[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11749-11755]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           TOPICS OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I have appreciated my colleague's 
insights. Somebody who has spent his entire adult life working on the 
issues of health care and trying to be a healer and a helper certainly 
has a good idea about ways to fix our health care system. It's just a 
shame that in the health care bill that got crammed down everyone's 
throat here that my friend from Georgia as well as so many

[[Page 11750]]

of the doctors here were not allowed any real meaningful input.
  And it is interesting, as we think about the health care bill that 
was supposed to do so much, and you consider it in light of the 
Speaker's comments, that we need to pass the bill so we can find out 
what's in it. Well, we're beginning to find out more and more. Now, 
some of us read through the 1,000-page bill. We read through the 2,000-
page bill, and when we got this one between 2,000 and 3,000 pages, 
frankly, I put off going through that.
  I knew there wasn't going to be much sleep for a while while I was 
trying to get through that, and I think I got through about all but 
about 300 pages. It's tough sledding, though, of course when you are 
reading through a bill that references other sections and subsections 
and including other laws that unless you actually go look them up, then 
it's hard to really get a grasp. Since I have been a judge and dealt 
with law most of my adult life, sometimes you can pick up things others 
don't realize.
  But it really is heartbreaking to realize as more and more people get 
into this new so-called health care bill just how much damage is being 
and will be done. You don't cut $500 billion from Medicare and not end 
up having seniors that don't get the care they need. You don't end up 
increasing taxes by $500 billion, like this did, and not hurt job 
creation in this country.
  I heard a comment just today from someone who's not a Member of 
Congress, is an economist. He said, You can't love jobs and hate the 
people that create them. And that seems to be what we're dealing with. 
We've got a health care bill that punishes employers. If you dare try 
to provide health insurance for your employees, then you're going to 
actually end up paying more than you ever dreamed you would. If you 
don't pay for health care for your employees, if you have more than 50 
employees, you're going to be paying $2,000 per employee, and that's 
going to get pretty expensive. It's not going to help them one whit 
with their health insurance.
  But we have done so much damage to jobs, it's just unbelievable. And 
I am getting more calls and emails into my office from people that are 
shocked because they thought once the ObamaCare bill went through, all 
of a sudden they would magically get health care like they never had 
before. Now what people are going to get for the next few years is a 
lot of extra taxes, $500 billion in extra taxes, and that's not going 
to be good for the economy.

                              {time}  2030

  But as we approach the end of the year, a number of economists have 
pointed out, things should start picking up the rest of the year if the 
government doesn't keep interfering and creating problems as it has 
been because the economy wants to improve itself if we will just let 
it. But especially the next 6 months, things should be improving 
because when we get to January 1, 2011, there are going to be the 
biggest tax increases in American history. January 1 of 2011, it's 
coming.
  And we have seen over and over, you want to hurt the economy, then 
just have a big tax increase. Our friends across the aisle constantly 
enjoy saying it is tax cuts that got us into this problem. It is not; 
it is the spending that went out of control. When the Republicans had 
Congress from 1995 to 2000, it is the Congress that got a balanced 
budget. The President doesn't pass a budget. He proposes one. His 
wasn't used. The Congress came up with a balanced budget. And despite 
President Clinton kicking and screaming, he finally came along and 
signed off on the bill, and we had a balanced budget.
  The problem came when we had a Republican President and Republican 
House and Senate. You had Republicans get giddy and start thinking, 
gee, maybe the Democrats are right and you can show compassion by 
throwing money at a problem. You can spoil a child by doing that if you 
are a parent. You can destroy people's desire to work.
  I wish more could have benefited from the exchange program from which 
I learned so much in 1973. There were eight Americans that were allowed 
into the Soviet Union that summer on that program. At one point the 
eight of us were out at a collective farm about 30 miles from Kiev in 
Ukraine, and I was amazed because the fields looked terrible. I am from 
east Texas and there is a lot of farming and ranching. I have worked on 
a lot of farms. I could not believe how bad their fields were. They 
were just pitiful. It looked like nobody had been working out there. 
The sun was eating them up, and they weren't doing anything about it. 
The fields were overgrown with weeds. Anyway, all of the farmers in 
mid-morning were sitting in the shade. I spoke some Russian back then, 
and I put together some words and tried to nicely say in Russian, When 
do you work? And they laughed. One of the guys said, in Russian, I make 
the same number of rubles if I am here or I am out there in the field, 
so I am here.
  Well, there is your lesson on communism. When you end up paying 
people the same thing if they are working and sweating and killing 
themselves to grow crops, or if they are sitting in the shade, 
laughing, cutting up with their friends, they are going to sit in the 
shade and laugh and cut up with their friends. It is going to happen. 
That is why communism has never worked and it will never work.
  The Pilgrims tried a form of it out of a Christian thought--if we 
bring everything in a common storehouse and share things. Even the New 
Testament Church at one time tried that, and it resulted in the Apostle 
Paul saying: Okay, new rule; you don't work, you don't eat. The 
Pilgrims had to do something similar, and they got to a really novel 
concept: How about if we just give everybody your own private property, 
it is yours to do with as you wish, but you eat what you grow. You have 
excess, you can trade it, barter, whatever, use it to buy other things. 
What a novel idea, giving people private property and letting them be 
rewarded by the sweat of their brow instead of rewarding their 
neighbor.
  Many people think that, and as a Christian I don't seek to ram my 
beliefs into someone else, but as a Christian if you care you would 
like for people to understand what is at risk. But I hear Christians 
here on the floor who have spoken up and said, You know, Jesus said, as 
you have done to the least of these, my children, you have done to me. 
He said we are to help the widows and orphans. He said we are to help 
the less fortunate. I was naked and you clothed me. I was hungry and 
you fed me. Where is that compassion in here? What they misunderstand 
is that Jesus never said go thee therefor, use and abuse your taxing 
authority, take somebody else's money, and do your charitable work. He 
meant for you to do it with your own money, your own effort, not go 
take from somebody else and legalize your stealing from somebody else 
so you give to your favorite charity. That is not what he intended. He 
knew in an orderly society you would have need of government. You would 
need courts. That is why Romans 13 talks about the role of government. 
If you do evil, be afraid, because the government is supposed to be 
fair. But fairness is not taking in a form of legalized stealing, 
taking somebody else's money to give to your favorite charity.
  That is why after Zacchaeus met Jesus, the first thing he did was go 
and cut taxes. Fact is he even created a 4 to 1 rebate for those from 
whom he improperly took tax money. But you don't hear that kind of talk 
a whole lot here; you hear you guys are heartless and uncaring.
  When you think about eagles or birds, it seems so mean and uncaring 
for a mother to shove that bird out of the nest and force them to learn 
to fly. It seems mean. It seems uncaring. But unless they do that, they 
are never going to learn to fly. There are people who could fly in this 
country, figuratively speaking, and yet the government keeps pushing 
just enough money into their hands to keep them subsisting and just 
enough money to keep them beholden to the big master here in 
Washington. It is as if there are people here in this city who want 
people across America to see us in Congress as

[[Page 11751]]

the big master. And you are the slave. You are the servant. We want you 
beholden to us. That's not what this Nation was founded on.
  This Nation was founded on the ideas, and you read them and hear them 
if you study history--I had wonderful history teachers, and it breaks 
my heart to hear people who don't understand where we came from and the 
basis for this country. But it was not to lure people into subsistence 
and dependence on the government. That was never the purpose. It was to 
inspire people. It was to give them liberty and freedom and say you can 
be anything you want to be. And some of us were blessed to have parents 
who loved us and would say that: you can be anything you want to be.

                              {time}  2040

  And now today, unfortunately, surveys are showing, indicating 70 
percent of American adults, first time in our history, are saying we 
don't believe our children are going to have the opportunities and 
liberties, the life as good as we have had it. That is tragic. And that 
is why some of us ran for Congress, because we are going to do 
everything in our power to prevent that from happening, so our children 
can have an even better life, better liberty, better freedoms than we 
had. It can still happen, but it cannot happen when this government is 
determined to make people completely reliant on it.
  One of the things that drove me to run for Congress, to leave the 
judicial bench, was I knew judges were not supposed to legislate, and I 
didn't. Sometimes I didn't like the laws I had to follow, but if we 
were going to have a rule of law in this country, judges have to follow 
the laws, and I did. But it was seeing how many examples over and over 
presented themselves that had indications that government lured these 
people away from their God-given potential and into ruts from which 
they could not extricate themselves, with no hope of getting out unless 
they committed a crime. That's the way it would look to them. How did 
we get so far afield from the foundation of this Nation that inspired 
people to reach their heights?
  And I understand, I mean we're all affected by how we're raised and 
the people that had an impact on our lives. And I am sure there are 
those in America who, if they came from a broken home, there are even 
people who have been given everything with a silver spoon who would 
seem to have come from nothing and yet had the best schools all the way 
up, had the greatest things. And I can understand if somebody has been 
given everything their whole life that they've ever wanted that they 
would think, Well, we need to do that for other people because, look at 
me, I've reached the top and, you know, I had everything given to me. I 
never really had a real job, never really had to work to earn things 
for myself. Everything was given to me, so let's just give everything 
to everybody else.
  Unfortunately, we come back to the quote I read earlier, ``You can't 
love jobs and hate the people who create them.'' It doesn't work. And 
jobs are not created for very long by government without hurting the 
private sector, meaning eventually the government takes over 
everything, provides the jobs. And there's no better example of where 
that goes than we had in the Soviet Union.
  Eventually, just like the Pilgrims, just like the New Testament 
church, people in leadership realize we've made a mess. Now, the 
question is: Can we get back on track? It was one of the Caesars that 
realized providing bread and circuses had made the people lazy, they 
were unproductive, and it was destroying the Roman Empire. And he tried 
to do away with bread and circuses to push people, as the mother eagle 
does, push the baby out of the nest so it will be forced to fly.
  Unfortunately, when you have made them dependent for so long, for too 
long, they don't fly. They start rioting in the streets. They don't 
reach their potential. They start destroying what others have and what 
others have created for themselves, and you eventually destroy the 
society. They had to reinstate the bread and circuses, and they knew 
there was no way to avoid the eventual end because people had become 
too dependent on government.
  Phil Gramm used to say, when you got one more in the wagon than 
pulling the wagon, the wagon's going to stop. We've gone from 39 
percent of U.S. adults not paying income tax now approaching 50 
percent. And when we get over 50 percent, if those people that do not 
pay any taxes all vote, then we're done for, because you'll have people 
picking the leaders, just as has been predicted thousands of years ago, 
you will have people selecting the leaders based on how much they will 
be promised from the public treasury, and the public treasury will go 
broke. And then you are put to the situation that the Soviet Union had. 
You can't print it fast enough to get out of debt. You can't borrow 
enough to sustain you any longer, so you have to announce this country 
is out of business. We're done. And that's where this country is going.
  My friends across the aisle in 2005 and 2006 who complained bitterly 
about deficit spending were right. We should not have been deficit 
spending. It's a big reason that our friends across the aisle won the 
majority. But in the 4 years since, nearly 4 years, we have gone, in 
one case, a $160 billion budget to a $1.6 trillion budget. They said 
the right things. I thought they believed them. You've got to stop 
deficit spending. Yet here after the majority shifted, we have found 
ourselves with 10 times the deficit that we were beat up for, properly, 
4 or 5 years ago. The deficits have to stop. We are destroying this 
country.
  You look back at what President Reagan did, had a great economist, 
Art Laffer. And he had said you need a 30 percent tax cut. If you will 
cut taxes 30 percent, you will see this economy explode. Unfortunately, 
that 30 percent tax cut was put in place over a 3-year period. In 1981, 
there was only like a 1\1/2\ percent tax cut; in 1982, a 10 percent tax 
cut; in 1983 about a 20 percent tax cut. So just as Laffer predicted, 
when he got so troubled when he heard that it was going to be phased in 
over 3 years, he said 1981 and 1982 are going to be disastrous, 1983, 
when the full tax cut comes through, it will be terrific. And that's 
what happened, and that's how President Reagan got a second term.
  The big tax cuts came through. The problem was deficit spending did 
not stop. And it's carried on even today, with that brief interim. When 
the serious Republicans took the majority, 1995 to 2000, they balanced 
the budget. But we've got to get back to that or those 70 percent of 
American adults who think their kids will not have it as good as they 
did, they will end up being right.
  Now, look at some of the judgment that is being utilized these days. 
You have people that say they believe in the law, and yet you had a 
Federal judge say you can't act arbitrarily and capriciously and just 
ban all offshore drilling even among people who are doing everything 
right.
  You know, I betcha if the Federal Government had said we are going to 
have a moratorium on our dear friends, the big Democratic contributors 
from a company called British Petroleum, if we just have a moratorium 
on British Petroleum offshore rigs, there would have been a basis, 
because we knew, it appears at least, that they cut some corners. And 
the more you find out, the more you realize they kind of felt like 
somebody here in Washington had their back.
  They were working with this administration, with the Democratic 
majority, particularly in the Senate, to pass a number of bills that 
most people think were not a good idea. But the TARP bill, British 
Petroleum supported that. The stimulus bill. Most people think, you 
know, oh, these big oil companies, they are all Republican. Well, if 
you look, just like Wall Street, Wall Street gives about four to one to 
Democrats over Republicans. And with British Petroleum, they were 
working so closely with the administration and with Democrats in the 
majority, as one article talks about, Senator Kerry communicating with, 
working with British Petroleum to try to pass the crap-and-trade bill 
at the very time that the Deepwater Horizon blew out.

[[Page 11752]]



                              {time}  2050

  It is beginning to appear that British Petroleum used a cheap way of 
drilling in such deep water. It shouldn't have been used in such deep 
water. That is what is beginning to emerge, it appears may be the case, 
and that it seems like there was almost an attitude that we don't have 
to worry; we're big buddies with the White House and with the majority. 
They've got our backs; we can cut corners.
  We find out Minerals Management Service sent out their two-man 
unionized father-and-son team to be the last team of offshore 
inspectors that inspected the Deepwater Horizon. There's certainly 
plenty of anecdotal stories about how the inspections were not 
occurring as they should and there were gifts changing hands, all kinds 
of problems.
  We find out that a lady who was in the Clinton administration that 
actually signed the notices about the deepwater leases, offshore 
leases, back in '99 and '98, that pulled the price adjustment language, 
which has now apparently cost our country billions of dollars from its 
Treasury where they should have gone to big companies like British 
Petroleum. It turns out that lady went to work for British Petroleum 
for 8 years, from 2001 until 2009; and then in June of 2009 she came 
back to work for Minerals Management Service, even though we heard from 
the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, oh, yeah, we've recused her from 
areas where she may have a conflict. Give me a break. From British 
Petroleum?
  No wonder they thought somebody here in Washington, their Democratic 
majority friends, the White House, had their back, so they could go 
cheaply, they could cut corners and make extra profit because they were 
in with the powers that be here in Washington. They were in. They were 
in favor of the crap-and-trade bill. They had supported TARP. They had 
supported the stimulus. And this administration loved having a big oil 
company that supported them on this stuff so that they could tout that.
  So, sure, BP thought they had their back covered. And it was only 
when, after a number of weeks when it became very clear that the 
American public was furious, appropriately, at British Petroleum, that 
the administration realized they needed to throw them under the bus, 
and so they finally did. But what better thing to do, if you're going 
to hurt one of your friends by throwing them under the bus, then just 
hurt all the oil companies so that they're all hurt equally, except, of 
course, the one we heard on television that may be George Soros' 
biggest individual investment, over $900 million to drill offshore 
Brazil. We loaned them $2 billion from this country even though we 
won't drill our own stuff and have a moratorium.
  In this article about the deepwater drilling ban and the Federal 
judge, Feldman, that lifted it, this article, and this was from 
Bloomberg, indicates that Judge Feldman granted a preliminary 
injunction halting the moratorium and immediately prohibited the U.S. 
from enforcing the ban. Government lawyers told Feldman the ban was 
based on findings in a U.S. report following the sinking of the 
Deepwater Horizon rig off the Louisiana coast in April.
  But then Judge Feldman, after he reviewed that, said: ``The court is 
unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the findings and the 
immense scope of the moratorium.'' The quote continues: ``The blanket 
moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig 
failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs 
drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent 
danger.''
  I bet if they had just only imposed a moratorium on this 
administration's former dear friend and the majority, particularly in 
the Senate, British Petroleum, then that moratorium probably would have 
held, because there are, seem to be, indications they were cutting 
corners.
  Judge Feldman said this, also: ``The court cannot substitute its 
judgment for that of the agency, but the agency must, quote, cogently 
explain why it has exercised its discretion in a given manner.'' Judge 
Feldman then says ``it has not done so'' and that it must be 
``immediately prohibited'' in order to avoid ``irreparable harm.''
  And then what seemed to be offensive even more so from this 
administration was announcing that there would be an appeal even before 
the opinion was read. It's as if this administration really and truly 
does not care about the law. We saw that with the auto task force. 
Their bankruptcy laws say there have to be time for alternative plans 
for reorganization, secured creditors take the first, unsecured 
creditors take last and least. Those laws were turned, just thrown out 
by an auto task force meeting in the White House, appointed by the 
President, without any confirmation from the Senate, without any input 
from Congress.
  We couldn't even find out what was discussed in those meetings. They 
just threw aside the bankruptcy law, threw aside the Constitution that 
says before you can take property there must be due process, threw all 
those laws to the side, completely dismembered the Constitution and the 
bankruptcy laws and found a bankruptcy judge. Perhaps since they have 
to be reappointed, it's not a lifetime, this bankruptcy judge was 
hoping to be reappointed as a bankruptcy judge, perhaps he was hoping 
for a lifetime appointment, but the judge signed off on it. Clearly 
illegal.
  The Supreme Court should have stopped it but apparently the 
administration scared enough of the Supreme Court judges that if they 
held up this bankruptcy plan and the sale to an Italian, an inferior 
car company, then all people in the car business would lose their jobs, 
and they used scare tactics and got even the Supreme Court to overtly 
walk away from the Constitution and ignore it. And this is the kind of 
thing we see now. They won't even read the opinion of the judge to see 
if it makes sense, just simply announces we're going to appeal.
  But then again, what would you expect from an administration that 
didn't have the decency to call the Governor of Arizona and say, you 
know what, Governor, we owe you an apology. We are so sorry. We should 
have been doing our job as a Federal Government. We should not have 
allowed 75 percent of gang members who are violent in this country to 
be here illegally. We shouldn't have allowed illegals to destroy 
wilderness area national parks and put people at life and liberty at 
risk, property at risk. We shouldn't have allowed that to happen to 
Arizona. We should have done our job, and we're sorry.
  Oh, no, that didn't happen. Instead, the Secretary of State was sent 
to Ecuador to tell Ecuador, since I guess the administration thinks we 
owe Ecuador more than we do one of the 50 States, of the U.S. citizens, 
we owe more to Ecuador apparently, so they were told about the lawsuit 
that would be forthcoming against Arizona's law from people who 
announced without ever reading the law that it was a terrible thing, it 
was racist, it was profiling; and they had not even read the law.

                              {time}  2100

  You know, it's scary. It's really scary what's going on around here 
when the law doesn't matter. I never thought I would see a time in our 
country's history like this when the law just didn't matter.
  ``We're in power.''
  I really enjoy Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox, but I heard him say the 
other night, What's wrong with the President's bringing in a company 
CEO and having the Attorney General there, who has already announced he 
is investigating them? He wants to charge them with a crime, and have 
him sitting there for no other reason, obviously, than to intimidate 
the CEO of British Petroleum and to get them to fork up a $20 billion 
fund. There is a reason that one man in this country is not supposed to 
have that kind of authority to extort money.
  Bill O'Reilly said, oh, he thought it was fine. In fact, he would 
even go in with a machine gun and force them to give up that kind of 
money. I hope and pray he got carried away when he made that comment 
and that he really doesn't believe that, because what that would be 
saying is, when someone does

[[Page 11753]]

something as hideous as what British Petroleum has done here--taking 
lives, wounding, injuring people, destroying landscape, destroying vast 
areas--it's okay if you become a criminal if they have been so very 
negligent.
  It's not okay to let someone's negligence force you into becoming a 
criminal. We've got to be above those things, and we've got to follow 
the law. There are laws that say you cannot abuse your office by 
threatening prosecution unless someone does something financially that 
you direct.
  Anyway, these are just amazing times when smart, people, with wisdom 
on most occasions, are letting that go to the wind as a result of some 
heinous negligence--and maybe at some point we'll find out--some 
criminally negligent activity, as we've seen from British Petroleum.
  We owe it to Arizona and the people of the United States to enforce 
the borders. There are people coming into this country who want to 
destroy our way of life.
  I talked to a retired FBI agent who said that one of the things they 
are looking at are terrorist cells overseas which have figured out how 
to game our system. It appears they would have young women who would 
become pregnant. They would get them into the United States to have a 
baby, and they wouldn't even have to pay anything for the baby. Then 
the babies would return back where they could be raised and coddled as 
future terrorists. Then one day 20, 30 years down the road, they could 
be sent in to help destroy our way of life because they would have 
figured out how stupid we've been in this country to allow our enemies 
to game our system, to hurt our economy, to get set up in a position to 
destroy our way of life. Yet we won't do anything about it. We'll even 
sue a State that tries to do something about it.
  We have a national park down on the Arizona-Mexico border that now 
has signs posted to warn American citizens not to go into the area 
because it is being used by people illegally there. You know, it's kind 
of like those spaces in roads where a city just doesn't want to spend 
the money to fix a hole or a bump. So, instead of fixing the problem, 
they'll just stick up a sign, saying, ``Bump.'' That's what we're 
doing. We have got a problem. People are putting life and limb and 
sacred fortunes at risk, and all we're doing is putting up a sign 
saying that this is a dangerous area and that you probably don't want 
to come over here.
  Let's see. This is an article from Fox News, authored by Joshua Rhett 
Miller. Anyway, in quoting from the article:
  ``Roughly 3,500 acres of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge--
about 3 percent of the 118,000-acre park--have been closed since 
October 6, 2006, when U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials 
acknowledged a marked increase in violence along a tract of land that 
extends north from the border for roughly three-quarters of a mile. 
Federal officials say they have no plans to reopen the area.''
  We've just got to let the illegal, violent people have that property, 
and U.S. citizens can't use it. It has been closed.
  The article reads, ``Elsewhere, at Organ Pipe Cactus National 
Monument, which shares a 32-mile stretch of the border with Mexico, 
visitors are warned on a federally run Web site that some areas are not 
accessible by anyone.
  ``Due to our proximity to the international boundary with Mexico, 
some areas near the border are closed for construction and visitor 
safety concerns,'' the Web site reads.
  We're not going to fix the bump in the road. We're just going to put 
up a sign that says, ``Bump.'' Well, why don't you spend the money 
that's being spent on the sign to stop the problem? Instead, States 
like Arizona are driven to try to protect themselves.
  Now, we have got an area down there, a wilderness area in this park, 
the Organ Pipe Cactus National Park, with a 32-mile stretch. It is 
wilderness area, so you can't even drive a vehicle. Border Patrol can't 
drive a vehicle into that area. A helicopter can't land in that area. 
Border Patrol is not allowed to adequately do their job there. How 
crazy is that? It's because we've got massive numbers of illegals--some 
violent, as we've found out--coming in there, doing damage and putting 
our Nation at risk. Instead, we declare it off limits to our own 
people. You can't keep a country going when you have that little regard 
for the country's future safety and current safety.
  It's interesting, too. Under U.S. law, the Border Patrol can go onto 
private land along the U.S. border with Mexico or Canada. It can go in 
up to 25 miles away from the border to do their jobs except in this 
national park area. They're not allowed to go in to do their job there.
  That's why I've prepared a bill that would direct the Secretary of 
the Interior or Border Patrol--and this is the way it works in this 
country, in this government. The law is we have to have a study done to 
see what would be an appropriate amount of land before we would be 
allowed to transfer it. This bill would require that a study be 
completed to determine the buffer area needed to allow for border 
protection and for environmental protection on lands administered by 
the Department of the Interior along the border of Arizona and Mexico. 
Then they'd have to come back very quickly. I put in 6 months. They 
want to have 2 years normally. We haven't got that kind of time. They'd 
come back and tell us how much would be appropriate to convey over, 
away from the park, so that we could adequately control our border. 
It's the only thing that makes sense in that regard, and I'm hoping 
that many of my colleagues will sign onto that bill.
  Another thing we've done here is we, today, passed a bill making 
tougher sanctions regarding Iran. They are tougher sanctions, and 
that's a good thing. The trouble is it has taken so long to get 
sanctions in place and the centrifuges in Iran have been spinning for 
so long that, according to the IAEA, they have enough nuclear material 
to make two bombs now.
  Well, let's think about that.
  I have a resolution here, and I'm hoping, Madam Speaker, that we will 
have people who will get on board. I think I've got around 50 
cosponsors, but there is no reason that most of the Congress should not 
be sponsoring this bill, so I would submit the following, and this is 
from the bill that has been crafted and that I am proposing.

                              {time}  2110

  The whereases are as follows:
  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;
  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 superceded;
  Whereas, in the aftermath of the Nazi-led Holocaust from 1933 to 
1945, in which the Germans and their collaborators murdered 6 million 
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;

[[Page 11754]]

  Whereas, President Barack Obama had 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.''
  If I might interject here, this bill was drafted to be extremely 
bipartisan to show that people on both sides of the aisle have the same 
concerns. We've just got to get people signed on as cosponsors so that 
we can get this to the floor for a vote.
  But going back to the resolution:
  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 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--
which, by the way, if it were on a ship off the Texas coast could get 
it up to the middle of the country, 300 miles up, and which if 
exploded, as well-known among those who have looked at the issue, would 
create an electromagnetic pulse, an EMP, which some experts have told 
us will fry every computer chip in the country, and indications are 
even Wal-Mart would not be able to sell a product. Electricity would 
not be generated. It just is important to note what 1,200 miles means.
  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 Hezbollah 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 from 2006, 1737 from 
2006, and 1747 from 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 5-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;
  And, 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:
  Now, therefore, be it resolved that the House of Representatives:
  Condemns the government--number one, 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;
  Two, supports using all means of persuading the Government of Iran to 
stop building and acquiring nuclear weapons;
  Three, 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
  Four, 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.

                              {time}  2120

  Now, that's what we should have passed today instead of sanctions 
because the sanctions have not been productive, the centrifuges 
continue to turn, and Ahmadinejad continues to make threats.
  Another thing that's been going on is the snubbery of Israel by this 
administration and the incredibly hurtful vote with Israel's enemies to 
force them to open up and reveal their most powerful defenses, similar 
to what Hezekiah did back 2,000 years before there was a Mohammed--
back, unfortunately, as Helen Thomas never had anybody kind enough to 
teach her the truth, the historic truth. Thousands of years before 
Mohammed, Hezekiah was in Israel--well, I guess not quite 2,000 years. 
But after he showed the Babylonians his treasure and all his defenses, 
Isaiah came and said, Because of this, everything they have seen will 
be taken away.
  You don't show your enemies all of your defenses, your strongest 
defenses because they'll figure out a way to defeat them. And because 
this administration has been rather rude to Prime Minister Netanyahu--
there's a letter that I'm hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that Members will join 
in signing, bipartisan, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid. The letter 
simply, bipartisan in nature, says: ``This letter is to simply state 
the obvious need for the Prime Minister of our dear friend Israel to 
address a joint session of Congress. He has been here in Washington on 
numerous occasions but has not addressed a joint session of Congress 
since 1996.
  ``In our Nation's history, we have invited over 100 leaders from 50 
different countries to speak before joint sessions of Congress. At this 
time, with the enemies of America and Israel looking for weaknesses in 
our close relationship, we can show them that Israel is our friend and 
will be our friend, and we want to hear from its leader, Prime Minister 
Netanyahu.
  ``With the magnitude of international events and tensions swirling in 
recent years and the threat of nuclear proliferation in the Middle 
East, it is desperately important that we show the world the importance 
of our relationship with Israel by inviting Prime Minister Netanyahu to 
come address this body. The sooner we extend such an invitation, the 
more stabilizing it will be. We, the undersigned, urge you to extend 
the invitation to Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak to a joint session 
of Congress as soon as possible.''
  When the enemies of Israel were to see both sides of the aisle 
standing and applauding the Prime Minister of Israel, the message could 
not be more clear, but we need to send that message. It needs to be 
clear. It needs to be unequivocal. People need to know that we support 
our friend, and there is not

[[Page 11755]]

a great deal of distance between our two countries. We're close 
friends.
  And if I might inquire how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Minnick). The gentleman has about 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Well, in closing, let me just refer to this little Bible 
my aunt says my uncle received going into World War II from the Federal 
Government when he went in the Army. It has a metal plate on it. It 
says: ``May the Lord be with you.'' And I realize this will be the last 
couple of minutes we're in session this week. So these are the words of 
Franklin D. Roosevelt on the flyleaf:
  ``The White House, Washington. As Commander in Chief, I take pleasure 
in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the Armed 
Forces of the United States. Throughout the centuries, men of many 
faiths and diverse origins have found in the Sacred Book words of 
wisdom, counsel and inspiration. It is a fountain of strength and now, 
as always, an aid in attaining the highest aspirations of the human 
soul.''
  Franklin Roosevelt had a good idea there. And I will commend that, 
Mr. Speaker.

                          ____________________