Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on September 18, 2001, 7 days after the worst attack in American history, the authorized use of military force was passed. And I've come to understand how legislation can be hurriedly thrown together, and it was. We were in a crisis.

In those days I was a judge. When I got to Congress and the NDAA came up to extend, reauthorize the AUMF, this issue of whether American citizens

were protected came up. Some mistakenly thought the NDAA did some granting of power to the President that he shouldn't have, but actually it was in the original AUMF. It said the President could basically go after any nation, organization, or person that he thought was a threat or may have participated. That needed to be reined in.

I've worked with some of my colleagues, with professors, with legal experts. Even though one professor went to Harvard, they've been immensely helpful, and we've crafted language. And I even appreciate Senator Levin working with us and Chairman McKeon being willing to look at these different issues.

Our original amendment included a 30-day requirement. Within 30 days there had to be a writ of habeas corpus hearing. Yet we got criticized, saying you're restricting to only 30 days, so we took that out.

The language in here, as Mr. Nadler pointed out, does not protect American citizens in foreign countries. That will have to be done another day. But it does go beyond what I originally wanted to do and protects people that are in the United States, if they are authorized under our Constitution to have those protections.

I am grateful that these things have been done. I'm grateful this language is in there to restrict the President's power back to what I think was appropriate under the Constitution. I will be voting for the NDAA and appreciate the chairman's indulgence in my push to get this done.

Madam Speaker, first I think it's important to let the people of Connecticut who have suffered so and lost loved ones know that they will continue to be in our thoughts and prayers. It is such a difficult time, and they need our support. It is a difficult time. I think so often when we look for wisdom in different places, I believe what Proverbs said, Solomon should have known:

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

In the early days of our country, people sought wisdom through prayer. The Constitutional Convention, when they could not reach an agreement after nearly 5 weeks, 80-year-old Ben Franklin stood up and the contentiousness stopped.

Someone wrote that George Washington looked like he had a very much relieved look on his face. 80-year-old Ben Franklin was overweight, suffering not only from gout but from arthritis, had a cane, had to have help getting up and down sometimes; but his mind was still brilliant. That's when he pointed out why we have not once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding. We have his whole recorded speech because he recorded it. He wrote it in his own handwriting. Madison was taking notes, but we have Ben Franklin's speech, and it has provided such solace to me.

He pointed out to his friends that there were times when every one of them could remember back during the Revolution when they asked God for specific things and God answered their prayers. That was all part of the Constitutional Convention, and he said these words:

Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously

answered. If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His

notice, is it possible an empire could rise without His aid?

We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that,

unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that

build it.

Then he went on. He said:

I also firmly believe, without His concurring aid, we shall

succeed in our political building no better than the builders

of Babel: We shall be confounded by our local partial

interests, and we, ourselves, shall become a byword down

through the ages.

Then he went on to make a motion that just as they had during the Revolution with the Continental Congress that this Constitutional Convention Congress should begin every day with prayer.

So he made the motion and there was great discussion; but unlike the Revolutionary days, they didn't have money. This was a Constitutional Convention that had just convened. These people came together to write a Constitution. They didn't have money as a body. They had no chaplain. They couldn't afford to hire a chaplain, and they figured only with an independent chaplain that they could agree on could they have somebody come in and lead each day with prayer as they had during the Revolution. So that was put off until such time as they could hire a chaplain, which happened as soon as we became a Nation and the Constitution was ratified.

But Randolph from Virginia followed up Ben Franklin's motion. He said, Okay. Basically, they're saying we don't have money to hire a chaplain, but one thing we can do: Here we are at the end of June 1787. We're about to celebrate our country's birthday again, our anniversary; so why don't we just agree to all go to church together--listen to the same pastor, hear the same sermon, worship God all together as a Constitutional Convention? They all went to the Reformed-Calvinistic Church, and the pastor apparently did an excellent job because, when they came back, there was a new spirit. They had their disagreements, but there was a spirit of cooperation.

I heard some of the comments of my friends earlier across the aisle, and I know their hearts. I know Donna Christensen has been extremely gracious to me, personally. Good people. Good people with the best of intentions. I think the world of Joe Lieberman. I was visiting with him on Sunday morning of his ideas to have a commission come together and not just jump quickly to some politically correct solution. Let's do the right thing by America, not a knee-jerk, which like the assault weapon ban did nothing. In fact, Columbine occurred during the middle of the so-called ``assault weapon ban.'' Every gun is an assault weapon.

The machetes in Rwanda--the worst genocide that we know of in human history. 800,000 or so with machetes? Of course, we know during World War II that the genocide wasn't just 800,000,

that it was millions--6 million Jews. They were killed by all kinds of means. So we need to be smart about the way we deal with this issue of mass murders and violence in our society, and everything should be on the table.

As we continue to remember the loved ones of those who were victims of the tragedy at Newtown, Connecticut, things go on here in this town. This body tomorrow, we've been alerted, will vote on what's being called ``Plan B.'' Plan A was to try to reach an agreement with the President. From my experience as an attorney, I've negotiated small deals, multimillion-dollar deals. I was a district judge, a chief justice, a certified mediator. I don't know if there is anybody else in the congressional body who has been through the training and process of becoming an international arbitrator. I have a lot of experience in negotiating from all sides when you see Speaker Boehner go beyond what anybody I'm aware of and our conference really wanted him to do initially.

He said, Okay. We will come up with $800 billion of revenue, Mr. President, because that's where you had gotten up to. $800 billion is what you were demanding before, so we'll cut to the chase. We'll just quit negotiating, and we'll give you what you want--$800 billion in new revenue.

The President responded by saying, No, no, no, no. Now I'm at $1.6 trillion. Now that you're at $800 billion, I'm at $1.6 trillion of new revenue wanting.

What most people who really look at our problem in this town realize is that it really isn't a tax problem, that it's a spending problem. When we went from the Speaker Pelosi-Harry Reid budget of 2008 that ended on September 30 of 2008, I heard no one that year complain that the Federal Government is not spending enough money. We were spending more money than we had then. Yet in January of '09, after President Obama comes in and the Speaker is Pelosi and the majority leader in the Senate is Harry Reid, we began spending about $1.6 trillion more than we had coming in. We had 2.3 or so trillion dollars coming in in Federal revenue, and we were spending about $1.6 trillion more than that?

That's one of the reasons 2 weeks ago I couldn't believe that we were voting to eliminate the use of the word ``lunatic,'' because it seems to me only a lunatic body would come up with the idea of, gee, we're in financial trouble; let's spend more than $1 trillion more than we have coming in. That's financially irresponsible.

As my friend Randy Neugebauer pointed out again this week: A vote over taxes that doesn't deal with the massive spending is a vote to defer taxes in order to let our children and grandchildren and future generations pay the tax because we don't have the moral consistency to take care of our own debts. We're going to lay it on future generations.

So, in seeking wisdom, it's part of my belief that you pray; you seek wise counsel and read scripture. In doing that, I find as an old history major--I went to Texas A&M. I knew I was going into the Army for 4 years. I loved history, so why not major in history? You learn so much from history. I thought I remembered these words, and I was able to find them. So, Madam Speaker, I want to finish the evening tonight with these words. These are brilliant words.

These are words of wisdom from a man named John Boehner. This is an article. It's basically a transcript that was done by Major Garrett, October 25, 2010. This was 8 days before the 2010 election, which turned out to be the largest conservative-wave election in American history. So I will just read basically the transcript. It's an article, but it's really a transcript. It says that Representative John Boehner is interviewed in his Capitol Hill office March 10, 2010, but the article is dated October 25, 2010.

The National Journal representative said:

About 3 weeks before the 1994 elections, I asked you if

House Republicans were ready to win the majority and ready to

govern the House. You said then that sometimes the wave takes

you into power whether you're ready or not. It did then. It

may now. What is similar to you about the 1994 cycle? And

more important, are you ready to lead now and will you lead

differently if you win?

Minority Leader Boehner said:

Well, all kinds of things have changed, and there are a lot

of differences. But maybe the biggest thing that's different

now is near 10 percent unemployment. I mean, we're going to

have to start making tough choices on spending to give our

economy a chance to start moving and creating jobs again. As

for me personally, you know I had a front row seat to what

worked and what didn't in 1994. And I like to think that I

learned a thing or two.

National Journal:

If you become Speaker, you will be the first since Tom

Foley to have previously chaired a committee. (Foley chaired

the Agriculture Committee.) How will your past as chairman

and legislator with many bills--No Child Left Behind chief

among them--influence your approach to allowing committees to

set the agenda and give signals instead of receive them from

leadership?

Minority Leader Boehner said:

We need to stop writing bills in the Speaker's office and

let Members of Congress be legislators again. Too often in

the House right now we don't have legislators, we just have

voters. Under Speaker Pelosi, 430 out of 435 Members are just

here to vote and raise money. That's it. That's not right. We

were each elected to uphold the Constitution and represent

600,000-odd people in our districts. We need to open this

place up, let some air in. We have nothing to fear from

letting the House work its will. Nothing to fear from the

battle of ideas. That starts with committees. The result will

be more scrutiny and better legislation.

The National Journal:

Related to this it has often been said by those closest to

you that you respect and admire and believe in regular order.

What does that mean to you and how much institutional value

do you place on placing regular order at the center of House

procedures and House reforms?

Minority Leader Boehner:

Yes, I do, absolutely. The House is the body closest to the

people. That's by design. We're the crucible, the testing

ground for new ideas and new policies, and the institutions

of the House that have grown up over 200 years of trial and

error are the best way to test those ideas and policies. We

don't need five Members sitting behind a closed door writing

a bill like they did with the stimulus or ObamaCare. It's

nuts.

National Journal:

If you are Speaker, will you ever bring a bill to the floor

that hasn't been true to the 3-day rule?

Minority Leader Boehner:

No.

National Journal:

That's it? Just no?

Minority Leader Boehner:

Right. I can see a scenario like right after 9/11 when we

would have to act immediately in a true national emergency, I

guess, maybe, but this is a serious commitment. I know it's

going to be a pain in the neck, but we're going to do it.

National Journal:

Enough about procedure. How worried are you about facing a

government shutdown fight with President Obama over cutting

spending as much as the Pledge to America promises?

Minority Leader Boehner:

Look, Major, our goal is to cut the size of government, not

to shut it down. If we take the majority, the President is

going to have to realize that he can't keep ignoring the

American people. They're out there looking at what the

President and Pelosi and Harry Reid are doing, and they're

shouting ``stop'' at the top of their lungs. We're going to

listen to them, and the President better, too.

National Journal:

Deputy Whip Eric Cantor has virtually ruled out a

government shutdown. Do you rule it out as a negotiating

tactic or as a possible outcome of a budget disagreement?

Minority Leader Boehner:

I've said the same thing as Eric. Our goal is to make

government smaller, not to shut it down. Jeb Hensarling has a

bill that would prevent a government shutdown in the event of

a budget standoff. We're going to stay focused on doing what

the American people want, and what they want is less

spending.

National Journal:

Do you anticipate a resolution of the Bush tax cut issue or

a lengthy congressional issue in the lame duck session? Or

are you girding your Members to deal with both issues as soon

as the 111th Congress convenes?

Minority Leader Boehner:

Hell, I don't think we need to wait until after the

election. Let's come back right now and stop this tax hike

and cut spending. That's what we put in the pledge that we

want to do right now.

National Journal:

A reauthorization of the highway bill is due in the next

Congress. Will you, as the GOP leadership, support any

increase in the Federal gasoline tax to finance additional

road, bridge or highway construction?

Minority Leader Boehner:

I've never supported a tax increase of any kind.

National Journal:

Will you extend into the 111th Congress the current House

GOP moratorium on earmarks? Related to that, if you win the

majority, will you seek any change to the Appropriations

Committee's professional staff or other reforms to signal

that, in your words, ``business as usual'' is over when it

comes to discretionary spending?

Minority Leader Boehner:

Look, I've always had a no earmarks policy. I helped get

the conference into a place where we have a current

moratorium. And I think it's perfectly clear that going back

to business as usual is not an option. That's the case with

earmarking specifically, and with spending in general. Change

is never easy, but change is necessary. It's what the

American people are demanding of us.

National Journal:

You've said you are open to having spending-cut legislation

come to the House floor each week or, at a minimum,

regularly. How do you intend for this to work?

Minority Leader Boehner:

Well, I think a model for that particular proposal may be

the YouCut project that Eric and the other members of our

economic recovery solutions group have been doing all year.

They've got a ton of specific cuts, chosen by the American

people in an online poll. I also said in my speech in

September at AEI that I think we need to look at breaking up

all these massive spending bills--break them into smaller

bills that are more conducive to scrutiny and debate. We said

in the pledge that we need to set up a process that makes it

easier to cut spending. In my mind that means, among other

things, if a Member has an amendment that would cut spending,

it should get a vote. Period.

Skipping down.

National Journal:

How much longer do you envision staying in Congress? And,

related to that, did you learn anything valuable from the

speakership of Nancy Pelosi?

Minority Leader Boehner:

Hell, I've already stayed here a lot longer than I ever

thought I would. We'll see. I think the current majority has

reinforced what I already knew. You can't run this place, at

least not well, by shutting out the American people, shutting

out the other party, and even shutting out your own members.

You can twist arms and crack heads and cut deals for a while,

but it just won't work in the long term.

Madam Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Woodall.

I know it's time to honor Jay Pierson, but it's really a sad time for me. Over my 8 years, I don't know of anybody I've spent more time with all these evenings on the floor. Of course, for the last 2 years, we were going until midnight most nights and I was usually here with Jay Pierson.

I know Jay was not a Boy Scout, but as someone who is an Eagle Scout, I know that we're taught that the ultimate in life is to be trustworthy. I don't know of anybody on Capitol Hill that is more trustworthy than Jay Pierson, loyal and yet courteous and kind. Jay Pierson has been a true friend. And to have somebody who knows what goes on, knows the rules, we can disagree about the rules, but I can come to him and know I have the institutional memory right there with me. That has been such a huge help, just knowing when I did need information, I could call Jay and I would have whatever I needed.

So, Jay, I know that you're going to be better off without us, but we're certainly not going to be better off without Jay Pierson. I also know that nobody serves in Congress without loved ones missing and suffering because of an absence of time with them. So we know it's kind of like when I was in the military: my wife knew well that it's not just one person who serves. So as Jay Pierson served all these years in Congress, there's no question his wife served as well. We'll be forever grateful to her and very thankful for the sacrifice that she's made all those nights when Jay would rather have been at home, would rather have been with her, and instead he's with some bald-headed goose down at the Capitol.

To Jay Pierson, there's not enough words, not enough times that we can say thank you that will cover all that you have done for us. Nonetheless, that's the word we come down to: thank you. May God bless you for blessing all the rest of us.

As most anyone can tell you, it's important to know who your friends are and who your enemies are. That's absolutely true when it comes to knowing who to deal with favorably and unfavorably when it comes to foreign relations, when it comes to gifts to foreign nations.

An article from December 11, by Maxim Lott says the following:

Key lawmakers are expressing concerns about the Obama

administration's plan to send 20 F-16 fighter jets to Egypt,

where new President Mohamed Morsi's allegiances are as

uncertain as his grip on power.

Under a foreign aid deal signed in 2010, when Morsi's U.S.-

friendly predecessor Hosni Mubarak was in charge, the U.S. is

giving the planes to Egypt's air force, which already has

more than 200 of the aircraft. The first four jets are to be

delivered beginning January 22, a source at the naval air

base in Fort Worth, where the planes have been undergoing

testing, told FoxNews.com. But the $213 million gift is

raising questions on Capitol Hill as Morsi is under fire for

trying to seize dictatorial powers and allegedly siccing

thugs and rapists on protesters.

That's the allegation.

The article goes on:

Florida Representative Vern Buchanan, who recently called

for ending foreign aid to Egypt altogether, said the Muslim

Brotherhood-backed Morsi government has been sending

increasingly troubling signals to Washington, and giving it

state-of-the-art fighter jets is a dangerous idea.

It quotes Vern as saying:

American tax dollars must not be used to aid and abet any

dictatorial regime that stands with terrorists.

Representative Mac Thornberry from Texas, vice chairman of

the House Armed Services Committee told FoxNews.com Egypt is

a wildcard under Morsi. At this point:

We don't know where Egypt is headed, Thornberry said. We

should be cautious about driving them away, but we should

also be cautious about the arms we provide.

The article says:

Just last week, vigilante supporters of Morsi captured

dozens of protesters, detaining and beating them before

handing them over to police. According to human rights

advocates, Morsi-backed groups have also been accused of

using rape to intimidate female protesters who have gathered

in Cairo's Tahrir Square to protest a sharia-based

constitution and Morsi's neutering of the nation's legal

system.

The U.S. Government ordered and paid for the fighter jets

for Egypt's military back in 2010. But since Mubarak's

ouster, the democratically elected Morsi has sent mixed

signals about whether he wants an alliance with Washington,

even meeting with leaders in Iran earlier this year.

The Morsi-led Muslim Brotherhood government has not proven

to be a partner for democracy, as they had promised, given

the recent attempted power grab, a senior Republican

congressional aid told FoxNews.com.

Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida, who chairs

the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, recently criticized

U.S. military aid to Egypt. She said:

The Obama administration wants to simply throw money at an

Egyptian Government that the President cannot even clearly

state is an ally of the United States.

The package had to be approved by lawmakers in Washington.

While the basic F-16 has been a military workhorse for top

Air Forces for more than 25 years, the cockpit electronics

are constantly updated and the models Egypt is getting are

the best defense contractor Lockheed Martin makes.

This is a great day for Lockheed Martin and a testament to

the enduring partnership and commitment we've made to the

government of Egypt, said John Larson, vice president,

Lockheed Martin F-16 programs. We remain committed to

providing our customer with a proven, advanced fourth

generation multirole fighter.

In an air combat role, the F-16's maneuverability and

combat radius exceed that of all potential threat fighter

aircraft, the U.S. Air Force description of the plane reads.

The F-16 can fly more than 500 miles, deliver its weapons

with superior accuracy, defend itself against enemy aircraft,

and return to its starting point. An all-weather capability

allows it to accurately deliver ordnance during nonvisual

bombing conditions.

A Pentagon spokesman said the United States and Egypt have

had an important alliance that is furthered by the transfer:

The U.S.-Egypt defense relationship has served as the

cornerstone of our broader strategic partnership for over 30

years, said Lieutenant Colonel Wesley Miller. The delivery of

the first set of F-16s in January 2013 reflects the U.S.

commitment to supporting the Egyptian military's

modernization efforts. Egyptian acquisition of F-16s will

increase our military's interoperability and enhance Egypt's

capacity to contribute to regional mission sets.

But Malou Innocent, a foreign policy analyst at the Cato

Institute, warned that Egypt's murky intentions could lead to

the prospect of U.S. ally Israel facing an air assault from

even more U.S. made planes.

Should an overreaction by Egypt spiral into a broader

conflict between Egypt and Israel, such a scenario would put

U.S. officials in an embarrassing position of having supplied

massive amounts of military hardware to both belligerents.

Given Washington's fiscal woes, American taxpayers should no

longer be Egypt's major arms supplier.

There was an article that came out in September of 2012 after the 9/ 11 horrific killing--murdering--of our Ambassador and three other Americans and of the wounding of other Americans who, apparently, this administration is keeping under wraps so that Members of Congress cannot interview them and find out what really went on. Even after the administration sent out Ambassador Rice with false talking points, we can't find out who created the false talking points. It apparently started out being more correct, but it became false in the way they were used, so they provided such false information to numerous networks and to people in America and around the world.

One thing we do know is that we have the President on video and accurately quoted with this quote. He gave an interview with Telemundo on September 16, 2012, during which President Obama said and, I believe, used the pronoun ``them'':

I don't think we would consider Egypt an ally, but we don't

consider them an enemy. They are a new government that is

trying to find its way.

Yet we've still got people in our Air Force at the incredibly able Lockheed Martin facility who are not aware that Egypt is no longer an ally or that the Muslim Brotherhood won the election and that they are about to push through a sharia-based constitution that will further persecute Christians and Jews.

You have a leader in Morsi who, yes, helped to temporarily suspend the altercation in the Gaza Strip with the massive number of rockets that were being flown out of the Gaza Strip into Israel--a constant death threat hanging over Israel. We haven't learned of anything that would indicate that he is slowing the growing importation, through tunnels and otherwise, into the Gaza Strip of more and bigger rockets that threaten Israel, and the President of the United States does not know if Egypt is an ally. He wouldn't say they're an enemy yet, even though they didn't stop the protesters, as they are required to do, from climbing up on our Embassy walls, which is American property, or stop them from bringing down the American flag and running up the Muslim Brotherhood flag.

Mr. Speaker, I'd humbly submit that, until we know for sure that Egypt is not an enemy, we should not be sending 20 F-16s--the most advanced generation of F-16s--to a country which many of its leaders have made clear they want Israel gone off the face of the Earth.

Now, Lockheed Martin relied on the representations of the United States Government that we were going to buy these planes and give them to our ally Egypt. Perhaps it would have been good if this administration had remembered that the Mubarak administration in Egypt was an ally. They were an ally according to the agreement that this administration made with their friend and ally Hosni Mubarak, as the head of Egypt, to send them a gift of 20 F-16s; but they forgot that, and they supported the removal of Mubarak, who at least made some pretense of trying to keep the peace there on the border of Israel.

Morsi, on the other hand, in coming from the Muslim Brotherhood, doesn't seem so inclined. Simply engaging Gaza in asking them to hold up on sending rockets in to mock, hit, potentially kill Israelis was a nice gesture; but it's hardly evidence of a substantial nature that this is an ally. That's why the President hasn't made clear we're absolutely certain now that they're our ally. Until we are absolutely certain they're an ally, we don't need to be sending them the means and methods to kill Israeli friends. The Israelis are suffering enough and, in part, due to bad judgment here in the United States.

When others outside the United States asked us to go in and get rid of Qadhafi, despite this administration's alliances and relationship with Qadhafi, this administration decided to provide air cover and enable al Qaeda-backed revolutionaries to take out Qadhafi. Qadhafi was not a good man; he had blood on his hands. But after 2003, the Bush administration, followed by the Obama administration, was working with Qadhafi, and he was completely transparent about all the weapons he had. Not so with what's going on in Libya today.

At some point, instead of the President of the United States trying to nullify the Constitution and saying, You know what, I disagree with that marriage law that Congress did, so we're going to ignore it, and as I speak, so it shall be the new law--that's what kings do and that's what pharaohs do. So it would seem a little bit hypocritical if you have someone from an administration who said, You know what, we don't like the immigration law, and so, as I speak it, so shall it be. I will make--I will pronounce--new law because I don't like what was duly passed by Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate and was signed by a prior President. So, as I speak new law, so shall it be. It just seems a little hypocritical if an administration like that were to turn around and say, You know, Morsi is just suspending civil rights in Egypt, and we're not sure that he's a good guy for doing that.

That's very interesting because what you have in Egypt is a leader who is taking away civil rights, who is ignoring the existing law. He has backed off of some of the abuses of the law, but he just makes law as he sees fit.

It's time that the people in America, Mr. Speaker, made it clear to the White House that it's the United States that your allegiance is owed to. It's not to NATO. It's not to the OIC. Yes, we have alliances with them. It's not with the U.N., though we have agreements with them. Your number one alliance is to the people of the United States of America. When anyone is not a supporter--is not an ally--or is someone we're not sure of their ally status, it should not be a country that we start giving planes to even when the alliances are made with a prior administration, because this administration had a good working relationship with Mubarak sufficient to cause President Obama to work this deal with Hosni Mubarak, the leader of Egypt, and sufficient to make them want to just give Egypt under the leadership of Mubarak 20 F- 16s. Once that leadership changes and we no longer know whether they're an ally, it is outrageous to send them, or to even contemplate sending them, planes.

What you do with those 20 planes that we already agreed to buy as the U.S. Government and give away is you give them to someone you know is an ally. If you want to give them to somebody, give them to Israel. Israel believes in the same value of life as we do here in the United States. They believe in the equality of women. They believe in the value of children. They do not believe women and children are the property of some man. They have our values and they have had our back, so the best defense money we can spend is in providing a defense to Israel because any nation--look it up--any nation that has said they want to destroy the little Satan of Israel normally follows it up by wanting to destroy the big Satan, the United States. So, according to these wild-eyed radical terrorists, if they see Israel as the little Satan and want to hit Israel, we will be next. We're next on their agenda.

So it is good defense for the United States when we help protect our friend Israel. And the thought that this administration would even still entertain the possibility of sending 20 F-16s to Egypt after we supported the deposing of our ally, President Mubarak, is outrageous. And what I would hope is that somebody in the administration would say, Mr. President, we're going to look pretty stupid if we send 20 F-16s of the most advanced generation to Egypt when they're making waves about and some of their leadership thinks they ought to go ahead and get rid of Israel. And so maybe we'd better hold up on that. And you've got people like Congressman Gohmert over on the Hill who's talking about how stupid it would be to give 20 F-16s to a potential renegade government if they continue to abuse the civil rights of people in Egypt, he's talking about how stupid it would be, why don't we go forward and say we can't believe that anybody would think for a moment that we're going to send 20 F-16s to a country

when the President has said we don't even know if they're an ally.

I would hope that somebody would tell the President: Let's go out and say people like Gohmert need to calm down because we're not going to send them. And I would welcome that news. But until that happens, people need to be speaking up and letting the White House know this is outrageous. You don't send advanced aircraft as a gift to a country that has been less than helpful, and we're not even sure if they won't take out Israel or try when they get a chance.

It's a different government. It's not the same country, not the same administration with whom we made an agreement. It hasn't continued under the same constitution or laws. We have to make sure that we have an ally, and we don't know that. In fact, the indications are constantly to the contrary.

So as soon as Clinton goes out after Morsi, goes into Gaza, expresses great sympathy for the people in Gaza, despite the fact they took over a Gaza strip from Israel that Israel unilaterally gave away, hoping it would buy them a semblance of peace, and fully equipped with greenhouses and businesses and ways to make a living and ways to live in great sustenance there on the Gaza strip, they walked away from it, gave it away, and immediately the greenhouses were destroyed. The people are living there in poverty, and they could keep stirring up the venom of hatred among the people, although the people of Israel had just done an incredibly unilateral and generous thing, hoping to buy peace.

But what we see over and over, whether it's in southern Lebanon, whether it's in the Gaza strip, going back historically, any time Israel has given away land hoping to buy some peace, not only have they not bought peace, that land they gave away has ultimately at some point been used as a staging area from which to attack it. How sad would that be that Israel's incredibly generous gift of the Gaza strip, with ways to make a living and have full sustenance, plenty to eat, they gave that as a gift. They took the land and destroyed their ways of sustenance.

And then, the ultimate irony, on top of the irony of that being used as a staging area to launch rockets on a continuous basis into Israel, how ironic if that ends up being the flyover area for new F-16s that we give to Egypt, that Egypt uses in an effort to attack Israel once again. We cannot allow the continued attacks on our allies. Israel has been an ally. Israel is an ally. Israel is operating under the same rules of government that they have when they have been our close ally. They've made mistakes. So have we. But they're our friend. And friends, as I saw when I was down in Florida not long ago, a billboard said, ``Friends don't let friends get nuked.'' We need to take that to heart. It is done a bit tongue-in-cheek, of course.

But this article from back in September, the day after 9/11, the President said in this article, September 12, from NBC's Shawna Thomas:

President Barack Obama said on Wednesday that while he does

not believe Egypt is an ally of the United States, he also

doesn't consider the country an enemy. `I think that we are

going to have to see how they respond to this incident,'

Obama said in an interview with Telemundo anchor Jose Diaz-

Balart, host of Noticiero Telemundo. He was referring to

Tuesday's protests in Egypt, during which demonstrators,

angered by a movie trailer parodying Prophet Muhammad,

breached the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.

The President continued:

Certainly in this situation, what we're going to expect is

that (the Egyptian government is) responsive to our

insistence that our embassy is protected, our personnel is

protected, and if they take actions that they're not taking

those responsibilities, as all countries do where we have

embassies, I think that's going to be a real big problem.

The President is also quoted as saying:

Libya is a government that is very friendly towards us. The

vast majority of Libyans welcomed the United States'

involvement. They understand that it's because of us that

they got rid of a dictator who had crushed their spirits for

40 years.

Those are quotes from President Obama.

The article says President Obama expressed confidence. ``Our hope is to be able to capture them,''--talking about the people that attacked us in Libya--``but we're going to have to obviously cooperate with the Libyan government. And you know, I have confidence that we will stay on this relentlessly, because Chris Stevens, he's somebody who actually advised me and Secretary Clinton during the original Libyan uprising. He was somebody who Libyans recognize as being on the side of the people. And we're going to get help. We're going to get cooperation on this.''

Well, that's what the President said in September. Now he said we were going to pursue the killers of Ambassador Stevens and the three others ``relentlessly,'' is his term. We will stay on this relentlessly. And yet what we've seen, we find out that they may have the instigator, and there is no outrage that this man has not been provided, turned over to the United States. There's no outrage that this man has not been brought to justice.

Friends don't let other friends get nuked, and friends don't send 20 F-16s to the enemies of their friends. It's time that this administration began to understand history to the point that when you reward your enemies, your enemies get stronger, and they get more abusive and more threatening.

The best thing this administration can do is reward friendship and punish our enemies, and then our enemies cower, and our friends are emboldened, instead of what this administration has done the other way around.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 20 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, December 17, 2012, at noon for morning-hour debate.

Today, when the House opens for regular session, we will be led by visiting chaplain Reverend Jerome R. Milton. This extraordinary man is a friend, and he is an inspiration to me.

To borrow from a testimonial sermon of his, Reverend Milton, as a very small child, was left to die with his brother and sister in a rundown California motel. The San Diego County welfare department found them and placed them in a horrific orphanage, called the Hillcrest Orphanage, where abuse of all kinds imaginable and unimaginable were inflicted upon them. Many of the children in such terrible conditions committed suicide, which included his brother and sister. After the horrors of this orphanage, he was placed in 13 different foster homes, where he suffered more unfathomable abuse and inhuman treatment.

Finally, as Jerome says, ``God heard the cry of the lamb,'' and he was placed in his 14th home, that of Dadie Florence Johnson Brown. She could not read or write, but she was a good woman with a big heart and a stronger will. She took Jerome, and she said she could not imagine all the abuse he had been through, that it just sounded too unbelievable, but she looked him in the eye and said, Don't let your abuse be your excuse. She said, Someday, you can be a great juvenile judge or a case worker or something special.

But there was a lot of rebellion and anger in the young man. He hated lots of people and things, and especially God. Ms. Brown would not heed Jerome's pleas to leave him alone. She kept praying for him every single day by name. She said she knew there was good in him, but prayed that God would not let him end up in jail or in prison, because she knew God could do something very special with him.

He eventually tried the praying thing himself, but he was very cynical. He wanted to go to college, he wanted to be a coach, but he knew no one who had money. Then he found out he could run really fast, and he could play football really well. Though his teacher told him he was too black and too stupid to ever amount to anything, he proved her wrong when, just 4\1/2\ years later, he taught in a classroom right next to hers.

As Reverend Milton says, God moved him from foster care to people care. This angry, black, abused, hopeless shell of a downtrodden young boy had God-given potential. This is what Dadie Brown saw in him. Before she died, she told Jerome, All you can do for me is, if you can do for a group of children what I've done for you, then my living will not have been in vain. She said, I don't have $1 million, but I hope I made a $1 million difference. When she died, she had raised 44 children, giving hope to each one.

Jerome says she led him to Jesus and that Jesus opened his heart. He providentially met and married Charlene Olgis, and together, they have nine children. Six of them were adopted through the foster care program. Tyler, Texas, is where two Heisman Trophy winners grew up, Earl Campbell and Johnny Manziel, but it is also the mission field of Reverend Jerome R. Milton and his wife, Charlene, and that's where they've invested their lives.

He is the senior pastor of the Greater New Pleasant Hill Baptist Church in Tyler. He has been there for 25 years. He established the Dadie Florence Brown children's home for homeless mothers and abused children. He has been the head track and field coach at Bishop Gorman Catholic High School for 24 years, leading his team to 10 State track and field championships, and he has helped 150 athletes earn scholarships. He has also been the Tyler Citizen of the Year, winning the T.B. Butler Award. His work toward spanning race and religion and all types of barriers is boundless, and his list of accomplishments would take all day long to read.

He has blessed our town, our district, our State, and our country. It is an honor and an inspiration to know him and to count him as a friend. I so look forward to having my friend as a visiting chaplain today at noon eastern time when he opens the official part of this session in Congress.

God bless America, and God bless Jerome Milton.

Mr. Speaker, our visiting chaplain today is Reverend Jerome R. Milton, pastor of the Greater New Pleasant Hill Missionary Baptist Church in Tyler, Texas.

As a small child, he was left with his brother and sister in a rundown motel in San Diego to die. They were placed in a horrific orphanage, where despicable abuses were inflicted, ultimately resulting in the suicide of his siblings.

Jerome was eventually placed in the home of Dadie Florence Brown, the 14th foster home. This uneducated but strong-willed lady told young Jerome that, despite all he'd been through, ``Don't allow your abuse to be your excuse.'' She knew God would make him something special, and she prayed for him every day.

Jerome could run fast and play football well and got a scholarship to do both at UCLA. As he says, God moved him from foster care to people care. He and his wife, Charlene, have nine children, six of them adopted.

In addition to being a pastor, he's the head track coach at Gorman Catholic High School, leading his teams to 10 State championships, and has been Tyler's Citizen of the Year with the T.B. Butler Award. His work has spanned race, religion, all types of barriers, and he has blessed so many lives, including mine.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It's a pleasure to follow my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) and before that my friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall). It made a lot of sense. In fact, the last vote we took today was to eliminate the word ``lunatic'' from our Federal law. I don't have a problem with lunatic being used in the Federal law. Apparently, I was the only one here on the floor that didn't have a problem with using the term ``lunatic.'' In fact, it occurred to me that not only should we not eliminate the term lunatic at a time when we are facing national bankruptcy if we don't get serious about our issues but we should also use the term to identify those who want to continue doing business as usual around this town.

It's time we got serious. One of the things that would help the administration get serious, because it is a big deal and not because CBO has no clue what it's going to cost, as illustrated by them initially scoring, I believe, $1.1 trillion, then $800 billion, and now $1.6 trillion taking effect. Maybe $1.8 trillion. They don't have a clue. They're not allowed to use real historical reality, real rules to score. They use a fictitious static rule that is just so inaccurate. It would be a joke if it weren't so sad as to what it's done to good legislation.

Because of the emphasis on tax and all the people that are going to be hit with a tax because this administration and the Democratic Senators down the Hall--at least their leadership--continue to play games of cat and mouse and of chicken with the future of our financial stability and economy, I think it's important to look at taxes.

The President, for example, and Majority Leader Reid in the Senate say they want to help the middle class, the poor working folks. So, apparently--and I know former Speaker Pelosi said we need to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it, but it's obvious from Leader Reid's comments and the President's comments, those two people never read the ObamaCare bill.

It's a bit of interesting reading. I did go through it all before I voted against it; a lot of interesting stuff. I don't know why the President needs his own commission, the Noncommissioned Officer Corps. There were toss-outs to the big pharmaceuticals, AARP. If you saw somebody endorse this bill, then you could find a provision in here, if you knew what to look for, where they got their little pound of pork. So it's quite interesting. But Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the President and Harry Reid, since they have slapped this bill on the backs of every American, they really ought to read what they've done to Americans. There are a lot of people that have.

There was a good article, it seemed to be--I don't know Guy Benson, but a political editor for Townhall.com wrote on September 20, 2012, he was talking about the President:

Barack Obama's re-election racket has been running millions

of dollars worth of advertisements claiming that Mitt

Romney's ``plan'' will raise taxes on middle class Americans.

This isn't true; Romney promises precisely the opposite, and

FactCheck.org has called out Democrats for repeating the

debunked charge. But to paraphrase Bill Clinton's DNC speech

in Charlotte, it takes some brass to preemptively criticize

someone for doing what you've already done yourself. Before

we get to the latest dreary punch line, let's go back to the

video tape.

And online it had a video that could be punched, and it was President Barack Obama speaking. Part of his quote says:

I can make a firm pledge: Under my plan, no family making

less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.

Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital

gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

The article goes on:

This man's ``firm pledges'' aren't worth very much, are

they? Kate touched on this last night, but it's worth another

spin, if only to marvel at the sheer hypocrisy of it all. The

Congressional Budget Office has determined that millions of

Americans will get socked by the ObamaCare mandate tax, 80

percent of whom are middle-income citizens. Nearly 6 million

Americans--significantly more than first estimated--will face

a tax penalty under President Barack Obama's health overhaul

for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said

Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class. The new

estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the

administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken

promises. And the Budget Office analysis found that nearly 80

percent of those who'll face the penalty would be making up

to or less than five times the Federal poverty level.

Currently that would work out to $55,850 or less for an

individual and $115,250 or less for a family of four. Average

penalty: about $1,200 in 2016.

It goes on to point out:

CBO also said there will be 30 million people without

insurance, though all but the 6 million will be exempt from

the tax. The exempt Americans are a combination of illegal

immigrants and those with incomes too low to pay income tax.

The article says:

Just so we're clear: ObamaCare raids $716 billion from

almost-insolvent Medicare to chip in toward its own $2

trillion price tag, raises premiums on average families,

increases national health care spending faster than doing

nothing would have, swells the deficit, exacerbates the

national doctor shortage, is insanely costly and difficult to

comply with, and raises taxes by $500 billion on the backs of

millions of middle class families--and the country will still

have 30 million people lacking health insurance. What a deal!

And most of that dysfunction doesn't kick in until 2014.

If it had kicked in in 2012, you would have seen a different President elected, I'm sure. But in any event, what the ObamaCare bill requires--and one further comment. When a bill is based on a fraud, it's probably not going to end up being a good bill. The ObamaCare bill--and I hear people talk about 2,700 pages, 2,500, 2,600--let's see. My version here--this is one we got from the official printer-- 2,407 pages. But it's interesting, the title of the bill:

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 3590) entitled ``An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes,'' do pass with the following amendments: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert--ObamaCare.

So they took House bill 3590 that was an act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes--this is a tax credit for our military members--they struck, as it says: ``Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert'' ObamaCare. That's a fraudulent bill. That bill did not originate in the House, it originated in the Senate. The Constitution requires that any bill that raises revenue must originate in the House. It started as a fraud. This bill became a fraud when it was enacted and it was asserted that this originated in the House. It did not.

We had a tax credit for first-time homebuyers for our military. There was nothing germane about ObamaCare to a tax credit for our military. That's why I say a bill that starts out as a fraud is probably not going to be real good for a lot of folks.

So, though the President promised people all across America over and over that if you make less than $250,000 then you will not see your taxes go up, well, let's take a breather from the so-called fiscal cliff--the truth of the matter is we went off of that back in August 2011 when we passed that ridiculous debt ceiling bill that is going to further gut Medicare, on top of what ObamaCare did to it, and also gut our national security. But looking back at ObamaCare and the tax consequences--and Madam Speaker, that's why I keep saying the President really ought to read the bill that bears his name, that people refer to as ObamaCare. He really ought to read it. Majority Leader Reid really ought to read the bill because he'll get to the part that has a mandatory provision that the Supreme Court had to take up: Is this mandate a penalty or a tax? And of course the intellectual gymnastics that our Chief Justice had to go through to say, between

pages 11 and 15 of the opinion, that this is a penalty, it's not a tax. Because under the anti-injunction statute, no Federal court would have jurisdiction to take up the case if it's a tax because you would have to wait until 2014. Because under the anti-injunction statute, under Federal law, no Federal court could take it up until the tax is actually imposed and the person filing suit is actually someone against whom that tax is imposed. So they would have to wait until 2014 in the intellectual gymnastics of the Chief Justice, he says, between pages 11 and 15.

So Congress called it a penalty. It is really a penalty. They knew what it was. It's a penalty. It's not a tax for these purposes because, you know, it's just being assessed against someone if they don't buy this basic health insurance policy. And it's estimated that will cost thousands and thousands of dollars.

Then, of course, you get on over to around page 60. And after he said, It's a penalty; therefore the anti-injunction statute doesn't prevent us from taking jurisdiction. And now that we have jurisdiction, we'll take it up. And now we take it up, and we say, It's really a tax, so it's okay. Boy, that kind of intellectual lack of integrity in any Federal entity is a danger to the ongoing of the Nation.

But for those of us that did read the bill, you will find that if someone is making 133 percent of the poverty level or more, they must buy the basic ObamaCare policy. Well, 133 percent of the poverty level for one person would be $14,856. So anyone in America who makes more than $14,856, as an individual--and in case those at the White House don't know, $14,856 is less than and not even equal to $250,000--but if you make $14,856, as an individual, when the tax fully kicks in, you will pay an extra 2.5 percent income tax as a penalty for not buying the ObamaCare health insurance bill. And so you will get popped with an extra 2.5 percent tax, which will be $371 slapped on the people that can afford it the least. This ObamaCare bill slaps $371 extra on somebody that can't afford health insurance at a time when they can't afford to pay the extra tax. Well, congratulations.

That's why I really wish the Senate majority leader and the President themselves would read this bill so they know what they're doing to people so that when they say, This isn't going to hit anybody with any extra tax if you make less than $250,000--if they continue to say it, they'll know that is simply not true.

If you are a couple and you make $20,123 and you cannot afford-- between the two of you, you are just scraping by with $20,000; gas prices are up because of all the money flooded into the market created by our Federal Reserve; inflation is going to be kicking in big time this next year; and it's going to be a struggle for any couple that's making $20,000. It's going to be tough. Prices of everything are going to be going up.

So at a time when they will not be able, probably, to afford several thousand dollars for the ObamaCare basic policy--some estimates have been that it will be around $12,000--well, then, you are going to pay an extra $503 in a tax penalty because ObamaCare mandates it.

Let's go to a family of six. If you are a family of six and you make $41,190 and you cannot afford thousands and thousands of dollars for the basic ObamaCare health insurance policy, then this poor family, struggling with six folks--I grew up in a family with four kids. When times were good, we ate beef. When times were not, we would have Beanee Weenee. I happen to like it just fine, but it's still a struggle.

For those who continue to struggle, as I heard Jay Leno once say, Four words: Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, one of my favorite meals. But, nonetheless, it is going to be hard to afford even macaroni and cheese.

If you have a family of six, you are making $41,190, and you can't afford thousands and thousands of dollars for the ObamaCare basic policy, then, hello, you are going to pay over $1,000 additionally in your income tax.

I hope and pray that somebody in the majority--because I know the hearts of so many of my friends across the aisle. They care deeply about people suffering in America. I know they do. They really do care. That's why I want them to read ObamaCare, as I did, and see what you are doing to the poor and the downtrodden in America.

The President is still running around saying, you know, if you are making less than $250,000, you are not going to have any extra tax. Wrong. Read your own bill. Speaker Pelosi said, We will pass the bill to find out what's in it. They still don't know what's in it. That's why somebody has got to stand up and tell them what's in this bill is taxes on people that cannot afford it.

If they cannot afford thousands of dollars for a health insurance policy, they're not going to be able to afford $1,030 in extra income tax that our President and all the Democrats passed without a single Republican vote. They're not going to be able to afford that.

I guess that's why ObamaCare is going to provide for an additional 17,000 or so IRS agents. Because with this poor family of six making 133 percent of the poverty level, you are probably going to have to chase those two adults down in that family of six and get blood from a turnip because they don't have the $1,030 to pay in extra income tax. If they did, they might try to buy some form of health insurance. But even if they spent $1,030 on the health insurance policy, from the estimates we've seen, that still would not be anywhere near enough to buy the basic policy required by ObamaCare. This is going to devastate the working poor in America.

And again, I go back. Any bill that starts as a fraud is probably not going to be good for America.

So we come back to all of the rhetoric about taxes. Look, too many people in the House and Senate have forgotten that in July of 2011-- that's the real time we were facing a fiscal cliff. And S&P made clear, Look, if you don't cut at least $4 trillion over 10 years, which is $400 billion a year, we were running a deficit at that time around $1.5 trillion over what we were bringing in. And they were saying--and I thought it was pretty modest--if you don't cut at least $400 billion of the $1.5 trillion you are overspending, then you are going to get downgraded.

Leaders in both parties really didn't take that seriously. So they came back with a proposal for a supercommittee; and if the supercommittee didn't reach an agreement on $1.2 trillion over 10 years, a $120 billion reduction from the overspending of $1.5 trillion--that should have been a drop in the bucket. That's nothing. We should have been able to cut that much, and we didn't do it. So now the sequestration is looming, and we come back to this issue again. But I'm shocked that so many people have already forgotten.

When we failed to cut $4 trillion over 10 years from our budget back in the summer of 2011, we got downgraded, and things got more expensive.

Tim Geithner back then was saying, August 2, the world comes to an end financially. We're going to hit the financial ceiling. It's going to be disastrous. Then, basically, the interpretation of what he was saying is, when we get to August 2, Just kidding. We're going to be okay for a little longer, but we're about to hit it anyway.

The financial cliff was approached, and we went over it. Now we're bouncing down the cliff from ledge to ledge. I'm hopeful that at some point we'll say we've fallen far enough. Let's not go all the way down to the bottom of the abyss. Let's start climbing out of this vast hole we've dug for ourselves that we've been plummeting down. Let's get back on top. You're never going to do that bringing in $2.4 or $2.5 trillion and spending over $3.5 trillion. And we want to eliminate the word ``lunatic'' from the Federal code? That's lunacy to think you can keep spending over a trillion dollars more than you bring in, when you're bringing in about $2.5 trillion, and not pay the price.

It is immoral for one generation to be spending money that the next generations haven't even had an opportunity to earn. It is narcissistic to say we are so important in our generation that we are going to lavish money on ourselves uncontrollably so that future generations will pay for our self-indulgence.

The history of America is one generation after another making sure that the generations that follow would have it better than they did. When we come to this generation, my generation--and it's embarrassing, but we've been so self-indulgent, so self-absorbed that we would spend future generations' money. They are kids, some of them are not even born, and they are going to have to bear the cost of what we're doing. As one of our Republican friends said just about an hour ago, Be quite sure any deficit spending now will be a tax on someone at some point. It's just the way it is.

We keep hearing that everybody needs to pay their fair share, and I hope that beginning now when people hear ``fair share,'' they'll think about a flat tax. Steve Forbes has been talking about it for years. Rand Paul had an article out a year or so ago proposing a flat tax. My friend, Mike Burgess, has a proposal. Many of us have proposals.

Look, you talk about wanting Warren Buffett to pay what his secretary does, yet you haven't made one proposal that will bring Warren Buffett to paying what his secretary does. That's crazy. That's why we shouldn't eliminate the word ``lunatic.'' It really has application around this town.

Warren Buffett ought to take heed. He runs around telling people, yeah, rich people should pay more taxes. Well, he's not. He's not going to pay more, not on any of the proposals that the President has him running around endorsing. How about a flat tax that says 15 percent for capital gains tax, what Warren Buffett normally pays, 15 percent for his secretary in income tax, 15 percent for gift tax, and a 15 percent corporate tax. Let's just go 15 percent across the board. The irony is that the economy would so explode--so many more people would be employed, so many more people would be making more money--that the revenue would actually come in in greater amounts. We would actually get greater revenue, and there would be less pain and less suffering in America.

A couple of years or so ago, an 80-year-old lady in east Texas said:

I grew up here in east Texas in a home that had no

electricity, no power. We had a wood-burning stove; and now

the electricity, propane, everything is so expensive, my

Social Security doesn't cover it. It looks like I'm going to

have to go back to a wood-burning stove just to exist. This

could be a cold winter.

It doesn't have to be like that. It ought to be an economic renaissance. The more fair we are here in Washington--you make more, you pay more; you make less, you pay less. I'm one of those that likes two deductions: one for charitable giving and the other for the mortgage interest deduction.

We can negotiate over numbers. That's not a problem. We could compromise. We can reach an agreement, a compromise over numbers, but let's don't compromise on a principle that is so basic and simply says, if you make more, you pay more. It's an easy concept. You make more, you pay more; you make less, you pay less. That's fair.

For Heaven's sake, let's do this. Let's take that ObamaCare burden off the working poor in America that are going to get socked with that tax. We were told for so long, if we don't do something, there will be maybe 30 million people in America who won't have insurance. Then we get to the bottom of it and we find out, well, now we're going to have lots of people paying lots more taxes and we're still--oh, and we're gutting Medicare. Because of ObamaCare, we're gutting Medicare by $716 billion so the seniors will have less health care. Oh, I know, some of our Democrat friends have said not to worry, we're only taking that from the health care providers--the doctors, the hospitals. We're taking that from them. We're not taking it from you, seniors. You don't have to worry. You will have Medicare. My foot.

Those health care providers who have $716 billion sucked out of the system will not be able to provide service to all the seniors, and that's why we start hearing stories now about how ObamaCare is going to work. Some say the age may be 75 that is tossed out by the panel. It won't be a death panel, but it will be a panel that says, You're 75. No hip. No, no. You're too old. You don't get a hip. You don't get a knee. You're just going to have to suffer because you're not productive anymore.

That is outrageous. Every individual has value.

I would just like to conclude with words from my friend Dick Morris, who said:

I know there is a disagreement on when life begins in

America, but for Heaven's sake, we ought to agree that life

ends when you die.

That's why ObamaCare needs to go.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 20 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Friday, December 7, 2012, at 11 a.m.

It's uplifting to hear my friend, Dan Lungren from California. What an amazing public servant he has been. I fought battles with the man. I know his heart. And he's going to be sorely missed. He cares so deeply about this country.

Such is the lot of people whose country has leadership decided by elections. Sometimes good things happen, sometimes they don't. But democracy ensures that a people are governed no better than they deserve. So whether someone liked President Reagan or President George H.W. Bush or President Bill Clinton or President George W. Bush or President Barack Obama, the truth is that at the time they were elected President, we as a Nation overall got the President we deserved at that time.

One of the most impressive speeches I've ever heard was given by Senator Barack Obama at the Democratic Convention. And I love the way he talked about America, coming back as one America. Not a red America or a blue America, but America. Just one country. And it was one of the things that I drew great hope from on 9/12/2001 as people around the country gathered around, as we did in our local east Texas town, and people of all races and ages and gender, and we all held hands and we sang hymns and patriotic songs. And I looked around the circle and was deeply moved because I knew that day there were no hyphenated Americans, there were just Americans. And we were together. And everybody standing there in that square holding hands, we shared the love for our country. We wanted to see it strong. We wanted to see it recover from that devastating blow from people intent on evil, based on hatred.

That senator that wanted one America has presided in such a way that we seem more divided than ever--more people on food stamps, more people below the poverty level, more people struggling than ever before. We were told if the $900 billion giveaway stimulus proposal--porkulus some called it--if that was passed, we would be recovering very quickly. And if we did not pass that stimulus, porkulus, whatever you want to call it, if we didn't pass that bill in early 2009, the country might well reach unemployment rates as high as 8, 8.5 percent, as I recall. Well, guess what? We passed it and things got worse. It was a terrible bill. It was not the way you fix an economy in danger, suffering.

What's so tragic right now, Mr. Speaker, is how many people across America are struggling, out of work. I'm not just talking manual laborers or older workers, I mean all ages, well-educated, poorly educated. We've got people out of work around this country that are really in desperate straits. Some take different approaches. I was shown numbers that indicated at one point that when people are unemployed, many of them will look full time for employment, for substitute employment, but on average may have 30 minutes a week--for an average--until the last 2 weeks of the unemployment benefits, and at that time it may go as high as an average of 10 hours or so of the last 2 weeks looking for employment.

This President is demanding that we extend unemployment benefits for another year for those who have been unemployed for a year. We also know that in his JOBS Act--it was really a JOBS Act for lawyers because they created a new protected class called the unemployed; so that if you had been unemployed for 2 years and you go apply for a job and the employer looking for a worker considers the fact that you didn't look for a job for 2 years and instead hired somebody that had been out of work for a month and was desperately spending all his or her time looking for employment, if you considered the fact that somebody had been unemployed, how long they had been unemployed, then you would be sued under the President's proposed bill.

So it was going to be a great boon to trial lawyers, to plaintiffs' lawyers because they would be suing on behalf of every unemployed worker who went and looked for a job for the first time in a couple of years. I mean, you could have that kind of scenario, not look for a job for a year or two, go look for a job, and then turn your case over to a lawyer to sue anybody that didn't hire you because you didn't show any particular motivation, and most employers want motivated employees.

So we know that the President has made this proposal; he wants to extend unemployment for another year. Just to show what a worthless organization--they're smart people; they're very good people; they're a good organization, but their rules are so pitiful, so unrealistic, so unmoored to the foundation of good economic projections--we have the Congressional Budget Office, CBO. They come in, and apparently--I was reading an AP story. I didn't see the CBO numbers themselves, but the story said that, according to CBO projections, extending unemployment for another year for those that have been unemployed for a year now would cost $30 billion. But the great thing is that $30 billion of paying people to remain unemployed would create 300,000 jobs. So what a great thing for America, for our economy if you spend $30 billion and create 300,000 jobs. Until you start looking at the numbers and you go, Wait a minute. Wait a minute. We're spending $30 billion. We're told if we do that it will create 300,000 jobs? Well, that's not very smart. That's $100,000 that we would be spending for every job we create.

What kind of math is being utilized by the White House and by CBO? I mean, how stupid are Americans? Oh, yeah, great idea. Let's let the government spend another $100,000 to create one job that may not be but a part-time job, pay $20,000 or so. Well, I'll bet if we offered people across America, made an offer, we want to create 300,000 jobs this month and so we're looking for bids. Who will come to work for less than $100,000? I'll bet you would get 300,000 people working very quickly for a whole lot less than $100,000 a job.

So that kind of math is what has gotten us in trouble. It's why we need an alternative to CBO scoring that deals realistically with what we're engaged in, because it's only when we have a scoring system for bills that is wedded to legitimacy and historical reality that we will begin to have better legislation. Because when you have a group that has such ridiculous rules to score bills that it will come in and say ObamaCare, yes, it will cost $1.1 trillion, and then they have their Director called to the Oval Office and reminded, apparently, that the President promised it would cost less than $1 trillion

and they rescore it and come back with $800 billion--with a wink and a nod, apparently--and then after it passes, they come back and say, Oh, you know what, it was actually more than a trillion. Now we're told maybe $1.6 trillion--who knows, 1.8, maybe 2.0. Who knows. But any entity whose margin of error for scoring bills in Congress is plus or minus 100 percent margin of error does not need to be allowed to do any more scoring. We need to do a competition of it. It's what Americans do well. When we compete as a nation, when we have people in America competing, we do better. So let's have competition for scoring bills.

I was having a wonderful discussion with one of the best economic minds in the country, Arthur Laffer, and I said I was hoping that maybe we could get someone else to score bills--Moody's, S&P, others. My office had checked with Moody's. They said they don't score bills. He said, They will if you pay them, and I bet you you could get it done for a whole lot less than what it cost to keep CBO going.

So think about that. We start having a competition for scoring bills so that we can get legitimate bills, not one where America is promised it will cost $800 billion only to find out it's going to be more than twice that amount even before it really comes into fruition. We need competitive scoring. Then, over a few years of time, we will begin to see who's more accurate and who's not. We will be able to score the scorers. Because until that time, we will continue to limp along and have ridiculous mathematics like CBO telling us that ObamaCare will cost $800 billion and shortly later coming back and saying it's probably going to be $1.6 trillion. A margin of error of 100 percent is intolerable. It's time for a different means of scoring.

Let's have competition. I think that you would end up having some of the universities in the country have their--whether it's economic or finance departments. Texas A&M has a great department that does a lot of projections and calculations. I know there are schools around the country that do that. We could make a competition. And the better you are at scoring, perhaps the more you get paid for scoring bills because you're more accurate. Make it a competition. Because in the meantime, having an entity that scores bills, that is used to condemn a bill or raise a bill to the heights, is bringing us down to economic ruin. It's one of the little parts of the puzzle that needs fixing.

So we have a President who continues to be vague on what he will accept to avoid what people are calling the fiscal cliff. Well, I might remind people that the fiscal cliff was gone over in August of 2011. Some have already forgotten. We were told if we didn't have a debt ceiling increase by August 2, we were going over the financial cliff. It was financial Armageddon. Everything would melt down. It was all going to be just this horrible financial melee. It was a disaster. We could not allow ourselves to get to August 2 without having a debt ceiling increase.

Some of us made proposals, and we took a look at what was being proposed. And we said, Are you kidding, a supercommittee? That's not going to do any good. They will never be allowed to reach an agreement. Some of us were told, Well, of course they'll reach an agreement because if they don't, there will be these massive amounts of devastating cuts to our defense and devastating cuts to Medicare. They'd never allow $300 billion or so to be cut from Medicare on the other side of the Capitol here. And I reminded my friends they just cut $700 billion from Medicare for ObamaCare.

This President and the Senate were pitting our seniors against younger workers in America. They're pitting our seniors on Social Security and Medicare against younger workers. What kind of President, what kind of party, what kind of Senate does such a thing? Why would you pit younger workers against our seniors? But that's what occurred with the debt ceiling bill.

That's what occurred with the 2 percent cut to the Social Security tax. It sounded like a great idea, and now we find out 2 years later, actually, that 2 percent reduction in the amount of money that workers pay into Social Security, it was a very small amount, relatively speaking, to the amount of debt the United States and workers are having to run up because of the poor economy.

But we were told, Oh, it may save them $60, $80 a month. It may be such a great thing. And yet $60, $80--as important as that is to any individual worker--meant that last year, for the first time, the Social Security taxes coming in did not cover the Social Security checks going out. It meant that this administration pushed through a bill with Leader Reid down in the Senate pushing the way for it. It meant that seniors' checks were not covered by the Social Security taxes being paid by at least 5 percent.

There were projections then that it was a 5 percent shortfall last year, and this year it's going to be a 14, 15 percent shortfall. That wasn't supposed to happen for several years. Republicans and Democrats were debating in years past--since I've been here in the last 8 years-- about how, no, that wouldn't happen until 2018. Others said, no, that won't happen until 2048. Well, it happened last year in 2011. The money coming in from Social Security tax did not cover Social Security payments. And so what's the proposal by this President and Leader Reid? It's, let's gut Social Security even further. Let's make it bankrupt even quicker.

Listen, what's going on? I know we all have the goal of making America stronger, but we're seeing that what is happening is hurting the economy. It's making America weaker. And for all of the talk this fall about, gee, we may have turned the corner economically if it weren't for our czar, the Federal Reserve czar, Bernanke, creating money out of thin air, then the economy would be even worse than it is today. But I think the President owes Mr. Bernanke a great thank you for helping him win reelection by creating so much money out of nothing.

But the trouble with that is next year Americans will pay a very severe price, as we see inflation start to take hold. But the President, Mr. Bernanke, they knew that that inflation wouldn't really kick in now before the election. So it helped him win reelection. And then we would get into next year, and then the inflation would start kicking in. And then with a poor economy and inflation, we're back to the end of the Carter years.

And with the President having cut the permits down in half for drilling on Federal land from what they were under the Bush administration, he was able to receive the benefits of the permits done during the Bush years so he could say, Look, we're producing more on Federal land. Isn't that great. Well, yes, but now we're going to start seeing the consequences of cutting in half the number of permits during the Obama administration's first term; and there will be a price to pay in our energy costs over the next 4 years.

We hear people saying over and over and over again Americans must pay their fair share. The rich must pay their fair share. Everyone must pay their fair share. And on that, I am in 100 percent agreement with our President, with Leader Reid at the other end of this building, with my friends across the aisle, the Democrats here who want everybody to pay their fair share. I'm in 100 percent agreement. We absolutely should do that, make everybody pay their fair share.

You know, lots of folks use the metaphor, Let's make sure everybody has some skin in the game. Well, if you really want to have everyone pay their fair share, there is an easy answer; and, fortunately, it would drive this economy to brand-new heights. It would drive this country and our economy to a new economic renaissance. It would be incredible. And all of our friends around the country who are suffering, who don't have even $3 a gallon to pay for gasoline, it would help them when they can't handle the rent going up and the groceries going up. It would help them as we saw the economy become more vibrant because after 4 years, if Tim Geithner were really honest, he would come forward and say, as Secretary of Treasury Morgenthau did in 1940 when he wrote:

We have spent more money than any country in history, and

we have nothing to show for it but more debt.

That's what a Secretary of the Treasury who wanted to be honest would say after 4 years of the most incredible

spending beyond anything that Secretary Morgenthau, under Roosevelt, could have ever dreamed.

Well, here's a good answer. When you hear the term ``fair share,'' think flat tax. You want people to pay their fair share, make a flat tax.

Now, the President has had his friend Warren Buffett, one of many of the megarich in this country--in fact, the megarich Wall Street apparently support the President four to one over Republicans. It's one of the great, amazing misconceptions in America. Wall Street executives and their spouses donate four to one to Democrats over Republicans. So I would like to see the fat cat Democrats and the fat cat Republicans all pay their fair share. I'm tired of hearing Warren Buffett say he doesn't pay as much a rate as his secretary and he wishes the rich were taxed more.

What hypocrisy is that? Holy cow. It's really easy. We've made it easy. Just write the check to the U.S. Government, IRS, however you want to. We'll cash it however you want to write it.

You want everybody to pay their fair share? Let's pay taxes at a flat tax rate. The great thing about a flat tax is when you make more, you pay more; when you make less, you pay less. The other thing about a flat tax, it doesn't just need to be a flat tax on income; it ought to be a flat tax across the board.

Some think there should be no deductions. I'm in favor of two. A brilliant mind, even though he went to Harvard, Arthur Laffer, has an idea, and he's talking in terms of two good deductions: a mortgage interest deduction and charitable deductions. Frankly, I don't want to see a cap on charitable deductions, because that plays right into this administration's desire to have government be the end-all, be-all charity, even though as we've seen from Katrina under a Republican administration and we've seen from Sandy under a Democratic administration, the Federal Government is not the best answer for getting help quickly enough to people. It was the private sector that got gas, water, and help most quickly to people who suffered from Hurricane Katrina and from Hurricane Sandy. But a proposal to cap charitable contributions as deductions would end up killing charities and forcing people to come begging, Oh, please, government, would you please give me a morsel, give me another crumb. So whichever party happens to be in power gets more power, Republican or Democrat, we've got to stop that cycle of dependency. We have got to help people reach their God-given potential.

When you hear about fair share, you want an equal percentage tax, let's have one for Warren Buffett and the same rate for his secretary. Let's make the income tax, the corporate tax, the capital gains tax, the gift tax, the estate tax, let's just make them all 15 percent across the board. I'll never have a problem with an estate tax, but it is outrageous to make people sell the family farm or sell the business or get in hock up to their ears for something their parents have worked a lifetime to build up. People like Warren Buffet, the ultrarich, they're not going to have to worry about the estate tax because they're able to pay megabucks for lawyers and brilliant financial analysts to come up with a way--usually involving life insurance and different things--to take care of their estate tax. So it's not the megarich.

When people say they're going after the rich fat cats, England did that in 2009. An article last week pointed out that in 2009, England increased to 50 percent, in addition to all the other taxes they have, the tax against people making 1 million pounds or more, and that next year England went from having 16,000 people who were making 1 million pounds or more a year to 6,000. They dropped from 16,000 people making more than 1 million pounds a year to 6,000. That's an incredible drop, a two-thirds loss. So there was no additional income made--or, it's not made--it's taken. There was no additional income taken by raising the taxes on the rich because they're too elusive to nail down.

So you might as well set up a system that doesn't keep punishing the middle class. The truth is, when you raise taxes on the ultrarich and you keep spending to match that--and actually this administration and some friends in this Congress want to keep raising the amount we spend instead of getting realistic. When you keep doing that, what you hurt is the middle class. They're the ones that suck it up because the middle class--when you work at a store or a factory or a mechanic's garage, any of the places that the middle class work, when you work there, you can't just pick up your factory if you're a worker and move wherever you want where the taxes are less. The owners of the factory can, they can move. They don't have to pay the higher tax. The workers can't. As you see what happened in England, when that happens everywhere, when you raise taxes on the ultrarich, they move because they can. And who has to suck up all that extra money that has to be provided for, that the government doesn't have? It's the middle class that does.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, December 5, 2012, at 9 a.m.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.

It is an honor, privilege and a pleasure--all three--to be here to pay tribute to our friend Ralph Hall. I think I'm the only one that has spoken that was actually represented by Ralph Hall, and so it's not my first testimonial for the gentleman from Rockwall.

In fact, in 2001, it looked like there was a new redistricting map the legislature had come out with, and it was going to put my home town of Tyler in a different district. During my years on the bench, I had been concerned about some of the Federal laws that were luring people into ruts they couldn't get out of without any hope, and that's when I first thought about running. But I knew, and I said publicly, as long as Ralph Hall is my Congressman there's no need for me to run. I know that man, I know his heart, I know his convictions--not criminal convictions, I don't know of any of them--but I know the convictions of his heart, and I know him to be a man of conscience, a moral, upright, decent man who had a wonderful wife, and there was no way there was a need for me to run as long as Ralph Hall was my Representative.

I was told by some Republican leaders, look, he's a Democrat, you ought to run against him anyway, and I said no way. I couldn't do any better than Ralph Hall. I'm well represented. But in 2003, finally the legislature actually did redistricting, and we ended up in a different district, and I ran. But I've been amazed not only by the incredible knowledge of science and technology and the workings of this body, but as others have alluded to, the sense of humor. But now one thing I've noticed, a lot of times around here people get a good joke, they just keep it to themselves, whereas Ralph shares even funny material.

We had a college coach here that was going to speak to a big group of Members of Congress, and somebody told him, just start off with something funny and you'll be fine. He was nervous, and he said, I don't know anything funny. So Ralph said, well, what would you like it on? He said, well, what about education? He said, here's your joke:

A teacher tells her first-grade kids that they've got to come back and tell

some family story that is told around the family. Everybody in the classroom the next day had their story, but little Johnny never raised his hand. Finally, she said, Johnny, everybody's done their family story but you, don't you have one? And he said, well, I do have one, it's even got a moral, but I don't know. The teacher said: Well, is it clean? He said sure. She said, Well, go ahead and tell it. So Johnny got up and said, Well, my Aunt Katie was in the Air Force as a pilot, and she got over hostile territory. My Aunt Katie always was prepared for the worst. She had a bottle of whiskey, an Uzi, a 9mm and a knife in the cockpit with her just in case something happened. Sure enough, she got hit, she's going down. She ejects, drinks the bottle of whiskey real quickly, and then sees all these enemy soldiers coming at her, wipes out a couple dozen of them with the Uzi, takes the 9mm, wipes out 12 more, and then hits the ground. Three more come at her, and she takes them out too.

The teacher said: Good grief, that's a family story and you say it has a moral? He said, Well, I don't know if you'd call it a moral, but it's what everybody in our family knows, and that is, when Aunt Katie's been drinking, you don't mess with her.

So, anyway, I was impressed that he shared that, but more than anything I'm proud to have shared time here and seen a true Representative at work. It's been my honor. Thank you, Ralph, for all you've done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There's so many problems in the world. There's so many problems here in America. There's so many things that are being hidden, kept secret, that need to have sunlight hit them and come to be known, because sunlight truly is an illumination of not only facts, but creates cleanliness when shining light comes upon things that have been hidden.

We have so many things yet to resolve, so many people that are now in poverty that have not been in the past, an economy that's in trouble, a Congress that can't seem to find its way to reduce spending, so we keep digging deeper and deeper holes. But with all the problems in this Nation, we are the most blessed nation in the history of mankind.

Solomon's Israel did not have the liberties for the individuals that we have. It didn't have the assets that we have. It didn't have obesity as a major health problem for the nation's poor, as we do.

We are so richly blessed. So amidst all the skirmishing, debating, fussing and arguing, we are about to go out of session for the last few moments before we hit Thanksgiving. It's a time when people should pause and understand, without dwelling on our problems, that we are so richly blessed. It's time--as the Founders and as those leaders throughout our great history have every year paused--to thank God for the blessings which we have.

Some people see us fussing and debating and getting angry at times. We have such different views of the way to fix things. I see my friend, Eliot Engel. We don't vote on a lot of things the same way, but I know his heart and I know he's a great, honorable man. I don't agree with Ed Markey very often; in fact, we are usually crossways in our Committee on Natural Resources. He and I think we can reach some agreements on some issues regarding natural gas. Louise Slaughter, she didn't let a bunch of my amendments through when she was Rules chair, but I like her very much and she is a friend. Carolyn Maloney, she thinks we should eliminate private guns and I believe the Second Amendment should be enforced, but she's a friend. Having friends in a body in which we disagree over things on the best way forward is another one of those blessings.

So before we recess for Thanksgiving, it is such an honor to get to remind people, you know, we have so many people who have blessed our Nation who were not born here. There are people like the President, who was born in Hawaii but was not educated for his early years, is not aware so much of the history that many of us grew up being taught. So it's a real honor for me to get to share some of our history as we approach the Thanksgiving holiday.

For example, James Madison was given credit as having more to do with our Constitution than any of the other Founders. When he was President, March 4, 1815, he had this proclamation--a guy that should know what the Constitution means and that it was never intended to prevent a people from prayer and thanking God for our blessings, either in a governmental setting or a nongovernmental setting. It was never meant to force people to pray, but never intended to prevent governmental leaders from leading prayers. This was James Madison, March 4, 1815. He said:

No people ought to feel greater obligation to celebrate the

goodness of the Great Disposer of Events and of the Destiny

of Nations than the people of the United States.

And to the same Divine Author of every good and perfect

gift we are indebted for all those privileges and advantages,

religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed in

this favored land.

I now recommend a day on which the people of every

religious denomination may in their solemn assemblies unite

their hearts and their voices in a freewill offering to their

Heavenly Benefactor of their homage of thanksgiving and of

their songs of praise.

Abraham Lincoln, in the midst of the worst war in American history-- more Americans died in the Civil War than in any other war of this Nation--in July of 1863, the middle of the Civil War, our President, Abraham Lincoln, provided these official words. For those who are on the Supreme Court and did not have a proper education about our history, these words might be surprising, but Abraham Lincoln made these an official proclamation when he said:

It is meet and right to recognize and confess the presence

of the Almighty Father, and the power of His Hand equally in

these triumphs and in these sorrows. I invite the people of

the United States to assemble on that occasion in their

customary places of worship and in the forms approved by

their own consciences to render the homage due to the Divine

Majesty for the wonderful things He has done in this Nation's

behalf, and invoke the influence of His Holy Spirit to subdue

the anger which has produced and so long sustained a needless

and cruel rebellion.

Andrew Johnson, October 28, 1865, as President of the United States, he succeeded Abraham Lincoln, as we all know, after the terrible atrocity of Abraham Lincoln's assassination; came at the end of such a cruel war that saw family member fighting and killing family member, and so much destruction, so much hate. Andrew Johnson's official words as President of the United States in 1865:

Whereas it has pleased Almighty God, during the year which

is now coming to an end, to relieve our beloved country from

the tearful scourge of civil war, and to permit us to secure

the blessings of peace, unity and harmony, with great

enlargement of civil liberty; and

Whereas, our Heavenly Father has, also, during the year

graciously averted from us the calamities of foreign war,

pestilence and famine, while our granaries are full of the

fruits of an abundant season; and

Whereas, righteousness exalteth a nation, while sin is a

reproach to any people.

I recommend to the people thereof that they do set apart

and observe the first Thursday of December next as a day of

national thanksgiving to the Creator of the Universe for

those great deliverances and blessings.

Ulysses S. Grant, as President, responding as did those already mentioned--and actually every President each and every year--I'm just selecting specific official proclamations. This one was President Ulysses S. Grant, 1869. He said:

I, Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United States, do

recommend that Thursday, the 18th day of November next, be

observed as a day of thanksgiving and of praise and of prayer

to Almighty God, the Creator and the Ruler of the universe;

and I do further recommend to all the people of the United

States to assemble on that day in their accustomed places of

public worship and to unite in homage and praise due to the

bountiful Father of All Mercies in fervent prayer for the

continuance of the manifold blessings he has vouchsafed to us

as a people.

Rutherford B. Hayes, 1877, said these in his official proclamation:

The completed circle of summer and winter, seed time and

harvest, has brought us to the accustomed season at which a

religious people celebrates with praise and thanksgiving the

enduring mercy of Almighty God. Let us with one spirit and

with one voice lift up praise and thanksgiving to God for his

manifold goodness to our land, his manifest care for our

Nation.

I earnestly recommend that, withdrawing themselves from

secular cares and labors, the people of the United States do

meet together on that day in their respective places of

worship, there to give thanks and praise to Almighty God for

His mercies, and to devoutly beseech their continuance.

Chester A. Arthur, November 1881:

It has long been the pious custom of our people, with the

closing of the year, to look back upon the blessings brought

to them in the changing course of the seasons, and return

solemn thanks to the All-giving source from whom they flow.

The countless benefits which have showered upon us during

the past 12 months call for our fervent gratitude, making it

fitting that we should rejoice with Thanksgiving, that the

Lord, in His infinite mercy, has most signally favored our

country and our people.

That was Chester A. Arthur.

Grover Cleveland in 1885:

The American people have always abundant cause to be

thankful to Almighty God, whose watchful care and guiding

hand have been manifested in every stage of their national

life, guarding and protecting them in time of peril and

safely leading them in the hour of darkness and danger.

It is fitting and proper that a Nation thus favored should,

on one day in every year, for that purpose especially

appointed publicly acknowledge the goodness of God and return

thanks to him for all his gracious gifts.

That was Grover Cleveland in his official proclamation of 1885.

And again, there were proclamations every year by every President. So we're selecting just a few, as it being fit and proper, as our country has done every year of its existence since we had a Constitution in 1789, to declare a time of thanksgiving to God for our blessings.

Benjamin Harrison. This is November 1, 1889:

Now therefore, I, Benjamin Harrison, President of the

United States of America, do earnestly recommend that

Thursday, the 28th day of this present month of November, be

set apart as a day of national thanksgiving and prayer, and

that the people of our country, ceasing from the cares and

labors of their working day, shall assemble in their

respective places of worship and give thanks to God, who has

prospered us on our way and made our paths the paths of

peace, beseeching him to bless the day to our present and

future good, making it truly one of thanksgiving for each

united home circle as for the Nation at large.

Benjamin Harrison, November 1889.

Grover Cleveland, November 1893, said:

While the American people should every day remember with

praise and Thanksgiving the divine goodness and mercy which

have followed them since their beginning as a Nation, it is

fitting that one day in each year should be especially

devoted to the contemplation of the blessing we have received

from the hand of God and to the grateful acknowledgment of

His loving kindness.

On that day, let us forego our ordinary work and

employments and assemble in our usual places of worship,

where we may recall all that God has done for us, and, where,

from grateful hearts, our united tribute of praise and song

may reach the throne of grace.

Let the reunion of kindred and the social meeting of

friends lend cheer and enjoyment to the day. And let generous

gifts of charity for the relief of the poor and needy prove

the sincerity of our thanksgiving.

Can't help but parenthetically note that the greatest blessing in giving comes not from a government that forcibly takes people's money but from people who give from the bounty of their own hearts to those in need. It makes us better people.

Another, William McKinley, in 1897 officially proclaimed, ``In remembrance of God's goodness to us during the past year, which has been so abundant''--he put in quotes--``Let us offer unto him our Thanksgiving and pay our vows unto the Most High.''

McKinley went on:

Under his watchful providence, industry has prospered. The

conditions of labor have been improved. The rewards of the

husbandman have been increased, and the comforts of our homes

multiplied. His mighty hand has preserved peace and protected

the Nation. Respect for law and order has been strengthened,

love of free institutions cherished, and all sections of our

beloved country brought into closer bonds of fraternal regard

and generous cooperation.

For these great benefits, it is our duty to praise the Lord

in a spirit of humility and gratitude, and to offer up to Him

our most earnest supplications, that we may acknowledge our

obligation as a people to Him who has so graciously granted

us the blessing of free government and material prosperity.

William McKinley, October 1897.

Theodore Roosevelt, as President of the United States, said these words in 1903, officially proclaiming:

The season is at hand, when according to the custom of our

people, it falls upon the President to appoint a day of

praise and thanksgiving to God.

During the last year, the Lord has dealt bountifully with

us, giving us peace at home and abroad, and the chance for

our citizens to work for their welfare unhindered by war,

famine, or plague. It behooves us not only to rejoice greatly

because of what has been given us, but to accept it with a

solemn sense of responsibility, realizing that under heaven,

it rests with us ourselves to show that we are worthy to use

aright what has been entrusted to our care.

In no other place, and at no other time has the experiment

of government of the people, by the people, for the people

been tried on so vast a scale as here in our own country in

the opening years of the 20th century. Failure would not only

be a dreadful thing for us, but a dreadful thing for all

mankind because it would mean loss of hope for all who

believe in the power and the righteousness of liberty.

Therefore, in thanking God for the mercies extended to us

in the past, we beseech Him that He may not withhold them in

the future.

That was Theodore Roosevelt, 1903.

William Howard Taft, 1909:

The people of the United States are wont to meet in their

usual places of worship on a day of thanksgiving appointed by

the civil magistrate to return thanks to God for the great

mercies and benefits which they have enjoyed. During the past

year, we have been highly blessed . . . It is altogether

fitting that we should humbly and gratefully acknowledge the

Divine source of those blessings.

Therefore, I hereby appoint . . . a day of general

thanksgiving, and I call upon the people on that day, laying

aside their usual vocations, to repair to their churches and

unite in appropriate services of praise and thanks to

Almighty God.

William Howard Taft in 1912, without any problem from the Supreme Court, officially proclaimed:

A God-fearing nation, like ours, owes it to its inborn and

sincere sense of moral duty to testify its devout gratitude

to the All-giver for the countless benefits it has enjoyed.

For many years, it has been customary at the close of the

year for the national Executive to call upon his fellow

countrymen to offer praise and thanks to God for the manifold

blessings vouchsafed to them . . .

Wherefore, I, William Howard Taft, President of the United

States of America, in pursuance of long-established usage and

in response to the wish of the American people, invite my

countrymen, wheresoever they may sojourn, to join on

Thursday, the 28th day of this month of November, in

appropriate ascription of praise and thanks to God for the

good gifts that have been our portion and in humble prayer

that His great mercies toward us may endure.

It's worth noting that William Howard Taft was the only person in American history to have been elected to Congress, to have been elected President of the United States, and after making these official proclamations every year as President of the United States, where he officially chided Americans to thank God for our blessings, he then became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He is the only one in our history to have been in Congress, President, and on the Supreme Court, and in his case, he was actually Chief Justice. He never failed to thank God officially, publicly, as President of the United States.

Woodrow Wilson, October of 1913, officially proclaimed this:

The season is at hand in which it has been our long

respected custom as a people to turn in praise and

thanksgiving to Almighty God for His manifold mercies and

blessings to us as a Nation. The year that has just passed

has been marked in a peculiar degree by manifestations of His

gracious and beneficent providence . . . We have seen the

practical completion of a great work at the Isthmus of

Panama, which not only exemplifies the Nation's abundant

resources to accomplish what it will and the distinguished

skill and capacity of its public servants, but also promises

the beginning of a new age, of new contacts, new

neighborhoods, new sympathies, new bonds, and new

achievements of cooperation and peace.

Then Woodrow Wilson put these words in quotes as he quoted from the Holy Bible, ``Righteousness exalteth a Nation.'' Then Wilson put in quotes, ``Peace upon Earth, good will towards men,'' which is also from the Holy Bible, ``furnish the only foundations upon which can be built the lasting achievements of the human spirit . . . Now, therefore, I, Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States of America, do hereby designate Thursday, the 27th of November next, as a day of thanksgiving and prayer.''

Apparently, he didn't know to say ``a moment of silence.'' He, as every President before him, commended a time to prayer and invited ``the people throughout the land to cease from their wonted occupations and in their several homes and places of worship render thanks to Almighty God.''

John F. Kennedy, October of 1961, officially proclaimed these words. Having become President some 9 months earlier, this was President Kennedy's first Thanksgiving proclamation:

The pilgrims, after a year of hardship and peril, humbly

and reverently set aside a special day upon which to give

thanks to God . . . I ask the head of each family to recount

to his children the story of the first New England

Thanksgiving, thus to impress upon future generations the

heritage of this Nation born in toil, in danger, in purpose,

and in the conviction that right and justice and freedom can,

through man's efforts, persevere and come to fruition with

the blessing of God.

This will be the next to last, Mr. Speaker. Yet it is important, just as every President every year has proclaimed a day of thanksgiving to God, to our eternal and omnipotent source of all blessing, so every President has done it. President Obama has done it. It is just so important. We see surveys done of schoolchildren in America--of high school students, of college students. They're asked, To whom did the original pilgrims give thanks? So many say the Indians, say each other, and do not understand what has been part of our history since that early Thanksgiving with the pilgrims when they set it aside to celebrate with the Indians, in gratitude to the Indians; but the purpose was a proclamation of thanksgiving by every heart to Almighty God. As some try to rewrite our history, it must be said that, for the Nation's whole history, each year was a proclamation of thanksgiving to God.

It's even worth noting, Mr. Speaker, that here in the House Chamber-- where you and I are dwelling right now--above all the doors in the gallery, it has the side profile of the greatest lawgivers in the history of man. Some are sometimes surprised to see Napoleon, but he gave us the Napoleonic Code. Louisiana still uses that as the basis of its law. There are Popes who were considered great lawgivers of mankind.

Some have heard of Hammurabi. We have him up there. The Justinian Code, he's up there. But the only one who is considered a great lawgiver, who does not have a side profile is directly in front of you and above you, Mr. Speaker, because he was considered the greatest human lawgiver. He is faced as a full face, not a side profile, and around which all the other great lawgivers as thought when this Chamber was built, he was thought to be the greatest. He had 10 pretty good ones apparently, and that is the face of Moses.

I was noting, as I listened in recent years, to oral argument before the Supreme Court as lawyers argued, including my friend Ted Cruz, who was arguing on behalf of the State of Texas. They were arguing as to why Texas should be allowed to keep a monument on its State capitol grounds to the Ten Commandments. It was combined with a case from Kentucky as to whether or not Kentucky should be allowed to keep a posting of the Ten Commandments publicly posted.

As I listened to this great oral debate before the Supreme Court on whether or not there could be a calling out, a noting of the Ten Commandments, and as I looked at the Court, I looked up on the marble wall to my right. There, looking down on us, carved into the marble wall was Moses holding two tablets with Hebrew written on the tablets. I have been told by people who have gotten tours over there--one individual said their official tour guide said Moses is holding the 10 Bill of Rights, but, Mr. Speaker, you and I know those were not the Bill of Rights. Moses was holding and depicted as holding the Ten Commandments. It has been a part of our history.

I want to close before we conclude here with the first Thanksgiving proclamation since we had a Constitution. It was written in 1787. It was ratified in 1789. As it says, as it is dated in the year of our Lord, 1787, Washington had a Thanksgiving proclamation that he made October 14, 1789. Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with this before recessing for an official Thanksgiving, the first Thanksgiving proclamation by the Father of our Country, George Washington.

Some have tried to rewrite history and say he was a deist. We know a deist is one who thinks there is some force that set things in motion and then lets nature take its course. They believe that if such deity of such force still exists, such force never interferes with the ways of nature or man. That's a deist.

George Washington was not a deist. His own words, official as they were, make that very clear. His words, his official proclamation, given the third day of October, A.D., 1789, Washington said:

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the

providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful

for His benefits--

That means he is not a deist. He believed God provided this Nation benefits.

Washington goes on to say:

--and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and whereas

both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee,

requested me to recommend to the people of the United States

a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by

acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors

of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity

peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety

and happiness.

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the

26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of

these States to the service of that great and glorious Being

Who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that

is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering

unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and

protection of the people of this country previous to their

becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and

the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course

and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of

tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;

for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been

able to establish constitutions of government for our safety

and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately

instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we

are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing

useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and

various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our

prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of

Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other

transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or

private stations, to perform our several and relative duties

properly and punctually; to render our national government a

blessing to all the people by constantly being a government

of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and

faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all

sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown

kindness to us); and to bless them with good governments,

peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of

true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among

them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a

degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

George Washington's official Thanksgiving proclamation, October 14, in the year of our Lord 1789.

And as we finish and recess for Thanksgiving, the official day this year proclaimed by this year's President, President Barack Obama, I am, Mr. Speaker, profoundly grateful and, as all these Presidents mentioned, thankful to God for my blessing. I know they're not earned.

There was nothing I ever did in the womb to deserve to be born in the greatest country in history, but I was blessed because generations before were blessed, and it is an honor to rise up and call them blessed for the opportunities that were given us through their devotion and thanksgiving and hard work and acknowledgment to God for our blessings.

Mr. Speaker, I was blessed with an older sister, whom I love. I'm blessed with two younger brothers, one who died a couple of years ago, and for my youngest brother, Bill, whose birthday we'll celebrate November 17 as a Baptist pastor and my friend.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 60, 112th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 21 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until Tuesday, November 27, 2012, at 2 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, violence is continuing to erupt in the Middle East. Unfortunately, it remains true that for every action there is a reaction. So when this administration decided to push its ally, President Mubarak, out of leadership in Egypt, it was assisting in creating instability around our other ally, Israel. And that instability continues to grow.

One of the things that was helpful from Egypt while President Mubarak was in charge, at least there were some efforts to restrict the transfer of rockets into the Gaza Strip. So there were some tunnels that would be found. The tunnels had to be kept small, so they were able to get smaller rockets into Gaza. But now that there is a new regime, apparently the bigger rockets are getting into Gaza, and they pose more and more of a threat as they continue to be fired into Israel.

The action is not only the fall of an ally, President Mubarak, but the assistance in bringing to power in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood. They want to see Israel gone, and they would also not mind seeing the United States gone.

It's important when formulating foreign policy that the United States, particularly the Obama administration, decide are we going to be assisted with our own personal security here in the United States by the actions that we take, or are the reactions that are going to be caused by our actions actually going to cause greater threats to our closest allies and to ourselves. And, unfortunately, that's what we're seeing. In fact, I saw an article in May of 2010 which indicated that this administration, the Obama administration, sided with Israel's enemies in demanding that Israel disclose any nuclear weapons. We'd never sided with Israel's enemies in trying to push Israel into doing something against its own interests. When you're a very small country surrounded by countries that want to see you go away, it is important that they not know all of your defenses.

Going back in the Old Testament, you find history, King Hezekiah showing all of their treasure and all of their defenses. All of their defenses they had in their armory, he showed them to the leaders of Babylon. As a result, ultimately that kingdom was lost to the Babylonians.

You don't show other nations, even people you think are friends at the moment; they may turn into enemies. It is important that your enemies, and even your friends, not know all of your defenses. And yet we sided with Israel's enemies, or at least this administration did.

The result we saw within 2-3 days, the flotilla head from Turkey to challenge the blockade of the Gaza Strip. It was a legitimate, lawful blockade that was trying to keep rockets out of Gaza that would inflict death and terror upon Israel. A legitimate blockade. The only things being kept out were weapons, rockets, things that would kill the Israelis and terrorize our ally. But that's what happens. You have challenges to a nation when that nation's enemies see their strongest ally pull away and siding with that nation's enemies.

That's why it was so important, and I began pushing at that time, to have Prime Minister Netanyahu invited to speak here in this Chamber. And a year later, to his great credit, Speaker Boehner, at the urging of many of us, invited Prime Minister Netanyahu, and he gave the best speech I've heard here in Congress. It helps when a nation's enemy sees their strongest ally siding with them.

On the other hand, when a nation's enemies see the strong ally, in this case the United States, turning on an ally, as this administration had with President Mubarak, and helping people who want to see Israel gone from the map take power, it encourages Israel's enemies.

This administration also had relations with Qadhafi, who had opened up--he had blood on his hands from prior years, not a good man, but he had opened up his country, abandoned any nuclear weapons pursuit, and become an ally. I have seen individual family members of Muammar Qadhafi here in Washington to meet with administration officials. And then, lo and behold, a year and a half or so ago, this administration sides with the enemies. And at the time we knew al Qaeda was contained within the revolt, and we sided with the al Qaeda-backed revolt to drive out Qadhafi. That appears to have inspired the violence in Tunisia.

And so we have seen Israel's enemies and our own enemies actually grow in strength--Tunisia, Libya, Egypt--coming on to surround Israel, and any threat to Western values that are found in Israel is a threat to our own existence. And it's important that someone in this administration make repeated note of that because the result here recently has been further violence to our friend and ally, Israel.

So we have this report, November 15, 2012, three people were killed as rockets fired from Gaza struck southern Israel escalating violence. They died when a four-story building in the town of Kiryat Malachi was hit. There had been about 200 rockets fired into Israel. Israel's Iron Dome was able to intercept many of them, but couldn't possibly intercept as many as 200.

``Hamas' political leader Khaled Mashaal vowed to continue the `resistance' against Israel,'' Reuters news agency reported.

This ``resistance'' is just another word for ``violence.'' They're inflicting violence on Israel and then turning around and blaming Israel for defending itself and trying to continue to grow world opinion against the tiny nation of Israel when it's not Israel that is demanding the total annihilation of its enemies in surrounding countries. They just want to live in peaceful coexistence. But this administration has helped its enemies take over the countries surrounding it.

And now we're aware of enemies coming into Jordan, beginning to incite a potential revolt there against another ally who must wonder is this administration going to turn on him next.

King Abdullah has not been someone with whom we've agreed on all things, but he has kept a relatively very peaceful border with Israel. So necessarily he would wonder, Because I've kept the peace with Israel on their border, am I going to be targeted next? And the answer needs to come very loudly and very clearly--and it doesn't seem to be much of a muffle at all--that we support those who will prevent violence against Israel, against their Western values, against their desire to just live in peace and be left alone. And yet we've helped their enemies build violence and potential for more violence around it.

This story from Sky News reported that the rockets hit near Tel Aviv deeper into Israel. Palestinian militants target Israel with nearly 150 rockets, striking the outskirts of Tel Aviv as Israel continues airstrikes.

And there has been a problem: Since this administration helped create the environment in north Africa and in the Middle East where those who want to see Israel destroyed could take power, more violence has occurred, not less; more people's lives are in danger, not less. There's less freedom of worship, not more. The things that we believe in--freedom of worship of all people or no worship if people choose not to worship--these kinds of things should be kept inviolate.

And yet we've seen, as this Nation took over Afghanistan, more Americans have died in about half the time under Commander in Chief Obama as died during the 7 years and 3 months under President Bush in Afghanistan, American military. Over 70 percent of those killed in Afghanistan have been under Commander Obama in about half the time. We've seen violence escalating against Americans in Afghanistan. We've seen the last Christian church, public Christian church pull out of Afghanistan.

This administration should be encouraging freedom of worship, encouraging the liberation of women, of children. And yet for all its help, it's created environments in Libya, in Egypt, in Afghanistan, in Iraq where there is more and more violence, more and more oppression against women, against children, against Christians, against Jews, against anyone who wants to worship other than in a radical Islamist way.

Sometimes we wonder who's in charge in this administration because somebody's got to figure it out. So I was glad to hear President Obama say yesterday, Don't be accusing Ambassador Rice of going out and lying.

And we know that something is not a lie unless somebody knows that it's not true when they say it. The President apparently indicated that she was given the information that was untrue, to go out and spread those untruths. And if she didn't know that the statements she was told by the White House to go out and tell were not truths, then she was not lying. And she should be given credit for not lying if she didn't know those untruths she was telling were not true.

But then it raises more and more questions. You know, who is in charge there?

Woodward's book raises the issue of the President coming to meetings over crises and not even knowing who's going to be coming to brief him on things; whereas, a strong leader would come in and, I want to hear from this person, this person, this person.

Who's making the decisions? Who does know what's true and not true in this administration? Who can we depend on at 3 in the morning when we have public servants who have been sent into harm's way to do this administration's bidding, who is going to answer that phone and say, The people

that we ordered into harm's way on our behalf are in trouble? Right now, get them all the help we can give them. Who's going to answer that call? Why does it take 8 hours to get the people ordered into harm's way some help? We're stronger than that. We've got vehicles, planes, things that can get there faster.

So why are people trying to cover up who makes those decisions? Who decides not to help the people we have in harm's way? And if we don't figure that out, how can we expect anybody to ever come forward and sign up to put their lives on the line for their country?

We have the greatest military in the history of this country. The men and women who have served this country throughout our history have been extraordinary, but never with the power and the ability of the military that we have now. It's extraordinary.

But when this administration creates rules of engagement that even go one step worse than telling our people, When you're fired on, you can defend yourself, but if you're not fired on and somebody raises a weapon and they're going to shoot at you, they look like they're going to shoot at you, you have got to wait to make sure they're going to shoot at you before you shoot back, that's the kind of impression our military has gotten in the field in the past.

But as I've talked to military members in Afghanistan, it's their impression that the rules of engagement are such that now when they're fired at, they can't fire back if they think there might be a civilian somewhere that might get hit, because if they do and they hit a civilian, even defending themselves in what in America would be self- defense, sent into harm's way might get them sent to prison when they get home. So they are tasked with an unenviable position of deciding, Do I want to defend myself against death and risk going to prison when I get home, being jailed by the country that I'm trying to defend, to serve?

We've got to get some answers of who's making the decisions that are getting our military killed, that have gotten an Ambassador killed, that got two former SEALs killed. We have got to get some answers. Who's covering this stuff up? Somebody is. We can't get the story straight.

General Petraeus is supposed to appear tomorrow.

We need an independent prosecutor to do an investigation, not with the intention, as apparently Fitzgerald had, of ``getting somebody,'' so that he goes into the investigation into whether or not Valerie Plame was outed and he finds out the answer and decides to do what he can to get somebody inside the Bush administration, even though he knew that Scooter Libby was not responsible and was set up. He should have been truthful. You should always be truthful. But the prosecutor was not honorable in the way that that was pursued. If he knew the answer as to who had outed Valerie Plame, that it was not Scooter Libby, it was not Karl Rove, he should have been honorable enough to own up to that instead of asking for more money and trying to set up other individuals.

So with those kinds of things going on, it's understandable how people would expect that having an independent counsel might not be a good idea. But when there are clearly conflicts of interest, when you have an FBI that is investigating information that involves the Director of the CIA, when you have an Attorney General that has information that needs to go immediately to the Commander in Chief, to the President of the country, we need to find out, did it go there, and if not why not. And, if so, what in the world is the President doing with this information because now he's saying they didn't get it until after the election. Why so long? Where are the problems here? Why are the stories different? Why are the stories that were told different from the evidence those people had in their hands when they told their stories? The answers need to be found, and there's clearly a conflict of interest.

We do not need to return to the days of an FBI Director who investigates, not to report to the Commander in Chief, but to gather information so that he can get it and use it or provide it to someone else who can use it to force people to do what they want.

So what happens when an FBI Director comes into office honorably, with the best of intentions, as it appears J. Edgar Hoover did, to battle organized crime that was such a blot on this country. When you're in power too long, as Stalin, who should have known, said, With power dizziness.

So there has to be accountability. It's what the Founders had in mind. Checks and balances. We've seen with the Supreme Court's decision in ObamaCare that they're going to allow unconstitutional laws to go forward. They're not going to be the ones to rein in violations of the Constitution that are contained in bad legislation: You guys in Congress need to figure that out. Our Chief Justice punted on that one.

So it's back to us. Members of Congress have the purse strings. And if the administration will not properly appoint a special prosecutor to investigate, not with the intent of putting someone in jail but to see if there is something that needs to be prosecuted, if they're not willing to do that, then we need to cut off funds to those areas that are refusing to do justice. Because an Injustice Department should not be funded, at least the parts of it that are doing injustice. There are parts that are serving nobly and well. Fund those parts.

We have the power of the purse to check and balance an administration running amok. So when an administration takes actions to make sure that people who are illegally voting have the chance to illegally vote, we need to look at what areas we are funding there. Because if there's a Justice Department that is assisting--complicit--in seeing that people not legally allowed to vote, vote, then we have the power of the purse strings to do something about it, and we should. And if the Senate fails to rein in injustice, they need to be exposed, those who stand in its way. Because that's the great thing about America. When Americans get the truth, they stand on the truth and stand for justice. They always have. But they've got to get the truth.

And sometimes these days it's hard to know what's true. When you have an administration sending out different stories, and then we find out that they knew all along that it was a violent, coordinated attack on our Ambassador, that the two former SEALs that were killed were not killed seeking cover, as this administration released that they were. You had one on the top of a building using a machine gun, fighting to the end to protect others. That's not a man seeking cover. That's a man giving cover to others. That's a man laying down his life for his country. And this administration did not serve him as he served it.

We need to get to the bottom of what's going on. Whatever it takes, lawfully, ethically, we need to get to the bottom of it. We need to require that if this administration is going to continue getting funding, it better start protecting those who are protecting it. And if that means that in order to protect those who are in harm's way, then let's fund those who are in harm's way protecting us and not fund the rest until they are committed to protecting those of us who are in harm's way. We can do that.

Social Security, despite the lies that were told by some in the last couple of years that, oh gee, if there's a shutdown, Social Security recipients, you're not going to get a dime. Garbage. Those are lies. And people need to know if and when those things start getting told, they are lies, whoever would tell them, because the law has been passed previously that if there is a government shutdown, Social Security recipients will get their Social Security checks. They will be coming. Because the money will continue to come in. Just because there has been a government shutdown in the past did not mean that people didn't have to send in their tax payments. They have to come. You commit a crime if you intentionally refuse to pay taxes.

So the money comes in. Social Security checks will go out. We've had bills in the past, and we'll have them as soon as we start a new Congress, that will ensure that those Americans who are standing in the gap, who are in harm's way for us, those men and women wearing uniforms, should never have to worry about whether or not

their paycheck will be forthcoming; that regardless of what kind of games get played here in Washington, they're going to get paid. They ought to know that. We ought to pass that bill like we have with Social Security to make sure those in harm's way don't have to worry about that.

And then the message needs to be loud and clear that an administration that refuses, whether it's intentional or neglect, negligence, that fails to ensure the protection of those protecting us, you're not going to get funded until we get commitments to make sure it's done in the future. And when you obfuscate the truth and you keep us from finding out who made these decisions that got our people killed, what in the heck were they doing over there in the first place?

Our embassy's not in Benghazi. What was going on? Who gave the order for Ambassador Stevens to be there in harm's way? Until we can start finding out those answers, it's going to be impossible to make sure that we protect those who are protecting us in the future. And what kind of message does that send to our allies?

In Israel, a year ago, a minister told me that they routinely get visits from Chinese diplomats who say: Hey, have you figured out you can't trust the United States yet? Because we'll be your great ally. We'll be a lot better ally than the United States has been. All you've got to do is let us know when you figure it out. You can't trust the United States; they'll break their word, you can't count on them. When you find that out, let us know. We'll keep coming around because you'll find out at some time.

Listen, there never needs to be a time again ever when a United States ally is betrayed by the United States. When we make an agreement with an ally, with a friend, that agreement needs to be kept. People need to know that this country keeps its word. Even when it hurts, we keep our word. And that seems to be a problem lately.

You want to go back to when America began to grow economically and become a power economically? After the War of 1812 that dragged on for 2 years really destroyed so much, including the fire in this very building--this section was not here yet, but the central part of the Capitol, fires were set. The smaller Federal offices out here in what we now consider the Mall, they were burned. The White House was set on fire--even though the interior was completely destroyed, the exterior shell was left in place. But that also was true of much of the country, devastated. But there were loans that had been taken out by Americans from British banks before the War of 1812. Those in British banks might have suspected that as a result of our war with Great Britain, 1812 to 1814, that at the end of the war we would not pay our debts. But instead what happened, those American forefathers, foremothers, they agreed, look, we made a promise to pay back our loans to the banks in England, we're going to stand good for our word, despite the fact that their country destroyed so much of ours.

And it was after the world took note that Americans had such incredible honor, that even after a war with Great Britain they would stand behind their commitments to pay back their loans to the British banks, people said: Wow, this is a country we can do business with, and American economic power began to grow to where it is now the strongest economic power in the world.

Now, people are beginning to wonder: Should we end the dollar as an international currency because we're not sure you can trust the United States? It's time people quit wondering whether they can trust the United States. There's only one way that will happen, and that is when we have an administration--and this one's been reelected for 4 years, so it has to be this one--stops playing games, stops covering up truth, stops giving mixed signals, and is forthcoming: Here are our policies; we have made agreements; we stand by our agreements. King Abdullah, we may disagree with you on a bunch of things, but we have agreements, and we will keep our agreements. This administration needs to make those things clear.

When someone attacks an ally of ours with whom we have agreements, we stand by our agreements. That's the way you prevent wars. Because what we're seeing right now in Israel, with this enhanced and heightened violence that's beginning to occur, people have seen this administration pulling back from our commitments to Israel. That's the way it appears to Israel's enemies. So of course the rockets have gotten bigger that they've been able to smuggle in and construct there in Gaza. The rockets are flying farther into Israel--right now up to their capital at Tel-Aviv--because this administration has not stood firmly enough with our ally. We need to make that clear.

This Secretary of State should not be authorized by the President to tell Egypt, sure, the Muslim Brotherhood appears to be back in charge; sure, Israel is our ally; sure, you want to see Israel wiped off the map; but here's a billion and a half dollars. That's not the message that should be coming. The message that should be coming from this administration is: not one more dime until you start keeping your agreement to protect the border of Israel, not another dime. That ought to be the message. Because Israel is our ally. And if you, Egypt, are going to be our ally, you're going to have to protect our allies as well. That's not an entangling alliance; that's a country that stands by its agreements. Don't make agreements unless we intend to keep them. Yet we've seen this administration repeatedly throw our allies under the proverbial bus. It's got to stop. People have got to know in other countries they can trust our word.

And just like the West African told me when I was there 2 years ago, you've got to tell the people in Washington to quit getting weaker. We were so excited when you elected a black President, but we've seen America get weaker. You've got to tell people in Washington to quit letting your country get weaker, because if America grows weak, we have no chance of peace in this life. That was echoed by others, other West Africans.

It's time to stop growing weaker. It's time to stop breaking our word to our allies. It's time to make clear to Israel's enemies that Israel is our friend, you better back off or you're going to have us militarily to answer to.

Is it any surprise more rockets are flying at Israel? This administration wins 4 more years and the violence just gets greater against Israel, Israel then forced to defend itself when they just want to live in peace. They want the countries around them to stop demanding their obliteration from the map.

If the U.N. is going to persist in helping those who want to see a member of the United Nations wiped off the map, then the U.N. does not need to continue to have the United States as a member. That's the way it ought to be. It ought to be clear. We joined the U.N. The U.N. has a charter that will protect its member states. And if you're going to assist those who want to obliterate Israel, then we will no longer be a part of the United Nations because it's not united, it's anti-Semitic. It's not united, and we will not be part of an un-United Nations.

It's time to get serious because people are dying around the world, including our own Ambassador. It's time to quit covering for the truth. Let us get down to what the truth is. Let the chips fall where they may. Let us find out who did what wrong so we can correct it for the future. And I hope and pray there was no criminal activity--certainly there was negligence, but you don't know until we get a proper investigation.

An Attorney General cannot properly investigate himself. An Attorney General cannot properly investigate his boss. One department, the FBI, cannot properly investigate another agency unless that department's ultimate boss, the President, is aware and coordinates. And now that we know that did not happen--according to the President, he knew nothing. Like Sergeant Schultz from the old Hogan's Heroes, I know nothing, I know nothing, not until after the election. My administration kept me from knowing anything that was going on so I didn't make these decisions, somebody else made those decisions. I didn't know anything until after the election. They kept all this stuff from me, so I had plausible deniability. I didn't know of this stuff.

It's time somebody knew, but we're not going to get to the bottom of it until we have an independent investigation by someone with the power to do that properly. And if the executive branch will not do what the Constitution would require in a conflict of interest situation like this, then we need a select committee to do the investigation, get to the bottom of it, just as the Watergate committee did.

Let the chips fall where they may, because when people, in government and out of government, see that the government is actually interested in truth, then government gets the truth. People have more faith in the government, and we have a better country. And I hope and pray that day will come.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.