[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 13, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H5535-H5540]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2120
                    SOCIAL SECURITY AND THE ECONOMY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Kosmas). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, that's one of the great things about our 
system, we have a chance to speak from both sides. As I listened, I was 
surprised to hear I had taken so many positions that I had never taken. 
But let me just say that with regard to Republicans being for 
privatizing Social Security, that bill did not pass. It didn't even get 
around here to get passed because so many Republicans were not in favor 
of it. And, in fact, you can go back and find this Republican saying 
repeatedly then and still saying that what we should do is what was not 
done when Social Security came into existence, and that is take Social 
Security tax dollars and put them in a Social Security account.
  Now, until I got here 5\1/2\ years ago, I was under the impression 
that it was some kind of modern creation that Social Security tax 
dollars were taken away, they never even get to the Social Security 
Trust Fund but went to general revenue with IOUs being placed in file 
cabinets for the Social Security Trust Fund. But lo and behold, come to 
find out, Social Security tax dollars have never, ever gone into the 
Social Security Trust Fund, not since its inception.
  Now, in Texas, we have the Texas Employee Retirement System. Teachers 
have an employee retirement system. And those systems have done many 
times better than Social Security for one reason: They put dollars into 
the retirement fund so the fund was able to grow. And because it was 
able to grow, people can get several times more in the way of 
retirement payments from those retirement systems than you can from 
Social Security. In fact, when I first got here in 2005, I had my staff 
run a check to find out--and I gave them a hypothetical to submit to 
Social Security as well as to the Texas Employee Retirement System and 
another retirement system to find out what kind of monthly income you 
would receive under that hypothetical.
  It turned out, the best Social Security could tell us was that under 
the hypothetical we gave them, that the monthly income from Social 
Security to a deserving senior would be somewhere between $600 and $900 
a month. Well, if anybody is familiar with seniors and the costs that 
they end up being out of pocket, you will know that $600 to $900 does 
not go far enough, but that's what Social Security payments would be. 
And as I recall the hypothetical, it was $30,000 average for 30 years 
before retirement, and that was the best we could get, $600 to $900.

[[Page H5536]]

  However, when that hypothetical was provided to the Texas Employee 
Retirement System, which puts real money into an account, it turns out 
the monthly payment was somewhere between $2,600 to $2,800 per month--
the same hypothetical--and the difference was that real money went into 
the trust fund.
  But President Franklin Roosevelt knew, apparently, when this began 
that there would not be real money going into the trust fund, and every 
President since then has known that. President Roosevelt, President 
Truman, President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, Presidents Johnson, 
Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama, 
they've all known. No money that is pried out of the hands of those who 
earn it and those that pay those who earn it, none of that money goes 
into the Social Security Trust Fund, not a dime. Now, that's tragic.
  I was pushing that back at the time in 2005. And true, there were 
Republicans who did not support that, and there were lots of Democrats 
who didn't because, as we've seen since my friends across the aisle 
have had such a huge majority in recent years, they've done nothing 
about Social Security tax money going into the Social Security Trust 
Fund. They control both Houses. They could have passed a bill requiring 
Social Security tax money to go into the trust fund in January of 2007. 
Madam Speaker, I can tell you, there would have been a lot of us 
Republicans voting for that had they decided to bring that to the 
floor. If it was brought to the floor this week, next week, I would 
vote for it. Social Security tax money must go into the Social Security 
Trust Fund.
  But there has been a reason that they have not wanted that to go from 
the general revenue into the Social Security Trust Fund to shore up 
Social Security, and that's because there are so many other little pet 
projects and pet ideas that this money goes to fund. I heard my friends 
across the aisle talking repeatedly about how important infrastructure 
was. Isn't that ironic, because after President Obama was sworn in, 
became President, the Democratic Party had such big majorities--a 
majority here in the House and was veto-proof, or had a supermajority 
down in the Senate at the time--they didn't do anything about Social 
Security being shored up. They didn't do anything about infrastructure, 
not in the way that it was talked about.

  We heard so many beautiful, eloquent speeches from friends across the 
aisle on how this spendulus stimulus bill was going to pay for all of 
this wonderful infrastructure. America was led to believe that the 
whole $787 billion was going to end up being for infrastructure and 
really be good for America. Well, there was a little bait-and-switch 
that went on, which is easy to do.
  My colleague, for whom I have great respect, I heard saying that 
Republicans have ``hamstrung the deliberative process.'' So apparently, 
as best I can figure--I'm sure he's smarter than I am, but the 
deliberative process then, apparently, must mean that you rush in with 
a 2,000-page bill not once but repeatedly, say, There's no time for 
anybody to read this. Too many jobs are being lost every day. There's 
no time for this to go through committee. There's no time for 
amendments. There's no time for anything. People are losing their jobs 
as we speak. You've just got to vote for it now.
  Now, see, to me, just from the very practical, pragmatic growing up 
that I had, a deliberative process would have meant that it had time to 
be viewed and get some sunshine into those 2,000 pages to figure out 
where all this pork was going, that that would have been part of the 
deliberative process.

                              {time}  2130

  But apparently, as Republicans, we hamstrung the process that they 
called deliberative, where you rush in with a 2,000-page bill 
repeatedly, say there's no time to read it, just pass it and then we'll 
find out what's in it. See, I wouldn't have thought that was 
deliberative. But apparently, since my colleague said Republicans 
hamstrung the deliberative process, that must be what he's talking 
about.
  So they rush in with this $787 billion stimulus bill. You could have 
polled Americans after it passed and the majority would have said, you 
know, this is going to be great for building infrastructure. We need 
infrastructure. Little did they know that 6, less than 7 percent of the 
$787 billion was ever even thought to have anything to do with 
infrastructure. So that's why I say a bit of a bait and switch there.
  America wasn't even sold on it, but the few that were thought that 
was going to be for infrastructure and that didn't happen. Just such a 
tiny, tiny bit of it.
  We heard our friends during the last hour talk repeatedly about small 
business and how the stimulus was so good for small business. What they 
forgot to mention, they may not be aware, but of that $787 billion, 
less than 1 percent was for small business. How about that?
  So it was all about small business and infrastructure, and yet less 
than 7 percent was for infrastructure and less than 1 percent geared, 
aimed at small business. Interesting.
  So is it any wonder that, with people thinking that 6, 7 percent of 
$787 billion will build all the infrastructure we need and less than 1 
percent will help small business more than anybody else, that it hasn't 
had the desired effect?
  And I couldn't really see my colleague's chart well enough to see 
what the last month was where they were talking about all these private 
jobs being created.
  But forget the charts. Let's look at real numbers. And the real 
numbers for the month of June came out, and I don't have a big pretty 
chart for it, but the fact is that in the month of June there was great 
news and then there was really bad news. The great news was that for 
the month of June, 431,000 jobs were created. That is great news. The 
really bad news is that 411,000 of those were temporary census workers. 
So much for all those private sector jobs we were hearing about.
  I heard my colleagues talk about Republicans just want to nickel and 
dime the middle class. I've got an awful lot of Republican friends, and 
I don't remember any Republicans I know of wanting to nickel and dime 
the middle class. The ones I know of see people in the poorest sector 
of America, see people in the middle class of America and want them to 
do even better. But it won't happen when the government is taking over 
control of everything. You kill incentives.
  And I've mentioned this before, but it is just such a clear lesson of 
what happens when the government gets involved and decides it's going 
to be the one that creates the jobs.
  And it was 1973, as an exchange student for the summer to the Soviet 
Union, going out to a collective farm, 30 miles or so from Kiev in 
Ukraine, and farmers sitting in the shade when their fields looked 
terrible. This is in the middle of summertime. Well, anybody's worked 
on farms or ranches knows in the middle of the morning is when you want 
to be working hard because you want to try to get done before the sun 
gets to its hottest in the afternoon, and so you start when the sun 
does and you try to finish before it gets to its hottest. And here it 
was, the best time of the day to be working, and they were all sitting 
in the shade with no movement toward going to work.
  And so I spoke a little Russian back then and asked, when do you work 
in the field? And they all laughed. And one of them said, I make the 
same number of rubles if I'm out there or if I'm here in the shade, so 
I'm here. That's what the government did. It kills incentives when it 
decides it's going to take over the job market.
  And I loved hearing the discussion about big corporations, big 
pharmaceuticals, big oil. You know, we've heard this Wall Street, 
they're all the big buddies of the Republicans. And yet, if you go 
check, Wall Street has traditionally given 4-1 to Democrats over 
Republicans. That was true for Goldman Sachs. If you don't just look at 
the officers, but you look at their spouses and their children, then 
you find a 4-1 average giving to Democrats over Republicans.
  And the big pharmaceutical companies that were mentioned, they let 
greed get the better side of them in coming out in support of the 
ObamaCare bill. And for the short term they'll make billions, maybe 
hundreds of billions more than they would have without the bill. But in 
the long term, they've written their own death warrant. The same with 
AMA, AHA. They

[[Page H5537]]

sold their souls. Short term, they'll come out good. In the long run 
their professions, as we know it, will be changed forever for the worst 
for American health care. And we're already seeing those things.
  I get out in my district. I've been in other parts of the country. 
I'm hearing the people say, you know, we've decided not to hire because 
this crap-and-trade bill may get passed. We've already had this health 
care monstrosity wrapped around our necks. We're going to have to end 
up having to pay more than ever.
  You know, the President went out there to have a big photo OP with 
Caterpillar, and then it turns out they were going to lose over a 
million, was it $100 million this year?
  We know jobs are being lost all over the country because of that 
health care bill. There was no need to push good jobs out of this 
country. When I hear my friends say, I couldn't believe they said the 
Democrats want it manufactured here and Republicans don't. That's 
ridiculous.
  I went with a bipartisan group to China 5 years ago, bipartisan 
because there were both Republicans and Democrats. And the ones I 
talked to on both sides of the aisle wanted to see jobs return to 
America, manufacturing jobs. And I thought that perhaps, as we talked 
to CEOs, the number one thing I would hear was they left the U.S. and 
went to China because labor was so much cheaper there. That was not the 
number one thing I heard.
  The number one thing I heard was the corporate taxes in China, 17 
percent, U.S. 35 percent, plus States pop them on top of that, and 
local governments do as well. And so not only that, but China would cut 
deals with them. No income tax for 5 years, then gradually increase up 
to 17 percent.
  And one of the things I loved hearing was that the quality of the 
work by American workers was greatly exceeding that that could be done 
in China by the workers there. That was good to hear. Quality control 
in the U.S. was so much better.
  But that huge 35 to 40 percent hit that they had to take before they 
competed in the global economy was just too much. It was putting them 
under. And they could go to China, and with the dramatic cut in 
corporate tax, they could build state-of-the-art facilities that 
allowed them to have workers who were not capable of as good a quality 
control here, and then their state-of-the-art facility would be paid 
for by the time, many times before the taxes really kicked in in 
earnest at less than half of what they were in the United States.

                              {time}  2140

  So if my friends across the aisle were really serious about bringing 
manufacturing jobs here, then the solution would be to eliminate the 
corporate tax. It's one of the most insidious governmental creations in 
this country. Insidious because everybody gets to talk about these 
mean, evil corporations and how we want to sock it to the corporations, 
when the insidious truth is no matter how much tax you lay onto the 
corporations, if they don't pass that onto the consumer, they don't 
stay in business. And that's why so many have left and gone to other 
countries, one of the biggest reasons why they've left and gone to 
other countries.
  Now, we've heard some are not building here for refineries or energy 
businesses because of this looming threat of the crap-and-trade bill. 
Our President in 2008 had commented that he wasn't going to--basically, 
he said he wasn't going to put coal power plants out of business, but 
he would skyrocket the cost of energy. And that's where we're headed, 
and so that will drive businesses out of the U.S.
  We've had the moratorium declared by the President that was then 
struck down as unconstitutional. But this administration did not want 
to let a little thing like the Constitution get in the way, so this 
week they've come back with another moratorium, basically throwing the 
Constitution, the judicial sector, throwing them away because just as 
they did with the auto task force, no confirmation from the Senate, 
just appointed people, and they took charge of the automobile business.
  They came out with a declaration as to what dealerships would close, 
which ones would have their property taken without due process of law. 
They came out with a bankruptcy plan that did not go through the 
requirements of bankruptcy law. They found a judge--I don't know the 
judge, but bankruptcy judges have to be confirmed I believe it's every 
10 years. It's not a lifetime appointment. Many of them would like to 
be district judges. So apparently it wasn't hard to find a judge who 
would sign off on an illegal, unconstitutional auto task force plan, 
and no accountability to anybody. And once the Congress let it go 
without stepping in and being the check and balance on illegality and 
unconstitutionality, then there was only one branch left to stop such 
unconstitutional, illegal activity, and that was the Supreme Court.
  To her wonderful credit, Ruth Bader Ginsburg put a 24-hour hold on 
it. And apparently the administration improperly scared the Supreme 
Court into thinking that if they extended the hold any longer than 24 
hours, all the automobile industry, all of those related to the auto 
industry would go under and it would all be on the Supreme Court's 
head. And supposedly, the Supreme Court would never let such a 
ridiculous thing, unconstitutional thing go through again, but they let 
it through then.
  And so we know that this administration is capable of doing end runs 
on the Constitution. And it looks like that's what they're doing again 
on the moratorium. So with the moratorium being in place, as one person 
in Louisiana said, we stand a chance of losing more jobs from the 
moratorium than we do from the oil spill. And of course beat up on Big 
Oil. Yet as the Deepwater Horizon rig was exploding and sinking, there 
were still deals being cut with this administration and this majority's 
dear friend British Petroleum, because they were one of the few big 
energy firms that were supportive of the crap-and-trade bill. So they 
hated to see their good friend get in trouble.
  They were hoping it would blow over, they would get control of this 
disastrous well in the gulf coast. But they didn't, and eventually the 
administration and majority had to throw them under the bus. Whereas, 
if they had been able to get control of the oil well, you would have 
seen a big photo op with the BP executives as they pushed through the 
crap-and-trade bill. So, hopefully it will not come back and get passed 
because it will mean so many jobs that will be lost in America.
  And you know, I know they meant well, I know the intentions were good 
across the aisle when we debated that bill here in the House. And so 
many people came in here and said nobody is going to lose their job as 
a result of this bill. In fact, we're going to create jobs. It's going 
to be like Spain. We're going to create so many green jobs. Well, since 
then we found out Spain has actually lost two jobs for every one green 
job they have created, and now they are trying to abandon the very 
thing that this administration and this majority are trying to push us 
toward.
  But it was so ironic that so many people I am sure unintentionally 
saying that no one would lose their job because I know it wasn't 
intentional because obviously they hadn't written the bill, they hadn't 
read the bill, they had their talking points. But if you read toward 
the back of the bill, I don't remember the page number, I had it here 
on the floor and was reading from it at the time, the bill itself 
created a fund to pay people who lost their job as a result of that 
crap-and-trade bill. Not only that, it created a fund that would help 
reimburse them travel expenses to help them move to where their jobs 
were going as a result of that bill.

  So, whichever left wing organization wrote that bill, or whoever's 
staffer helped them write it, they knew people would lose their jobs 
right and left. That's why they were creating a fund in there. But my 
friends across the aisle had not read it. Apparently, the deliberative 
process from their standpoint was ram the stuff through, don't read it, 
don't get bothered with the actual provisions in the bill. Push it 
through, and we'll find out what's in it later. Apparently, that's 
deliberative. That's no bill to saddle America with. It means more lost 
jobs.
  Now, we had another job fair last week in east Texas, this one in 
Nacogdoches. We had over 550 people attend, around four, five dozen 
employers that were there. Some people left

[[Page H5538]]

with jobs that didn't have them. Some people have hope for the future 
through the interview process.
  And, normally, when you throw a party, you are really thrilled when 
people show up. But just as I saw in Marshall and Longview when we had 
a job fair there, and Lufkin, you look in the eyes of folks who have 
lost their jobs and you can't be pleased that the turnout is big 
because every one represents hurt, it represents lost finances, people 
struggling, many of them struggling for self-esteem because even though 
it wasn't their fault, so many get their strength and their pride from 
the job that they hold. And so it's very difficult to see so many 
people out of work.
  But what I keep hearing also from businesses is the same thing, 
similar thing: they can't get credit, they can't get loans from their 
bank. Banks are telling them they're not going to extend their line of 
credit because they got regulators breathing down their throats. 
Because regulators, on instructions from this town are out there 
telling them, micromanaging, telling good community, solid community 
banks that were not the source of the problems--the source of the 
biggest problems were those on Wall Street that give four to one to 
Democrats. That was the big source, the investment banking firms, not 
the community banking firms. But the community banking firms, on 
instructions from those who were closest to the investment banking 
firms telling the regulators to go after them. And even hold them to 
having more in reserve than the law requires. Had that admission from 
regulators themselves.
  And so people don't have capital because this obese monstrosity of a 
government that keeps growing can't control its appetite. And so it 
sucks up all the capital and throws it away on the government's pet 
projects.

                              {time}  2150

  It's no way to run a country. It's a way to lose a country.
  Well, I didn't intend to spend that much time on the economy, but 
having heard so many comments from my friends across the aisle on what 
I believed and what I support, which were things that I simply do not, 
and have not supported, I had to address that.
  But there are so many dangers in the world. One of them, of course, 
is this out-of-control spending. And one final thing on the economy, my 
friends across the aisle keep talking about how bad it's been since 
2007, 2008, 2009. And the fact is they've been controlling everything 
but the White House since January of 2007. So when they took control 
and they let spending explode on their watch--they were right. They won 
the majority because Republicans did not control spending, and too many 
Republicans equated compassion with spending.
  And so Democrats over and over, over and over came to the floor and 
said, you know, a hundred billion, $200 billion deficit in 1 year is 
outrageous. It shouldn't be allowed. We need to be in the majority so 
we'll control the spending. We'll cut the deficit. We'll get back on 
track. And so Republicans appropriately lost the majority because they 
had not controlled spending.
  And what has happened since? Spending has gone through the roof. And 
under this administration, once the Democrats had the White House and 
both Houses with such huge majorities, spending became giddiness, and 
that hundred, $200 billion deficit in a year has bloomed now to a $1.5 
trillion dollar deficit in a year. It's unbelievable.
  And at the same time, it's been encouraging to see this 
administration in the past week show some friendliness toward our 
wonderful ally Israel, because all of the snubbing and pettiness by 
this administration in the way that it's treated Israel in conjunction 
with willing allies like The New York Times, like the 5,000-page 
editorial that was written about, there's just so much pettiness and 
snubbing of our friend Israel from this administration and its allies 
that they're hurting this Nation. Because when you hurt Israel, you 
hurt a true democracy in the middle of the Middle East, you hurt this 
country. You hurt any democracy when you hurt democracy that exists in 
the Middle East.
  And I read this weekend an editorial written by Caroline Glick, and 
it's entitled, ``Fit for The New York Times.'' And Caroline Glick is so 
articulate. I wanted to read verbatim what she had to say about the 
article in The New York Times. So I will read from Caroline Glick. This 
was published July 9, 2010.
  She says, ``Two important statements this week shed a light on the 
nature of the Palestinian conflict with Israel. Both were barely noted 
by the media.
  ``On Saturday the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper reported that 
Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas gave U.S. mediator George 
Mitchell a letter detailing a number of concessions that he would make 
towards Israel in a final peace treaty. These included a willingness to 
accept permanent Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish Quarter in 
Jerusalem's Old City and over the Western Wall. The Al-Hayat report 
received enthusiastic and expansive coverage in the Israeli media and 
in media outlets throughout the world.
  ``What was barely noted was that just hours after the report hit the 
airwaves, Abbas's chief negotiator Saeb Erekat categorically denied the 
story. In an interview with Israel Radio, Saeb Erekat said the story 
was untrue.
  ``Abbas has been the recipient of adulatory press coverage in Israel 
over the past several days. Last week he thrilled the Hebrew-language 
media when he invited Israeli reporters to a sumptuous feast at his 
Ramallah headquarters. And then the Al-Hayat story came out. Lost in 
the excitement was Abbas's eulogy for arch terrorist Muhammad Daoud 
Oudeh who died over the weekend. Oudeh was the mastermind of the PLO's 
massacre of 11 Israeli athletes during the 1972 Munich Olympics. Abbas 
himself served the operation's paymaster.
  ``As Palestinian Media Watch reported, in a condolence telegram 
quoted in the Abbas-controlled Al-Hayat al Jadida newspaper, Abbas 
touted Oudeh as, `a wonderful brother, companion, tough and stubborn, 
relentless fighter,' and described him as `one of the prominent leaders 
of the Fatah movement.'
  ``So while the local and international media pounced on the Al-Hayat 
story as proof that the Palestinians are serious about peace, they 
failed to mention that their hope was based on a story that the 
Palestinians themselves deny. So too, in their rush to embrace Abbas, 
they failed to mention his glorification of an unrepentant mass 
murderer who commanded the terror squad that massacred Israel's Olympic 
athletes.
  ``These statements by Palestinian officials the media routinely 
characterize as moderates, demonstrates how deeply distorted and 
largely irrelevant the discourse on the Middle East has become. As the 
`moderate' Palestinians insist they are uninterested in peaceful 
coexistence and territorial compromise with Israel, news coverage in 
Israel and throughout the Western world is dominated by other issues. 
Specifically, discussion of prospects for peace between Israel and the 
Palestinians is dominated by an endless discussion of Israel's Jewish 
communities in Judea and Samaria and Jewish neighborhoods in eastern, 
southern and northern Jerusalem.

  ``The most egregious recent example of this distortion was a 5,000 
word article in Tuesday's New York Times regarding US charitable 
contributions to these Jewish communities. Titled, `Tax Exempt Funds 
Aid Settlements in the West Bank,' the report was co-authored by five 
Times reporters. It was the product of weeks of research. And notably, 
the New York Times chose to publish it on its front page above the fold 
on the very day that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu visited the 
White House.
  ``The Times article is a textbook case of the media's ideologically 
motivated aggression against Middle East reality. Any way you look at 
it, it is a premeditated affront to the very notion that the role of a 
newspaper is to report facts rather manufacture news aimed at shaping 
perceptions and skewing debate.
  ``The article goes to great lengths to discredit the American 
citizens who make charitable, tax deductible donations to organizations 
that provide lawful support to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria 
and Jewish neighborhoods in southern, northern and eastern Jerusalem. 
It paints a sinister picture of such contributions and

[[Page H5539]]

contributors and accuses them of actively undermining U.S. foreign 
policy.
  ``The contributors, we are told in the opening lines of the report 
are the Left's bogeyman--Evangelical Christians and religious Jews. 
They are unacceptable actors in the Middle East because they both 
believe that Jewish control of Judea and Samaria is a precursor to the 
coming of the messiah.
  ``Reacting to the Times' report, on Wednesday Honest Reporting noted 
that the article appears to be the product of active collusion between 
the Times and the radical, anti-Zionist, tax-exempt Gush Shalom 
organization. As Honest Reporting relays, in July of 2009, Gush Shalom 
sent out a communique to its supporters calling for the initiation of a 
campaign that, `includes a combination of legal action and public 
advocacy aimed at denying Federal tax exempt (501c3) status to U.S. 
charities supporting settlement activity.'
  ``The Times' article bears all the markings of a political campaign. 
First, despite the valiant efforts of five Times reporters, the article 
exposes no illegal activity. At best, its investigation of more than 
forty organizations that contribute funds to the hated Jewish 
communities in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria indicated that less than a 
handful of them are guilty of poor accounting practices.''

                              {time}  2200

  Assuming that Honest Reporting's emminently reasonable conclusion 
that the Times report is the product of collaboration between the 
newspaper and radical anti-Zionist groups is accurate, the report is 
shockingly hypocritical. By publishing it, the New York Times is 
engaging in the precise behavior it argues the organizations it 
investigated should be punished for purportedly engaging in.
  To wit, in the service of radical tax deductible organizations, the 
Times seeks to undermine U.S. foreign policy. For the past four 
decades, it has been the foreign policy of the United States to 
maintain a strategic alliance with Israel. The goal of Times-aligned 
groups like Gush Shalom is to undermine that alliance by discrediting 
and criminalizing those who wish to strengthen and maintain it.
  The Times article uses dark language and innuendo to create the 
impression that there is something treacherous and evil about 
contributions to Jewish communities in neighborhoods in Judea, Samaria 
and Jerusalem.
  For instance, the article argues, ``The donations to the settler 
movement stand out from other charitable, and this is in brackets, from 
other charitable contributions that promote U.S. foreign policy goals, 
close brackets, because of the centrality of the settlement issue in 
the current talks and the fact that Washington has consistently refused 
to allow Israel to spend American government aid in the settlements. 
Tax breaks for the donations remain largely unchallenged and unexamined 
by the American government.''
  What the Times fails to acknowledge is that the reason these 
donations are ``largely unchallenged and unexamined'' is because it is 
the constitutional right of American citizens to contribute to 
charities that promote policy goals, even when those goals, like those 
of Gush Shalom, are antithetical to U.S. policy as determined by the 
U.S. Government.
  The New York Times alleges that these communities are illegal. Its 
authority for this allegation is none other than the Palestinian 
negotiator Saeb Erekat. Erekat opined to the paper, ``Settlements 
violate international law.''
  The truth is that Israeli communities beyond the 1949 armistice lines 
are legal. But even if one were to accept the argument that they are 
unlawful, one would be accepting an argument based on the language of 
the Fourth Geneva Convention from 1949 which prevents occupying powers 
from transferring their population to the areas under occupation.
  There is no possible reading of the convention that would prohibit 
the voluntary movement of Israelis to Judea, Samaria and post-1967 
neighborhoods in Jerusalem. Likewise, there is no possible reading of 
the convention that would prohibit the provision of financial support 
to Israelis who voluntarily move to the areas in question. Yet it is 
precisely this indisputably lawful, voluntary movement of Jews to these 
areas which the Times acknowledges is often done against the wishes of 
Israel's government that the Times article attacks.
  In short, the Times' contention that there is something legally 
problematic about these donations is preposterous, both as it relates 
to U.S. law and as it relates to international law.
  From a journalistic perspective, worse than the Times' decision to 
engage in precisely the behavior it seeks to criminalize when carried 
out by its political nemesis on the Christian and Jewish right and 
worse even than the article's false characterization of law is the 
article's clear attempt to obfuscate the main problem with land issues 
in Judea and Samaria. This it does in the interests of manufacturing a 
false but ideologically sympathetic picture of the situation on the 
ground.

  The Times only gets around to alluding to and obfuscating the real 
problem with the land issues in the 58th paragraph of the article. The 
Times reports ``Islamic judicial panels have threatened death to 
Palestinians who sell property in the occupied territories to Jews.''
  Actually, while this may be true, it is not the problem. The problem 
is that the second law promulgated by the Palestinian Authority just 
weeks after it was established in 1994 criminalized all Arab land sales 
to Jews as a capital crime.
  Since 1994, scores of Arabs have been killed in both judicial and 
extrajudicial executions for selling land to Jews. This open move to 
hide the fact that since 1994 the PA has dispatched death squads to 
murder both Palestinians and Israeli Arabs suspected of selling land to 
Jews is a shocking miscarriage of journalistic standards.
  Whereas the New York Times required five reporters to work for weeks 
to come up with exactly nothing illegal in the operations of U.S. 
charitable groups that support Jewish communities the Times wishes to 
destroy, the Times would have needed to invest no resources whatsoever 
to discover that the PA kills any Arab who sells land to Jews. The PA 
has made no effort to hide this policy. It is in the public sphere for 
anyone willing to look at reality.
  That is, of course, the real issue here. The entire New York Times 
investigation, so-called, of American charitable groups that support 
Jewish communities in neighborhoods in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem is 
a blatant attempt by major newspaper to hide the real issues prolonging 
the Palestinian conflict with Israel. Those issues exposed by Abbas's 
praise for a terrorist mass murderer, Erekat's denial that Abbas has 
any interest in compromising with Israel, as well as by the PA's policy 
of killing all Arabs who sell lands to Jews, do not serve the Times' 
purpose of blaming the absence of peace on Israel generally and on the 
Israeli right and its supporters in the U.S. in particular.
  And so it is that 17 years after the start of the so-called peace 
process between Israel and the PLO, and 10 years after the PLO 
destroyed that process by launching a terror war against Israel, and 
4\1/2\ years after the Palestinians elected Hamas to lead them, we are 
still stuck in a distorted, irrelevant discourse about the Middle East.
  We are stuck in a rut because politically and ideologically motivated 
media organs operate hand-in-glove with radical groups seeking to 
undermine Israel's national sovereignty and end its alliance with the 
U.S. Together, they manufacture news that bears no relation with 
reality or the true challenges facing those who seek peace in the 
Middle East. But obviously for the New York Times, that is what makes 
it fit to print.
  That was posted July 9, 2010, 7:27 a.m. by my friend Caroline Glick.

                              {time}  2210

  The article speaks for itself. It is a sad day when the New York 
Times has become such a political hack of a newspaper that in the 
summer of 1973, when I was in the Soviet Union, it was exciting. 
Actually, got a chance of going over there through Europe, coming out 
through Europe, to see a New York Times, especially in English. 
Exciting. And it was trusted to be the international resource. So it is 
a bit heartbreaking that as its sales circulation continues to plummet, 
it continues to lose money, that it continues to proceed with the very 
things that have

[[Page H5540]]

brought down its reputation and hurt it as such an objective resource. 
Doing reports growing up as a kid, you knew you could count on anything 
that you found in the New York Times and cite it as a valuable and 
accurate resource. Not so anymore. Not so anymore.
  Israel is a friend, and I'm grateful that democracy has worked to the 
extent that this administration got concerned about its plummeting 
numbers enough that it realized maybe this time it should treat the 
Prime Minister of Israel with some respect, just as it is and just as 
it has heads of states of countries that despise us and have said they 
would be glad to see us fall as a Nation. It's nice if they could treat 
Prime Minister Netanyahu with the same respect that it treats some of 
our sworn enemies.
  Very interesting. There's just so much to cover, so little time. But 
I did want to address that issue and the fact that Iran is continuing 
to have its centrifuges spin. It has been reported by this 
administration, by the IAEA, that Iran has apparently at least enough 
uranium material, at least, to manufacture two nuclear weapons. So the 
rhetorical question to be asked, How many nuclear bombs does it take to 
become an existential threat to Israel or to this Nation? I would 
submit a nuke in New York Harbor, coming up the Potomac, the Houston 
and New Orleans shipping channel taking out the majority of our energy 
resources, Los Angeles, the lake right up next to Chicago, the effect 
could be existential to the U.S.
  This isn't a game. You can't keep walking around blaming the prior 
administration. Yes, I was upset with the Bush administration with the 
TARP. Yes, this administration went right out and hired the same people 
that helped push that thing through. And they're still pushing it. 
Still like it. Should have never been passed. That was a huge mistake 
by the Bush administration, and we should not continue to confound it.
  Well, just as we've seen the New York Times can twist and distort, 
we've seen throughout America people distorting our heritage. And so in 
an effort to correct yet another distortion, I want to finish with 
this. This is from a book written by Peter Lillback, ``Wall of 
Misconception.'' A small book, lots of resources. Dr. Lillback says: 
``Everyone agrees that George Washington was critical for the formation 
of America's values. Washington was conscious that his every act 
created a precedent for good or ill for all that would follow him. As 
our first President, everything he did established precedents for how 
our country was to work.
  ``So there is no accident that so many have sought to portray 
Washington as a man without faith. For if he exercised faith in the 
public square, this in turn argues that the Judeo-Christian system 
still has relevance and vitality in the public square today. Did 
Washington's legacy include strong precedents of advocating the Judeo-
Christian values in the public square? Recent authors have declared an 
emphatic no.
  ``Randall writes, `Washington was not a deeply religious man.' 
Douglas Southall Freeman says, `He had believed that a God directed his 
path, but he had not been particularly ardent in his faith.' James 
Thomas Flexner states that `Washington . . . avoided, as was his deist 
custom, the word ``God.'' ' Judging from these writers, Washington 
could hardly be called a `godly leader.' But are these claims 
correct?''
  I could go on, as I have, taking people on tours through this 
building for about 2 or 3 hours with what Washington wrote and said and 
did. But continuing Dr. Lillback's book: ``The very men who gave us the 
First Amendment did not intend to impose a radical separation of church 
and State that is advocated by so many today. In fact, the day after 
Congress adopted the words of the First Amendment, they sent a message 
to President Washington asking him to declare a day of thanksgiving to 
show America's appreciation to God for the opportunity to create 
America's new national government in peace and tranquility.
  ``So on October 3, 1789, President Washington made a Proclamation of 
a National Day of Thanksgiving. He declared: Whereas it is the duty of 
all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God''--I guess he 
did use the word God--``to obey His will, to be grateful for his 
benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor. And, whereas 
both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me `to 
recommend to the people of the United States a day of public 
thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful 
hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God' ''--oops, he used it 
again--`` `especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to 
establish a form of government for their safety and happiness, now, 
therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November 
next to be devoted by the people of the United States to the service of 
that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent author of all the 
good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in 
rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks, for His kind care and 
protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a 
Nation; for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable 
interpositions of His providence, which we experienced in the course 
and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, 
union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and 
rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish 
constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and 
particularly the national one now lately instituted, for the civil and 
religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of 
acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for the great 
and various favors which He hath been pleased to confer upon us.

  ``And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers 
and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech 
Him to pardon our national and other transgressions to enable us all--
and deists doesn't ask God to enable us to do anything--whether in 
public or private stations to perform our several relative duties 
properly and punctually.''
  I see my time is running out so I will go straight to the bottom of 
George Washington's words: ``to promote the knowledge and practice of 
true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and 
us; and generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal 
prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
  ``Given under my hand, at the City of New York, the 3rd of October, 
in the year of our Lord, 1789.'' Again, George Washington's words.
  Therefore, Madam Speaker, I yield back.

                          ____________________