[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3180-3185]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           AMERICAN POLICIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, these are serious times in which we are 
living. Supposedly there is a Chinese curse that says may you live in 
interesting times. We certainly do.
  I have really been shocked that the mainstream media has not done 
more in the way of stories on the Americans, the four Americans, on a 
boat that were hijacked and then killed. Of course it made some news on 
February 22 when it happened, but it appears it didn't survive much of 
a 24-hour cycle.
  This was an act of war against America. This was an act of war 
against four peace-loving people who apparently had the gall to travel 
around and offer Bibles to different places and apparently were 
spending American blood and treasure in places like Afghanistan and 
Iraq, only to find out that they were persecuting Christians in a 
manner that is reminiscent of why people came to Europe and tried to 
create a country in which Christians could worship freely without being 
persecuted, tortured, imprisoned, or killed simply for their religious 
beliefs.
  In this case, though, it was a matter of Barbary pirates. I know that 
most people apparently in Washington have not learned enough from 
history, but there are so many history lessons that make very clear 
what Ronald Reagan used to say when he said no country ends up being 
attacked because they are too strong.

                              {time}  1450

  What Barbary pirates have seen and what people around the world have 
seen, including those in Libya, Turkey, Lebanon, and Iran, is that we 
have been promoting weakness in the United States and promoting a very 
weak vision of ourselves around the world.
  This story from February 22 indicates that the pirates fired a 
rocket-propelled grenade at a U.S. Navy destroyer that was following 
the hijacked yacht with four Americans on board. Then gunfire erupted, 
and four Americans who had been taken hostage were fatally wounded. 
They were killed.
  I don't know what this administration needs to see in the way of 
current events or why this administration will not learn from the 
myriad of lessons from history that when you're dealing with pirates, 
when you're dealing with religious fanatics--people who want to destroy 
you and who could care nothing about your life, your pursuit of 
happiness--you don't placate them; you don't try to negotiate with 
them; you don't show that, gee, we don't know what to do--or what you 
will get is more piracy, more terrorism.
  There is only one way to respond, which is the way that the United 
States did in its early days, in the early 1800s, with Thomas Jefferson 
as President. Some don't go back that far and learn history. All they 
want to do is look at a fictional approach to U.S. history that says, 
in essence, gee, we're mean; we're colonialists; we have subjugated 
people all around the world to our imperialist whims. Unfortunately, 
despite all the hyperbole and the rhetoric, what we have done is expend 
American blood and American treasure in the name of freedom, not just 
American freedom but the freedom of Iraqis, the freedom of Muslims in 
Eastern Europe, the freedom of people all across Europe--in France, 
Germany, Belgium, Holland, Poland. All across, Americans have given 
their lives in the name of freedom. All across the Pacific, they have 
given their lives, their last full measure of devotion, for freedom.
  With no racist view but absolutely, as Jesus said, ``Greater love has 
no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.''
  In the case of Americans, we've lain down lives for people we didn't 
even know because the concept of freedom was so important.
  In our earliest days, Washington, of course, was quite concerned 
that, in having won the Revolution, we were still not strong enough to 
survive. So often you'll see in a new government's trying to arise in a 
country that it overcommits to other obligations with regard to 
military, and they lose their young nation. Washington was afraid of 
that. Through the 1790s, we had Barbary pirates. We had pirates off the 
coast of North Africa who were capturing American ships and taking 
American sailors hostage. They would either kill them or they would 
torture them, but they would ransom them if they had not killed them. 
At one point, I'd read that as much as 18 percent of the American 
budget was being spent to pay ransom to get American sailors back.
  At one point, Thomas Jefferson was the one who was sent over on 
behalf of the United States to negotiate with these Muslims about why 
they were attacking American ships. The discussion apparently included 
the question:
  Why would you attack American ships? We've not harmed you in any way. 
We're no threat to you. We're not threatening you.
  One history lesson indicates that Jefferson was told: Well, under our 
religion, if we are killed while we are taking action against an 
infidel, like Americans, then we go straight to paradise, and we're 
rewarded.
  Jefferson was shocked because, as a man who was so well-read, he 
couldn't believe that any world religion would encourage the killing of 
innocent people and that the killing of innocent people would gain you 
a trip to paradise. So he got his own English copy of the Koran, which 
is still over in the Library of Congress. He couldn't believe it. He 
wanted to find out for himself.
  American history students will know that we finally created the 
United States Marines. Those who are not familiar with the history may 
still be familiar with the Marines' Hymn that says, ``From the Halls of 
Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli . . . '' Well, it was the shores of 
Tripoli to which the marines were sent with the message:
  We can't continue to pay ransom to bloodthirsty religious zealots, 
and so we are at war with you until you stop.
  It was only then when Americans showed strength that they could not 
be pushed around, that they would not be taken hostage without a 
response, and that there would be American blood and treasure spent in 
the name of freedom to anyone who tries to threaten the freedom of 
Americans on the high seas or on American soil.
  Because the marines fought so valiantly and fiercely and fearlessly, 
those pirates, the Muslim pirates, learned a valuable lesson of, gee, 
maybe we ought to leave these people alone for a while--and they did 
for a long time.
  Yet in 1979, after the Carter administration had welcomed back the 
Ayatollah Khomenei as a man of peace, as one who would bring great 
peace to the region, the Carter administration had snubbed its nose and 
abandoned a man who didn't seem to be a very nice man--the Shah of 
Iran--and rather put all our eggs in one basket with this wonderful man 
of peace, the Ayatollah Khomenei, who it turns out would also like to 
see the United States destroyed, and viewed Americans as infidels as 
well as the original Barbary pirates did.
  I was in the Army at Fort Benning when the hostages were taken. No 
one at Fort Benning that I knew of was dying to go to Iran, but most 
everybody I knew at Fort Benning was willing to go and thought we 
should go because an act of war had been committed against the United 
States. Under everyone's interpretation of international law, when a 
United States Embassy or a United States compound is attacked in any 
nation, it is an attack on that nation's own soil.

[[Page 3181]]

It is an act of war. This is under everyone's interpretation of 
international law.
  If you go back and if you review the television footage of the day--
and I'm relying on my memory of those days because we were certainly 
paying attention--we didn't know who might be sent. It turns out none 
of us were sent from Fort Benning because the Carter administration, as 
eloquent as President Carter was and as peace-loving and as well-
meaning as he was, felt surely these people in Iran will see how much I 
care. They'll see how much I really love them, and we'll negotiate. 
They'll be impressed by our words. They'll be impressed by our 
negotiations, and they'll let our people go.
  But that's not the way those folks who view us as infidels and who 
need to be killed work.
  In fact, if you go back to your own experience--back to a 
schoolyard--if a bully is picking on you or especially if a smaller 
person is picking on a bigger person and you don't defend yourself but 
instead say ``let me pay you money if you'll leave me alone,'' not only 
does that smaller person not have respect for the bigger person, but 
the smaller person will have nothing but hatred, and now you've added 
contempt because he can't believe somebody is such a coward and so weak 
when he appears to be so big and strong that he would pay someone who 
hates him to leave him alone.

                              {time}  1500

  So you get hatred, you get contempt, and you get more violence. And 
that is what we've seen. We have continued to this day to pay the price 
for the message that was sent in 1979 and 1980 for appearing to be so 
weak and helpless in the face of Iranians--we were told initially 
students--who committed an act of war and then gave our hostages to the 
Iranian Government.
  Now as I watched all this unfold, it appeared to me, as a young man 
in the Army, that--you know, the Ayatollah's spokesman kept coming out 
and talking about the students--the students attacked, the students 
have the hostages. That seemed to me, as an inexperienced person in the 
way of foreign policy but someone who had studied a great deal of world 
history, that that was their back door for Iran, that was their way of 
saying, look, we don't know if the United States is going to be the 
powerful country we're afraid they might be or if they're really the 
toothless tiger that we saw tuck their tail between their legs and run 
out of Vietnam. So let's just test. Let's talk about the students 
taking the hostages. Let's talk about the students committing the 
atrocity of invading the embassy. And if America steps up and says you 
either get our hostages back from the students within 48 or 72 hours or 
we're coming in and we're addressing this act of war against the United 
States of America and we're getting our hostages back, and if you kill 
them, we will be at war with anybody who condoned that action, and that 
would include the Iranian Government that allowed this to happen and 
did not intercede when they could have. That's what you have to do and 
that's what we didn't do.
  So it appeared, as it all unfolded, that after 2 or 3 days the 
Ayatollah realized America is as weak as we hoped they were. This 
President Carter, he thinks he's a man of peace, we see him as a man of 
nothing but weakness, as the poorest leader the Americans could offer. 
So they quit talking about the students have the hostages, the students 
attacked the embassy, and they started talking about we have the 
hostages because they gave us time to show whether or not we would 
react with strength and they saw we reacted with weakness. You can't 
negotiate with people like that. You instill more contempt on top of 
the hatred.
  And of course I filed, in all three Congresses I've been a part of--
and this Congress will be no different--my U.N. voting accountability 
bill that basically says if you vote against the United States more 
than half the time in the U.N. in any year, you will receive not one 
dime of financial assistance from the U.S. in the subsequent year. Now 
some say, gee, that seems so heartless. Well, the fact is we have been 
paying money to prop up regimes like Mubarak's. Is it any wonder that 
the report is he has billions of dollars in the bank when we've been 
paying Egypt billions of dollars that doesn't appear to have really 
gotten to the people and helped them? We're doing it all over the 
world. We're paying tyrants who hate us and would like to see our way 
of life destroyed with American treasure. It doesn't buy love, it 
doesn't buy happiness, it buys contempt. And as I've said repeatedly, 
you don't have to pay people to hate you, they'll do it for free.
  In a time when the United States is struggling so with economic 
issues of just staying afloat, why should we be paying tyrants that 
hate us and paying people who have not helped their people? I mean, you 
look at the money that we poured into the Palestinian group and see how 
much of the money we paid in to help the homeless Palestinians has been 
paid toward building homes. It should be a no-brainer. Palestinians, so 
many of them, hate the Israelis because they have no homes. So they're 
told, well, blame the Israelis. So they do, and they grow up hating 
them. Well, why not, with the billions and billions of dollars we've 
paid out of this country to the Palestinians, why have they not used it 
to build homes so those people won't continue to hate Israelis and hate 
Americans?
  It's no secret, we're not buying affection with the billions of 
dollars we're spending overseas. It makes no sense to these countries 
who hate us that we keep giving them money, but they figure if we're 
that stupid, sure, they'll take our money, and all the while the dollar 
gets weaker and weaker and you have more and more claims from people 
we're giving money to to get rid of the dollar as a reserve currency. 
And when that happens--if it ever happens--then our economy is in for 
just the fastest spiral down anyone could possibly imagine. Dollars are 
required to buy much of the oil in the world. We keep showing this kind 
of stupidity in our foreign policies and there will be consequences. 
There were consequences for four Americans who were hijacked and then 
killed.
  As a former judge and State Chief Justice of a Court of Appeals, when 
I hear stories, I'm constantly looking for evidence so that I can find 
out, is there any substance to the story that's been heard? Now we see 
that there was a naval destroyer following, shadowing the hijacked boat 
of these Americans who were simply going out trying to help people in 
the world. They were not a threat to anyone, they were providing Bibles 
and hope from what we can find out.
  Well, how does that compare to the incident of the captain of the 
Bainbridge being taken hostage by three pirates and how it concluded? 
There were conservative talk show hosts that said, hey, we disagree 
with so much that President Obama has been doing to this country and in 
our name, but it looks like he got this one right. Well, a story was 
circulating--and I was curious whether it had truth to it--that when 
the SEAL team was deployed, the order was a little different than 
normal, where instead of the order saying go rescue their hostages and 
they put together their own game plan for how you go about achieving 
the goal that's ordered, that this order was a little different, it 
just said go to the ship and receive further orders there, a little 
different for a SEAL team, that's what we were hearing, and that they 
did the drop at night. They had the SEAL team there, and for basically 
3 days they had a bead on all three of the pirates in the boat with the 
captain they had taken hostage, and that at any moment they could have 
taken out all three pirates for that 3-day period. But the story went, 
what was circulating, was that the President's order said do not use 
deadly force under any circumstances unless the life of the captain is 
in imminent danger of immediately be taken. Only under those 
circumstances are you to use deadly force.

[[Page 3182]]



                              {time}  1510

  Well, when a pirate group attacks a ship, it is an act of war by 
those pirates. And this administration's response here is just to have 
a Navy destroyer tag along and try to negotiate.
  And they were in the process of trying to negotiate, apparently, when 
the rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the Navy destroyer and then 
the four hostages were killed.
  Well, the story was the administration didn't want to take any action 
against the pirates. We'll just negotiate our way through this.
  And it's one of the problems with being one of the most gifted 
orators in American history, if you're that gifted of an orator, the 
temptation arises for you to think you can talk people into anything. 
People that hate your country, when they see that you really sympathize 
with them and not your own hostages as much--certainly there's sympathy 
for the hostages--but if they perceive that there is sympathy for the 
pirates or for those attacking Americans, then, sure, they're willing 
to negotiate, but it appears to be weakness.
  And, obviously, these pirates in February were not impressed with 
America when they took the Americans hostage, committed an act of war, 
and even had a naval destroyer behind because they perceived we were 
weak.
  Well, the story about the captain of the Bainbridge that was going 
around was that for basically 3 days, the SEALs were not allowed to 
take out the pirates, that they could have at any time. And then we 
heard on the news during that that the captain, while the pirates may 
have been falling asleep, was able to get out of the boat, get into the 
water.
  As soon as I heard that, I thought, Wow, he was trying to give the 
SEALs clear shots at the pirates. He must have figured, as I did, that 
they surely would have taken an open shot if they knew they wouldn't 
jeopardize the American captain. And so by his jumping out of the boat, 
it gave them a clear shot to take the pirates out without jeopardizing 
the captain; but no shots were fired. That surely had to perplex him. 
It sure did me and many others. Why didn't they just take out the 
pirates before they drug him back in the boat?
  But our American SEALs did nothing. Not because they couldn't or 
wouldn't; but the story was they were doing that because the President 
had issued an order that they were not to use deadly force. And the 
story was going that the captain, when he went out of the boat and 
these guys came to their senses, that they put their guns down to grab 
him and put him back into the boat and therefore he was not under 
immediate threat of death so the SEALs were not allowed to kill him.
  It must have perplexed the captain that nothing was done when he got 
out. But nothing was done. The story went that these SEALs were 
following orders.
  And then came an occasion when one of the pirates that had a gun on 
his arm or over his shoulder waved his weapon in the direction of the 
captain and that that's when the SEAL team commander realized he's 
waving his weapon at the captain, we cannot take a chance. The order to 
shoot was given--that could have been given anytime for 3 days and 
ended that terrible ordeal--was given not by the President but by the 
commander on the scene. And our well-trained SEALs did a remarkable job 
in taking out two of the pirates and rescuing the captain.
  The story went it could have happened anytime, but the order of the 
President restrained them from doing that because he was convinced they 
could just surely know how good and loving and peaceful we were and 
they would eventually let these folks go.
  Because this administration apparently had not learned the lesson 
that Thomas Jefferson had to learn. You can't deal with peaceful 
negotiating efforts or even paying people money or snubbing your allies 
and friends to try to convince them that you're really a great person 
they ought to love. Those things don't work. You have to go to war 
against them and let them know when they attack Americans, when they 
attack America that we are coming after them.
  We don't have to be at war with a country. We don't have to be at war 
with an entire race or group of people. There's no need in that. But 
you go to war with the people that are at war with you, and this 
administration has not done that.
  We have four Americans who are dead. Obviously, this administration 
didn't want Americans to die. Of course they didn't. That's a terrible 
thing. And they didn't want it--would loved to have avoided it, 
certainly. But it's not enough to intend good consequences. You have to 
study your history lessons and do so objectively, learn from history so 
you don't repeat the mistakes of the past. And that's what we've been 
doing.
  And as much as I respected and think Ronald Reagan was one of our 
greatest Presidents, in 1983 when our Marine barracks was blown up and 
we withdrew from Beirut, it appeared to be further evidence of 
weakness. And I can't help but believe from people I've talked to that 
were part of the administration that if he had to do it all over, he 
would do it in a different manner.
  But he had advisers telling him accurately we're in Lebanon on a 
peacekeeping mission. We have finished the mission. There is no need to 
keep staying there. Let's go ahead and get out. There's no reason. 
We've finished our job. Let's get out before any other Americans get 
killed.
  The problem was when we did, it appeared to be follow-up weakness 
added to what President Carter had shown on behalf of this country.
  And now we see it on the high seas.
  We have a naval destroyer. We have SEAL teams. We have Army, Navy, 
Marines, Coast Guard, we have Air Force that can achieve things nobody 
in any prior service could have ever dreamed could be accomplished. We 
have a better military than I ever dreamed we could have had back when 
we had just gone to an all-volunteer Army and I was concerned about our 
national safety. Amazing military. Smart, motivated. And yet despite 
that, we're showing weakness.
  Now, the story that was going around was that the captain that 
ordered the fire got a hot call from the White House saying--really 
chewing him out, that the SEAL team around didn't know what was being 
said but they knew that their commander was getting chewed out royally. 
And supposedly the story that was circulating was that he eventually 
said, That's fine, sir, and that apparently wasn't the President but 
said, You can tell the President that if he wants to continue this 
rear-chewing of me and my team, we're going to arrive at Andrews Air 
Force base, wherever they came in, at a certain time and the media 
knows, and you can dress them down there. Or you might want a good 
photo op and you could be there--told the President he could be there 
to congratulate them. And of course there was a wonderful photo op, and 
these great heroes were welcomed by the President as he should have.
  That was the story going around back after the attack on the 
Bainbridge.
  And so ever since then, I've been looking--I'd heard this story. I 
was wondering is there any evidence of similar activity that might give 
substance to that story. And how we handled these four Americans, these 
loving, caring Americans being killed on the high seas seems to be that 
kind of evidence, that this is our mode of operation. You commit an act 
of war against Americans, you commit an act of war against our ships, 
and we're going to send a Navy ship to follow you and try to offer you 
bribes to leave us alone and leave the people alone, but you don't have 
to worry much.

                              {time}  1520

  But after the rocket-propelled grenade was fired, it all went bad and 
four Americans are dead. It's shocking. We need to show strength.
  And I was a year ago in April in West Africa with a group called 
Mercy Ships that brings healing. The lame walk, the blind see. They 
bring a ship into a port of a country that needs health care and they 
provide treatment to thousands of people. And I had gone to see this 
for myself.

[[Page 3183]]

  And before I left the ship after the days there over the Easter 
break, some of the West Africans wanted to visit with me. And the 
oldest, a wonderful, wonderful man, I don't know how much education, 
but a smart man, great wisdom, he said, in essence, we wanted to make 
sure you understood as Africans we were excited when you elected a 
black President. We were excited. We thought it was wonderful. But 
since he has been President, we've become very concerned and a bit 
afraid because we see him showing weakness for America. And we need you 
to please convey in Washington that America is the hope for people, 
Christians like him. People who want peace around the world, we're 
their hope. And if you show weakness, and if you weaken America, we 
don't have hope in this world.
  As Christians, they knew where they would go in the next life. But 
they also knew that America stood for hope in this world. And when we 
show weakness, as we have been doing, then it signals the tyrants to 
have their way. And we've got to stop that.
  Now, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 25 minutes left.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I wanted to shift gears because we have been doing so 
much talking about the continuing resolution, which is just an ongoing 
funding of the way things are going, except for amendments that have 
been adopted to the CR. And we have talked so much about health care 
and the President's bill that many call ObamaCare.
  And in the CR that was debated for over 90 hours, with an open rule 
until a unanimous consent agreement was reached, you know, 80 hours or 
so into the debate, it was the first open rule we have had like that in 
years. Certainly we didn't have such an open debate and an open rule 
during the last 2 years during the Democrats' control of the majority 
in both the House and the Senate. We didn't have an open rule here. And 
we were advised that it was the first time in America's history that 
there was not an open rule where you could bring, anybody could bring 
amendments to the floor and offer them to a bill.
  Now, it's not a pretty thing to watch, all that debate going back and 
forth. And I know I hear some people say, you know, you guys shouldn't 
bicker so much back and forth, but they show a lack of knowledge about 
what the Founders intended. And Justice Scalia put it so well to a 
group when one asked do we have more freedom in America because we have 
the best Bill of Rights in history. And Scalia, as only he could do, 
abruptly said, basically, well, no, even the Soviet Union had a better 
Bill of Rights than we do. And I had forgotten, but back in college, 
during one of my history and world courses, I had written a paper on 
the Soviet Government and their Constitution, their Bill of Rights.
  And Justice Scalia was exactly right, they had more promises in their 
Bill of Rights than we do. But as Justice Scalia so aptly pointed out, 
the reason we have more freedoms in America than any country in history 
is because the Founders did not trust government, so they put as many 
impediments in the path of creating laws as they could. Because they 
knew if they made it too easy to pass laws, then it would be too easy 
to subjugate Americans and take away their freedom and have government 
get bigger and bigger until they basically took away people's freedom 
and their way of life to which they had become accustomed. They knew 
that. They had seen that. They learned that from their vast reading of 
history.
  They had such great knowledge of the writings of the philosophers and 
historians. They understood all that. They did not trust government. So 
they were not going to be satisfied to have one House as a 
representative body because it might be too easy for one body, one 
group to take over control of that one House and then ramrod through 
all types of oppressive legislation like ObamaCare, for example.
  So they were so worried about that they created a second House of 
Representatives, ended up being called the Senate. And they were 
selected a different way, by the State legislators, so that they would 
be responsible to the State legislators so that they wouldn't end up 
taking away States' rights, and certainly wouldn't allow the House of 
Representatives to take away a State's rights.
  So they thought, gee, two Houses. But even that wasn't good enough 
because they realized, you know, we could do like as has been done 
before and have a Prime Minister elected by the legislative body, and 
he would be the top executive. It's not good enough. It's not enough of 
an impediment or an obstacle to passing laws. We still want to make it 
harder to pass laws. So let's create a separate executive branch and 
have the Executive, the top Executive, the President elected by the 
entire country, and at least elected by the entire country's 
Representatives. But that was going to be a different format.
  And then they set up the judiciary branch. And both the President 
could veto and even the judiciary, as it turned out, was going to be 
able to veto things if it got through the House and Senate and yet took 
away some constitutional right. They thought they created a good enough 
system that wouldn't be as abused as the entire system was in the last 
few years.
  They could not have imagined that a 2,900-page bill, ObamaCare, could 
have been crammed down the throats of American citizens that poll after 
poll showed did not want it. They would never have imagined that the 
Senate would not be independent enough and would be so taken over by 
one political extremist group that they would pass through such an 
oppressive bill that would force a government takeover and government 
control of everybody's health care, that would force every American to 
have their medical records sent to a central repository that supposedly 
General Electric would handle because they are good cronies with this 
administration; and they would take care of every American's records 
because the Federal Government would have control of all of that.
  And not only that, they would take control over all the health care 
insurance companies. They would take control over ordering what would 
be allowable under health care, what would not be allowable under 
health care, all in this massive bill that would provide for supposedly 
hundreds of thousands of regulations that would follow to interpret 
those 2,900 pages.
  They could never have imagined that it would get that bad in this 
country that the system they created to throw obstacles in the path of 
government creating laws that the American people did not want, and 
certainly not that a majority of Americans didn't want, and by golly, 
they got it through. They rammed it through. They used carrots. They 
dangled benefits. They added all kinds of pork to bills.

                              {time}  1530

  They threw in something for the big pharmaceuticals. They threw 
something in for the trial lawyers. They threw something in for the 
AMA. They certainly threw a big juicy bone in there for AARP--well, a 
bunch of juicy bones, actually. They threw all these things in for all 
these interest groups except for the one who poll after poll said we 
don't want it. Don't do this.
  You promised us you would negotiate a health care bill on C-SPAN and 
we would be able to see who was out for the people. So all the people 
could assume was that because none of that was done on C-SPAN, other 
than a dog and pony show after it was basically done and about to be 
crammed down the Republicans' throats anyway, we had a little summit 
and it got crammed down our throats anyway and Americans didn't want 
it.
  Well, I did go through the original 1,000-page bill. I went through 
the 2,000-page bill. I put off going through the 2,900-page bill 
because who knew if there would be a fourth or a fifth on top of that. 
I didn't want to end up going through yet another bill that wasn't 
going to be the one that really was the one that was seriously going to 
be made law, so I put it off.
  And when I got around to going through and reading the 2,900-page 
bill, you know, I will admit, I was wanting to look at what the 
sections did, their

[[Page 3184]]

effect. And so I was struck by finding, really, ingenious or insidious 
language and drafting provisions, depending on your viewpoint, for 
example, with abortion. There was a section there saying, you know, you 
couldn't have Federal funds for abortion, but over in the section that 
was going to allow it, instead of mentioning the word ``abortion,'' it 
just referred to the section. So if you went online and did a word 
search for the word ``abortion,'' you wouldn't see all of the 
provisions that allowed for abortion in Federal funding; you would only 
find a restricted group, that kind of really clever hiding what was 
going on.
  I passed over a lot of the numbers that were utilized. So it was a 
bit surprising to find out here recently, and going back through, and 
Ernie Istook, a former Member here I served with, now with the Heritage 
Foundation, yesterday provided me with copies of specific pages of the 
bill. Again, this is public law 111-148 and 111-152.
  But if you looked at, let's see, consolidated print -26, here it says 
down here: Hereby appropriated to the Secretary out of any funds in the 
Treasury, not otherwise appropriated, $30 million for the first fiscal 
year.
  And it goes on, and another page says: There are hereby appropriated 
to the trust fund, the following, and it appropriated 10 million for 
this, 50 million for that, 150 million for that, another 150 million, 
another 150 million.
  And you go through these, and it's staggering how much money was 
actually not authorized, but they used appropriating language. Because, 
as many people know, and I am finding more and more that are watching 
C-SPAN, but they know, gee, normally you have a budget. Well, there was 
no budget last year. The majority didn't want people to see exactly how 
the money would be budgeted, so they didn't bother with one in election 
year. First time in decades, as I understand it. But we didn't have a 
budget. And then we had this, beginning of this continuing resolution 
stuff. But normally you will have a budget. You will have an 
authorization for expenditure, but then it had to be followed up with 
an appropriation.
  Well, ObamaCare went straight to it and appropriated vast amounts of 
money. In fact, in this first year of 2011, fiscal year 2011, there is 
$4.951 billion appropriated in the bill. They apparently not only 
overran all the obstacles and hurdles that the Founders put in our way 
to come up with so that we would not come up with legislation that 
Americans did not want, they overcame that. Then, just to make sure 
that it would be difficult to ever stop this by unfunding it, they 
actually didn't just authorize, they appropriated $105.464 billion in 
this ObamaCare bill, over $105 billion from 2011 through 2019, $105 
billion.
  Now, the rules get a little complicated around here, and any 
amendment that seeks to rescind a prior appropriation is going to be 
subject to a point of order objection and not be allowed because it 
legislates in an appropriating bill, and under our rules you can't 
legislate in an appropriating bill.
  So the only way--and these people that put this language in here, 
they knew it. When they were telling America we know we are broke; we 
have got to rein in spending, all the while they were sticking in $105 
billion of spending in one bill, not authorizing, not saying, gee, you 
may not be able to afford this 5 or 6 or 7 years from now. So, instead, 
they just said we are appropriating it and you can't do anything about 
it, because under the House rules you try to bring up an amendment to 
rescind that, it's subject to a point of order objection and we can 
keep it from coming out.
  The only way that I understand that this $105 billion that's now been 
appropriated by the last Congress, the only way that can be taken out 
is to have a provision in the original bill from the appropriators, not 
an amendment, a provision that rescinds this $105 billion of 
appropriations in this prior law from last year, and it's in the 
original bill. And then the Rules Committee waives any point of order 
objections to that rescission being in the appropriating bill. My 
understanding is that's the only way we can get it done.
  The amendments we were trying to do and that we got done apparently 
are not going to accomplish that. We are going to have it in an 
original committee bill rescinding all of this massive amount of money. 
Right now, we will be borrowing 42 cents of every dollar of that $105 
billion. It's irresponsible. It's almost inconceivable, except here it 
is in black and white in front of us.
  America deserves better than this.
  I told some folks back home, I have mentioned before, it strikes me 
that this government in this last not just 4 years, but even going back 
into the last few years and especially the TARP bailout that was such a 
disaster and should never have been passed, that this government became 
like a parent who had an overwhelming desire to spend and could not 
control their own spending.
  So the parent goes to the bank and says, You have got to loan me 
massive amounts of money. And the bank says, How are you going to pay 
it back? You are not going to live long enough to ever pay this back. 
And the parent says, No, but I have got my children here, and they are 
going to have children and those children will have children. So my 
children, my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren, I am pledging they 
are going to pay back all of this self-centered massive amounts of 
money I am throwing upon me and my friends, and I am pledging and 
promising my children will be indentured servants for the rest of their 
lives because I can't stop spending.
  Now, in a case like that, you would probably have the Child 
Protective Service come swooping in and say you are an unfit parent. 
You have no business having children when you are selling your 
children's future for your own use of money now. How irresponsible that 
is. Do you care nothing about the children that you can't quit 
lavishing all that money and paying your friends for doing nothing?

                              {time}  1540

  You can't control your spending, so that your children, grandchildren 
and great-grandchildren can have freedom like you had it? You can't 
control that? You're an irresponsible parent, and you shouldn't even 
have these children if you're going to do that. I've heard the Child 
Protective Services in Texas come in on a lot weaker claims to take 
children away from parents than that. It's irresponsible what we're 
doing. And to pass a bill that was against the vast majority will of 
the American people and to stick in $105 billion of spending is just 
irresponsible. It's got to stop.
  On one final note before my time concludes, having been a judge and a 
State chief justice, I'm sensitive when I hear judges threatened. And 
especially in the wake of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting and the loss 
of life in Arizona, we really should not be provoking actions to the 
point of violence or threatening actions. And I have certainly had my 
share of death threats as a judge. But it was usually only when they 
included my family that it got serious. And we have a group that's held 
itself out for years now, Common Cause, as this wonderful nonpartisan 
group. And yet you see over and over, like you did here recently with 
the rally they held in California with Van Jones--such an impassioned 
socialist--speaking and stirring people up against Justice Thomas and 
Justice Scalia.
  Justice Thomas himself, after one of the most embarrassing episodes 
in American history, the way he was treated as he went through the 
hearings for confirmation to the Supreme Court, he said himself, it's a 
modern day lynching, high-tech lynching. And in his book, ``My 
Grandfather's Son,'' where he describes coming out of poverty, severe 
poverty, and making it on nothing but hard work and his brilliant 
intellect he achieved the great heights he has. And I have heard him 
say himself, he started out in college as an angry black man and left-
wing extremist who came to realize more oppressive government is not 
the answer. But he also came to see firsthand, as he has described it, 
that if you're an African American and you spout the words that the 
liberal left tells you to say, then

[[Page 3185]]

they love you. But if you dare--as he points out, otherwise I wouldn't 
use these words--but he says if you dare to step off the plantation and 
think for yourself, then here comes all the groups that come after you. 
And we have seen that with this attack from Common Cause that they are 
using to fundraise this attack after Justices Thomas and Scalia.
  And, again, I look for evidence, are they nonpartisan? Well, it seems 
like they only come after conservatives, mainstream Americans, but they 
encourage left-wing extremism on a wholesale basis. But to be attacking 
Justices Thomas and Scalia and stir up sentiment, they sent out the e-
mails urging people to come, they sent out the notices of what they 
were doing, urging people to come. They knew who they were sending 
those to. They urged these people to come. And what they got was the 
friends that they had invited saying that they wanted to string up, 
basically lynch, one of the most honorable people in the America, 
Clarence Thomas, that came from the most oppressive background and 
fought and worked his way up, as he would tell you, with the help of 
loving grandparents to the status that he has, and they want to do a 
high-tech lynching of him now.
  Except the people that they stirred up aren't going to be satisfied 
with high tech. They want to lynch him, and they want to lynch his 
wife. And when you look for evidence, well, have they been saying this 
all along about other incidences that were similar? Well, when we got a 
national leader of the ACLU, they never mentioned one word about 
perhaps she should recuse herself from things that involve the ACLU, 
and our sympathies go out any time anyone loses a spouse, but when 
people on the Supreme Court who came from leftist backgrounds had 
spouses that had direct interests that were affected, Common Cause was 
silent. Oh, no, they raised their money on going after people that are 
mainstream conservatives and believe in the Constitution meaning what 
it says.
  And after bringing this up at a press conference this afternoon, we 
get word that Common Cause has come out and said, we apologize. We 
never meant for them to say that. No, actually, that's not what they 
said. They came out and said--this is laughable--they didn't come out 
and condemn people that want to lynch a Supreme Court justice or 
justices and their spouses, family and torture them and do these 
terrible things. No, it didn't say anything about that. It just said 
this is laughable because they are still raising money. And it is time 
the Justice Department started being fair about justice and not ``just 
us'' at their Justice Department but look into Common Cause and look at 
whether they really deserve to be called ``not for profit'' and 
``nonpartisan'' because what they are doing to stir up Americans 
against honorable Americans is intolerable. America deserves better.
  The adage is, Democracy ensures--America, any country--Democracy 
ensures that people are governed no better than they deserve. My hope 
and prayer is we deserve better in the next election.

                          ____________________