[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2691-2696]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1200
                      WHEN WEAKNESS IS PROVOCATIVE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Rothfus).


                           Planned Parenthood

  Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this week, the House Select Investigative Panel on 
Infant Lives began hearings to look into Planned Parenthood's 
harvesting and trafficking of human body parts, which was revealed in a 
series of undercover videos last year. These were videos that even 
Democrat Presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, in her words, 
``obviously found disturbing.''
  Since the release of the videos last year, some have rushed to defend 
the organization, and Planned Parenthood and its allies have been in 
full damage control mode. Among the more bizarre defenses has been that 
the videos were heavily edited, as if the statements made by Planned 
Parenthood officials and a worker who harvested body parts really 
aren't what they appear to be.
  I do not serve on this select committee, but if I did, I would really 
want to take a hard look at that defense. The term ``heavily edited'' 
suggests that important, qualifying context may have been omitted in 
these videos; but I struggle, Mr. Speaker, with trying to understand 
any context that would soften the language in these tapes.
  For example, in what context is this okay?
  ``We have been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we 
know that, so I am not going to crush that part.''
  What about: ``A lot of people want intact hearts these days,'' or 
``always as many intact livers as possible''?
  Do the defenders of Planned Parenthood think that they are talking 
about chicken hearts or livers at a butcher shop as opposed to baby 
body parts?
  Just in what context does this sound right?
  ``Yesterday was the first time she said people wanted lungs.''
  How about: ``Some people want lower extremities, too''--that would be 
legs. ``I don't know what they're doing with it. I guess they want the 
muscle''?
  Again, Mr. Speaker, what is the situation in which these statements 
would not shock a sensitive conscience?
  What about this line? When is this an acceptable statement?
  ``Using a `less crunchy' technique to get more whole specimens.''
  In that phrase, the context is you have a Planned Parenthood official 
who is talking about a ``less crunchy'' type of abortion, which begs 
the obvious question: What does that even mean?
  Can anyone who defends Planned Parenthood give me the context in 
which this sounds good?
  ``I know I've seen livers; I've seen stomachs; I've seen plenty of 
neural tissue. Usually you can see the whole brain, usually, come 
out.''
  What about: ``I don't think it would be as war torn'' when discussing 
what fetal remains look like during a second trimester abortion? What 
would that sentence sound like in an unedited video?
  At one point in a video, a clinic worker brings in another fetal 
body, saying, ``And another boy.'' A boy. In another context, you might 
hear ``and another boy'' if a mom is giving birth to twin sons, but 
that is obviously not the context of these videos.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, can someone please tell me the context in which 
this dialogue does not mean what it says?
  ``This is a really good fetus, and it looks like we can procure a lot 
from it . . . we're going to procure brain.'' Further: ``So she gave me 
the scissors and she told me I have to cut down the middle of the face; 
and I can't even, like, describe, like, what that feels like. And I 
remember picking it up and finishing going through the rest of the face 
and just picking up the brain and putting it in a container . . . and 
I'm just sitting there, like, what did I just do?''
  What is the context in which these words might not be what they seem?
  I can think of one: perhaps if you had a screenwriter who was talking 
about a new horror film she was writing.
  But this is no horror film, Mr. Speaker. These words are direct 
quotes from a technician who is engaged in a real-world practice that 
is appalling, barbaric, and indefensible--the harvesting of fetal body 
parts for money.
  It is not easy to come to the floor of the House to speak these 
words. I would prefer not to. It is uncomfortable to listen to these 
words, and many people would prefer not to hear them. If that is the 
case, Mr. Speaker--if I don't like talking about this and if people 
don't like hearing about it--why, for goodness sake, are we allowing 
hard-working taxpayers' dollars to go to the organization that is 
responsible for them?
  We are a better nation than what is revealed in these videos. There 
are 13,000 other health clinics that are capable of providing health 
care for women, clinics which do not perform abortions. It is past time 
that the $500 million in Federal dollars that Planned Parenthood 
receives every year be redirected to those clinics.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank Mr. Rothfus, my friend from Pennsylvania. He is 
exactly right. We have so many people across this Nation who understand 
the tragedy of taking a child's life before it is fully born.
  Mr. Speaker, I know there are some people, like our friend Donald 
Trump, who say Planned Parenthood has done a lot more good; but the 
trouble is, so often, Planned Parenthood takes money from the Federal 
Government and then just refers the women out. Of course, that has been 
perpetuated by this administration in its making it sound like Planned 
Parenthood does mammograms and other things that they don't do. They 
refer people to other people.
  Why not have that money not get held up at Planned Parenthood? Why 
not have that money go directly to the thousands of healthcare 
providers that actually provide the care that the women are seeking and 
not have it go to Planned Parenthood so that they can get money from 
the government and then keep their abortion business going?

[[Page 2692]]

  That also leads right into this article today from the National 
Review, Jim Geraghty, regarding ObamaCare. Headline: ``Deductibles 
Increased in 41 States under ObamaCare.''
  It reads:

       Freedom Partners unveils a new `Deductibles Tracker' 
     showing how much deductibles have increased, on average, in 
     each State. I know this will shock you, but most people are 
     finding their deductibles are going up and, in some cases, 
     way up.
       Their analysis shows deductibles have increased in 41 
     States under ObamaCare--in some States, like Mississippi, by 
     over $1,000. Seventeen States, representing over half of 
     total exchange enrollment, are seeing double-digit spikes. 
     The largest increases were in Mississippi, which went up 39 
     percent; Washington State went up 31 percent; South Carolina 
     went up 26 percent; Louisiana went up 24 percent; Florida 
     went up 23 percent; Minnesota and Vermont went up 22 percent; 
     Arizona went up 21 percent; North Carolina went up 20 
     percent.

  Mr. Speaker, what makes it so incredibly difficult is knowing there 
are Federal dollars that are being used for abortion and being used for 
purposes that are against the religious beliefs of so many Americans. 
When we think that the whole object we were told for having ObamaCare 
and passing it against the will of the majority of the American people 
was so that we could make sure everybody had insurance, now it appears 
that there has not been much change in the net number of people covered 
under insurance.
  Oh, yes, it is true. There are some people who were paying for their 
insurance who no longer have it--they can't afford it anymore. It is 
true that we have some people who were not paying for it who are having 
it provided now, but it really appears to have been more a transfer of 
working people's money to people who were not working.
  It appears that we have been moving into a socialist agenda for some 
time, and that goes back to what President Obama said when he first 
ran, telling ``Joe the Plumber'' that he wanted it to be about 
spreading the wealth around. The pilgrims found out that, at least in 
this world, if you try to share and share alike--the Early New 
Testament tried it, and it didn't work--and if you start allowing 
people who are not working to have the same benefits as those who work, 
you will have more and more people who are not working.
  I hear from so many of my constituents--I know I hear from others of 
my friends here in Congress--that constituents are hurting. Their 
insurance is costing more, and like this article points out, the 
deductibles have gone higher. Ask one of my staff, who is not making 
very much.
  If you make $30,000 and if you have a deductible of $6,000 as a 
healthy young person, what that basically means is that every dime you 
are paying into health care is not going to help your health care 
whatsoever. You are paying for the new IRS agents, the new navigators, 
and the new government union workers who will never spray Bactine on 
anybody's cut, who will never put a Band-Aid on. They will just keep 
adding forms, adding requirements, taking more time away from the true 
healthcare providers and more money away from the true healthcare 
providers for bureaucrats.
  I know, back when I was an exchange student in the Soviet Union and 
when I went and toured some of the most up-to-date facilities in what 
was the Soviet Union at the time, I thanked God that I lived in 
America. I thanked God that we had such incredible health care and that 
I didn't have to rely on what appeared to have been 30- or 40-year-old 
antiquated healthcare methods and equipment for my health care.
  Even living in the small town of Mount Pleasant, as I did, I knew we 
had a lot better healthcare facilities in my hometown where I was 
growing up than they did in one of the largest cities--well, the 
largest city in Ukraine--Kiev, where I toured facilities. I toured a 
medical school and I couldn't believe how far behind our medical 
schools that they were.
  It is what happens when you continue moving towards socialized health 
care. I know Mr. Trump, initially, wanted the government to provide 
everybody's health care, but apparently in his being informed that 
conservatives don't like that, he is now saying no, that that is not 
where he is going.
  We know that President Obama, back before he was President, was 
caught on video saying that we want to go to single payer--in other 
words, socialized medicine--where the government is in charge of 
everybody's health care.
  I know I have got conservative friends who say, Louie, we don't have 
to worry. We don't have to fight ObamaCare, because socialized medicine 
always fails. They are wrong. Socialism always fails. As Margaret 
Thatcher said, eventually, you run out of other people's money.
  You incentivize not working and penalize working, and that is what we 
are doing here in America now. We are moving in that direction, toward 
socialism. The only time true capitalism, true free liberty, 
entrepreneurism in the marketplace fails is when it starts moving into 
socialist tendencies and adopting socialist ways. Then that can spell 
doom for capitalism, those who want to have a dictatorial Federal 
national government. That is where they want to see things go.

                              {time}  1215

  But it is ironic that when a free market society struggles, it is 
when they start incorporating socialist tendencies and rewarding 
improper conduct or nonworking. Then you have a lot more people not 
working.
  You incentivize people not to hire. You penalize people for hiring. 
You penalize people for hiring more than 50 people, like ObamaCare 
does.
  I have talked to people that still say that they could hire more, but 
they are not going to because of ObamaCare.
  That means there are people walking around today going from business 
to business, looking for a job that will not find that business that 
will hire them because of ObamaCare.
  When you have young people with 
5-, 6-, $7,000 deductible health insurance, they are paying for the 
bureaucracy. They are not paying for health care.
  Apparently, some religious beliefs dictate against birth control. 
Mine doesn't, my Christian beliefs. But I absolutely respect the 
religious beliefs of those who are against it. They should not have to 
pay for people to violate their religious beliefs.
  That used to be the way this country grew and was blessed by God. But 
as we turn further and further away from what was a blessing to 
America, then the world hurts. I have seen it in Africa, the Middle 
East, Asia, South America.
  When we are not strong--as I have said numerous times, quoting a 
South African gentleman: When you get weak, we suffer. Please tell 
people in Washington to quit getting weaker. We suffer when you are 
weaker.
  These kind of programs, ObamaCare, make us weaker. When we provide 
the resources, the ability for the largest supporter of terrorism in 
the world to have over $100 billion, which they say some of it is for 
sure going to be spent on more terrorism, that is the kind of activity 
that will not be blessed. That is the kind of activity that brings a 
nation's demise.
  So health care is costing more. Deductibles are going up. People are 
paying more for higher deductibles, less coverage. Yes. There are some 
who, because of the government subsidies, are saying: Well, mine's a 
little less than it was before. But the people that are working are 
paying more, and it is devastating.
  Mr. Speaker, it is critical that those of us who have a voice in this 
city make our voices heard for those in our districts. You can't be 
listening to the talking heads in this town and think you have heard 
from America.
  I mean, look at Politico. Last week they said I had a close race. 
Tuesday, with one opponent spending tremendously more than I did, two 
opponents, I won with 82 percent. So that is what Politico calls a 
close race.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that I didn't win with 82 percent because of my 
looks and certainly not because of the way I sound.
  It is because I make my voice heard for the huge majority of people 
in east Texas with all the common sense they have got. That is what I 
am hearing from them.

[[Page 2693]]

  They are outraged that we have allowed ObamaCare to last as long as 
it has. They are suffering. They are outraged that this administration 
has turned on our friend, Israel, and seeing that Iran is rewarded for 
their massive misconduct, as they have continued to be the largest 
supporter of terrorism in the world, with this administration as an 
accomplice, as an enabler. There are consequences to nations and 
governments that enable crime and misconduct and terrorism and abuse.
  For those who believe in the Bible, it was Hosea. God was explaining 
why he was about to come down on the children of Israel. I love the 
rather loose translation when he says that it is because they have 
selected leaders who were not my choice.
  So people around the country can say all they want: Well, this 
President is not my President. This Governor is not my Governor. This 
person is not my elected representative.
  I don't agree with them. But everyone in the country will suffer the 
consequences of poor choices as leaders. That is the way self-
government works.
  Now, I have been reporting, Mr. Speaker, from this very podium for 
years about the misuse and abuse and providing our security by Homeland 
Security.
  I am very grateful to Judicial Watch. In their lawsuit against 
Homeland Security, they have been able to obtain records that verify 
what some of us have known to be true because of whistleblowers 
providing us information. While some, whether CNN and other places, 
belittle what we have said, we knew what we were talking about, but we 
couldn't give the sources.
  Judicial Watch. This headline says: ``Homeland Security Records 
Reveal Officials Ordered Terrorist Watch List Scrubbed.''
  It says: ``Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained 183 pages 
of documents from the Department of Homeland Security revealing that 
the Obama administration scrubbed the law enforcement agency's 
`Terrorist Screening Database' in order to protect what it considered 
the civil rights of suspected Islamic terrorist groups. The documents 
appear to confirm charges that Obama administration changes created a 
massive `hands off' list. Removed data from the terrorist watch list 
could have helped prevent the San Bernardino terrorist attack.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would also submit that we have seen the email--I 
believe Senator Grassley requested more information about it.
  To my knowledge, we have not seen additional explanations or 
information about the email about a person's terrorist ties, indication 
that he was a radical Islamist. The email response was: Oh, this guy's 
on the Secretary of Homeland Security's hands-off list.
  We have read stories about the White House allowing at least one or 
more individuals with terrorist ties to come to the White House. There 
are consequences for ignoring the law, ignoring the lawbreakers, and 
not protecting our homeland.
  The article says:
  ``The new documents were produced in response to a Judicial Watch 
February 2015 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed back on 
February 13, 2015.''
  It should be noted, I mean, that that is over a year ago. The Freedom 
of Information Act request should have been answered promptly, but this 
administration is too caught up in trying to cover up their own tracks.
  That is why we haven't even gotten the Attorney General to provide 
Members of Congress the documents showing support for terrorism, the 
boxes of documents that were provided to people who were convicted of 
supporting terrorism.
  The Justice Department provided it to them. I have asked repeatedly, 
and the most I have gotten is reference to a few Web sites.
  They covered up their own wrongdoing. They have covered up ties to 
terrorism. They have covered up for people who have supported 
terrorism. And there are consequences for that. You learn more when you 
leave this town, Washington, D.C.
  But when you have people in Africa, Egypt, Jordan, UAE, India, and 
Afghanistan telling you that your administration in America is 
supporting violence by not standing up against radical Islam and when 
you hear that from Muslim leaders who recognize the failures of this 
administration, then you know that the whole world is seeing what is 
going on and it is only here that people have become so blind.
  I know there are people in the Republican establishment that just 
cannot believe that a man like Trump, who has spent his whole life 
taking one position, could be leading so big in different contests.
  And, yes, my friend Ted Cruz is doing quite well. It is nice to see 
somebody that has been consistently doing well. But around the world 
they see what is going on.
  The Republican establishment doesn't seem to understand. People are 
furious. They are furious about ObamaCare. They are furious that we 
turned on our friend, Israel. They are furious that we have enabled 
Iran to continue their terrorist ways.
  All of this at the same time--of course, this was--Donald Trump's big 
issue that shot him to the top is border security.
  This article from today from KRWG News, ``Border Crime Taking A Toll 
On Residents In Southwest New Mexico, Arizona,'' says: ``Residents of 
New Mexico's Bootheel and parts of southern Arizona say human smuggling 
and drug trafficking is taking its toll on the region.
  ``The Deming Headlight reports that residents are scheduled Thursday 
to express their concerns to Federal officials during a meeting at the 
Animas Community Center in Animas, New Mexico.
  ``Judy Keeler, a longtime resident of the rural border region, says 
her home was recently burglarized and it's not an unusual episode for 
other residents.
  ``Residents have said State Highway 80 has become a favorite for 
Mexican cartel drug runners who manage to navigate out of the 
Peloncillo Mountains along the Arizona-New Mexico border. They want an 
even more increased presence from the U.S. Border Patrol.''
  Apparently, they are not going to get it.
  We still hear people say there is no way to secure our entire border, 
but this brings back a recollection in history.
  One of my least favorite Presidents, Woodrow Wilson, secured the 
border after Pancho Villa had some of his thugs come across the border 
and kill American families. Americans back then with good sense said: 
We can't have that.
  They spurred the President on until he sent tens of thousands of what 
we call National Guard troops now, and they secured the border. Nobody 
came across our border that we did not want to come across. He did it 
back in the early 1900s, and we can't do it now.
  Well, the truth is, Mr. Speaker, we could do it now, but you have to 
have an administration with the will to provide for the common defense 
of the American people.
  Instead, we have enabled a massive amount of crime across the border 
regions that is spilling into other areas of the country. Drugs are 
spreading around the country.
  We have heard, also, from the FBI Director himself. There are ISIS 
cells, and there are ISIS investigations in every State in the Union. 
So when are they going to be triggered?
  We know that, when they are triggered with reports like we have just 
read here, the administration has continued to cleanse our Homeland 
Security records to purge training material for the FBI, for 
Intelligence, for Homeland Security so they don't actually learn 
exactly what radical Islam is. They don't actually learn the verses in 
the Koran that are relied upon by radical Islamists.
  When we do finally have a Muslim leader like President Sissi in 
Egypt, who stands up in front of a room of Muslim imams and demands 
that they take back their region from the radical Islamists, this 
administration chooses to try to punish him and not help him, like this 
administration did, and wanted to do more for the Muslim Brotherhood.

[[Page 2694]]



                              {time}  1230

  I am tired of hearing from foreign Muslim leaders their question: Why 
is your country still helping the Muslim Brotherhood? Don't they know? 
Don't you know? The Muslim Brotherhood has been at war with you since 
1979, and you keep helping them.
  Well, that is the way you lose a country. You lose it. We have got 
our choice. Fiscal irresponsibility, which is immoral. Instead of doing 
like all preceding generations in this country, which have always had 
as their theme, ``we want to make our country better for our children 
than we had it,'' now we have gone through a couple of generations who 
have said: You know what? Forget the future generations. We want future 
generations' money spent on us now.
  Fifty years ago, seventy-five years ago, one hundred years ago, even 
when cars were first invented, you would not have seen a bumper sticker 
like is not uncommon today, retired persons say, ``We are spending our 
children's inheritance.'' You wouldn't see that because they wanted to 
make the country better than they had it.
  Mr. Speaker, I know you personally, and you and I and our colleagues, 
we talk about it. We have talked about it today--heated conference--
because we want a better country even than we have had with more 
opportunity, more freedoms, as we see freedom slipping away.
  Adam Kredo has a story here:
  ``The flow of illegal immigrant children into the United States is 
expected to rise to record-breaking numbers in 2016 as deportations 
decrease, according to leading members of the Senate's Judiciary 
Committee.
  ``At least 20,455 unaccompanied minors have been caught during fiscal 
year 2016 along the U.S.-Mexico border as of last month, according to 
Committee Chairman Senator Chuck Grassley, who warned that if this 
trend continues, the number of illegal minors could eclipse a massive 
2014 surge that strained the resources of the Department of Homeland 
Security and prompted investigations into the Obama administration's 
handling of the issue.''
  Now, one of many problems is you have people that are coming to 
America because there are more opportunities here, which begs the 
question: Why are there more opportunities here than there are in their 
home country?
  When you analyze the situation, what you find is the reason they 
don't have businesses booming in their home country is because of graft 
or corruption or a corrupt government or a dictatorship because, as the 
old saying goes, ``capital is a coward.''
  Money to capitalize or invest always goes to where it feels safest--
that is why it is ``capital is a coward''--and it is not very safe in 
countries where the government is corrupt, the rule of law is not 
applied across the board, and the laws are not enforced across the 
board.
  One of the great ironies in the world right now is that people are 
leaving countries where there is violence and the rule of law is not 
enforced. They are coming to America where, for most of our history, we 
have done a better job than most any country ever in enforcing the law 
across the board.
  Once here illegally, those same people are saying: Now that we are 
here, we want you not to enforce the law across the board. We want you 
to ignore your law on immigration and law on becoming citizens. Ignore 
it.
  If we do that, it will make us like the corrupt countries they came 
from and make us a land of no opportunity, where people will have to go 
to some other country where they enforce the law.
  I have had even Members of Congress say: Well, if it all goes bad, we 
will all pack up and head to Australia. But I was talking to some 
people from Australia this year, and I mentioned that to them, and they 
didn't laugh. They looked very somber.
  They said: You know, if something happens to the United States, you 
are not going to be coming to Australia, because China will take us 
over like that. If the United States is not standing strong, they said, 
our country, Australia, will be gone. China would grab us up in a 
heartbeat.
  It is important that America stand strong. You can't stand strong 
when you are financially bankrupt. You can't stand strong when you are 
morally bankrupt. We seem to have our choice of ways we could meet our 
demise.
  Our military is being degraded under this administration, the Navy 
going back to its size back in--was it?--the early 1900s before World 
War I. Weakness is provocative. I haven't heard anybody else notice. 
Maybe there is no correlation; maybe there is.
  It seems historically, from my study of history, that when a nation's 
enemy sees that nation's biggest friend pulling away and not being as 
good a friend, then that enemy is provoked to attack. But it was in May 
of 2010 when this administration sided with Israel's enemies in 
demanding that Israel disclose all their weapons systems, including any 
potential nukes. I was shocked by that. The United States had never 
sided with all of Israel's enemies like that before.
  I thought about the Bible story of King Hezekiah when the Babylonian 
leaders had come to visit and schmoozed with him, and Isaiah asked him: 
What have you done with the Babylonian leaders? Of course, this is a 
Texas paraphrased version, but he bragged about: I have taken them and 
shown them all of our treasure. The most literal translation from the 
Hebrew says: And I showed them all the defenses we have in our arsenal, 
our armory.
  Isaiah explained: You are going to lose the country.
  You don't show your enemy--you don't even show your friends--all of 
your defenses, and yet we were demanding that of Israel. Within 48 
hours, Israel's enemies launched a flotilla to go challenge the lawful 
blockade of the Gaza Strip. All that Israel was doing was trying to 
prevent more rockets from going in because the rockets were being 
launched at them every day--totally legal. They were trying to defend 
themselves against rocket attacks and created a terrible situation at 
the blockade.
  But as America continues to help fund Iran's desire to support 
terrorism, and as this administration has turned its back on nations 
like Nigeria, Ethiopia, Kenya, I hear from leaders in those countries 
where they say: You know, all we wanted was a little help against our 
enemy.
  Of course, in Nigeria, having been there and having met with so many 
of the parents of girls who were kidnapped by Boko Haram, radical 
Islamists, we then hear that our administration here says: Oh, yeah, we 
will give you some help, but you have got to change your religious 
beliefs. You have got to change your laws so it supports same-sex 
marriage and you fund abortion, and then we will give you more help.
  The President in Kenya basically said at a news conference, in 
effect: You take care of your country. You are not going to come tell 
us what our religious beliefs and laws should be.
  As a Nigerian Catholic bishop stated: Our religious beliefs are not 
for sale--not to President Obama, not to anybody.
  But there are consequences in world history when one nation tries to 
destroy the religious beliefs of another country--their closely, firmly 
held religious beliefs. There are consequences when a nation forgets to 
say: Thank You, God, for all of our blessings. Thank You, God, for 
protecting us. Thank You for allowing us to live in the greatest 
country, a country in which there is more opportunity, more assets per 
person than anywhere in the world.
  This is the one country where the number one health problem for our 
Nation's poor is obesity. It is a terrible problem that we need to deal 
with. But where in history do you have a country where the nation's 
poor have, as their number one health problem, obesity?
  This Nation has been blessed beyond anything that people could have 
ever dreamed when this Nation was founded. But the Founders did see one 
thing. They saw the threat of giving more and more power to a Federal 
Government.
  I was fortunate to call Justice Scalia a friend. A group of seniors 
from my

[[Page 2695]]

hometown of Tyler, Texas, from my church, Green Acres Baptist, came up 
to Washington, D.C. They said: Hey, you are supposed to be friends with 
Justice Scalia. We would love to meet him. That is one thing we really 
want to do in Washington.
  So I called over, and Justice Scalia, bless his heart, he said: Sure, 
come on over.
  So they arranged it. We had the meeting. He walks in. They are all 
seated there, the seniors from my church, and Justice Scalia could be 
very talkative. I treasure meals with him, exchanging jokes and 
stories. It made you feel good about the world. He walks in and leans 
up against the table at the front: So, you want to meet me. What is 
your question? What questions have you got?
  It kind of took them by surprise. One said: Do you think we are the 
freest Nation in history because of our Bill of Rights?
  Justice Scalia, in his inimitable style, said: Oh, gosh, no. No. The 
Soviet Union had a better Bill of Rights than we did.
  I had forgotten. I made an A on a paper in college that I did about 
the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the Soviet Union. Yeah, they 
were promised all kinds of rights, but the government was given the 
power to erode all of the rights that were said to be protected.
  He said: No. The reason that we are the freest country in history is 
because our Founders did not trust government, and so they wanted to 
make it as hard as possible to pass laws. See, the Founders thought 
that gridlock was a blessing, gridlock was a great thing, because it 
meant that, as people anticipated passing laws, it would be tough 
because many laws regulate what you can and can't do.
  The more laws you pass, just as this administration has shown the 
American people, as it has set all-time records for the most pages of 
regulations--there are over 79,000 new pages of regulations every year. 
How can anybody make a living with that kind of regulation coming out 
year after year, certainly for the last 7? Incredible.
  The Founders knew that. They wanted to make it hard for any 
governmental agency, any government bureaucracy to create laws that 
took away freedom because they had some libertarian tendencies.
  Justice Scalia, said: So they wanted it hard to pass laws, so what do 
they do? They create a legislature with two Houses, and certainly that 
was part of the compromise. But in England, the House of Lords is not 
particularly powerful, but they wanted both houses with the power to 
stop what the other one was doing. They wanted it very difficult in one 
house to pass a law.
  I think they would cringe if they saw all the bills that are just 
passed with unanimous consent or on suspension that we do more and more 
and more, because they wanted it tough to pass laws.
  I have friends say: You guys should be in session more often.
  I say: You don't know what you are asking for, because every day we 
are in session, we pass some new bill, we pass some new law.

                              {time}  1245

  Many of those laws take away freedoms of Americans. The Founders knew 
that. That is why, Justice Scalia said, they created two Houses. If one 
House got a law through it, the other one could stop it cold. But that 
wasn't enough to protect our freedom.
  We want an executive, but not one like a prime minister. The prime 
minister is elected by the legislature. We don't want that. We want it 
tough.
  We want independence. So we are going to have a chief executive, a 
President, that is elected totally separate from the legislature.
  Even if the House and Senate finally agree on something, we will give 
him the power to just say: No. I am not going to let it happen.
  But that is not enough. We want more gridlock. So let's create a 
judicial branch, as they did in Article III, that could turn around and 
say: No. The House, Senate, and the President may have agreed, but we 
don't agree.
  It is not consistent with the Constitution. Justice Scalia said that 
is why we are the freest Nation in history: because our Founders did 
not trust government.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it concerns me when I see voters begin to think that 
our hope is going to arrive on Air Force One. One of my greatest 
thrills was becoming friends with Chuck Colson.
  As Chuck Colson said: Our hope will not arrive on Air Force One.
  The old saying, the axiom, is true: democracy ensures a people are 
governed no better than they deserve.
  If you want a good President, you have got to be a good country. An 
immoral country is not going to elect a great leader. They are going to 
elect an immoral leader.
  When you see Christians who believe that the only way to the saving 
grace of Jesus is to ask for forgiveness and, as the Bible says, 
believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, it is amazing 
to see Christian leaders saying they are going to put their faith in a 
guy that says he has never had to ask for forgiveness. But that was 
modified later to: Well, I don't think God's concerned with trivial 
things like that.
  If I were God, I wouldn't be. But thank God I am not God. He seems to 
care about every individual. If you believe the Bible, that is what it 
says.
  And then, if there is not enough bad news, this comes from KPNX 
today: ``Attorney General Report: Possible smuggling trail between the 
Middle East and Arizona border.''
  We have talked about that before. Long before, the Attorney General 
indicated that there appeared to be a trail between the Middle East and 
the Arizona border.
  We have this story this week from Stephen Dinan from The Washington 
Times: ``Top border chief to agents who object to Obama amnesty: `Look 
for another job.'''
  There you are, Mr. Speaker. When the head of the border agency says 
they are not going to enforce the laws that exist, then one of two 
things, either that is what the country deserves because it has become 
immoral and lawless or the country rises up and says: We will never 
have another administration like this. As long as we are alive, we are 
going to make sure we have an administration that enforces the law, no 
matter who it is.
  Apparently, since people govern no better than they deserve, we now 
find out that Hillary's highly paid IT guru at the State Department had 
no actual national security experience.
  So, apparently, we elected an administration that ensured people were 
governed no better than they deserve and, apparently, they felt like we 
didn't deserve a State Department with national security experience.
  Is it any wonder--I thank God--that there have been more Benghazis 
under that kind of attitude? One was too many.
  We see yesterday that the Justice Department grants immunity to the 
staffer who set up the Clinton email server. I have been a prosecutor. 
I have been a judge. I have been a chief justice. When someone grants 
immunity, they are closing in on a prosecution. That is the intent.
  You don't grant immunity to someone and someone doesn't normally seek 
immunity unless they are concerned that they may have violated the law. 
They seek immunity because they violated the law.
  Immunity is granted when, with the prosecution, the investigators--in 
this case, the FBI--feel that laws are being violated. So we are going 
to grant immunity to this person so that we can get the person further 
up.
  But I still maintain that, as long as Hillary Clinton does not 
condemn or expose the Obama administration to any of the truth about 
what went on in Benghazi and about the hands-off list of terrorists and 
homeland security, I do not see her getting indicted. It is a good 
insurance policy.
  Another article from the New York Times: ``As Campaign Unfolds, So Do 
Inquiries Into Hillary Clinton's Emails.''
  So many voters don't seem to care. Why? Because people are governed 
no better than they deserve. If they are more concerned about 
themselves than

[[Page 2696]]

their children, they are going to get what they deserve.
  Well, we had Mitt Romney come out today just before we voted 
condemning Donald Trump as phony and a fraud. Everybody knows that 
people across this country are furious with the establishment.
  So if that idea was Donald Trump's--to get Mitt Romney to come out 
and condemn him--it was a brilliant plan. Because that is like asking 
Marv Levy to tell you how to win the Super Bowl, after he lost four of 
them.
  In any event, Mr. Speaker, this country is in grave danger. I was all 
over the 12 counties that I represent. This country has so many great 
citizens. They deserve better than what they are getting.
  I hope and pray the majority in the country will wake up and see the 
dangers to our own national defense, to our own national security, from 
government intrusions into our private lives, from drugs that are 
coming in through Mexico, and from terrorists that are coming into this 
country. The FBI Director himself says we have got them in every State.
  We are in big trouble. It is time the American people woke up and 
said, as our parents did: We don't care what has happened before. We 
are going to make sure this country is left in better shape, with more 
opportunity, than we had growing up.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to hurry. The clock is ticking.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________