[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12502-12506]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) for half the time remaining before midnight.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, well, we heard from CBO, the Congressional 
Budget Office, rather interesting. Got a nice quote. Director Elmendorf 
announced that, in part of his statement he said, the gloomy, long-term 
picture is not an argument for rejecting additional spending now to 
bolster the economic recovery. Indeed, he said, ``Enacting cuts in 
spending or increases in taxes now would probably slow the recovery.''
  If you read the charge for CBO, it's a little bit gray. But when you 
have an organization that can't seem to get right what the projections 
are for the costs, when you can't get the costs right for what is 
requested, as we saw with the health care bill, as we saw with so many 
things they projected, they have been hundreds of millions, billions, 
hundreds of billions of dollars off over time, and yet the Director's 
going to come in and tell us that enacting spending cuts are going--
well, they could jeopardize, possibly slow the recovery.
  And it's been great to hear my colleagues talk about all the jobs 
that have been created. We know, for example, in the last month 431,000 
jobs, new jobs have been created by this administration. And you really 
do have to give the administration credit for most of the jobs that 
were created last month, because when we got the numbers, of the 
431,000 jobs, 411,000 of them were census workers. Great news. 
Unfortunately, those jobs are going to be gone just in a matter of a 
very few months. So there's 411,000 jobs.
  And it's true, President Bush took office after the 2000 census had 
been completed so he didn't get to create 411,000 jobs in 1 month, as 
this administration has, for census workers. Unfortunately for him, the 
economy experienced the most incredible blow at a time coming off the 
dot-com bubble of the late nineties. The economy was hurting, and then 
9/11 happened. And if it had not been for the tax cuts, we would have 
been surely in the midst of a great depression, perhaps like the 1930s. 
So the tax cuts helped stimulate the economy, helped get things going 
in a good way.
  The problem is that once the Republicans not only had the House and 
Senate, like they did from 1995 to 2000, not only did they balance the 
budget--and the President doesn't do that. The Congress has to do that. 
But not only did they balance the budget in the Republican Congress, 
but they also reformed welfare, and for the first time since the 
beginning of welfare, after a welfare reform that the Congress did, and 
I think President Clinton vetoed it and then once they had the votes to 
override the veto the second time he didn't, he went ahead and signed 
it. Now he's quite proud of it because, out of that welfare reform, the 
fact is--and I saw this on the chart that was presented back in 2005 at 
Harvard, of all places.

                              {time}  2330

  I got the impression many of them were shocked. But when you looked 
at single women's income since welfare came into existence, when 
adjusted for inflation, their income was flatlined over that 30-year 
period. After welfare reform, they were pushed, basically pushed out of 
the rut, out of the rutted mess that the Federal Government had created 
for them and not allowed them out of. The welfare reform actually 
pushed them toward reaching their God-given potential. And so for the 
first time since welfare had been created in the 1960s, single women's 
income, when adjusted for inflation, started going up. And it 
continued.
  But now, after Republicans got both the White House, and House, and 
Congress, they found out it was kind of fun to spend when you had a 
President that wouldn't veto anything. And then you

[[Page 12503]]

had a President that was sending over requests for more money than 
conservative Republicans really were comfortable with, and they would 
compromise, and it would still be more money than both should have 
spent.
  There is apparently this giddiness that occurs when one party has the 
White House, House, and Senate like we have seen the last year-and-a-
half. And even in the House and Senate in 2007 and 2008 we saw a great 
giddiness and just runaway spending like the country had never faced 
until the last year-and-a-half. And so when I hear about all these 
great jobs that are being created, more jobs in the last year-and-a-
half than were created in the whole 8 years, I think they forgot to say 
what the President and Vice President always include, created and 
saved. Because when you say you saved a job, that means it's impossible 
to ever prove that. And it's impossible to disprove that.
  You know, it's like that old story about the guy who says, ``What is 
your job?'' He says, ``I keep elephants from running in this house.'' 
He says, ``Well, there aren't any elephants around here.'' ``That's 
right, I'm doing a great job, aren't I?''
  Well, it's the same kind of deal. You know, they've saved, probably 
can take credit for saving every job in America if they want to, and I 
am sure at some point they will get to based upon the claims that are 
being made these days. But it's an interesting time.
  And what we've also seen today was the passage of the financial 
deform bill. I was hoping for reform, but that's not what we got. And I 
know so many of my colleagues across the aisle have good hearts, good 
minds, and the best of intentions. But as we saw with TARP, many people 
on both sides of the aisle, and what we have seen since then, since 
this President took office, when this President says let's get this 
bill passed, then they can basically come up with 2,000 pages that only 
foolish idiots like me would try to read.
  And so what they're left with, if you don't try to get through the 
boring reading is, you get the talking points. So well-meaning people, 
not believing that anybody would possibly give them talking points that 
weren't 100 percent accurate, come to the floor, and with the best of 
intentions, meaning well, read the talking points and say things like 
this will end the massive bailouts. Bless their hearts. They don't 
realize if they would read specific provisions of this bill they will 
find out it does just the opposite.
  This financial deform bill that was passed today creates a systemic 
risk council. Let me tell you how systemic risk should be taken care 
of. Goldman Sachs gets greedy, runs their cart in a ditch, AIG gets 
greedy and sells insurance called credit default swaps and they get 
their cart in a ditch, we have something called bankruptcy. You don't 
have to liquidate. Gosh, don't do that, because most of the departments 
at AIG, it sounds like were quite liquid. They were doing well. Just 
start splitting it up, selling it off. Then it will never be too big to 
fail again. But that's not what happened.
  We've bailed out Goldman Sachs to the point that since this 
administration took office and cut all these contracts with Goldman 
Sachs, they had their highest profit year in the whole history of the 
country. While the country was hurting, they had record profits. And 
much of it has to be credited to this government. I am sure people 
meant well, but that's not the kind of financial reform we need when we 
got this financial deform bill today.
  That financial deform bill today allows and creates this systemic 
risk council. They are going to get to pick the winners and losers. 
Washington, of all places, is going to get to decide you are too 
important to fail, you are too important to fail, you are too important 
to fail. We're going to pick the winners and losers. I don't like that 
when that's done from Washington, when Washington says, hey, down in 
your district, none of us live there, but here's who you need to elect. 
You know, why don't you let the district, why don't you let the people 
there in the district decide. Washington gets around to saying this is 
the business we think is too important to fail. You know, it's insane.
  And the health care bill that was passed, the ObamaCare bill, it had 
all kinds of stuff in there that was going to let the government get 
their two cents in and take over control of so many aspects, not just 
the health care. I mean they ordered things for restaurants, and 
machines, and all kinds of stuff in it. It wasn't about health care. It 
was about GRE, government running everything. And so that's what this 
financial bill is about.
  And then also we find out today in our Natural Resources hearing, Mr. 
Salazar, and I know this will be a shock to my former freshman 
classmate Member of Congress Bobby Jindal, but I am reading from 
Secretary Salazar's testimony today in our hearing, and I've got to get 
word to Mr. Jindal, Governor Jindal. He said, and I am quoting, 
``Secretary Napolitano, Director Browner, and myself, frankly, we were 
in the gulf coast probably within--been down there 10 times there in 
Houston since it started. But we made a call from the command 
center''--I guess that's in Houston--``to Secretary Gates and to the 
White House that essentially gave the authorization to the States to 
move forward with the Coast Guard within a few days after this incident 
occurred. So it is for me, frankly, surprising that you do not have the 
governors of these States moving forward with the deployment of these 
National Guard troops.''
  Oh, that's great. With all the failures of this Department of 
Interior, the Secretary has the nerve to come in and blame the 
governors of those States that have tried to play by the rules and say, 
look, we understand your law that you have from Washington, we have to 
get your permission, so please, how about giving us permission? And 
then he comes in here today and says, I'm frankly surprised they didn't 
move forward with their National Guard troops.
  Give me a break. What kind of gall does it take to come into a 
committee, oh, gee, I don't know why the governors didn't do more. I've 
been to Houston 10 times. How about getting out there where the rubber 
meets the road? Or even better, when you were sending--when the 
Secretary, Mr. Speaker, was sending two inspectors to the offshore rigs 
to inspect, and we find out their only check and balance was to say 
we'll send them out in pairs. The last two that went out there were a 
father and son unionized team. And we don't know, the director couldn't 
tell us in committee, he said that's under investigation. You don't get 
to see what the investigation is here in Congress, but that's under 
investigation.

                              {time}  2340

  We'll get back to you on that after we've done what we want to do.
  I tell you, it's just unbelievable what's gone on. And then we hear, 
gee, these things that the public is so outraged about, Washington 
doing, we're probably going to wait until a lame duck session when the 
public may vote people out that they're mad at because they're wanting 
to do things, and then they can just pass it because they won't care 
because they will have already been voted out of office.
  I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, that is the wrong thing to do. It is 
wrong morally, ethically. It's just wrong. If people get voted out of 
office because they were thinking about doing something, talking about 
doing something, they should not come in here and do it after they've 
been voted out.
  And then we have all of this indignation from the northeast about 
some of the things going on in the gulf, and then low and behold, gosh, 
news here. I didn't notice it when it came through. Here's an article 
from February 2, 2010. Coast Guard's been busy and not just with the 
gulf coast. This was February 2, 2010. ``U.S. Coast Guard officials say 
they've developed a security plan to allow the safe passage of tankers 
carrying liquefied natural gas from Yemen through the Port of Boston.''
  Then it goes on to quote Coast Guard Captain John Healey and to quote 
Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen, if that rings a bell. He's saying 
that it could include additional screening of the crew, extra 
inspections on the ship.

[[Page 12504]]

  And then it goes on to say: ``One of the top concerns for security 
officials is making sure no stowaways manage to board the tankers at 
the port in Yemen,'' where terrorists seem to be going and coming from 
these days so often, or during the voyage.
  ``That's really the key here, to ensure that we have a security force 
on board ship that's checking the ship while it's loading and while 
it's in Yemeni waters to guarantee that no one who's not authorized 
gets aboard the ship.''
  Because they're saying, see, the contract used to be with countries 
that were completely friendly who had never sent a terrorist here or a 
terrorist to be trained in other areas or allowed Yemen to be, or their 
country to be, a place of safety for terrorists that wanted to destroy 
our country or from which an attack on one of our U.S. ships happened. 
We had a contract that had liquefied natural gas from other countries. 
The fact is if we allowed the gas to be produced from this country, we 
have over 100 years' worth of natural gas if it were allowed to be 
produced.
  But, no, we're going to risk bringing in a tanker from Yemen. Not 
just a tanker. This says the contract's for 20 years to bring tankers 
with natural gas loaded into Boston Harbor. Think about an explosion on 
that ship. That's what the article points out. You talk about a 
terrorist attack. Man, we're gonna bring in the bomb from Yemen where 
the terrorists have been located so often.
  And then it turns out people on Capitol Hill have been getting calls 
that raised a question about it, is this really a good idea. They get a 
call, look, we're trying to build up Yemen. We're trying to help this 
country that's supporting our enemies so maybe they'll like us better. 
Let me tell you, I got a U.N. voting accountability bill. I filed it 
all three sessions. I'm hopeful we'll get it to the floor. We're going 
to file for a discharge petition to require it to be brought to the 
floor.
  It's very simple. It says any country--every country is its own 
sovereign. They can do what it wants. But any country that votes 
against us in more than half of the contested votes in the U.N., 
they're just getting no financial assistance from us. As I have been 
quoted before saying, you don't have to pay people to hate you. They'll 
hate you for free. So why are we pouring billions and billions of 
dollars into countries hoping eventually they're going to like us. 
They're not. You don't buy friendliness.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 
the remainder of the time until midnight.
  Mr. GOHMERT. You can't buy friendship. Didn't people learn that on 
the playground? You can give somebody your sandwich, you can give 
somebody your lunch money and hope that they leave you alone, but all 
they do is keep coming back for more sandwiches or more money. You 
can't buy love and affection because you are looked at as a John, not 
as a lover. It's tragic, but that's what we're doing: trying to buy 
love and affection from people that hate us. It doesn't work.
  So here we've got this natural gas contract supposedly going on for 
the next 20 years. And we have over 100 years of natural gas that's 
already been found in this country. There's no massive oil spills that 
come from that.
  A wonderful Democrat friend across the aisle did some of his growing 
up over in Longview, Texas, has a bill to start getting cars, put that 
incentive out there, get cars on to natural gas. That will be a huge 
help because we have so much natural gas in this country that it will 
eliminate so much of our dependence on foreign oil. So Dan's got a good 
bill.
  And yet the answer apparently from this administration is we're going 
to buy--not use our own natural gas--we're going to buy it from Yemen 
hoping they'll like us better. Maybe they won't try to blow up our 
ships and be a safe haven for terrorists who want to blow up our 
country.
  But that's what we're looking at. It isn't good. It's rather tragic.
  A lot more I could say about that, but I just could not get over the 
gall of the Secretary of the Interior to come in here and demean those 
Governors. But the message should go out to Governors all over the 
areas potentially affected by the oil spill in the gulf created by 
British Petroleum, who, if it were in the old days, ought to be 
horsewhipped, those who are responsible. We'll find out for sure 
exactly what happened. And when we do--it sounds like we're getting 
word as to what happened. There were corners being cut right and left.
  The safety record of BP compared to the other oil companies was 
abysmal. But when we find out that they were the best friends that this 
administration had in the oil business and they were the best friends 
for our Democrat Senators down the aisle, down the Hall here, we find 
out that their lobbyists are mostly close friends of this 
administration and our Democratic friends down the Hall here, they 
realize heck, they should have had their back covered. They were close 
enough. They were supporting the climate, actually the global warming 
bill, now called climate change bill because turns out the planet's not 
warming. But that's a whole other subject. But is it so hard to 
understand why they thought their back was covered?
  While the Deepwater Horizon rig was sinking in the gulf after the 
explosion, Senator Kerry was still getting hold of British Petroleum. 
Some of the articles we found. He was still getting hold of them hoping 
they'll stay on board with the climate change bill.
  The administration, of course, would not want to jump on their big 
oil company friends. Their support in the elections, it was so helpful. 
Their support for, like, even the gas hike, the gas tax hike that is 
being proposed. Some of the things nobody else in the industry would 
support it would seem. BP was their buddy.
  So it makes sense that the administration wouldn't immediately want 
to jump on BP. They're hoping that BP wasn't lying to them, that they 
will get this thing under control and it will be all right. Then they 
come through here and push through their global warming bill and get 
that done, the crap-and-trade bill that is going to create, as former 
chairman of Energy and Commerce, former Chairman Dingell, had indicated 
this is not only a tax, it is a great big tax, which apparently may 
have had something to do with him losing his chairmanship
  Anyway, let's think about what we're doing because it has dramatic 
effects across the country.

                              {time}  2350

  Of course, we know we are also telling Israel not to--or apparently 
this administration has been telling Israel, Just lay off. Let them 
build the illegal Palestinian settlements. Don't try to defend 
yourself. Get ready to give away more land. We are putting on all this 
pressure. Don't defend yourself even though Iran is developing--now we 
know--enough uranium for two bombs. Of course, one would be enough to 
wipe out much of Israel, but don't defend yourself. We're putting all 
that pressure on them. That doesn't make sense.
  Why would we do that to our best ally in the Middle East, to one of 
the best friends this country could have in the whole world, to one of 
the few--maybe sometimes the only one--that truly stands up with us 
like 95 percent of the time in the U.N. more than most anybody else? 
Yet we're turning our backs on them, and we're telling them not to 
protect their own country. Don't stand for what is going to help Israel 
stand? Why would they do that?
  Then we start seeing things that help it make sense, like with this 
sign. Now, down in Arizona, it turns out we've got a wilderness area 
down in Arizona that the park police can go in but not with any 
mechanized vehicles or mechanical equipment that is motorized. Also, 
the Border Patrol can't go there. The only people who can go there with 
impunity are people illegally going through, and that is why this 
warning sign says: Active drug and human smuggling area.
  It is like the city that spends more to put up a sign that says there 
is a bump in the road than it would cost them just to fix the bump. 
Don't put up a sign. Fix the problem. This is the

[[Page 12505]]

United States. Why are we just saying, Hey, look. Here is a sign. There 
is active drug and human smuggling in this area. They are coming 
through with mechanized vehicles and with all kinds of motorized things 
they may be using. They are violent. It says visitors may encounter 
armed criminals and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates of 
speed. That is because only the illegals can come through here using 
vehicles, because we don't let the Border Patrol in there with 
vehicles, and we know law enforcement gets shot.
  Then it starts to make sense. Oh, okay. We're just trying to avoid 
being hypocrites as a nation. We are telling Israel not to defend 
itself, to let people overrun them and to let those rockets fly 
constantly. Don't bother to check the ships that come in, the flotillas 
that come into the Gaza Strip. Just let the rockets keep flying. We are 
able to say that without being hypocrites because that's what we're 
doing. We're not protecting ourselves.
  We say, Look, Israel. Get over it. We are letting ourselves be 
overrun. We're letting people come in illegally armed. We've let them 
take over part of the United States and we're not doing anything about 
it, so we're not being hypocritical when we say, Don't protect 
yourself, Israel. We're doing the same thing, see?
  That will make Israel feel better to know that we are not protecting 
ourselves. We have just turned over part of the United States of 
America to armed criminals who are illegally in this country.
  The truth is neither one of those is a good idea. The truth is Israel 
should defend itself. They should be able to stop the rockets that are 
attacking them from coming into areas. They should be able to stop 
illegal settlements. They should be able to do all of the things that 
are necessary for a nation to protect and preserve its national 
integrity.
  We lost a Senator this week. My time is running short, so I want to 
get through as much of this incredible speech as I can. I want it 
understood this was a speech given by Senator Robert Byrd, in 1962, 
after the Supreme Court decision to eliminate prayer in schools. This 
is from the official record. As time will permit, I will read Senator 
Robert Byrd's speech from 1962.
  You know, one of the things I love about America is, for the most 
part, it is a very forgiving country. A man who had been part of the Ku 
Klux Klan later was repentant. He was very sorry for being part of that 
organization, and he changed his ways and was completely embraced by 
his colleagues. This is Senator Byrd's speech from 1962:
  ``Mr. President, Thomas Jefferson expressed the will of the American 
majority in 1776 when he included in the Declaration of Independence 
the statement that `all men are endowed by their Creator with certain 
unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit 
of happiness.'
  ``Little could Mr. Jefferson suspect, when penned that line, that the 
time would come when the Nation's highest court would rule that a 
nondenominational prayer to the Creator, if offered by schoolchildren 
in the public schools of America during class periods, is 
unconstitutional.
  ``The June 25 Supreme Court decision is sufficiently appalling to 
disturb the God-fearing people of America and to make us all reflect 
upon the extraordinary nature of the times. For what, indeed, can we 
expect to happen next if this is to be the way things are going? 
Following the French Revolution, the atheist revolutionists hired a 
chorus girl to enter a church as the `Goddess of Reason' and thereby 
defile the name of the Almighty. Following the Russian Revolution, the 
Bolshevik Government established a giant museum, dedicated to the 
promotion of atheistic beliefs.''
  I've been in that museum. I was sick to the point of nauseam, but 
back to Robert Byrd's speech.
  ``The American people were shocked by both moves. So it was in those 
days. But what about today? Can it be that we, too, are ready now to 
embrace the foul conception of atheism?
  ``It is hard to believe, but, then, what are the facts of the matter? 
Are we not in consequence of the Supreme Court ruling on schoolroom 
prayer, actually limited in teaching our children the value of God? And 
is this not, in fact, a first step on the road to promoting atheistic 
belief?''
  As I turn the page of Mr. Byrd's speech on the Senate floor, let me 
parenthetically note that Robert Byrd's Christian beliefs are what 
caused him to disavow his membership and to ask forgiveness for his 
membership to the KKK. It went to the heart and soul of the man, and 
that is why he came to the floor in 1962 and gave this speech. 
Continuing on:
  ``In reading through the Court decision on school prayer, I am 
astonished by the empty arguments set forth by the majority as opposed 
to the lucid opinion recorded by Mr. Justice Potter Stewart, the lone 
dissenter. In answering the arguments of the majority, Justice Stewart 
did not see fit to engage in debate over matters of ancient history. As 
he put it:
  ```What is relevant to the issue here is not the history of an 
established church in 16th century England or in 18th century America 
but the history of the religious traditions of our people, reflected in 
countless practices of the institutions and officials of our 
government.'
  ``To that, I would say, `Amen.'
  ``So this, indeed, the crux of the issue--the religious traditions of 
our people.
  ``Wherever one may go in this great national city, he is constantly 
reminded of the strong spiritual awareness of our forefathers who wrote 
the Federal Constitution, who built the schools and churches, who hewed 
the forests, dredged the rivers and the harbors, fought the savages, 
and created a republic.
  ``In no other place in the United States are there so many and such 
varied official evidences of deep and abiding faith in God on the part 
of government as there are in Washington.
  ``Let us speak briefly on some of the reminders in Washington that 
reaffirm the proposition that our country is founded on religious 
principles. The continuance of freedom depends on our restoring the 
same spiritual consciousness to the mainstream of American life today 
that made possible these monuments and tributes of the past.
  ``A visitor entering Washington by train sees the words of Christ 
prominently inscribed above the main arch leading into Union Station. 
Here at the very entrance to the seat of the Government of the United 
States are the words: `The truth shall make you free.' John 8:32.
  ``Nearby is another inscription cut into enduring stone, the words 
from the Eighth Psalm of the Old Testament: `Thou hast put all things 
under his feet.'
  ``A third inscription reiterates the spiritual theme: `Let all the 
end thou aimest at be thy country's, thy God's and truth's.'
  ``All three inscriptions acknowledge the dependence of our Republic 
upon the guiding hand of Almighty God.
  ``On Capitol Hill.
  ``Throughout the majestic Capital City, similar inscriptions testify 
to the religious faith of our forefathers. In the capital, we find 
prominently displayed for all of us to see the quotation from the Book 
of Proverbs, 4:7:
  ```Wisdom is the principal thing: Therefore, get wisdom, and with all 
thy getting, get understanding.'
  ``The visitor to the Library of Congress may see a quotation from the 
Old Testament which reminds each American of his responsibility to his 
Maker. It reads, `What doth the Lord require of thee but to do justice, 
to love mercy and to walk humbly with God?' Micah 6:8.
  ``Another scriptural quotation prominently displayed in the 
lawmakers' library preserves the Psalmist's acknowledgment that all 
nature reflects the order and beauty of the Creator.
  ```The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth 
His handiwork.' Psalms 19:1.
  ``Underneath the statue of history in the Library of Congress are 
Tennyson's prophetic lines:
  ```One God, one law, one element, and one far-off divine event to 
which the whole creation moves.'

[[Page 12506]]

  ``Additional proof that American national life is God-centered comes 
from this Library of Congress inscription: `The light shineth in the 
darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth not.' John 1:5.
  ``On the east hall of the second floor of the Library of Congress, an 
anonymous inscription assures all Americans that they do not work 
alone--`for a web begun, God sends thread.'''
  I realize that my time is expiring at this moment. There is much, 
much more in this wonderful speech by the now late Senator Robert Byrd, 
and I will not stop in future sessions here on the floor until I have 
finished this wonderful speech by Robert Byrd.
  Though, for tonight, since I believe in playing by the rules, the 
rules require me to yield back. I do now yield back the balance of my 
time.

                          ____________________