[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 49 (Friday, April 12, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H1982-H1986]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ISSUES OF THE DAY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. GOHMERT. A lot has been going on this week and certainly worthy
of discussion here at the end of the week. One of the important topics
that has been discussed at both the Senate end and the House end is the
issue of immigration--legal immigration and illegal immigration.
Back when my friend Steve King and I were meeting with people from
the British Government about their handling of immigration, they were
offended by the term that Steve and I were using of ``illegal
immigration.'' We were told that that's not appropriate in England. I
asked what words they use, and I was told the appropriate terminology
is ``irregular migrant.'' I was concerned that sounded too much like
some kind of body function. I hated to use that term. Anyway, when
people immigrate into a country illegally, it's illegal immigration.
And it is a problem.
Anyone that goes down to the end of this Hall just outside these two
doors here and heads onto the Senate floor, immediately what is seen
above the President of the Senate's chair are the words ``e pluribus
unum,'' Latin meaning out of many, one. I have heard a colleague before
say it means out of one, many. But we all get mixed up at times. But e
pluribus unum means out of many, one.
For those of us that attended public schools when and where I did, we
were taught that it was immigration and the process of out of many
people becoming one people, becoming Americans, is what made us strong.
And the terminology for much of this country's history was that we were
a ``melting pot.'' I believed it then, I believe it now, and I believe
that that has been one of the great strengths that has made this
country the greatest country in the history of mankind--greater than
Solomon's Israel--with more liberties, more conveniences, more input
into the government and into the way the government works.
My friends on this side of the aisle and everybody I know of agrees
we want immigration to continue. Our country allows more immigrants
into this country than any other country in the world. No other country
comes close to allowing the number of people to immigrate into this
country, to come with visas into this country. Nobody comes close. We
are an extraordinarily generous country. And for those who have
wondered about whether they should be proud of our country in the past,
one of the greatest pieces of evidence would probably be the fact that
people all over the world, those who hate us, those who admire us--at
least a billion, maybe 1.5 billion in estimates have been made--want to
come to America. There's no other country in the world that so many
people would like to come to and enjoy the freedoms we have.
Unfortunately, there are many who want to come to this country to
destroy the freedoms we have because they look at our country and they
say, No, unless you have something like sharia law or a country in
which you
[[Page H1983]]
have a powerful, benevolent dictator, be it religious leader or be it a
benevolent secular dictator, they think we would not be nearly so
decadent. I prefer our government--a government, as Lincoln said, that,
under God, was of the people, by the people, and for the people.
There's never been one like us.
Now, I have heard a guy call into the show of my friend, Sean
Hannity, and he knew just enough history to be dangerous. He talked
about our history being founded on the proposition e pluribus unum--out
of many, one. He said there was never anything about God in our
beginnings. This young man apparently showed his ignorance and the
weakness of teachers in whatever school he grew up in. Because the fact
is e pluribus unum was never our national motto, as this person
thought.
From the beginning, from the 1700s, it was part of the Great Seal.
The Great Seal had two sides--and still does. It's still the Great Seal
of America. And on one side we have the eagle. I like the way the eagle
has differed over the years. I like the way it is now better than the
skinny little eagle that was there back in the 1700s. But the eagle has
a ribbon through his beak and on that ribbon has always been the Latin
phrase e pluribus unum--out of many, one. That's on one side of the
Great Seal.
On the other side of the Great Seal is a pyramid. And that pyramid
represents one of the greatest works of man. And there was a reason.
Because if you read the Founders' writings, read their journals, read
their letters, they believed they had within their grasp what
philosophers like John Locke, Montesquieu, and so many philosophers had
only dreamed about--that we might be able to govern ourselves.
{time} 1330
They viewed it as a little experiment in democracy. They believed
that if we did it right, that nations around the world would want to
follow our example. So it was important. They recognized that this was
a great achievement of man if it was done properly.
If you look on the back of a dollar bill, a one-dollar bill--if
anybody still has one, Mr. Speaker--you note one side with the eagle
and the e pluribus unum on the ribbon through the beak. In fact, the
shield up here above the House floor doesn't have the ribbon through
the beak--it's beneath the eagle--but it has those words there.
But on the other side, seeing the pyramid--you know, here's a great,
well-done work of man. Above that pyramid is a triangle, and in that
triangle is an eye. There is a glow around that eye to represent the
all-seeing eye of God looking at the work of man. Above that is a Latin
phrase that's above one of the exits down at the Senate, the Latin
words ``annuit coeptis.'' Taken together, it means He, God, has smiled
on our undertaking.
Beneath the pyramid are the Latin words ``novus ordo seclorum,''
meaning new order of things, new order of the ages--not new world
order, as some tried to say. But the way the Founders looked at it, if
we did this right, if we governed ourselves effectively and created the
most free Nation in the history of the world, by the grace of God, God
would smile on our undertaking and it would be a new order of things
because of the other nations that may follow our example. And it is
good.
I don't try to push my religious beliefs on anyone else, but it is a
part of who I am. As a matter of fact, I believe it was 36, at least--
most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence weren't just
Christians, they were ordained Christian ministers. It's hard to
imagine if over half of the Congress now, as the Continental Congress
was in those days, was of made of ordained Christian ministers--and I'm
not advocating that at all, I'm just historically making the note.
That's where we came from. That's who was inspired to start this little
experiment in democracy, not just Christians, but ordained Christian
ministers. They knew if they did it right, this place would be blessed,
and it would be a source of blessing for the world.
They did like the idea ``out of many, come one nation.'' That has
continued today, as most of us strongly support the idea of allowing
more immigration into this country than in any other country in the
world. Mexico doesn't allow near the freedom for immigrants that the
United States of America does. So at times it goes down a little tough
to be criticized by the leaders in Mexico who demand more rights for
immigrants into the United States than they would ever consider
affording United States citizens who are going into Mexico. But it's
true around the world.
Now, I'm told that some students are taught that we're not really a
melting pot; we're more of a tossed salad, where people retain their
individual natures and don't really become one people so much, we just
retain individuality. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, having studied
history and continuing to study history, that is a recipe for the end
of a nation. People need to come together as one people.
I find from data--and my Hispanic friends, some of them have pointed
out--that actually in the Hispanic community a vast majority support
the idea of having English as the official language. One of my dear
friends in Tyler, whose parents immigrated from Mexico, started one of
the most successful restaurant businesses there, and my friend has just
branched off and started another restaurant, he said that his parents
were adamant: you will speak only English in our home. Now, to be sure,
his parents spoke Spanish between themselves, but his father told him:
you can be anything in this country, but if you're going to be
everything you can possibly be, you have to speak good English, and in
doing so, you can be anything. He was right. Gus has been a city
councilman, a county commissioner, he is a leader in the community--a
good guy, a friend.
That's why it breaks my heart when I hear people--and it's normally
of the liberal political persuasion--who say, no, no, no, we need to
educate Hispanic immigrants in Spanish. Because when you study what
happens in those cases, you are compelling children who could end up
being President, if they're native-born Americans, President of the
United States. They could be President of the country. But when you
teach them in Spanish rather than English, you are relegating them to
be manual laborers when they could be president of the company, not
working out in the field for the company.
So that's what conservatives believe in. We want everyone to have the
sky as the limit for what can be achieved. We even want, at the White
House right now, we would prefer that women be compensated on an even
par with men, which is not happening right now. We want everyone to be
treated with equal opportunity, not to be treated equally, but with
equal opportunity. Because when you take away the incentive to work
hard and do well and achieve, you again are compelling a country down a
path that leads to the dust bin of history.
I've related this numerous times, but in the Soviet Union, when I was
an exchange student there one summer and visiting a collective farm,
communist farm, a collective, socialist farm--a progressive farm, if
you would prefer that, as some of my friends prefer not to be called
socialists, but prefer to be called progressives--it was a progressive
farm, where everyone was treated equally and everyone was paid the same
number of rubles.
I was shocked, having worked on farms and ranches around east Texas
growing up, because I had learned, heck, if you're going to work out
like that--and back then, if you were lucky enough to get to drive a
tractor instead of walking through the field hauling hay or working
with cattle or horses, we didn't have cabins over the tractors. We
thought it was pretty terrific if you got to drive the tractor instead
of walk along and working. But here I was at this progressive farm--
socialist farm, communist farm, whatever you want to call it--and most
of the farmers were sitting in the shade. I had a couple of years of
Russian at Texas A&M, and I spoke my best Russian at the time and asked
the question, here was mid-morning, When do you work out in the field?
I looked out in the field; I couldn't tell what they were working and
what they hadn't. It didn't seem to be a whole lot of difference.
I couldn't really tell what they were even growing out there. It
looked kind of greenish brown; none of it looked too good. This was the
middle of the summer. I knew from my work that you want to start early
and try to finish by three or four at the latest before
[[Page H1984]]
the sun gets its hottest, and here they were in the middle of this
shady area, not working; didn't look like they'd worked all morning.
The people there laughed, and I thought, oops, maybe I didn't say it
properly in Russian. And one of the guys responded for the group: I
make the same number of rubles if I'm here in the shade or if I'm out
there in the hot sun. And he said: So I'm here.
{time} 1340
And there, in a nutshell, is why a progressive farm will not ever
really work. Because when you give people the same amount of money to
work and sweat and produce as you pay them to sit in the shade and not
do anything but laugh and joke and cut up and have fun and eat snacks,
then I don't care how dedicated you are, at some point you'll quit
working out in the hot sun and you'll sit in the shade and no one will
have food to eat. That's why socialists or progressive societies always
fail.
So how does a free enterprise system fail? Free enterprise systems
always fail when they become so progressive, so socialist, that they
begin to reward completely the same amount for working as they do for
doing nothing.
This administration has been at the head of destroying the welfare
reform that was done in 1995-1996. And, yes, I'm pleased President
Clinton takes credit for it now. He certainly didn't at the time. He
fought the Republican majority over it over and over. He vetoed it. And
when finally there were enough votes to override the veto, President
Clinton signed it, and now he takes credit for it. But it was welfare
reform.
And what you learn from that, if you go back and do the studies--and
I was surprised, knowing the liberal bent of Harvard, to be at Harvard
for a seminar and have a dean have charts that said, since the Great
Society legislation started in the sixties, here is a chart of single
mothers' income when adjusted for inflation; and the graph showed a
flat line when adjusted for inflation. Single mothers, since the
sixties when the Great Society and all the giveaway programs began, the
welfare system, the welfare state began here in America, single moms
flatlined. When adjusted for inflation, they never improved their
situation, on average. Some did, but, on average, it was flatlined.
And then he said, since welfare reform where people were required to
work who could work, here is what has happened to single mothers'
income. That was since people were required to work who couldn't work.
And then adjusted for inflation, there was a huge rise for those 10
years in the income for single moms.
Well, now, I know the people that passed the Great Society welfare
legislation in the sixties, they wanted to help. I know they did. I
know friends on the other side of the aisle, they want to help single
moms. They want to help anybody who needs help.
But there is a question of how much do you help when you incentivize
people to never reach their God-given potential, and how much do you
help when you incentivize working and producing and becoming productive
and participating in society; who helps more? I know the intentions are
equal on both sides, but who actually helps more?
And it's never been more graphic than when you look at the income for
single moms after welfare reform and for the 30 years before welfare
reform. And now this administration has taken the best thing that Newt
Gingrich did as he led to a Republican majority and led in balancing
the budget, but even better, he helped single moms more than anything
that any Democrat had done for the 30 years preceding that majority by
elevating their income and beginning to have them feel some self-worth
because they could do jobs and they had value and they had worth that
they did not feel when they were flatlined and just taking the doles
that the government provided.
The Romans learned the hard way: you provide bread and circuses, and
eventually you kill off incentive. Once Caesar decided, gee, this is
not good for the people not to work when they can work; let's cut off
the bread and circuses, and he did. And there was so much massive
rioting, like we've seen in Greece, like we've seen in other places in
Europe that are broke.
Once you have degraded as a society to the point that more people
have been convinced to sit back and just accept what the government
gave them instead of using their God-given potential, then you are not
likely going to ever get back to your greatest days again; you're done.
It's just a matter of how long until you hit the dustbin of history.
The reason I'm still in Congress, the reason I've continued to run,
is because I've still got hope. I've still got hope we can preserve,
perpetuate for more generations the greatest gift that any group of
people have ever been given as a secular nation, and that is the gift
of this country, a country that saw its Founders coming over, Pilgrims.
Right down the hall in the rotunda, there is the great painting, that
massive painting, of the Pilgrims having a prayer meeting, praying for
the land that they would come to.
That famous prayer meeting that they had on board the Speedwell--they
had two ships, the Speedwell and the Mayflower. A lot of people don't
know that. But that prayer meeting was in Holland, before they left
from Holland to go to England, and then from England come to America.
Some think it may have been a bit like Gideon's army being whittled
down to just the strongest among them.
But the Speedwell, when they got ready to leave from England to come
to America, began to take on water, so they had to cut their group. The
Mayflower was smaller than the Speedwell. They had to cut their group
down in size and get the hardiest and the most likely to be able to
plant that settlement in America where Christians could have prayer
meetings, where they could say what they believe, where they could say
without fear of retribution that I believe marriage is between a man
and a woman. They could say all of the things they had been taught in
the Bible, all of those things they believed as Christians, and have a
land where Christians would not be persecuted. Other groups came as
Christians seeking that land that God would allow them to live in
without persecution.
Now, Jesus said, ``You will suffer for My sake.'' I didn't suffer for
Jesus' sake growing up as a Christian, because people who were
Christians didn't suffer. But now we're persecuted. And now if you
point out that Jesus sanctioned marriage, he intended a marriage
between a man and a woman, if you point out that in Genesis God
ordained marriage, he saw a man alone and said, that's not good, so I
will give you a helpmate, a wife, you start talking about those things,
then as a Christian you're about the only person, the only group in
America that it's politically correct to actually persecute and condemn
and discriminate against and say, as my friend, Rick Santorum, was
told, Gee, oh, you believe what's been the history of great societies
for thousands of years that a marriage is between a man and a woman.
Because biologically by nature, even if you don't believe in God, by
nature, that's how a species continues is by marriage between a man and
a woman. And now we're persecuted for that.
We're persecuted because we say, you know, I believe a baby is a life
deserving protection. ``Well, that's some Christian nonsense. You ought
to be a criminal. You ought to be put behind bars, don't try to
protect.'' And all the while where some of those folks are saying we
need to protect the most innocent among us, is there any more innocent
being in the world than a child ready to be born? They've done nothing
wrong. They just want to live.
{time} 1350
We want immigration. We need immigration in this country. I want
Hispanics coming to America. I want people coming from any nation where
they want to come together and become one people and be part of that e
pluribus unum. But I also want them not to tear down my history and act
as if it never was true. Or act as if when you look to the west and you
see the Washington Monument, that when that was finished over 100 years
ago, after the whole nation was contributing and they finally brought
it to a conclusion and finished it off, they capped it with a capstone
and on that capstone there's writing on three of the four sides of that
capstone that's made out of what
[[Page H1985]]
was an extremely valuable and rare metal back at the time called
aluminum. But on the side facing the Capitol, by design, they wanted
two Latin words, ``laus Deo,'' meaning praise be to God.
Don't tell me that that's not the case. Don't tell me that's there by
mistake. Because over a hundred years ago and back to the days of John
Adams and his son John Quincy Adams, and Abraham Lincoln, or going back
to George Washington when he resigned from the military and his prayer
was that we would be following the divine author of our blessed
religion, without an humble imitation in these things we can never hope
to be a happy nation.
I understand things have changed, but don't tell me that is not our
history. It is. Don't tell me those words are not up there. They are.
And even though the Park Service for a time took the capstone that
tourists could see and turned it to where you couldn't see ``laus
Deo,'' it doesn't hide the fact that up there on the top of the
Washington Monument, those words are there.
And why are they facing the Capitol? It's certainly not because we
can look out from the Capitol and read ``praise be to God'' in Latin on
the top of the Washington Monument. No, it's because they knew that
would be the highest point man had constructed in our Capital City, and
they wanted to ensure as the first rays of God's sun illuminated
anything in this town, it would be the words, praise be to God. That's
why it's there.
As a Christian, I'm supposed to turn the other cheek. I'm not always
good at it, but that is what I'm supposed to try to do. But as a part
of the government, we have an obligation to protect this country, to
provide for the common defense, to make sure that whether enemies are
foreign or domestic that we protect what has been entrusted to us as
servants to protect, and that's not happening sufficiently right now,
because there are people coming into this country that want to destroy
what we have. They want to bring us down before a monarch that they
want to set in place. There are some who simply want to come for
benefits.
I'm so grateful that most of the people that come want to come to
enjoy the freedoms and to get a job, and I'm so thankful we have so
many immigrants, first generation immigrants, who come wanting to work.
They are of an incredibly immense help to this country still being
productive, especially after 50 million abortions. We're needing people
to help. But I want them to have a chance to be president of their
company and, if they're born here, to be President of the country. We
need to be one people, and we need to have people come legally. Since
we're allowing more immigrants to come in legally than any other
country in the world, why not make sure the people that are coming are
going to be helpful to America and not hurt America and not end this
great experiment in democracy? That's part of our job.
And then we have this article from Friday, April 12, 2013. This is
from radio WOAI:
The debate in Washington on immigration reform has had no
political impact, but the debate is having a major impact on
south Texas.
Officials say the number of people entering the U.S.
illegally is way up and, tragically, the number of
undocumented immigrants who have been found dead in the
unforgiving Texas brush country is way up and is on path this
year to best last year's record for the number of people
found dead in the ranch country.
So why are more people dying in the harsh brush country of Texas?
The article goes on:
Linda Vickers, who owns a branch in Brooks County which is
ground zero for the immigration debate, pins the blame
directly on talk of ``amnesty'' and a ``path to citizenship''
for people who entered the United States illegally.
She recalls one man being arrested on her ranch not long
ago.
``The Border Patrol agent was loading one man up, and he
told the officer in Spanish, `Obama's gonna let me go.' ''
Border Patrol agents report that immigrants are crossing
the border and in some cases surrendering while asking,
``Where do I go for my amnesty?''
``When you have amnesty waving in the wind, you're going to
get an increase,'' Vickers says. ``And when you get an
increase, especially with this heat, you're going to get
an increase in deaths.''
She says the current increase in illegal immigrant entries
began last summer, at almost exactly the same time as
President Obama unilaterally announced plans to no longer
deport young people who came to the U.S. as children with
their illegal immigrant parents.
``Washington is directly responsible for these deaths,''
she said.
Brooks County routinely has the largest number of illegal
immigrant deaths each year because smugglers come up U.S. 281
from the Rio Grande Valley but kick their human cargo out of
the truck before reaching the Border Patrol checkpoint in
Falfurrias.
``If that individual, illegal immigrant, can't keep up,
they are left behind,'' she said. ``And you are going to die
out in this heat if you can't find water.''
I know none of my friends on this side of the aisle want people to
die like that. I know that. I deeply care about so many, just as the
Democrats do. As a Christian, I'm supposed to love all people. I don't
want them to die in the Texas brush country. And if the administration
or people in Congress promising amnesty is luring people out as so many
are indicating in that area who appear to have firsthand knowledge,
then we should not be luring them to their deaths.
We need to talk about one thing right now: let's have a secured
border, so when the report came out 2 or 3 weeks ago that there were
over 500 people that entered illegally at one place and that not even
180 or so were actually picked up or seen by cameras by the Border
Patrol, and fewer than that were picked up, and there were over 30
people bringing drugs into this Nation that would poison American
children, American people, then we're not ready to talk about resolving
the issue of the people who are here. Because until the border is
secured--not closed, I don't want it closed, we need it open for people
to come in legally--but until it's secured so we can control who comes
in, we should not be talking about a pathway to anything but
deportation.
{time} 1400
Let's secure the border, and then people will be amazed at how fast
we have an agreement on what to do about the people who have come into
this country illegally.
I've got a lot of restaurants and hotels and people who have
businesses who say, I need those immigrants to keep my business open.
Fine. Let's secure the border, and then we can work this out. We
surely can--we absolutely can--but until that's done, we're luring
people to their deaths. We're learning what one article says--and this
is from townhall.com--that border crossings are up two to three times
what they were because of all this talk.
Then there's the talk that the President has given about how we're
not going to be able to secure our border because of the sequester.
We're not going to cut golf trips, and we're not going to cut any of
these other things, but by golly, we're not going to protect the border
unless you give us amnesty for the people who are here. Well, let's
secure the border. Oh, no. We're going to hold that hostage. We're not
going to do our job that we took an oath to do until you grant amnesty
to the people who are here.
People who are here in this Congress need to understand what it does
to those who did everything lawfully to come into this country, who
have followed every part of the law. It is absolutely demoralizing to
most of those people to have the talk of amnesty of people who didn't
follow the law as they did. Once we have a secured border--not held
hostage, but just do the job that the oath was taken to do. Once that's
done, let's talk about a pathway to a green card or a pathway to being
here as a permanent legal resident. A pathway to citizenship needs to
have people who believe in the rule of law because, if that is not the
case, we will become like the nations those people left because they
couldn't find jobs. They didn't have adequate freedom. There was graft
and corruption because they did not believe in the rule of law as a
nation, so they had to leave that nation and come to our Nation.
So don't destroy a Nation that, for the most part, believes in the
rule of law and in following the law--and that includes me and other
Members of Congress. We need to show respect for those who follow the
law and for those who say, It's Christian to help all immigrants. Well,
it's Christian to help all people and to love all people just as Christ
did, but as a government we
[[Page H1986]]
need to make sure this country is going to be here, and we cannot do
that unless we make sure that people here--immigrants who have come in,
people who are Native Americans, those who are here in America--are
protected against all enemies who may come in and want to destroy us.
That's part of our job.
I want to make a point about gun control since cloture was voted on
down the hall. I've not always been terribly complimentary of our
friend Senator McConnell down the hall, but he made some very, very
important points that people need to understand about what is being
proposed for gun control. Under what has been proposed in the Senate
for gun control--and I'm quoting from Senator McConnell--he has it
right:
``An uncle giving his nephew a hunting rifle for Christmas.'' That's
someone who, under the law being pushed in the Senate, will be a
criminal. Someone else who would be a criminal under the law being
pushed in the Senate is ``a niece giving her aunt--`` he says ``aunt,''
but it could be her grandmother even ``--a handgun for protection.''
Another criminal under the Senate proposal would be ``a cousin loaning
another cousin his hunting rifle if the loan occurs just 1 day before
the beginning of hunting season.'' Another criminal under the proposal
would be ``one neighbor loaning another a firearm so his wife can
protect herself while the husband is away.''
Senator McConnell said, ``The people I am describing are not
criminals--they are neighbors, friends and family--and the scenarios,''
he says, ``I am describing are not fanciful. They happen countless
times in this country.'' As he says, ``The Schumer bill would outlaw
these transfers, and it would make people like these, criminals.''
Any time a bill is rushed to the floor before people have a chance to
read it, examine it, amend it, discuss it, it's not going to be good
for the American people in all things.
Thomas Jefferson was not part of the Constitutional Convention. He
was part of the Continental Congress. In fact, he did most of the
drafting of the Declaration of Independence, but he wasn't there for
the drafting of the Constitution, itself. He wrote this letter after
the Constitution was promulgated--an incredible document.
He said:
If I could add one thing to the Constitution, it would be a
requirement that every law had to be on file for 1 year
minimum so everyone could read it, everyone could make
comments on it. You'd have plenty of chances to think of
amendments that might make it better and a stronger, more
effective law.
Have it on file for a year. That may not have been such a bad idea if
it had been included. As incredibly and, I believe, divinely inspired
as the Constitution was, so many of the Founders said they got their
inspiration for provisions in the Constitution from the Old Testament,
but as fantastic as it was, it was written down by men who make
mistakes.
This Congress better not put into law a gun control bill or an
immigration bill or any other important bill that has not had adequate
scrutiny because, if that happens, Americans will suffer just as surely
as they are beginning to as ObamaCare is being implemented around the
country and as people are being turned away from treatment, though they
were promised: if you like your doctor, you can keep him; if you like
your health insurance, you can keep it. Now they've found that was
completely untrue--and Joe Wilson was right. It's not true what was
said about the Affordable Care Act. People have lost their doctors, and
they've lost their insurance. That will continue to occur, and we're
going to destroy the best health care in the history of man.
There are doctors, medical historians, who have indicated that they
think it was just after the turn of 1900--maybe 1910 or so--when for
the first time in human history a person had a better chance of getting
well after seeing a doctor than he did of getting worse after seeing a
doctor. You get your mind around that. For thousands of years of the
existence of man, where we have recorded history of man, think about
that: only in the last hundred years have you had a better chance of
getting well after seeing a doctor than of getting worse. You think
about how far we've come. Now we're radically going to change health
care so people can't get the treatment they once did? We needed to
reform health care--it needed reform--but it didn't need a government
takeover, and it still doesn't. The reason for that is that life is
important. Life has value.
I'm going to read a story--I won't read the whole thing--that was in
the New York Daily News from Thursday, April 11.
{time} 1420
Ashley Baldwin said she saw the puppies moving on five
occasions after their spines were snipped.
The doctor is charged in the deaths of these puppies and in
the death of the mother. The gruesome testimony at the
``House of Horrors'' trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell continued on
Thursday, with two former employees describing scenes that
strained the imagination.
Ashley Baldwin, who began working at the cash-only clinic
in west Philadelphia when she was just 15, said that she
routinely assisted Gosnell with these procedures, on five
different occasions, saw puppies moving following the
procedure.
In one case Baldwin, who is now 22 and a dog owner,
testified that she witnessed a puppy ``screeching'' after the
procedure.
She said, ``They looked like regular puppies.''
When asked about a particular puppy described in court as
``puppy A,'' who the prosecution contends was nearing its
birth date, Baldwin recalled how large the unborn puppy was
following the procedure.
``The chest was moving,'' she testified Thursday.
Gosnell trained his employees to cut the necks of the
puppies to sever their spinal cords, both Baldwin and Lynda
Williams, another former employee, testified on Wednesday.
Williams testified that she saw her former boss snip the
necks of more than 30 puppies.
John McMahon, Gosnell's attorney, has argued that his
client did not kill any puppies by snipping their spines and
that they were already in the death throes because of the
drugs he had given the mother dog.
Gosnell is charged with first-degree murder in the deaths
of seven puppies, as well as murder in the death of the
mother undergoing its procedure.
Now, the reason the mainstream media has not reported this story and
continues to refuse to report this story about little innocent puppies
having their necks cut and killed after they're born alive is because
they are not puppies; they're human beings. They're boys and girls, and
it doesn't fit the agenda of the mainstream media to report on little
boys and little girls whose spinal cords are cut by a doctor. They
would be sure to report if these were puppies, but they're not; they're
little boys and girls.
And as a father who held our first very premature child in my hands
and heard her gasping for air, heard her efforts to live, and knowing
that we did all we could to help her live and that she's 29 years old,
I can't imagine anyone thinking not only is it not a big deal but it is
not worth reporting when a doctor snips the neck of someone's little
child.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________