[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 173 (Monday, November 14, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H7430-H7432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ISSUES FACING AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. It is interesting to see the way the negotiations with 
the supercommittee are playing out. Some of us didn't vote for the debt 
ceiling bill. I know in my own case I didn't vote for it because I read 
it, and I was concerned it was not a good idea.
  Our country should not put its national security as a bargaining chip 
on the table. National security is important to everyone on both sides 
of the aisle; it should never be used as a bargaining chip, whether or 
not we're going to devastate it.
  On the other side, the defense would be devastated at the same time 
Medicare would be devastated. If the supercommittee's recommendations 
are not approved by at least seven of the 12 and then Congress does not 
pass them into law, Medicare gets cut and so does the national security 
get devastated.
  So who stands to win and who stands to lose in that scenario? Well, 
we know that when what is commonly referred to as ObamaCare--I don't 
even remember the real name--when that got passed, AARP indicated, hey, 
that's a good idea, even though it had $500 billion in cuts to 
Medicare. I couldn't believe that some of the groups that endorsed that 
bill did endorse it because, for one, it had $500 billion in cuts to 
Medicare. You know, we've got AARP stirring up seniors right now--send 
in a petition, tell them you don't want any cuts to Medicare, that 
you're a member of AARP. And I appreciated those petitions very much. 
Those people that felt Medicare shouldn't have been cut should have 
been telling that to AARP back when they were thinking that ObamaCare 
was a good idea. It wasn't then, it's not now, and it won't be if it 
kicks into effect fully and people start having rationed care.
  So, what would take people's minds off the fact that the President's 
pride and joy, his health care bill, cut $500 billion from Medicare and 
Republicans didn't support it? didn't think it was a good idea? That's 
100 percent a Democratic bill that was ramrodded through with most of 
the country against it. So the President has to carry that mantle, as 
do the leaders in charge at that time, the people that were in the 
majority in the House at that time under Speaker Pelosi as she pushed 
it through, commenting that we needed to pass it so we could find out 
what was in it. Well, I had read it. I knew what was in it, and knew it 
was a disaster waiting to happen. I knew that it hurt seniors badly.
  So we come back again to this supercommittee. What do Leader Reid and 
the Senate Democrats--even House Democrats--have to gain if the 
supercommittee's proposals are not adopted? Well, there will be massive 
cuts to security, and there will be massive cuts to Medicare. And that 
will mean, from a political standpoint, that those same people that 
rammed through ObamaCare against the country's will will then be able 
to say before next year's election, look what happened.

                              {time}  2050

  Republicans caused a massive cut to Medicare. They're the ones to 
blame. They'll be able to take people's minds off the fact that 
ObamaCare was a $500 billion cut to Medicare to our seniors that will 
result in them having rationed care, getting on long lists before they 
can get treated, like happens in England, like happens in Canada. You 
get on a list to get your mammogram, get on a list if there's cancer 
there to have it biopsied or if there's a lump, having it biopsied, get 
on a list, have therapy of some kind, whether it's surgery, whether 
it's radiation, chemo, whatever kind of cancer it is. You get on a 
list.
  I mentioned before a man originally from Canada who said his father 
died because he was on a list to have a bypass surgery for 2 years. If 
he'd been in the U.S., the son said he'd still be alive. But he was in 
Canada, and because they have the socialized medicine program basically 
embraced by ObamaCare, then you are going to, you know, end up on a 
list. That's what happens when the government's completely in charge of 
health care. It doesn't have to be like that.
  When you look at the amount that the Federal Government, State 
governments spend on Medicare and Medicaid, divided by the number of 
households in the country, we've gotten a bunch of different numbers, 
but it appears that it may be around $25,000 for every household on 
Medicare or Medicaid. Between $20,000 and $30,000 just to pay for 
health insurance?
  We'd be far better off buying them a high-deductible policy and 
giving them cash money in an HSA, a health savings account, with a 
debit card they control. They decide what doctor they go to; they 
decide what hospital they go to. They decide whether they want this 
medicine or that medicine. And when they go through, if they go through 
the amount of the high deductible, that's all the money to cover that's 
in their health savings account, then their insurance kicks in, and we 
finally get the insurance companies out of the health management 
business and back into the health insurance business. Because right now 
we don't really have any health insurance companies. We've got health 
management companies.
  I want to go back to having health insurance companies. Insurance is 
when someone pays a small amount monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, 
annually to ensure against some unforeseen event, either a catastrophic 
disease or accident. It's unforeseen. Don't know if it's going to 
happen. Don't know if you're going to run up health expenses to that 
kind of high mark so

[[Page H7431]]

you've got an insurance policy to ensure against that unforeseen event 
or disease. That's insurance.
  If we don't get the insurance companies back in the business of 
insurance instead of management, they may not be around because there 
will always be people that want to push something like the President 
did last year.
  Most of us, I think, don't want the government telling us what 
medication we can have, what doctor we can see, why we can't see a 
doctor, why we're going to have to pay through the nose, why we'll have 
to buy an additional insurance policy to cover all the gaping holes 
that Medicare or Medicaid leave.
  It would be nice if people didn't have to buy the supplemental 
insurance policies. But here again, you know, follow the money. AARP 
makes hundreds of millions of dollars each year selling their 
supplemental insurance, so they had a vested interest--who can blame 
them?--in wanting to push through ObamaCare when it means even more 
money for their supplemental policies.
  What I'm talking about is a situation where seniors can have a 
choice. You can have your Medicare. If you're on Medicaid, you can have 
Medicaid; or we'll give you a debit card where you're back in control 
of your own health care.
  Why not? It would be cheaper. It gets back to a real doctor/patient 
relationship. It gets people back in charge of their own health 
situations.
  Well, the reason is because for many people, it's all about the GRE, 
the government running everything. The Founders didn't want the 
government running everything, but once the government has control of 
everyone's health care, they have a legitimate right to dictate what 
you can eat, what you can't eat, what you have to do in the way of 
exercise, what you can't do in the way of physical activity. They've 
got a right because they're paying for your health care. If they're 
paying for the health care, they have a right to tell you what you can 
or can't do.
  I do not want to live in a country where the government gets to tell 
me what I can eat or not eat, do or not do. Government's role is 
supposed to protect people against evil, against evil people or 
countries who want to take away their freedoms and liberty. In other 
words, it's addressed in the United States Constitution as providing 
for the common defense. That's what we ought to be doing.
  And then on the domestic front, our job is to provide a level playing 
field where everyone has an equal opportunity to pursue happiness. 
Nobody's guaranteed happiness--that comes in the heart--but everyone 
would have an equal opportunity to pursue it. That's what we're 
supposed to do.

  We're supposed to be referees. We're not supposed to be the player/
referee. What a terrible game to be in where the government's both 
player and referee.
  But I do want to give the President credit any time I can, and he's 
been running around, even recently again--I believe it was last night I 
saw him--talking about Congress doing nothing, that that's what 
Congress wants to do. Well, again, I've got to give him credit. He's 
half right on that.
  The Senate hasn't passed a budget in over 900 days. He's right. It's 
a do-nothing Senate. They refused to pass any kind of debt ceiling bill 
until basically the House passed one that was acceptable. We should 
have forced them to pass their own CR back in March, their continuing 
resolution; but they were negotiated with, and a bill was crafted that 
it appeared they could agree to pass in the Senate.
  What the country needs to see is what the House stands for, what the 
majority in the House stands for and what the majority in the Senate 
stands for, and I'm not sure that people have seen that. But it means 
the House should pass what a majority in the House believes is best for 
the country and then stand, unmoved until the Senate passes something. 
Instead of trying to hit a mark that we think the Senate can hit, we 
pass what we believe in, as cut, cap and balance passed, and then don't 
try to keep coming back and hitting a mark the Senate--make them pass 
something.
  And in the rules, the law is very clear. This is all provided for. 
The Constitution provides for these two parties. It expected there 
would be times when they'd pass a different bill from us, and it would 
go to a conference committee and then a compromise is worked out. And 
then those of us in the majority in the House can say, see what we 
passed at first, like cut, cap and balance? This is what we believe in.
  See what the Senate passed first? See this monstrosity? That's what 
they believe in.

                              {time}  2100

  So in the next election, when the House can say if you want more of 
this kind of bill and responsible spending, not continued runaway 
spending, this is what you do. If you want the continued runaway 
spending, more and more and more taxes, then go with the Senate.
  I think there's some evidence to support that there are people in the 
opposition party who want to see the supercommittee fail, that want to 
see the massive cuts to Medicare--not that that would ever be said 
publicly, but we know that Pat Toomey, as he talked about yesterday, 
Jeb Hensarling talked about, two of our brightest minds on financial 
issues. We've got some really good quality people on that 
supercommittee, so-called.
  Senator Toomey apparently had a framework worked out, and the 
indications were there were Democrats who were agreeing that it was not 
a bad setup. There would be some people who would lose some deductions 
that would, therefore, raise revenue without raising the taxation rate, 
but, in fact, the taxation rate would be lowered to a rate in the 
twenties, corporate tax in the twenties, but there would be enough 
deductions and write-offs that would be eliminated, it was actually 
going to raise revenue.
  One Democrat even said that was a huge breakthrough when that was 
proposed. It gave a lot of hope that something was going to be worked 
out.
  But then they talked to Democratic leaders. We're not privy to what 
was said. Next thing you know, there is no agreement. They're not going 
to agree to a deal. So you can't help but wonder if that's evidence 
that they really didn't want this bill to pass because if the 
supercommittee came up with a way to cut $1.2 trillion off the budget 
over the next 10 years--it's only $120 billion a year--then people next 
year at election time would really begin to realize just what ObamaCare 
did in cutting $500 billion off Medicare.
  But if there are these massive cuts to Medicare, then Republicans can 
be blamed before the next election, even though it obviously would have 
been them standing in the way of passing a bill through the 
supercommittee.
  One of the things that should be a no-brainer but apparently it's a 
no-starter, that is a zero baseline budget bill. Chairman Ryan has 
assured me and on television and Speaker Boehner has said, we're going 
to bring that to the floor this year for a vote. It's going to be 
passed out of the Budget Committee. I guess you can't guarantee that it 
will be passed, but I sure feel strongly when it's brought up for a 
vote in the Budget Committee, it will pass. When it's brought here to 
the floor, it will pass.
  That will end this ridiculous automatic increase in Federal budgets 
that was begun by a very, very liberal Congress back in 1974, the same 
one that created CBO and started the ridiculous rules that they're 
bound by that do not let them consider historic reality in scoring a 
bill but only has to follow a formula that sometimes forces them to 
come up with a scoring that is completely unreal and not supported by 
history.
  Well, we've got trouble here, and it's not looking good for that 
getting accomplished as it should. People are playing games and America 
will suffer.
  The Book of Proverbs tells us that where there is no vision, the 
people perish, and if we don't get people getting a bigger vision not 
only of where this country has come from but where it could go, then 
people are going to perish, and it's so unnecessary.
  It was interesting meeting again last week with Prime Minister 
Netanyahu. He was appreciative of House Resolution 271, I provided a 
copy, which goes through a lot of whereases. We've got lots of 
cosponsors on this. I hope if anybody is not on, that they'll sure add 
their name to this on both sides of the aisle.

[[Page H7432]]

  The whereases include:

       Whereas archeological evidence exists confirming Israel's 
     existence as a nation over 3,000 years ago in the area in 
     which it currently exists, despite assertions of its 
     opponents.

  It says 3,000 years ago. That was about the time of King David ruling 
in Hebron and also the City of David. It just turns out 
archeologically, it's immediately south of the area where the current 
walled city is. And of course the walled city is over the area which 
was original Temple Mount and Herodian Temple Mount and then hundreds 
of years later became of interest to people of the Islamic religion. 
But it's actually much more than 3,000 years ago.
  Nonetheless, the bill says:

       Whereas with the dawn of modern Zionism, the national 
     liberation movement of the Jewish people, some 150 years ago, 
     the Jewish people determined to return to their homeland in 
     the Land of Israel from the lands of their dispersion.

  And so that means for people who are really wonderful, big-hearted 
people like Helen Thomas but are just ignorant of actual history, Jews 
didn't come from Poland. They were originally in the Promised Land that 
extended from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, if you go back and 
look at the promises made to David.

       Whereas in 1922, the League of Nations mandated that the 
     Jewish people were the legal sovereigns over the Land of 
     Israel and that legal mandate has never been superseded;
       Whereas in the aftermath of the Nazi-led Holocaust from 
     1933 to 1945, in which the Germans and their collaborators 
     murdered 6,000,000 Jewish people in a premeditated act of 
     genocide, the international community recognized that the 
     Jewish state, built by Jewish pioneers must gain its 
     independence from Great Britain;
       Whereas the United States was the first nation to recognize 
     Israel's independence in 1948, and the State of Israel has 
     since proven herself to be a faithful ally of the United 
     States in the Middle East;
       Whereas the United States and Israel have a special 
     friendship based on shared values, and together share the 
     common goal of peace and security in the Middle East;
       Whereas, on October 20, 2009, President Barack Obama 
     rightly noted that the United States-Israel relationship is a 
     ``bond that is much more than a strategic alliance.'';
       Whereas the national security of the United States, Israel, 
     and allies in the Middle East face a clear and present danger 
     from the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran seeking 
     nuclear weapons and the ballistic missile capability to 
     deliver them;
       Whereas Israel would face an existential threat from a 
     nuclear weapons-armed Iran;
       Whereas President Barack Obama has been firm and clear in 
     declaring United States opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran, 
     stating on November 7, 2008, ``Let me state--repeat what I 
     stated during the course of the campaign. Iran's development 
     of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable.''

  And we know that since President Obama stated it, he absolutely means 
it, even though he said that the negotiations on health care would be 
on C-SPAN, would be open for everybody, even though there were comments 
that he'd be focused on jobs like a laser. Hopefully he really meant 
this.

       Whereas, on October 26, 2005, at a conference in Tehran 
     called ``World Without Zionism'', Iranian President Mahmoud 
     Ahmadinejad stated, ``God willing, with the force of God 
     behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the 
     United States and Zionism'';
       Whereas the New York Times reported that during his October 
     26, 2005, speech, President Ahmadinejad called for ``this 
     occupying regime [Israel] to be wiped off the map'';
       Whereas, on April 14, 2006, Iranian President Ahmadinejad 
     said, ``Like it or not, the Zionist regime [Israel] is 
     heading toward annihilation'';
       Whereas, on June 2, 2008, Iranian President Ahmadinejad 
     said, ``I must announce that the Zionist regime [Israel], 
     with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion, and 
     betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the 
     geographical scene'';
       Whereas, on June 2, 2008, Iranian President Ahmadinejad 
     said, ``Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of 
     the United States has come, and the countdown to the 
     annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has 
     started'';
       Whereas, on May 20, 2009, Iran successfully tested a 
     surface-to-surface long range missile with an approximate 
     range of 1,200 miles;
       Whereas Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons;
       Whereas Iran has been caught building three secret nuclear 
     facilities since 2002;
       Whereas Iran continues its support of international 
     terrorism, has ordered its proxy Hizbullah to carry out 
     catastrophic acts of international terrorism such as the 
     bombing of the Jewish AMIA Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 
     in 1994, and could give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist 
     organization in the future;
       Whereas Iran has refused to provide the International 
     Atomic Energy Agency with full transparency and access to its 
     nuclear program;
       Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 1803 
     states that according to the International Atomic Energy 
     Agency, ``Iran has not established full and sustained 
     suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing 
     activities and heavy-water-related projects as set out in 
     resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) nor 
     resumed its cooperation with the IAEA under the Additional 
     Protocol, nor taken the other steps required by the IAEA 
     Board of Governors, nor complied with the provisions of 
     Security Council resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and 1747 
     (2007) . . .'';
       Whereas at July 2009's G-8 Summit in Italy, Iran was given 
     a September 2009 deadline to start negotiations over its 
     nuclear programs and Iran offered a five-page document 
     lamenting the ``ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global 
     relations'' and included various subjects, but left out any 
     mention of Iran's own nuclear program which was the true 
     issue in question;
       Whereas the United States has been fully committed to 
     finding a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear threat, 
     and has made boundless efforts seeking such a resolution and 
     to determine if such a resolution is even possible;
       Whereas the United States does not want or seek war with 
     Iran, but it will continue to keep all options open to 
     prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons; and
       Whereas Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said in January 
     2011 that a change of course in Iran will not be possible 
     ``without a credible military option that is put before them 
     by the international community led by the United States'': 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) condemns the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran 
     for its threats of ``annihilating'' the United States and the 
     State of Israel, for its continued support of international 
     terrorism, and for its incitement of genocide of the Israeli 
     people;
       (2) supports using all means of persuading the Government 
     of Iran to stop building and acquiring nuclear weapons;
       (3) reaffirms the United States bond with Israel and 
     pledges to continue to work with the Government of Israel and 
     the people of Israel to ensure that their sovereign nation 
     continues to receive critical economic and military 
     assistance, including missile defense capabilities, needed to 
     address the threat of Iran; and
       (4) expresses support for Israel's right to use all means 
     necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by 
     Iran, defend Israeli sovereignty, and protect the lives and 
     safety of the Israeli people, including the use of military 
     force if no other peaceful solution can be found within a 
     reasonable time.

  Now there's a bunch of cosponsors on this bill but we need a lot 
more. We need pressure to bring it to the floor of the House and of the 
Senate.
  Prime Minister Netanyahu is right, sanctions won't do it. Unless Iran 
knows that the military threat is very real, they're not likely to 
stop.
  People keep talking about sanctions, sanctions. If we just sanction 
the banks, if we sanction this, if we sanction that. Well, the truth is 
Russia and China have said they're not going to play that game; they're 
not going to get involved. And as upset as I have been with Russia and 
China over some issues, I am grateful that they're honest about this. 
My concern was Russia and China would say, Okay, we'll have sanctions, 
knowing that there is no better time to make an absolute fortune than 
when some sanctions are declared against a country that has something 
like oil because it means all the other countries that are 
participating in the sanctions don't get to benefit from any contracts, 
and, therefore, that means the bigger share for whoever wants to cheat 
on the sanctions. At least Russia and China have been honest and said, 
We're not going to do the sanctions. So why in the world are we 
bothering these days to keep saying sanctions are going to work?
  Madam Speaker, it's very clear Iran is a threat to the United States 
and Israel, and we should not leave it to Israel to defend the United 
States. We ought to defend ourselves and go after Iran and take care of 
this problem ourselves.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________