incredible 
closing arguments that went on for over 2 days in the Amistad case? You 
can get it. You want to read Ben Franklin's entire speech before the 
Constitutional Convention, 1787, where he said, If a sparrow cannot 
fall to the ground without His notice, is it possible an empire can 
rise without His--the Lord's--aid? He said, We are told in the sacred 
writing that unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that 
build it. And he said, I also firmly believe that without His--God's--
concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better 
than the builders of Babel. We shall be confounded by our local partial 
interests, and we, ourselves, shall become a byword down through the 
ages. He went on. But you can find that whole speech, you can find all 
that material. You can find the lessons that have been learned through 
history.
  If you don't have a Bible and you wonder what was the most quoted 
book here in the House of Representatives for the first 100-plus years 
of our history, it may have been 150 years, the most quoted book here 
on the House floor was the Bible. I have one right here, the most 
quoted book in the House of Representatives for most of its history. If 
you wanted a bill to be passed, then you better find some wisdom in 
Scripture and share it with people so they understand.

  Well, we had something last week. It was called by some a ``peace 
flotilla,'' but it was quite clear that there was a lot more to it than 
that, that this was a contrived plan. This was an effort to embarrass 
Israel, because the proponents knew that Israel would have to defend 
itself, there was no question about that. They have been hit with so 
many thousands of rockets from the Gaza Strip, they had to eventually 
defend themselves. And lest we forget, the Gaza Strip was controlled as 
part of Israel until Israel's leaders thought, You know what? It's not 
part of any treaty. It's not part of any demand, but what if we gave 
the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians? What if we just gave that 
unilaterally, not asking anything in return? I mean, what an incredible 
show of good faith that would be. That would surely provoke our 
adversaries into realizing we do want peace, so let's give away the 
Gaza Strip.
  Now, they hadn't learned a whole lot from the fact that you could 
give away a part of what was part of Israel at the time, controlled by 
Israel, give that to southern Lebanon and they will know that we are 
really interested in peace and things should really go well, continuing 
not to get the message that every time it seems that Israel gives away 
land, even going back to its early inception centuries and centuries 
and centuries before there was Muhammad, there was Islam, Israel, if 
they gave away land, it was normally used as a staging area later to 
attack them because they had given away something that was under their 
control.
  And I wondered about the mentality--do you guys not get it? You give 
away land. You get attacked from it every time you seem to give it 
away--until I made a couple of trips over and you begin to realize the 
mentality: after years and years of suicide bombs, family members just 
having coffee at this restaurant, alive one minute, laughing with kids, 
with their children, dead the next minute; a suicide bomber walking 
down into an area of school children so he can blow himself up and kill 
children; when you see and you understand there have been so many 
rockets flying into Israel and you find out the mentality apparently 
for so many Israelis has been, Look, we just want to be left alone. We 
just want to be left alone. We will give you land, unilaterally give it 
away, not demand, just please leave us alone.
  I was reminded of the routine Bill Cosby talked about where--and I 
think out of the first six albums I ever had, three of them were Bill 
Cosby. He had a way of taking life and helping you to look at yourself 
and laugh. But he talked about as a parent, the youngest one screaming 
and hollering, and he said, Hey, stop. And the little girl screams, 
Well, I want this. And the other kids saying, It's ours. It's ours. And 
he says, I don't care. Let her have it. You've got to stop the 
screaming. She's got a lot of my stuff, too. Just let her have it so 
she will quit screaming.
  And I thought about Bill Cosby's comment because I get that 
impression, you know, the Israelis were so tired of the death and the 
suicide bombs and rockets and grenades, they said, Look, we'll just 
give you land if you will leave us alone. Let us live in peace.
  So I understand better the mentality that says, Here, we will 
unilaterally give away land that actually makes it harder for us to 
protect ourselves, because they're thinking that that will bring about 
acts of kindness on the other side, not realizing when you're dealing 
with people who, because of religious zealotry, have made clear that 
they want to see your nation wiped completely off the map, they're not 
really going to get all touchy-feely over some gift that you make. 
That's what has happened with Gaza. They acted out of such wonderful 
intentions, Let's give this land to the Palestinians.
  And after you've seen what was there--there were greenhouses. There 
were ways that people could make a living there, and there were ways 
that people could produce their own food there. Instead, once they gave 
the land away, the greenhouses were destroyed. So many were plundered, 
just acts of violence. Well, it was the Israelis, so destroy it. These 
were ways they could have lived and eaten and made a good living, and 
they destroyed it.

                              {time}  2030

  So, hopefully, people in Israel are beginning to understand you've 
got to defend yourself and that acts of peacefulness are not going to 
be met with acts of peace in response. They are going to be met with 
flotillas, with Kazan rockets, and with death in your own country.
  Because the idea is not to get a strip of land here at Gaza; it is 
not to get a strip of land here in the northern part of Israel; it is 
not to get the Golan Heights. You know, it is not to get the West Bank 
and to enlarge that. No, not at all. It is to wipe Israel off the map.
  It's interesting how and it grieves me much, actually, to know that 
there are well-educated people who have gone

[[Page H4241]]

through life thinking that the Israelis, the Jewish people, had no 
history prior to the Palestinians in that area, that their history was 
more in Germany and in Poland and in America. America didn't even have 
any idea that Israel existed, other than the Native Americans.
  A tragic thing happened here just recently. For the first time in 
United States history, the United States decided to ignore thousands of 
years of lessons and to demand, with Israel's enemies, that they let 
the world know exactly what weaponry they have, what nuclear weaponry 
they have. Let everybody know exactly what you've got. It was well-
intentioned, I'm sure, on the part of this administration, but what a 
disastrous mistake.
  I thought about Hezekiah, King of Israel, long before the days of 
Mohammad, when Israel was a nation in the land where they now are. King 
Hezekiah was the son of Ahaz.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  June 8, 2010 on Page H4241 the following appeared: I thought 
about Ezaki, King of Israel,
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: I thought about 
Hezekiah, King of Israel,


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  June 8, 2010 on Page H4241 the following appeared: King Ezaki 
was the son of Ahaz.
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: King Hezekiah 
was the son of Ahaz.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  For a little history, Ahaz, as King of Israel, had seen the northern 
kingdom make an alliance with Assyria, and it made a very powerful 
alliance in military. They were marching toward Jerusalem, and it 
appeared there was no way they could be stopped. And that's when, 
according to scripture, God told Isaiah to go find Ahaz at the cistern 
and tell him, I'm not going to let that alliance take Jerusalem. Isaiah 
did that, and they did not take Jerusalem. Ahaz changed his ways, and 
Israel was blessed centuries before there was Mohammad. They were 
greatly blessed.
  Then his son Hezekiah came along, and things went well for much of 
his reign. You know, there were ups and down, as any nation has. There 
were ups and downs in Hezekiah's private life.
  Following the tradition that for most of this nation's history was a 
reading and quoting from the Bible as the most quoted book here on the 
House floor, 2 Kings 20:14--and I'm skipping a lot:


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  June 8, 2010 on Page H4241 the following appeared: Following the 
tradition for most of this nation's history was a reading and a 
quoting from the Bible, as the most quoted book here on the House 
floor, of the Second Kings, chapter 20, versus 14- and I am 
skipping a lot:
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Following the 
tradition that for most of this nation's history was a reading and 
quoting from the Bible as the most quoted book here on the House 
floor, 2 Kings 20:14- and I am skipping a lot:


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Then Isaiah, the prophet, came to King Hezekiah and said to him, What 
did these men say, and from where have they come to you? Hezekiah, who 
was king, said, They have come from a far country, from Babylon.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  June 8, 2010 on Page H4241 the following appeared: Then Isaiah, 
the prophet, came to King Ezaki and said to him,
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Then Isaiah, the 
prophet, came to King Hezekiah and said to him,


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  June 8, 2010 on Page H4241 the following appeared: Ezaki, who 
was king, said, They have come from a far country, from Babylon.
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Hezekiah, who 
was king, said, They have come from a far country, from Babylon.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Isaiah said, What have they seen in your house?
  Hezekiah answered, They have seen all that is in my house. There is 
nothing among my treasuries that I have not shown them.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  June 8, 2010 on Page H4241 the following appeared: Ezaki 
answered, They have seen all that is in my house.
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Hezekiah 
answered, They have seen all that is in my house.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  You know, Isaiah knew that was absolutely stupid to bring in people 
who would like to see his country destroyed and gone, who would like to 
have his treasure that he had built and created and to show them 
everything he had.
  I mean, it's like saying for people who play poker, ``I am such a 
benevolent poker player. Let me show you my cards. I'll take two cards, 
and I'll show you what they are, and now here is my five. Okay. Who 
wants to bet?'' You don't do that.
  It would be like playing chess and saying, ``Now, I want to be 
benevolent, and so I'm going to tell you you're tempted to move here. 
If do you that, I'm going to move here, here, and here, and it will be 
checkmate.'' You can't do that. That lesson should have been learned 
repeatedly, and it was not.
  Isaiah foretold to Hezekiah, continuing on in verse 16:


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  June 8, 2010 on Page H4241 the following appeared: Isaiah 
foretold to Ezaki, continuing on in verse 16:
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Isaiah foretold 
to Hezekiah continuing on in verse 16:


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Hear the word of the Lord: Behold, the days are coming when all that 
is in your house and that all that your fathers have laid up in store 
to this day shall be carried to Babylon. Nothing shall be left, says 
the Lord.
  I don't care whose history it is. If you fail to learn from history, 
you're asking for disaster. To borrow a line from Proverbs, which was 
later the title of a movie: You're going to inherit the wind.
  You can't do that. This great country of ours can't now turn on 
Israel and demand of Israel to make the disastrous, disastrous mistake 
that Hezekiah did. Sure, we'll bring you in. We'll show you everything 
we've got. We're demanding that now, with Israel's enemies, that 
they've got to show everything they've got to those who want to see 
them gone. And to people like Ahmadinejad who has pledged that Israel 
will be wiped off the map? You're going to let them know every 
defense--everything that Israel has?


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  June 8, 2010 on Page H4241 the following appeared: disastrous 
mistake that Ezaki did.
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: disastrous 
mistake that Hezekiah did.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  What kind of naivete is running the place? I know it's well-
intentioned. Just like the health care bill, it's well-intentioned; but 
as a result, people are going to be put on lists like they have been in 
England, like they have been in Canada, and they're going to die, 
waiting for their treatments, for their tests. Here we are, well-
intentioned, refusing to learn the clear lessons of history.
  So what did we see last week? Well, actually, we can go back to May 
25, 2010. Israel became aware that there was a Free Gaza flotilla, so 
they advised Turkey and other governments, whose nationals Israel knew 
were going to participate, that Israel could not allow the self-styled 
humanitarian mission to breach its defensive and able blockade of Gaza.
  Now, it would be like, after 9/11, people who would like to see this 
country wiped off the map, the United States. Ahmadinejad has made that 
clear, that Israel is the little Satan and that the U.S. is the big 
Satan. He wants to see us gone. It would be like a group of peace-
loving people saying, ``We're coming onto an airplane, and we're not 
going to let you check us. We're not going to go through your metal 
detectors. We're coming, and there are lots of us. By the way, we also 
have metal poles and knives, and we will shoot you, too, when you try 
to stop us. We're going to get on those planes, whether you want it or 
not, because we're going to style ourselves the Free America flotilla--
airtilla. We're going to be `Airtilla the Hun.' We're going to bring 
people into the airports. We're going to overwhelm the security, and 
we're going to get on those airplanes without being checked.''

  This is what is being done to Israel after thousands and thousands 
and thousands of rockets have been launched from the Gaza Strip into 
Israel, killing Israelis, maiming children. I mean, Israel couldn't let 
that go on.
  So, sure, we'll let the humanitarian aid through. They made that 
clear. But they made clear back as early as May 25 that they were not 
going to allow anybody to breach the naval blockade.
  So, apparently, the nations that Israel warned did not take it to 
heart. In fact, one flotilla participant said on May 28 that this 
mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies; it's about 
breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians, and that's the 
truth.
  By the way, en route, the Arab news channel Al Jazeera exalted 
jihadist martyrdom and sang Palestinian intifada songs. On May 29, 
Hamas consents to broadcast on its state-controlled television in Gaza 
an interview with a leading Gaza professor, calling on flotilla 
passengers to engage in martyrdom with the people of Gaza.
  On May 30, despite repeated warnings from Israel defense forces, the 
six vessels continued their voyage toward the security zone. Aboard one 
of the ships, one person told Turkish television, ``We will definitely 
resist, and we will not allow the Israelis to enter here.'' Another 
said, ``If Israel wants to board this ship, it will meet strong 
resistance.'' Israel's mistake was not taking those quotes to heart, 
not taking them literally.
  On May 31, 2010, Israeli Navy personnel warned all six flotilla ships 
that they are about to enter restricted waters. Again, Israel offers to 
collect humanitarian aid and have it delivered to the Gaza Strip by the 
United Nations, but the ships again refuse to comply. Aboard one of the 
ships, it is announced, ``We are going to resist, and resistance will 
win.'' Militants on the ship begin yelling, ``Intifada, intifada.''
  Well, we know what happened from there. Some don't. Some haven't 
watched. I mean, they've watched mainstream America and they haven't 
seen the Israelis being beaten with metal pipes, they haven't seen the 
Israelis being stabbed, they haven't seen Israeli soldiers shot and 
thrown overboard.
  How would we react in America if people decided to peacefully 
overwhelm security at our airports, to get on airplanes for benevolent 
causes, who then stabbed or beat security agents at our airports? We 
wouldn't put up with that. Well, I don't know. Maybe this 
administration would; hard to say. But we know from history that's a 
big mistake.
  What really breaks my heart is some of us have been seeing this stuff 
coming, and I wanted this to be a very bipartisan effort. So, for some 
months, I've been trying to get a pro-Israel group on board, I've been 
trying to get friends across the aisle on board with a resolution that 
would make very clear

[[Page H4242]]

that we support Israel's defending itself, whatever needs to be done, 
and if nothing else has worked, that the military means are supported 
by this Nation.
  Instead, this administration has been snubbing Israel. He snubbed 
their Prime Minister previously when he came to Washington. He walked 
off. ``I'm going to go have dinner with my family. Why don't you just 
stay here in the White House for the night so you can come around and 
do what I've demanded, and you can let me know when you get ready to do 
what I've demanded.'' Prime Minister Netanyahu appropriately didn't 
stay. He went to the Embassy. He didn't need to be blackmailed into 
anything.
  I realize, you know, we're all victims of the environment in which we 
grew up, and if you grew up in an environment, say, for example, 
Chicago, where you're used to snubbing folks--you do that in France, 
and it's no big deal. So it's understandable that would be brought to 
the White House.

                              {time}  2045

  But the trouble is, when you're the most powerful executive in the 
world, and you snub a friend, there are international implications. 
Things like that have been known to start wars and cost thousands and 
thousands of lives. Activity like that has consequences, and the world 
has been watching while we snubbed our ally, who has more of the same 
rights in their nation that we have in this one than any nation in the 
Middle East. And we're snubbing them? And we're trying to force them to 
do what they did in giving away land to southern Lebanon, giving away 
the Gaza Strip, not defending itself, now demanding that they show all 
of their weaponry? That has consequences. It can start wars.
  And the reason that I've been working behind the scenes for so long 
trying to get people on both sides of the aisle, and I've got plenty of 
this side of the aisle support, and I have a few Jewish friends on the 
other side of the aisle that are supportive, but it wasn't enough. But 
now I agree with some other friends that said, you can't keep this 
private; you've got to put the pressure on publicly. And hopefully, Mr. 
Speaker, people would contact their Members of Congress and let them 
know that they need to get on board with the resolution that says 
Israel can defend itself.
  Sanctions, what a lovely thing to talk about. And when you have years 
and years and years to work with, whether it's South Africa or 
somewhere, that's one thing. But when you've got centrifuges spinning, 
and the IAEA already tells us that Iran has probably enough enriched 
uranium for two nuclear weapons, and the centrifuges are still 
spinning, and we're still trying to talk to other nations in the world 
about getting on board with our sanctions, Israel is more at risk every 
day.
  And not only have we not gotten other nations to get on board with 
sanctions; Russia has cut a deal. They're going to provide them their 
best anti-aircraft weaponry as 300 is coming to Iran. And the days are 
growing and building. And we're putting all the wrong pressure on our 
dear ally.
  And some know in this body that I've been pushing, all three terms 
I've been here, what I title the U.N. Voting Accountability Act. One of 
these days I'm going to get it to the floor for a vote. I got it as an 
amendment. We had over 100 votes on it. That was back in 2005. I'm 
hoping to get it the floor as a bill at some point to bring about 
sanity to our foreign assistance policy.
  But it basically says this: Hey, these nations around the world, 
you're sovereign nations. You can do whatever you want as long as it 
doesn't hurt us, because we'll protect ourselves. But any nation that 
votes against the United States position more than half the time in the 
U.N. won't get any financial assistance from us in the subsequent year. 
March 31 every year a report comes out about who voted which way on all 
the contested votes. You look at those, you see who voted against our 
position more than half the time and you just say, fine; that's your 
position. We are not going to keep paying people to hate us. We have 
found we can get people to hate us for free. And we don't have to get 
taxpayers to keep paying taxes to pay people to hate us when they'll do 
it for free.
  We're paying Israel's enemies about as much as we're supporting 
Israel with. It's a big mistake.
  One thought I had that would be a clear image to the world, and I 
appreciate the few friends across the aisle that have said they have 
supported the idea, and that is, we need an image, a visual image going 
to the rest of the world so they know, there may be a little bickering 
with our friend, our close ally Israel. But when people saw both sides 
of this aisle standing and applauding Prime Minister Netanyahu in a 
joint session, then they would get the picture; hey, we may fuss among 
ourselves, but we will defend them.
  There are still some historians that believe that it was Secretary of 
State Acheson saying basically that Korea was beyond our sphere of 
influence, which led, and apparently Korea was already massing forces. 
But you can't help but wonder if once they heard that that's beyond our 
sphere of influence, we won't come to South Korea's aid, that's when 
the Korean War started. You start wars, oftentimes, when the strongest 
friend snubs their ally, then enemies of that ally think they can act 
against that ally without the strong supporter stepping forward.
  And we need to let the world know that Israel is still our friend. 
They still vote with us more than way over 90 percent of the rest of 
the people in the U.N., and a friend like that is a friend we ought to 
support. And you won't get peace until you show you're willing to stand 
up against the bad guys. And then the bad guys understand that and you 
have peace for a while.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I see my time has expired, so I appreciate your 
indulgence tonight.

                          ____________________