[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 193 (Tuesday, November 28, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H9462-H9466]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2015
                           ISSUES OF THE WEEK

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2017, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we had a lot to be thankful for this 
Thanksgiving. Anybody who was in America, in the United States, has a 
lot to be thankful for. People are counting on us across the country to 
make sure we don't mess the country up because we have done a great 
deal of damage from Washington, much of it done by bureaucrats.
  But the only way they can do it is when Congress relegates and 
delegates obligations that we should have to bureaucrats, especially 
unaccountable bureaucrats like those at the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau.
  It is time to get power back to where there is accountability. And 
there is a better chance of having accountability right here in 
Congress than there is in some agency, some bureau that thumbs its nose 
at the executive, legislative, and judicial branches and says: We are 
above the Constitution. We are above everything else in the country. We 
do what we want to, and nobody can say otherwise.
  Well, they are finding out at the CFPB that that is not the case. 
Everybody in America has some accountability somewhere.
  It makes me smile to hear friends from across the aisle talking about 
running up a deficit because I remember that talk in 2006, and we were 
properly excoriated on the Republican side of the aisle for running up 
a deficit of around $160 billion more than we brought in. We were 
castigated. We were beat up in all kinds of ways, and Democrats were 
right.
  Who would have ever dreamed that the people who were belittling 
Republicans for allowing a $160 billion deficit would soon be so very 
proud since they had the majority in the House, the Senate, the 
Presidency, just a couple of short years later, they would have a $1.5 
trillion to $1.6 trillion deficit?
  We would be treated to the first 4 and the first 8 years in our 
Nation's history under a President during which the economy never grew 
up to 3 percent. It never grew up to 3 percent. It did not, the whole 
time the Democrats had the majority in the House and the Senate, those 
4 years they had the majority in the House and Senate.
  That time when they had the House, the Senate, and the White House, 
they managed to run up the debt higher than anyone has ever come close 
to before. But the good news for those who have forgotten that the talk 
of $160 billion deficit being so outrageous before

[[Page H9463]]

they ran up a $1.5 trillion to $1.6 trillion deficit, those who don't 
remember those days can be reminded of those now as we begin to hear 
the rhetoric about the current proposed appropriation.
  We passed all 12 appropriations here in the House. We did our work. 
It is time the Senate did their work. Now we are being told: Oh, well, 
you have got to get over all that stuff you did. All of that hard work, 
all the cuts to Planned Parenthood, all the things you did standing on 
principle down there in the House, you have got to forget about that 
because we don't work like that down in the Senate. We are just going 
to be lucky to fund the projects we are interested in. We have no 
interest in taking up the hard work that the House of Representatives 
did.
  But it is time the Senate tried that. I think if they will look into 
the appropriation bills the House passed, they will find out we 
actually did some very good, solid, amazing work.
  For some reason, before we ensure that the Second Amendment applies 
everywhere across the country that the Constitution meant for it to 
apply, we are going to take up a background check bill tomorrow. The 
abbreviation is NICS, which gathers information on people's backgrounds 
who want to buy a gun. Despite all of the inaccurate information that 
is often touted about the lack of background checks, of how you can 
order online or at gun shows, these kind of things, there are 
background checks when you order online.
  It is really unfair to the gun stores who didn't actually make the 
sale, but anybody who orders a gun online still has to have the 
background check, and they still have to go in and pick it up at a 
store and meet the requirements of the law and the background check.
  We have heard many times about how the background checks have 
prevented 3 million Americans who should not have guns from getting 
guns, but that is not true nor accurate. Apparently, the last year that 
the Obama administration decided to bless us with actual information 
about background checks, they reported that about 73,000 Americans were 
prevented from getting a gun on the first check under the law as it 
exists. There are five different checks. And because the first check 
does not take all of the information that someone buying a gun has to 
fill out, not the date of birth, not Social Security number, not any of 
the information that is replete on the document being filled out, none 
of that is used.
  They take a phonetic--well, the pronunciation of the name and use the 
phonetic pronunciation to do a background check. That is why they have 
so many millions of hits since this has been going on is because if 
someone's name just sounds a bit like somebody else's, it comes up as a 
hit and an initial denial.
  But then at each stage, each one of those five checks, more and more 
are found to not be the person who should be prevented from having a 
gun. In the last year--we have data--I was talking to John Lott about 
this earlier this afternoon, but in 2010, there were 73,000 denials, 
approximately, of the ability to buy a gun.
  As they went through each of those five checks, they found out that 
so many actually were not the person who should have been blocked from 
buying a gun. When the Obama administration got down to the bare facts, 
they found that out of about 73,000 initial denials, there were only 42 
cases that were referred to be prosecuted for potential prosecution.

  If I recall correctly, the Obama administration only prosecuted about 
a fourth of what the Bush administration prosecuted. So out of the 42--
and I don't mean 42,000 out of 73,000, I mean 42.0 out of 73,000--the 
Obama administration only decided to get 13 convictions.
  Mr. Speaker, there were 73,000 initial denials. It tells you the 
system doesn't work very well at all. It doesn't make sense that we 
would have a system that would use all of the information that somebody 
provides to look for hits of somebody who should not be able to buy a 
gun. Use the date of birth. Use the Social Security number. Use the 
information there to check to see if someone is ineligible to buy a 
gun.
  Then we can get serious about better gun enforcement, especially 
since we now have a Department of Justice--except for the special 
prosecutor that is interested in just them, just us kind of justice--
except for that special prosecutor's group, we do have a Department of 
Justice that truly is interested in doing justice.
  So when it comes to background checks, yes, we will continue to have 
them, but I hope we make some needed changes in the law, and I also 
hope that we are able to pass a bill this week out of committee, get it 
to the floor, pass it out of here, and hopefully the Senate will do 
their job on it. But that would allow reciprocity for people who are 
allowed to carry a gun in one jurisdiction to be able to carry that gun 
across the country. It is something we are working on.
  Mr. Speaker, I was so greatly encouraged seeing an article about 
Poland. Those people have always been such an independent-minded 
people, even though they have been yanked to and fro. Whether it is 
Russia, Prussia, Germany, they have had a difficult time--Austria. They 
have had a tough time. But they have always been independent-minded. As 
President Reagan and as the former Polish Pope noted, and as President 
Trump has noted, Poland, generally speaking, understands what people 
who go through the 12-step program understand. There is a higher power.
  But by the grace of God, we would not have this incredible little 
experiment in self-government. We would never have lasted as long as we 
have. There are miracles where the divine hand of God truly stepped in 
during the Revolutionary War, during the early days as a nation when we 
could have, and probably should have, fallen, one after another. As the 
Founders would say, divine providence protected this little experiment, 
and it is in trouble right now.
  There are so many people who have been taught across the country that 
America is an embarrassment and owes the world an apology.

                              {time}  2030

  Bill Ayers and all of those who were hippies--not all of them, but so 
many of them who were hippies--found that, as terrorists like Bill 
Ayers was, they didn't get the results they were seeking by blowing up 
things or people. They got a lot more done by moving into universities, 
becoming tenured professors, and teaching future teachers an improper 
history and an inaccurate history of these United States so that now we 
have, we are told, half the people coming out of college thinking 
socialism would be a better way of living.
  They don't understand. They have never thought it through. They don't 
look at what has really happened because they haven't been taught true 
history. They don't understand. They don't know that every time 
socialism--progressivism if you would rather call it that as so many in 
this body do--always failed and always will fail to the end of the age 
as long as there is jealousy, greed, avarice, and even common sense.
  As I have mentioned here on the floor, the Russian farmer who said, 
``I make the same number of rubles here in the shade, if I am in the 
shade here or if I am out there in the sun, so I am in the shade,'' 
that explained why socialism does not, will not, and cannot ever work. 
It always fails.
  The only way you can have it is where people share across from those 
according to their ability to those according to their need. What a 
lie. It didn't come from those according to their ability. Once 
socialism sets in, so does malaise. There is no incentive to work 
harder and harder except if you can get politically entrenched 
sufficiently, then those in political power. As a Russian college 
student told me back when I was a college student over there in the 
Soviet Union: In America, you can advance yourself by making more money 
and working harder. Here in the Soviet Union, we can only advance 
ourselves by stepping on others and trying to get political power by 
stepping on others.
  This is a better system, even with all its flaws. Churchill said that 
capitalism is the worst form of government except for all the others. 
But it allows people to succeed or fail as they are driven to do. It is 
called freedom. We have had it. We have been losing it.
  When the Democratic House and majority set up the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, they set up an

[[Page H9464]]

agency, a bureau, that didn't have to answer to Congress. They could 
violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment. They 
didn't care. They are all powerful. In fact, they are so full of 
themselves that they think no one can hold them accountable and they 
can do whatever they want. They don't need money from Congress. They 
get it from the Federal Reserve. They are a perpetual bureau that is 
not answerable to the President, to the Congress--not to anybody. They 
are finding out today that is not the case, but they sure thought it 
was.
  When I was a felony judge, if the government wanted someone's bank 
records, they had to either get that person's permission or they had to 
come to a judge like me; and with either live or affidavit testimony 
sworn under oath, they had to prove that a crime was probably 
committed, that this particular person probably committed the crime, 
and that these bank records were needed because of the probable cause 
that existed from the evidence. I would consider the evidence and then 
decide if probable cause existed. If it did, I would sign the warrant, 
and the government only then could get the bank records.
  Not so with the CFPB. They are in the protection racket. It is right 
there in their name, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It is a 
protection racket like the mob used to be in. They got their money from 
the Federal Reserve, and they are here to protect us all.
  So they gather up people's banking records and debit and credit card 
activities. Why? Because they are there to protect us from greedy, evil 
banks.
  Some have said: Wait a minute, though. How about you just leave my 
privacy alone, and if a bank messes me around, then I will come tell 
you? You don't need to get all of my private records.
  But since the CFPB has the unmitigated gall and arrogance to think 
they are totally unaccountable, they don't care what the Constitution 
says or what some court says. They don't need a warrant. They get 
whatever records they want to. Why? Because they are in the protection 
racket, out to protect us. You do what they say or they ruin you.
  What a racket, not accountable to anybody. That has got to change. 
The President is doing what he can to change that. Thank God and thank 
President Trump, both. We have got a chance of reining in an 
unconstitutionally acting body. Fortunately, there is at least one 
judge who recognized that, and hopefully there will be more.
  Those in Poland are amazing. As I continue to meet people who have 
lived in areas like Poland under the Soviet boot or who were alive 
during the ravages of World War II, those people here in the United 
States seem to understand more what is at stake right now than most any 
natural-born American. They know what it is like not to have freedom. 
They know what it is like to have a government watch every move and 
tell you what you can or you cannot do and sometimes punish on a whim 
just to keep citizens terrified of the totalitarian government, a 
totalitarian government that has to exist in order for socialism, 
communism, and progressivism to exist.
  In fact, when I was in college, I was doing research and saw back in 
the days, I believe it was around 1960, `61, in that time, that the 
Premier of the Soviet Union, Khruschchev, understood that, under the 
idea of communism or progressivism, everyone would share and share 
alike; and the ultimate form of that progressivism or communism or 
socialism would be, when there was no need for government, everyone 
just shared and shared alike from those according to their ability, 
according to their need. Everyone shared.
  Of course, in the Soviet Union in 1960, `61, under Premier 
Khruschchev, it was indeed a very totalitarian country, not as bad as 
it had been under Stalin, but those millions and millions of Ukrainians 
who lost their lives when Stalin saw to their starvation, those who 
lost loved ones during that period of starvation at the hands of 
Stalin, they understand what freedom is and what it isn't. They 
understand the only way a progressive or communist or socialist can 
exist is you have got to have that totalitarian government forcing or 
taking money or goods away from those who earn them and work for them--
created them--and giving them to those who did not.

  So Khruschchev realized that, in the ultimate form of communism and 
progressivism, there is no government. So he appointed a committee or 
commission to study the issue and figure out how we eventually achieve 
that perfect state where there is no government and everyone is sharing 
and sharing alike. How do we get to that place?
  They were always big on having 5-year plans in the former Soviet 
Union, so he thought perhaps this commission, this group of learned 
people, could set up the plan for how they could move forward each year 
until there was that state of perfection, there was no government, but 
just people sharing and working, working together, sharing together, 
sharing with those who had not and could not.
  But as I learned from studying, Khruschchev eventually had to disband 
the commission. They realized there is no way you ever reach that 
perfect state of progressivism or socialism or communism. You can't 
ever achieve that in this world. There will always have to be a 
totalitarian government that has taken away people's freedom and tells 
them what they are allowed to do. That has been the direction of this 
government for years now: Let's lure people in to total dependence on 
the government, and then we get to tell them where they will live and 
what they will do.
  Do you think that is a stretch? Look at what happened when the 
Democratic House and Senate voted to take over all college loans. That 
is a lot of power. When the Federal Government takes over all college 
loans, it enables the Federal Government to get into an area of 
governance that the Soviet Union did. The friends I came to know that 
summer I was there, the government told them whether they were going to 
be allowed to go to college. They told them what they would study in 
college. They told them where they were going to go work when they 
finish college. They told them what they were going to do in that place 
that the government directed them to go.
  Heck, there were 15 states in the former Soviet Union. You couldn't 
even cross the states without having a visa to go between the states. I 
was shocked by that.
  But if you are going to have progressivism or socialism or communism, 
the share-and-share-alike mentality, spreading the wealth--as our 
former President liked to say: If you are going to take from the sweat 
of someone else's brow and give it to someone who did not earn it, you 
are going to have to have a totalitarian government.
  When the Federal Government here in the United States took over all 
college loans, it put itself in a position of being able to say: Okay. 
We know, historically, what the Soviet Union did, and we like that kind 
of power, so here is what we are going to do.

                              {time}  2045

  You do this job or that job or go to this place and we will start 
forgiving that huge amount of debt you owe for your college loans that 
we are in charge of. That is power.
  When the Federal Government takes over flood insurance, it gives the 
Federal Government the power to tell people where they can or can't 
live. Thank goodness we finally were allowed to reform the flood 
insurance. That is why--probably, the biggest reason--some of us didn't 
vote for the second swath of money for the disasters this fall.
  There were no reforms that we were promised that would be there, like 
for the lady who said she had to rebuild her home in the same place 21 
different times. There were so many homes the Federal Government has 
paid for since we took over flood insurance because, apparently, you 
had to build where your home flooded, even though you wanted to move 
elsewhere so your home wouldn't flood again. If you wanted the money, 
you had to rebuild right there.
  That is what one lady was explaining. She didn't want to still be 
there, but she couldn't sell her lot with a destroyed, flooded home on 
it for enough money to build anywhere else. So she had to keep 
rebuilding where her home kept flooding.
  We needed a reform so people could move and we wouldn't have to keep 
paying for people's homes over and over again in the same place. If 
they want to pay for private insurance and

[[Page H9465]]

live in the same place, fine. The Federal Government shouldn't be 
forcing people to build in the same place and keep them there as 
financial prisoners.
  At least in the House, we finally passed some reforms recently. That 
was a good thing, and I am grateful we did.
  Through all of these decades, for the last 100 years, the people of 
Poland understood what freedom is and they understood when they didn't 
have it.
  I can recall back in the seventies being on a train coming--I believe 
it was--from Gradna, on the border between Poland and the Soviet Union, 
coming across Poland, which was considered to be one of the satellite 
nations over Soviet domination.
  An American made the mistake of saying in the presence of a Polish 
gentleman: This land looks just the way it had for the last couple of 
days.
  The man became outraged. He said: No, no. In the Soviet Union there 
are huge farms and you can't tell what is cultivated and what isn't 
because they are not farmed very well. You look out here at the farms 
in Poland and they are much smaller because we own our own farms and 
work our own farms.
  He got very upset. I thought it was kind of a beautiful thing, how 
proud he was of his country, and the difference between a progressive 
or socialist-style government that rewards sluggishness. He pointed 
there in Poland to a place where their hard work actually showed.
  We keep heading in the direction of the countries that have failed as 
they have tried this progressivism that always fails. It doesn't make 
sense to keep trying it. It never works. It didn't work in the New 
Testament. It didn't work for the pilgrims. It will work in Heaven, in 
a perfect world, in paradise, with no jealousy and everyone pulling the 
same direction, loving, caring. But in this world, it will not ever 
work.
  In Poland--I was reading yesterday--their government leaders have 
come to the conclusion that life was better when they followed a 
Biblical example and had 1 day of the week where people rested and they 
were with their families. They went to church and they worshipped God. 
They found that is not a bad idea.
  Now there are people in Poland in leadership positions who are 
saying: We have had 7-day workweeks, but families have suffered 
significantly. Maybe we should look back at that Biblical example of 
having 1 day of rest, 1 day together to worship; a day to be with 
family, a day to rest, and to love each other.
  It seems like sometimes we get moving so fast that we forget the best 
things in life. It looks like that is what some of the Polish leaders 
are now saying.
  They have also made clear to the EU that, just as President Trump has 
here, as leaders of a nation, a leader owes to that nation the 
protection that they were elected or hired to provide and survive. 
Survival is supposed to be what the leaders are ensuring. Flourishing.
  As a result of the policies we have seen change in the last 11 
months, we now have had 2 months--1 month was a record for the last 8 
years--but now we have had 2 months, as I understand it, where growth 
has gone over 3.4 percent in the economy. We can keep that up and 
continue to grow. We are going to have plenty of money to pay this 
country's bills.
  In fact, the only way we will ever get out from under the massive 
debt we are about to leave and impart to our children and grandchildren 
is if we grow the economy sufficiently to grow our way out of that 
indebtedness.
  I believe the Laffer Curve is true. It is a truth economically. If 
you tax up to a certain point, then at some point, the more you tax, 
the more you overburden the work, and there gets to be less and the 
economy is brought down, you end up yielding less as a percentage of 
what you were bringing in.
  As Arthur Laffer explained to President Reagan and his aids, if the 
goal is to maximize Federal revenue, you want to hit that percentage of 
tax that encourages work and growth to the greatest extent, and then 
you will bring even more money in.
  The trouble is, like in Ireland, when they dropped their corporate 
tax rate so low--apparently, in the eighties, tax rates were dropped--
revenue starts flowing in better and better and Congress started 
spending. They did the same thing in Ireland. Record revenue comes in, 
even bigger record spending took place. We can't be doing that.
  There is an article here today in The Washington Times by Dave Boyer: 
``Pence, commemorating Israel's birth, says Trump `actively' seeks to 
move U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.''

  We have had Presidents saying for years that they would move the 
embassy to the true capital of Israel. It has been the capital of 
Israel since King David moved it there about 3,000 years ago.
  I know that there are some that are very upset and say: No, no, you 
cannot move the Israeli capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
  Well, Jerusalem is the capital. But perhaps a compromise might be 
that, since we know when King David became ruler over all of Israel, he 
first went to Hebron--I have been there a few times. I have stood there 
at what is strongly believed to be the tomb of King David's father, 
Jesse. They think they found the small synagogue he created. It looks 
like that is what it was.
  Hebron is where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are all buried. In fact, 
Abraham made a big deal. He wanted to pay for the land where he and his 
family would be buried so that there would never be any question that 
it was their land where they were buried.
  The town of Hebron is where King David first went and ruled over 
Israel for 7 years and 6 months. After 7\1/2\ years, he then moved the 
capital to Jerusalem. So I would be fine if we wanted to compromise and 
say: Okay, you need time to get used to the idea, then let's move the 
capital from Tel Aviv to Hebron and make that the capital of Israel for 
7\1/2\ years, like King David did.
  Then, following King David's example, after 7\1/2\ years with Hebron 
as the capital, move it to Jerusalem. That would give people time to 
get used to the idea.
  I do want to make a comment. The Senate--at least some, but not all 
Senators--is dragging its feet on getting something passed in the way 
of tax reform. I was totally shocked to hear that some Senators were 
saying they wanted to have the corporate tax rate cut, put off, for a 
year. That seems crazy.
  As someone who has been to China and met with different CEOs and 
asking, ``Why did you move all these manufacturing jobs from America to 
China,'' I thought the answer would be labor unions, it would be over 
regulation.
  Well, those were all problems for them, they said. But I loved 
hearing repeatedly corporate leaders saying: Our best quality control, 
our best workers were in America.
  I loved hearing that. They seemed sincere. The reason we moved to 
China is because of the corporate tax rate being about half of what it 
is in China as compared to what it is in the United States.
  They said: So we have saved so much money by more than cutting our 
tax rate in half.
  What a corporate tax is, as Steve Moore said, which is such a great 
way to explain what it is: We like to say we are making the greedy 
corporations pay.
  No. Actually, you are making their customers and clients pay.
  If a corporation does not, whether it is subchapter S or a C 
corporation, pass those taxes on to their customers, their clients, 
they can't stay in business. So it is a part of the price of their 
goods and services.
  I have advocated doing away with it. You will have so much more 
people working, so many more people making so much more money. The 
income taxes from the individuals will make up for it. It will be a 
beautiful thing. It is not a zero sum game. Everybody can do better and 
better and better.

                              {time}  2100

  It would be a beautiful thing to see the economy expand like that, 
and it could. We could get those jobs back. But a corporate tax, the 
corporate tax here in America is the highest tariff any nation puts on 
its own goods or services, anything made in corporate America. It is a 
tariff on our own goods.
  Why do we do that? We could be so much more competitive around the 
world if the government didn't put this burden on corporations.

[[Page H9466]]

  I was hoping that President Trump's figure of 15 percent that 
undercuts the Chinese at least a little bit would be even more 
incentive to bring back manufacturing jobs to America, because any 
nation, any powerful nation that does not produce what they need in a 
time of war--because there will always be wars--is not going to remain 
a powerful nation beyond the next war.
  We need to be producing steel and rubber and all the things we need. 
We need to produce them right here in the United States. There is no 
reason we can't, but we drive those jobs away because of the corporate 
income tax.
  President Trump had the right idea, 15 percent. He compromised, so it 
is at 20 percent. Thank goodness he didn't let them work him up any 
beyond that, but there are some in the Senate trying to work beyond 
that--huge mistake.
  This economy can explode. It is already the top 3 percent, and it can 
keep climbing. Dr. Laffer tells me that after the final part of the 30 
percent tax cut kicked in, in 1983, they hit over 7 percent growth in 
the economy. That is just unheard of.
  There were people saying, in the Obama administration, you know, we 
will probably never ever hit 3 percent again. It may just be an 
impossibility. No, it is not. You get rid of the corporate tax or at 
least get it down to where we are not putting such an enormous tariff 
on our own goods and services, and that economy can grow like that 
again, and we can get our manufacturing jobs back.
  An article here, Todd Starnes--he and I were both honored recently 
with an award that people like Tom Landry, Cal Thomas, and others have 
received for being Christians and speaking up for our faith, our 
beliefs. Todd Starnes, today, has this story: ``Thank you, Mr. Trump, 
for bringing `Merry Christmas' back to the White House,'' and I 
certainly echo those feelings.
  It is amazing, this story from Maxim Lott, FOX News: ``Media twist 
tax plan studies to claim it hammers middle class.''
  I have been hearing people here on this floor talking about how the 
tax proposal that we passed here in the House was going to hammer the 
middle class. Actually, the corporate tax cut alone will get the 
economy going so strong everybody is going to benefit. But I wish we 
had just had an across-the-board flat tax created: you make more, you 
pay more; you make less, you pay less. That is where I wanted to go. 
That is true reform.
  But politics being what it is, because the Republican leadership did 
not want to have to fight a battle that, ``Oh, we're just helping the 
rich,'' the highest tax rate is the only one we didn't change. The idea 
was, well, if the only tax rate we don't bring down is the 39.6 percent 
tax rate that the richest Americans have to pay, then the Democrats 
won't be beating us up. They won't be able to beat us up for raising 
taxes on the poor and middle class to help the rich.
  Well, they were wrong. Despite the fact that there will be more 
people now under the Republican tax plan that has passed here in the 
House--the Senate will just adopt it--there will be more people who 
will not be paying taxes. I kind of wish all of us, every American, had 
a little skin in the game. If they are making money, then they pay 
something. That is where a flat tax comes in. If you just make $10, you 
only pay $1. If you make $100, you pay $10. If you make $1 million, you 
pay $100,000. That is fair.
  But anyway, we passed our bill. It gives a tax break to the poorest 
Americans. It is going to help the economy grow, but we have got to get 
it done. I am hoping and literally praying that the Senate keeps their 
elimination of the individual mandate from ObamaCare so that people 
have the freedom to get policies that are best for them and not 
something forced on them by the government.
  And, yes, we know there will be unfair media that will do nothing but 
complain about millions who no longer have health insurance. Well, I 
can tell you, there are millions who are paying taxes now to the 
government because they can't afford an insurance policy that won't 
ever pay them because the deductible is too high, and they don't want 
to keep paying our income tax because they can't afford the ObamaCare 
policies.
  There are people who are paying for ObamaCare policies where the 
deductibles are so high, they will never get any benefit. Yes, there is 
apparently a segment, a small minority who--maybe as much as 20, 25 
percent--who, like in the Soviet Union, are getting their money from 
where somebody else has earned it, having that money pay for their 
insurance, some of that coming from people who can't even afford their 
own insurance. So they are paying higher income tax so this other group 
of Americans take their money from those working poor and pay for their 
insurance. What is fair about that?

  Forcing the working poor in America to pay higher income tax or pay 
for policies where they will never get anything back because the 
deductible is too high; also, that some people who will vote Democrat 
will get their insurance for free, that is not the way America became 
the greatest Nation that it was and can be again.
  And, yes, North Korea fired an ICBM today in the last 24 hours, and I 
am very grateful to President Trump for taking it seriously. I am so 
glad he is there. I am glad we don't have the same people who gave 
North Korea the ability to have nuclear bombs during the Clinton 
administration.
  How foolish was it to basically say: Oh, look, North Korea, we will 
give you what you need to make nuclear weapons if you will just agree 
not to ever use those materials for nuclear weapons. And, of course, 
the North Korean leader said: Sure, you do all that, all I got to do is 
sign. Sure, you give me all I need for nuclear weapons, I will sign 
saying I will never create nuclear weapons. And what do they do? They 
make nuclear weapons because that is what they do. That is what those 
leaders do. The people of North Korea deserve better. And Iran is the 
same way. They can't be trusted.
  So we need a firm leader who understands enough is enough, and I am 
glad President Trump is that leader.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________