Floor Statements

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 39 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, July 30, 2012, at 2 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, there's been a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth, it seems lately, in response to a letter that five of us signed to five different inspectors general, five different departments of the U.S. Government. Despite the effort to distract, despite the wild accusations that have come about five separate letters that were quite factual, set out things that were footnoted, documented as true, we were simply asking inspectors general of the different departments if they would investigate about potential Muslim Brotherhood effects within those departments.

I have been amazed. Out of five letters to five different departments, each one of them different, each one of them dealing with facts that were in each particular department, we have been met with this frenzy from some quarters, including some of the mainstream media, to demonize people that are just simply asking questions. Actually, we used to have a mainstream media that would ask questions.

Also, when you look at the fact that in 1995, the defendants charged with involvement in the 1993 first World Trade Center bombing were tried, and as the prosecutor, the Federal prosecutor in that case, a brilliant guy named Andrew McCarthy has set out in one of his articles, we proved, we introduced evidence and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the intention of these people, these radical Islamist groups, was to bring down this country.

As Andy has properly asked, since we proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a great group of jurors in New York about the effort of these radical Islamists, Islamic jihadists, to bring down America, what's happened since 1995 that all of a sudden this administration says, oh, no, forget what was proved beyond a reasonable doubt to New Yorkers in 1995 and been upheld, you can't believe that? Don't look at the factual evidence behind the curtain, for heaven's sake; just look at what we're telling you, and we're telling you there is no Muslim Brotherhood involvement in America, and there's no Muslim Brotherhood effect or influence in this administration.

But that is deeply troubling because we know from the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas, that was well tried in 2008, and convictions on over 100 different charges, and they established, they named defendants, proved beyond a reasonable doubt about the charges of their support for terrorism, and they also named numerous parties as co-conspirators in support of terrorism, and the Justice Department was involved in that, the Attorney General's Office was involved, and they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there were Muslim Brotherhood groups who were supporting terrorism in America. At least they proved beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants were involved in supporting terrorism, and then basically--it might be deemed or called a preponderance of the evidence--that others who were not indicted, but were named, such as CAIR and ISNA, the Islamic Society of North America, in that case, the evidence was produced to establish that the Islamic Society of North America is the largest Muslim Brotherhood front group in America.

And some of us who simply signed a letter asking questions? Look, how about doing an investigation to see what the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood is in this administration? Because previously, including through the prosecution in November of 2008 of the largest terrorism support allegations in American history, it was established the Muslim Brotherhood is alive and well and having influence in America.

Yet, the Islamic Society of North America's President, Imam Magid, has been a guest at the White House, and, in fact, if someone, I guess because they regularly don't do their homework, were to check, as I have in the past, I don't know if it's still there, there were a couple of times I checked in the past couple of years, but if you were to check with the White House Web site, you would find that the number two person in the National Security Administration, the Deputy National Security Adviser, Denis McDonough, was giving a speech to a group called ADAMS--I'm sure John Adams appreciated the reference--but ADAMS, the All Dulles Area Muslim Society, and there is the transcript of his speech. I don't know if it's still up. Like I said, it's on the White House Web site. And Denis McDonough, the number two guy, the deputy national security adviser, thanks President Imam Magid, the president of ISNA, the named co-conspirator for supporting terrorism, for the wonderful prayers he gave at the Iftar celebration in the White House the August before, Iftar being the celebration that concludes Ramadan.

So we know the President of the largest, according to evidence in the Holy Land Foundation, the largest Muslim Brotherhood front trial, the president gets invited to the White House to do prayers for their Iftar celebration. And we also know Denis McDonough thanked Iman Magid for the wonderful introduction there at the All Dulles Area Muslim Society.

So it's a little troubling not only that this influence is there, but then when five Members of Congress raise a question, how about an investigation to see what this influence is? Because we know minds are changing, although the evidence has not changed that was introduced in 1995 and 2008.

Our good friend down the Hall, Senator McCain, chastised us. Yet, if you believe quotes, and sometimes you can't, but he was quoted as saying at the beginning of the trouble in Egypt that he was, and he used the word, according to the article, unalterably opposed to any support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Well, if that was the word then, the word now is altered unalterability because it appears that he sees no problem with what's going forward. If he does, then my apologies if he now objects to any assistance to the Muslim Brotherhood. But it's my impression that he didn't have a problem with this administration's help to Egypt now.

So when we see the things that have gone on--the things that have been introduced and proven in court and the Fifth Circuit saying, no, you cannot strike those names from the pleading because there's sufficient evidence to establish that they were supporting terrorism, so, no, you can't strike those named co-conspirators from the pleadings--and somehow five Members of Congress are the bad guys for saying let's investigate.

What influence has this group had--and I know from back in my questioning of the Secretary of Homeland Security last October, when I was asking if it was true that there were some members of the Muslim Brotherhood who were part of her Countering Violent Extremism Working Group that advises Homeland Security on how to deal with what some of us would call ``radical Islamic jihad,'' but which Homeland Security now calls ``violent extremism''--apparently not wanting to offend people who are wanting to commit radical Islamic jihad on our country. But I asked her in that hearing in October last year about that, and she points out that actually she has another individual in charge of the Countering Violent Extremism Working Group, so she doesn't really know if they have Muslim Brotherhood members as a part of that.

I asked her this question: All right. Are you aware that the president of ISNA, Imam Magid, is a member of that working group. Correct?

Secretary Napolitano: I can't answer that that is an accurate statement.

So she doesn't know whether the president of what's been established in court as the largest Muslim Brotherhood front group in America is part of her advisory group at Homeland Security.

Of course it was interesting in our hearing last week, she also indicated that there had not been a terrorist that had been allowed into the White House with the Egyptian recent group, when we had been reading in the paper that there had--of course, that may not be a good source because they were mainstream papers--but we had been reading that there was a member of a known terrorist group that was allowed into the White House and that he used that platform to lobby for the release of the blind sheik who had assisted in planning the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

So I thought it might be helpful, Mr. Speaker, tonight to just touch base regarding the timeline that Investors Business Daily sponsored. It was an editorial. It was dated July 19, 2012, posted at 6:46 p.m. eastern time. And it can be found at investors.com, Mr. Speaker. But it's entitled, ``How Obama Engineered Mideast Radicalization.'' And then it goes through, and after preliminary paragraphs, it just sets out a timeline for things that have happened.

I hope my friends, who have been so quick to condemn and ridicule, and even people who are on committees who should know about these things and should know about the evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial where Muslim Brotherhood ties were established, and they should know about the proof in 1995 at the World Trade Center first trial of the defendants that did that. I would think they would be welcoming, since there are many people who are not aware of what the evidence was in those. They would welcome input from someone as well versed as the prosecutor from the 1995 World Trade Center trial.

So this is from Investors Business Daily, an editorial. It says:

The Obama record: After angry Egyptians pelted her

motorcade with shoes chanting ``Leave!,'' Secretary of State

Clinton insisted the U.S. wasn't there to take sides. Too

late.

``I want to be clear that the United States is not in the

business, in Egypt, of choosing winners and losers, even if

we could, which of course we cannot,'' Hillary Clinton

intoned earlier this week.

Of course, the administration could, and it did, picking

and even colluding with the Muslim Brotherhood. And one of

its

hardliners, Mohammed Morsif, now sits in the presidential

palace, where he refused to shake unveiled Clinton's hand.

This administration favored Islamists over secularists and

helped them overthrow Hosni Mubarak, the reliable U.S. ally

who had outlawed the terrorist Brotherhood and honored the

peace pact with Israel for three decades. The Brotherhood, in

contrast, has backed Hamas and called for the destruction of

Israel.

Now the administration is dealing with the consequences of

its misguided king-making. Officials fear the new regime

could invite al Qaeda, now run by an Egyptian exile, back

into Egypt and open up a front with Israel along the Sinai.

Result: more terrorists and higher gas prices.

In fact, it was Hillary's own Department that helped train

Brotherhood leaders for the Egyptian elections. Behind the

scenes, she and the White House made a calculated decision

and took step-by-step actions to effectively sell out Israel

and U.S. interests in the Mideast to the Islamists.

The untold story of the ``Arab Spring'' is that the Obama

administration secretly helped bring Islamofascists to power.

Consider this timeline:

2009: The Brotherhood's spiritual leader--Sheik Yusuf

Qaradawi--writes an open letter to Obama arguing terrorism is

a direct response to U.S. foreign policy.

2009: Obama travels to Cairo to deliver apologetic speech

to Muslims and infuriates the Mubarak regime by inviting

banned Brotherhood leaders to attend. Obama deliberately

snubs Mubarak, who was neither present nor mentioned. He also

snubs Israel during Mideast trip.

2009: Obama appoints a Brotherhood-tied Islamist--Rashad

Hussain--as U.S. envoy to the Organization of the Islamic

Conference, which supports the Brotherhood.

The Organization of Islamic Conference, by the way, the OIC, it isn't in the article, but it is composed of 57 states. Fifty-seven Muslim states make up the OIC, and that's what is being referred to there.

2010: State Department lifts visa ban on Tariq Ramadan,

suspected terrorist and Egyptian-born grandson of Brotherhood

founder Hassan al-Banna.

2010: Hussein meets with Ramadan at American-sponsored

conference attended by U.S. and Brotherhood officials.

2010: Hussein meets with the Brotherhood's grand mufti in

Egypt.

2010: Obama meets one-on-one with Egypt's foreign minister,

Ahmed Aboul Gheit, who later remarks on Nile TV: ``The

American President told me in confidence that he is a

Muslim.''

2010: The Brotherhood's supreme guide calls for jihad

against the U.S.

2011: Qaradawi calls for ``days of rage'' against Mubarak

and other pro-Western regimes throughout Mideast.

2011: Riots erupt in Cairo's Tahrir Square. Crowds

organized by the Brotherhood demand Mubarak's ouster, storm

buildings.

2011: The White House fails to back longtime ally Mubarak,

who flees Cairo.

2011: White House sends intelligence czar, James Clapper,

to Capitol Hill to whitewash the Brotherhood's extremism.

Clapper testifies the group is moderate, ``largely secular.''

2011: Qaradawi, exiled from Egypt for 30 years, is given a

hero's welcome in Tahrir Square, where he raises the banner

of jihad.

2011: Through his State Department office, William Taylor--

Clinton's special coordinator for Middle East transitions and

a longtime associate of Brotherhood apologists--gives

Brotherhood and other Egyptian Islamists special training to

prepare for the post-Mubarak elections.

2011: The Brotherhood wins control of Egyptian Parliament,

vows to tear up Egypt's 30-year peace treaty with Israel and

reestablishes ties with Hamas, Hezbollah.

2011: Obama gives Mideast speech demanding Israel

relinquish land to Palestinians, while still refusing to

visit Israel.

And parenthetically, we know that the administration has now said if we'll just give him another term, then the next 4 years he will go see Israel.

Back to the article:

2011: Justice Department pulls plug on further prosecution

of U.S.-based Brotherhood front groups identified as

collaborators in conspiracy to funnel millions to Hamas.

2011: In a shocking first, the State Department formalizes

ties with Egypt's Brotherhood, letting diplomats deal

directly with Brotherhood party officials in Cairo.

April 2012: The administration quietly releases $1.5

billion in foreign aid to the new Egyptian regime.

June 2012: Morsi wins presidency amid widespread reports of

electoral fraud and voter intimidation by gun-toting

Brotherhood thugs, including blockades of entire streets to

prevent Christians from going to the polls. The Obama

administration turns a blind eye, recognizes Morsi as victor.

June 2012: In a victory speech, Morsi vows to instate

shari'ah law, turning Egypt into an Islamic theocracy, and

also promises to free jailed terrorists. He also demands

Obama free World Trade Center terrorist and Brotherhood

leader, Omar Abdel-Rahman, aka the Blind Sheik, from U.S.

prison.

June 2012: State grants visa to banned Egyptian terrorists

who joins a delegation of Brotherhood officials from Egypt.

They're all invited to the White House to meet with Obama's

deputy national security adviser, who listens to their

demands for the release of the blind sheik.

By the way, in the hearing last week, when I asked our Secretary of Homeland Security about that incident, widely reported, even the mainstream media was reporting it, that a member of a known terrorist organization was given access to the White House, she indicated that it just wasn't true, apparently, not knowing the news that was happening just across town from her Department.

In any event, back to the article:

July 2012: Obama invites Morsi to visit the White House

this September.

The Muslim Brotherhood's sudden ascendancy in the Mideast

didn't happen organically. It was helped along by a U.S.

President sympathetic to its interests over those of Israel

and his own country.

Now, that's the Investor's Business Daily editorial from July 19 of 2012.

I was shocked to previously find out that it was not until 2009 that our FBI sent a letter saying they were suspending their relationship, one place it referred, I believe the word ``partner'' with CAIR, CAIR being a named co-defendant related to Muslim Brotherhood activity and related to support for terrorism abroad.

It referred to the convictions in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial and the evidence that was introduced at the trial, but what shocked me is that they waited till after a conviction, when the Justice Department was the one that was gathering this evidence. They'd been gathering it for years.

And I was amazed that they seemed surprised--or whether or not they were surprised, they didn't do anything to sever ties with CAIR, which seems to be, with the ACLU, the most influential in getting this administration to purge its training documents for the people that are supposed to protect us, of anything that might be considered offensive to someone who was a Muslim Brotherhood member or Islamist.

Now, I've visited with Muslims abroad. A man named Massoud, whose brother was assassinated just within 36 hours of 9/11, I consider him a friend. He knows about sacrifice.

The State Department said they simply could not spare the security to get me and anyone else to a meeting with our Muslim friends who have fought with Americans, buried their loved ones like Americans have from fighting in Afghanistan, these are our friends. And I told our State Department, that's fine; I talked to Massoud, and he's sending a security vehicle, and I am certainly willing to put my life in his hands because I trust him. He's a Muslim friend.

I told them I was going, after we finished meeting with our troops. And after we met with our troops, I was advised, we've arranged for an American security vehicle to take you, and we have contacted Mr. Massoud to let him know we would get you to the meeting.

We should never be afraid of Muslims, but we should be afraid of Muslim extremists that want to take over our country and destroy our way of life. It is critical that our intelligence, our Justice Department, those who are supposed to be protecting us, even in the White House, that they know the difference between our Muslim friends and those who want to subvert the democracy in America.

I make no apologies for that. I can't. I took an oath to defend this Constitution. I can't apologize for loving America enough that I will recognize those who are Muslim friends and those who are not.

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 9 o'clock and 49 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, July 25, 2012, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mark Helprin is an author who was educated at Harvard, Oxford, Princeton, Columbia, having also served in the British Merchant Navy and Israeli Military. I will simply convey his words in an article first printed in Hillsdale College's Imprimis 3 years before 9/11 propelled us into the realization that we had been at war for over 20 years, but only the other side knew it was a war, and also before we knew how crushing and debilitating our enormous debt would be and has become.

I've shortened the words a bit and provided them here as they express my heart more exquisitely than my own written words could:

When letters took a month by sea and the records of the

United States Government could be moved in a single wagon

pulled by two horses, we had great statesmanship. We had men

of integrity and genius: Washington, Hamilton, Franklin,

Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Monroe. These were men who were in

love with principle, as if it were an art, which in their

practice they made it.

They studied empires that had fallen for the sake of doing

what was right in a small country that had barely risen and

were able to see things so clearly that they surpassed in

greatness each and every one of the classical models that

they had approached in awe.

Now, lost in the sins and complexity of a Xanadu, when we

desperately need their high qualities of thought, their

patience of deliberation and their unerring sense of balance,

we have only what we have, which is a political class that in

the main has abandoned the essential qualities of

statesmanship with the excuse that these are inappropriate to

our age. They are wrong. Not only do they fail to honor the

principles of statesmanship, they fail to recognize them,

having failed to learn them, having failed to want to learn

them.

In the main, they are in it for themselves. Were they not,

they would have a higher rate of attrition, falling with the

colors of what they believe rather than always landing on

their feet--adroitly, but in dishonor. In light of their vows

and responsibilities, this constitutes not merely a failure,

but a betrayal. And it is a betrayal of not only

statesmanship and principle, but of country and kin.

Why is that? It is because things matter. Even though it be

played like a game by men who excel at making it a game, our

life in this country, our history in this country, the

sacrifices that have been made for this country, the lives

that have been given to this country, are not a game. My life

is not a game. My children's lives are not a game. My

parents' lives were not a game. Your life is not a game.

Yes, it's true, we do have accumulated great stores of

power, of wealth, and decency against which those who pretend

to lead us can draw when, as a result of their vanities and

ineptitudes, they waste and expend the gifts of previous

generations. The margin of error bequeathed to them allows

them to present their failures as successes.

They say, as we are still standing, and a chicken is in the

pot, What does it matter if I break the links between action

and consequence, work and reward, crime and punishment, merit

and advancement? I myself cannot imagine a military threat

and never could. So what does it matter if I weld shut the

silo hatches on our ballistic missile submarines? What does

it matter if I weld shut my eyes to the weapons of mass

destruction in the hands of lunatics who are building long-

range missiles?

Our jurisprudence is the envy of the world, so what does it

matter if now and then I perjure myself a little? What is an

oath? What is a pledge? What is a sacred trust? Are not these

things the province of the kinds of people who were foolish

enough to do without all of their lives, to wear ruts in the

Oregon Trail, to brave the seas, to die on the beaches of

Normandy and Iwo Jima, and on the battlefields of Shiloh and

Antietam for me so that I can draw from America's great

accounts and look good, and be Presidential, and have fun in

all kinds of ways?

That is what they say--if not in words, then indelibly in

actions. They who, in robbing Peter to pay Paul, present

themselves as payers and forget that they are also robbers.

They who, with studied compassion, minister to some of us at

the expense of others. They who make goodness and charity a

public profession, depending on their election upon a well-

mannered embrace of these things and the power to move them

not from within themselves or by their own sacrifices but, by

compulsion, from others. They who, knowing very little or

next to nothing, take pride in eagerly telling everyone else

what to do. They who believe absolutely in their recitation

of pieties, not because they believe in the pieties, but

because they believe in themselves.

Nearly 400 years of America's hard-earned accounts, the

principles we established, the battles we fought, the morals

we upheld for century after century, our very humility before

God, now flow promiscuously through our hands like blood onto

sand, squandered and laid waste by a generation that imagines

history to have been but a prelude for what it would

accomplish. More than a pity, more than a shame, it is

despicable. And yet this parlous condition, this agony of

weak men, this betrayal, and this disgusting show are not the

end of things.

Principles are eternal. They stem not from our resolution

or lack of it, but from elsewhere where, in patient and

infinite ranks, they simply wait to be called. They can be

read in history.

They arise as if of their own accord when, in the face of

danger, natural courage comes into play and honor and

defiance are born. Things such as courage and honor are the

mortal equivalent of certain laws written throughout the

universe. The rules of symmetry and proportion, the laws of

physics, the perfection of mathematics, human will, that not

only natural law but our own best aspirations have a life of

their own. They have lasted through far greater abuse than

abuses them now. They can be neglected, but they cannot be

lost. They can be thrown down, but they cannot be broken.

Each of them is a different expression of a single quality,

from which each arises in its hour of need. Some come to the

fore as others stay back, and then, with changing

circumstance, those that have gone unnoticed rise to the

occasion.

Rise to the occasion. The principle suggests itself from a

phrase, and such principles suggest easily and flow

generously. You can grab them out of the air from phrases,

from memories, from images.

A statesman must rise to the occasion. Democrats can do

this. Harry Truman had the discipline of plowing a straight

row 10, 12, and 14 hours a day, of rising and retiring with

the sun, of struggling with temperamental machinery, of

suffering heat and cold and one injury after another. After a

short time on a farm, presumptions about ruling others tend

to vanish. It is as if you are pulled to earth and held

there.

The man who works the land is hard put to think that he

would direct armies and nations. Truman understood the grave

responsibility of being President of the United States, and

that it was a task too great for him or anyone else to

accomplish without doing a great deal of injury--if not to

some, then to others. He understood that, therefore, he had

to transcend himself. There would be little enjoyment of the

job, because he had to be always aware of the enormous

consequences of everything he did. Contrast this with the

unspeakably vulgar pleasure in office of President Clinton.

Truman, absolutely certain that the mantle he assumed was

far greater than he could ever be, was continually and

deliberately aware of the weight of history, the

accomplishments of his predecessors, and, by humble and

imaginative projection, his own inadequacy. The sobriety and

care that derived from this allowed him a rare privilege for

modern Presidents to give to the Presidency more than he took

from it. It is not possible to occupy the Oval Office without

arrogantly looting its assets or nobly adding to them. May

God bless the President who adds to them, and may God condemn

the President who loots them.

America would not have come out of the Civil War as it did

had it not been led by Lincoln and Lee. The battles raged for

5 years, but for 100 years in the country, both North and

South, modeled itself on their character. They exemplified

most perfectly Churchill's statement, ``Public men charged

with the conduct of the war should live in a continual stress

of soul.''

The continual stress of soul is necessary as well in

peacetime, because for every good deed in public life, there

is a counterbalance. Benefits are given only after taxes are

taken. That is part of governance. The statesman, who

represents the whole Nation, sees in the equilibrium for

which he strives a continual tension between victory and

defeat. If he did not understand this, he would have no

stress of soul, he would merely be happy--about money

showered upon the orphan, taken from the widow; about

children sent to day care, so that they may be long absent

from their parents; about merciful parole of criminals, who

kill again. Whereas a statesman knows continual stress of

soul, a politician is happy, for he knows not what he does.

It is difficult for individuals or nations to recognize

that war and peace alternate, but they do. No matter how long

peace may last, it will end in war. Though most people cannot

believe at this moment that the United States of America will

ever actually fight for its survival, history guarantees that

it will. And, when it does, most people will not know what to

do. They will believe of war, as they did of peace, that it

is everlasting.

The statesman, who is different from everyone else, will,

in the midst of common despair, see the end of war, just as

during the peace he was alive to the inevitability of war,

and saw it coming in the far distance, as if it were a gray

wave moving quietly across a dark sea.

The politician will revel with his people and enjoy their

enjoyments. The statesman, in continual stress of soul, will

think of destruction. As others move in the light, he will

move in the darkness, so that as others move in darkness, he

may move in the light. This tenacity, that is given to those

of long and insistent vision, is what saves nations.

A statesman must have a temperament that is suited for the

Medal of Honor, in a soul that is unafraid to die.

Electorates rightly favor those who have endured combat, not

as a matter of reward for service, as is commonly believed,

but because the willingness of the soldier to give his life

is a strong sign of his correct priorities, and that in the

future he will truly understand that statesmen are not rulers

but are servants. It seems clear, even in these years of

squalid degradation, that having risked death for the sake of

honor is better than having risked dishonor for the sake of

life.

No matter what you're told by the sophisticated classes

that see virtue in every form of corruption and corruption in

every form of virtue, I think you know, as I do, that the

American people hunger for acts of integrity and courage. The

American people hunger for a statesman magnetized by the

truth, unwilling to give up his good name, uninterested in

calculation only for the sake of victory, unable to put his

interests before those of the Nation.

What this means in practical terms is no focus groups, no

polls, no triangulation, no evasion, no broken promises, and

no lies. These are the tools of the chameleon. They are

employed to cheat the American people of honest answers to

direct questions. If the average politician, for fear that he

may lose something, is incapable of even a genuine ``yes'' or

``no,'' how is he supposed to rise to the great occasions of

state? How is he supposed to face a destructive and

implacable enemy? How is he supposed to understand the

rightful destiny of his country and lead it there?

At the coronation of an English monarch, he is given a

sword. Elizabeth II took it last, and as she held it before

the altar, she heard these words:

``Receive this kingly sword, brought now from the altar of

God and delivered to you by us, the Bishops and servants of

God, though unworthy. With this sword do justice, stop the

growth of iniquity, protect the holy Church of God, help and

defend widows and orphans, restore the things that are gone

to decay, maintain the things that are restored, punish and

reform what is amiss, and confirm what is in good order; that

doing these things may be glorious in all virtue; and so

faithfully serve our Lord.''

Would that we in America come once again to understand that

statesmanship is not the appetite for power but--because

things matter--a holy calling of self-abnegation and self-

sacrifice. We have made it something else. Nonetheless, after

and despite its betrayal, statesmanship remains the

manifestation, in political terms of beauty, and balance, and

truth. It is the courage to tell the truth, and thus discern

what is ahead. It is a mastery of symmetry of forces,

illuminated by the genius of speaking to the heart of things.

Statesmanship is a quality that, though it may be betrayed,

is always ready to be taken up again merely by honest

subscription to its great themes. Have confidence that even

in idleness its strengths are growing, for it is a

providential gift given to us in times of need. Evidently we

do not need it now, but as the world is forever interesting,

the time will surely come when we do. And then, so help me

God, I believe that, solely by the grace of God, the corrupt

will be thrown down and the virtuous will rise up.

Slavery was an abomination, but statesmen arose and fought until its demise. But 13 years after the foregoing words were first said, we do so desperately need that statesmanship, and God's unmitigated grace, so that His providential gift of this Nation to us may endure for additional generations and, in the process, may God resume blessing these United States of America.

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 1 o'clock and 55 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, July 13, 2012, at 10 a.m.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have had a number of people ask, Why would we have a vote today to repeal ObamaCare when it has been done before?

There had not been a vote taken since the United States Supreme Court said that the administration misrepresented what was really in this bill. It was a tax. We know there have been misrepresentations about different things, but this bill creates a massive tax for the people who can least afford it.

So run the numbers:

If you make $14,856 or more and if you're a single individual, then the chances are you're probably not going to be able to pay for a $12,000 health insurance policy, which is the estimated cost of the insurance policy that is being mandated by the ObamaCare law. If you cannot and if you make more than $14,856--let's say you make $20,000-- and you can't afford the $12,000 for the insurance policy, then you will have an extra annual tax of $371 when the 2\1/2\ percent extra income tax kicks in. If you only make $14,856 and if that's before taxes--take away a hunk of that for income tax, Medicare tax, Social Security tax--then that $371 means a lot. It may mean the difference between being able to fill up a worker's car enough times to get to and from work so he doesn't lose his job.

If you're a family of two and if you make $20,123 or more--if you make $30,000 or anything over $20,123--then you will have an extra 2\1/ 2\ percent tax of $503.

But the more you make over $20,123, the more the tax is. But it's a minimum of $503. If you make $30,657 and you're a family of four, four people living off $30,657 under ObamaCare, if you still cannot afford the $12,000 or so policy that the government mandates under this law, then you will have an additional $766 with which you will not be able to buy food for your family. You'll not be able to buy gas for your car with that extra $766. I don't mean people who make $30,000 and have a family of four have an extra $766. The people I talk to that make that kind of money and have a family of four don't have any extra money, and especially not to pay the extra $766 Obama tax on these individuals.

If you make $41,190 or more and you're a family of six, you will have a minimum $1,030 extra income tax that you will have to pay in order to meet the requirements of ObamaCare and to keep the Obama tax IRS agents off your doorstep. There are thousands and thousands of new IRS agents who will find jobs, even though there's hundreds of thousands in net loss of jobs since this President has taken over. We've lost four more jobs than we've picked up.

At least one piece of good news is that the government has gotten bigger. That's good news for those who love big government. I don't happen to. There's good news for those who love more IRS agents because we're adding thousands and thousands of those who will make sure that if you make $41,190 and you're a family of six, they'll make sure that not only do you have to pay your regular income tax, you will have an added tax, an Obama tax in ObamaCare of $1,030 minimum. Anything you make above $41,190 and you're a family of six or fewer, then you will keep paying more tax the more you make. And that is if you're not able to afford the $12,000 or so average cost that is estimated that the Obama health insurance that's dictated in the ObamaCare bill will require.

If you're a family of eight or more and you make $51,724 or more, you will have a minimum tax of $1,293 on top of regular income tax. Congratulations, that's a gift from the Obama administration and all of those--not a single Republican--on the Democratic side of the aisle that voted to cram down ObamaCare on a Nation where it was clear poll after poll after poll what the people wanted. The American people got it. They did not want the government dictating their health care.

Now we have Chief Justice John Roberts abandoning intellectual integrity with his opinion in pages 11 through 15 and saying clearly this is not a tax, it's a penalty. It's the Obama administration penalizing everybody in America that doesn't buy exactly what the administration says. It's a penalty. Chief Roberts makes it clear the best evidence he says of what it is is Congress' own language. Congress calls it a ``penalty.'' It really is. It just penalizes those who don't do what the Obama administration says.

Then at about the middle of page 15 of the Supreme Court opinion, Chief Justice Roberts says since it's a penalty and not a tax, the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply. So the Supreme Court does have jurisdiction because, as he makes clear, if this were really a tax, the Anti-Injunction Act would apply, and no one could file suit over the ObamaCare bill until 2014. But he says since it's a penalty and not a tax, then we do have jurisdiction, we can proceed now, and we don't have to wait until 2014.

Then he proceeds through the rest of his opinion, after talking about the Commerce Clause, to say that no matter what Congress called it, this is really a tax. Then, of course, he has to also justify why he calls it a penalty for one thing and a tax for another. It is one of the worst written opinions that I've seen.

At least when the liberals on the Supreme Court have written opinions, they've at least been more intellectually consistent than that tragic opinion as written by our Chief Justice. He's a good man. He lost his way. I feel sure that at some point he will find his way back when he realizes what has really occurred.

Today, the ObamaCare bill was debated somewhat further; but yesterday during the debate I heard people on the Democratic side of the aisle who kept saying, No one has lost their insurance. No one will lose their insurance. If you like your insurance, you're not going to lose it. There were people that I have great respect for saying that, and I know they would never intentionally tell something that's false, the key being intentionally.

What it told me is they really don't know; they honestly don't know that people across America have already been losing their insurance that they liked and wanted to keep. They don't know that. So I'm hopeful that people across America, when they've heard over the last few days people saying nobody will lose their insurance, nobody has lost their insurance, that as people continue to and have already lost their insurance, that they will make sure to drop a line or give a call or something and make sure that people here know that, Yes, we have lost our insurance and we liked it. We were okay with it. It was ObamaCare that caused the loss.

We heard people who kept saying we ought to be talking about jobs. I know they're sincere about that. What they don't understand is that this bill is killing jobs. As so many people have said that I've talked to, We are right there at the 50-employee limit under ObamaCare. We don't want to have 50. We're keeping things small. We're not going to hire some folks. We're doing other things because we simply cannot afford to pay that extra $2,000 an employee tax that we get hit with the minute we go over that 50-employee limit.

There are people not being hired. There are people that are losing jobs. Others are saying, We're downscaling. We don't want to be over that 50-employee number so that we can maybe stay competitive in a down economy.

But the trouble is, people are hurting these days. The economy is difficult.

And I've been intrigued, as have people on both sides of the aisle, who let me know that during this time when we have a chance--Democrats for a time, Republicans for a time, back and forth--have a chance to bring things to the floor to get into the Congressional Record and to make public things that others may have missed. I constantly have people say, I had no idea about that until I heard you talking about it on the floor. I was watching C-SPAN.

And I've been told before, Gee, we love it when you're on TV because then we can finally turn you off. Then I have been told by others in some offices here on Capitol Hill that they actually turn up the sound when they see me on.

Whatever the case, Mr. Speaker, this is a wonderful chance to make sure people get information that they don't have time to get otherwise.

We have been hearing a great deal about the photo ID.

In the District of Columbia Federal court here, we have been having a suit between our so-called Department of Justice and Texas over whether Texas can do as Indiana did and require a photo ID in order to vote.

Texas pretty well tracked the Indiana law. It looks like a good law. I read it. I read the Supreme Court opinion that addressed the issue and upheld the law as being a legitimate law.

I don't know that, from reports I heard today, whether or not Texas is trying the case properly, but if they put on the evidence that's available and is quite convincing and clear, there should be no reason for Texas to lose this case that requires a photo ID. If someone cannot afford a photo ID, they can't afford the few dollars for that, then under the Texas law, as the Indiana law, they can simply make that indication, and if you can't pay for it, then you're going to get it free.

There are groups in Texas that have made clear if you can't get to where you need to go to get a photo ID, we'll take you there.

In fact, if this Justice Department had spent a tiny, tiny fraction of the money it has spent on this litigation against Texas, against Florida, and against these other States on just helping people get photo IDs, there wouldn't have been a problem in the world with everybody having a photo ID that needed one.

This article, a July 11, 2012, publication, Katie Pavlich, News Editor, writes:

Earlier today, Attorney General Eric Holder addressed the

NAACP National Convention at the George R. Brown Convention

Center in Houston, Texas. What did media need in order to

attend? That's right, government issued photo identification

(and a second form of identification too!), something both

Holder and the NAACP stand firmly against when it comes to

voting.

Wow, the NAACP and the Attorney General have just disenfranchised a slew of people that probably would have liked to have heard the Attorney General. But they disenfranchised them, said you can't come into the NAACP convention unless you've got a photo ID. You can't come in.

Yet the Attorney General was in court saying that what Texas is doing is wrong, and if it's wrong, why are the NAACP and the Attorney General doing it?

The article says:

All media must present government-issued photo ID (such as

a driver's license) as well as valid media credentials.

Members of the media must RSVP to receive press credentials.

And it gives the website. Then it says:

For security purposes, media check-in and equipment setup

must be completed by 7:45 a.m. CDT for an 8:00 a.m. CDT

security sweep. Once the security sweep is completed,

additional media equipment will NOT be permitted to enter and

swept equipment will NOT be permitted to exit.

But what's sad is these so-called folks that can't get a photo ID that the NAACP and the Attorney General are complaining about, not being able to get one, they can't even get into the convention.

So how is it that these people who say we're out for those that don't have a photo ID really care about those without a photo ID if they won't even let them into their convention?

Continuing:

Ironically, NAACP President Ben Jealous railed against

voter ID just before Holder took the stage.

In the convention they are railing against it, but the people without photo IDs, if there are those who can't get them that really want them, they couldn't get in to hear the speech.

Going on:

The head of the NAACP on Monday likened the group's fight

against conservative-backed voter ID laws that have been

passed in several States to the great civil rights battles of

the 1960s.

Benjamin Todd Jealous, the CEO and president of the

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,

said these are ``Selma and Montgomery times,'' referring to

historic Alabama civil rights confrontations. He challenged

those attending the NAACP's annual convention to redouble

their efforts to get out the vote in November.

``We must overwhelm the rising tide of voting suppression

with the high tide of registration and mobilization and

motivation and protection,'' he said.

``Simply put, the NAACP will never stand by as any State

tries to encode discrimination into law,'' Jealous said.

Well, obviously he doesn't have a chance to get out and see the real news. But in Georgia they passed a photo ID requirement for voters and have had two elections since, and in both those elections minorities have

increased greater than before, and actually increased greater than Anglo voters. There has been no disenfranchisement in Georgia.

So, actually, it turns out that the photo ID has engaged minority voters. The fact is the Voting Rights Amendment is a violation of our United States Constitution until it is applied, section 5 is applied, to every State in the Union.

There were southern States that were guilty of racial suppression in the sixties and prior, and it is an abomination to this Nation that such occurred, not nearly as much as slavery, but it's still an abomination. It still should not have been happening. The Voting Rights Act has done a great deal toward eliminating that.

But, unfortunately, under the Voting Rights Act, atypical of most things in America, once you improve your State to the place where there is no problem, you still are not out from under punishment, the penalty of section 5, because of what happened in the 1960s and before.

So, States have complained, look, you know, we fix things. We're doing good. In fact, we are doing better than so many districts in other parts of the country that are not under section 5 that's so punitive.

Some of us couldn't help but wonder, when a big majority on both sides of the aisle voted to extend the Voting Rights Act, including section 5 that got even tougher for another 25 years, why they wouldn't have supported the Gohmert amendment. The Gohmert amendment said, look, section 5, punitive provisions ought to apply to every district, every State in the country. Failure to do so is a violation of equal protection.

Why is it that districts in other parts of the country, north, east, west, are allowed to grow into racial disparity and suppression of minority vote but they're not treated with section 5, whereas States that have been under that punitive provision can't ever get out from under it even though they are better off than other parts of the country?

Well, the reason, it seems to be--you wonder, why would people vote? Why not vote to do it across the country? If it's good for these States that have proved better than our own State, why should it not apply to everyone? And I still ask that question. The only thing you wonder is we had the power to ram this down on these States punitively, so we did. The last thing we wanted was any of those punitive provisions applying to our States or our districts where disparity is more a problem than those original areas.

So, I don't know. I wonder if at some point we're going to have a rush of the bipartisan leadership that pushed that through to come back and say, You know what, Louie, you're right. If it applies to southern States, it ought to apply to everybody. It ought to apply to those districts that have more of a racial problem than there has been or exists now in those States that are treated punitively.

Well, we'll see.

We've also heard about the loving relationship, as this administration says, with such a great ally as Israel. And it defies explanation. This is from Breitbart, William Bigelow, dated 10 July 2012:

How much does Barack Obama hate Israel and want to throw

her under the bus? Here's how much: the Obama administration

not only excluded Israel from a new counterterrorism forum in

Spain; it didn't even mention Israel in its remarks. If there

were ever a country that has dealt with murderous terrorist

attacks over and over again, that country would have to be

Israel.

Here's what Marie Otero, the State Department's Under

Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy and Human Rights,

said:

``Last September at the official launch of the Global

Counterterrorism Forum, I had the privilege to introduce the

premiere of a film `Hear Their Voices,' which tells the

stories of 11 survivors of terrorist attacks from Pakistan,

Jordan, Northern Ireland, Uganda, Turkey, Indonesia, India,

Spain, Colombia, and the United States. The film, which was

produced by the Global Survivors Network, is a powerful plea

for audiences around the world, especially those sympathetic

to the grievances expressed by extremists, to recognize the

human cost of terrorism, and I am delighted that our Spanish

hosts are planning on showing this film here later this

afternoon.''

When Secretary of State Clinton announced the coalition's

formation in June, she didn't include Israel on her list of

countries that suffer from terrorist attacks.

How could Secretary Clinton not immediately think of Israel as a country that suffers from terrorist attacks when they have bombs, they have rockets flying into Israel every day?

Defenders of Israel were furious, even those who were

Democrats. Josh Block, a Democratic strategist and a former

spokesman for AIPAC, said, ``When the administration promised

to include Israel in the counterterrorism forum that the

United States founded--after Jerusalem's inexplicable

exclusion from the initial meeting a month ago--one would

think that they would be true to their word. Clearly, someone

failed here. How Israel could be excluded from another

meeting of an anti-terror forum that we in the United States

chair is beyond comprehension, especially one that focuses on

victims of terrorism. At a time when Romney is challenging

the administration's record on U.S.-Israel relations, this

error stands out.''

First of all, Mr. Block, no one failed here. Obama

succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.

Later in the article:

Jonathan Schanzer, vice president for research at the

Foundation of Defense of Democracies, said, ``What we're

seeing is a trend of Israel being left out of the global

discussion on terrorism, while Israel was extremely helpful

during the beginning stages of this conversation. The Obama

administration is downplaying the struggle that Israel has

been enduring. I believe to a certain extent this is due to

regional politics, and it's disconcerting to see this change.

It just looks like a quiet effort to downplay the issue.''

The State Department would not answer questions about the

matter.

Pretty tragic how this State Department, how this administration could continue to exclude Israel from counterterrorism discussions about countries who have been victims of terrorism.

Here is an interesting additional article. We had another hearing today in one of our Judiciary Committees. It caused us to think again about Fast and Furious, never far from your mind when you know there are guns out there still being used to kill innocent people that were put there, forced there, by this administration. This article, dated July 6 from Deroy Murdock, National Review Online--and I'm not going to read the whole article, but a significant part is important to note.

Mr. Murdock writes:

While Brian Terry is the most visible victim of this

notorious policy, he is not its sole casualty.

On February 15, 2011, U.S. Immigration and Customs

Enforcement agent Jaime Zapata, 32, was shot mortally in San

Luis Potosi, Mexico. Members of Los Zetas drug gang also hit

ICE agent Victor Avila in that ambush, although not fatally.

This assault involved a rifle purchased in Dallas in another

Obama administration ``gunwalking'' escapade.

Largely overlooked is this plan's calamitous impact on

Mexico, its people, and U.S.-Mexican relations. Fast and

Furious has spilled American blood. But south of the border,

it has made blood gush like an oil strike.

``One of the things that's so offensive about this case is

that our Federal Government knowingly, willfully,

purposefully, gave the drug cartels nearly 2,000 weapons--

mainly AK-47s--and allowed them to walk,'' Representative

Jason Chaffetz told NBC News. These arms were supplied to

lead Federal agents in Phoenix to the Mexican thugs who

acquired them. Instead, Fast and Furious guns melted into

Mexico without a trace.

And I add, parenthetically, because they were never intended to be followed. And that was clear.

Back to the article:

These weapons became invisible, but not silent.

The 300 Mexicans or so that have died as a result of this also deserve attention and what it's done to our American-Mexican relations needs great sympathy and heartfelt apologies.

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 6 o'clock and 47 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, July 12, 2012, at 9 a.m.

I can verify that there are people who have already lost their insurance because of ObamaCare. It has happened. It was not and is not

true that if you like your insurance, you can keep it. People have already lost doctors who were assured if you like your doctor, you can keep him. That was simply not true.

We were told there would be no tax. And we know from the Supreme Court that's not true. And in fact, in the bill itself one of the most devastating things coming from people who say they want to help the working poor, if you're a single individual and you're making 133 percent of the poverty level, if you're making $14,000 and you can't afford a $12,000 health insurance policy, you're going to be fined 2.5 percent over the next 3 years. It will build to 2.5 percent. It is a tax. It will devastate. If you make $40,000, a family of four, five or six, $1,000 fine because you can't afford a $12,000 policy. That, on top of the government running everything in this $2,500 bill. That's why we've got to repeal it--for the good of the people.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letter.

Office of the Governor,

July 9, 2012.

Hon. Kathleen Sebelius,

Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Sebelius: In the ObamaCare plan, the

federal government sought to force the states to expand their

Medicaid programs by in the words of the Supreme Court

putting a gun to their heads. Now that the ``gun to the

head'' has been removed, please relay this message to the

President: I oppose both the expansion of Medicaid as

provided in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

and the creation of a so-called ``state'' insurance exchange,

because both represent brazen intrusions into the sovereignty

of our state.

I stand proudly with the growing chorus of governors who

reject the PPACA power grab. Thank God and our nation's

founders that we have the right to do so.

Neither a ``state'' exchange nor the expansion of Medicaid

under the Orwellian-named PPACA would result in a better

``patient protection'' or in more ``affordable care.'' What

they would do is make Texas a mere appendage of the federal

government when it comes to health care.

The PPACA does not truly allow states to create and operate

their own exchanges. Instead, it gives the federal government

the final say as to which insurance plans can operate in a

so-called ``state'' exchange, what benefits those plans must

provide, and what price controls and cost limits will apply.

It leaves many questions to be answered later through federal

``future rulemaking.'' In short, it essentially treats the

states like subcontractors through which the federal

government can control the insurance markets and pursue

federal priorities rather than those of the individual

states.

Through its proposed expansion of Medicaid, the PPACA would

simply enlarge a broken system that is already financially

unsustainable. Medicaid is a system of inflexible mandates,

one-size-fits-all requirements, and wasteful, bureaucratic

inefficiencies. Expanding it as the PPACA provides would only

exacerbate the failure of the current system, and would

threaten even Texas with financial ruin.

I look forward to implementing health care solutions that

are right for the people of Texas. I urge you to support me

in that effort. In the meantime, the PPACA's unsound

encroachments will find no foothold here.

Sincerely,

Rick Perry,

Governor.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These can be the best of times and the worst of times. There is still so much potential. This country has so much in the way of assets. It is interesting to hear my friends across the aisle talk about the wonders of ObamaCare, but I know this President has said before: if you make more than $250,000, you won't ever have your taxes raised. I won't ever raise your taxes.

He has said it a lot of different ways. Yet, when I read his version of the American Jobs Act, which he, himself, pushed for, promulgated, demanded be passed, it actually raised taxes on everybody who made more than $125,000. So he broke the promise there.

In ObamaCare, it's very clear that, if you make just above the poverty line and if you can't afford the kind of Cadillac insurance that is demanded that you purchase, you're going to get hammered with a tax, and it will ultimately be 2\1/2\ percent in extra income tax. He basically has pushed through a bill that makes war with those who can least afford to buy health insurance--adding a 2\1/2\ percent tax to the people who are the most vulnerable and hardworking folks. They're just trying to get by, and they're going to have to pay an extra 2\1/2\ percent in income tax?

Now, the enlightened Chief Justice explains through pages 11 through 15 of his opinion that it's actually not a tax, that it's clearly a penalty because, if you don't buy the insurance at the high level the government will dictate, then it will be necessary for you to pay an extra hunk of income tax--those who are the hardworking, least able to afford it. I don't see how anybody can say, It's great, and a happy day for you.

If you go through the rest of his opinion, of course he says the Commerce Clause doesn't make the ObamaCare bill constitutional; but then he gets around to saying, Well, regardless of what Congress called it--you know,

they called it a penalty--we'll just say it's a penalty for the purposes of jurisdiction so that it allows us to take up the case; but for purposes of whether or not it's constitutional, we'll call it what it is--a tax. It's one of the worst decisions this Chief Justice has ever made, and it's one of the worst I've ever read--poorly written by a man who should have known better.

But this administration has broken so many promises. It had negotiations with Egyptian leader Mubarak. We are certainly ready to throw him under the bus just as they have our allies, the Northern Alliance, that successfully fought and defeated the Taliban within a matter of months with our assistance but with less than 500 U.S. military in country. Now, after the President added troops and we had over 100,000 troops, this administration is ready to turn the country over to President Karzai and the Taliban. The Taliban has been on national television, saying, Hey, obviously, by virtue of the Obama administration's begging us to come to the table, promising they'll release some of our murdering thugs from confinement and that they'll buy us first-class offices in Qatar, well, gee, it's obvious to the world, they've said, that the United States has lost the war in Afghanistan.

Congratulations, President Barack Obama, for making it clear to the Taliban that you have lost the war for us.

Now we are advised the President has invited Egypt's Islamist leader to the United States. Past administrations have recognized the Muslim Brotherhood's end goal of a giant, worldwide caliphate where we all fall prey under sharia law and where we all have freedom, but that freedom is to only worship Allah and where we have justice but that justice is only under sharia; and this administration is embracing them wholeheartedly.

In this article of July 8, Sunday, from Business and Financial News, it headlines: ``Obama Invites Egypt's Islamist Leader to U.S.'' It talks about how President Barack Obama has invited Egypt's newly elected Islamist President, Mohamed Morsi, to visit the United States in September.

It reads:

Washington, long weary of Islamists and an ally of ousted

President Hosni Mubarak, shifted policy last year to open

formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood, the group behind

Morsi's win.

It reads:

Morsi formally resigned from the group after his victory,

but nowhere is there an indication that Egypt's new President

has disavowed the effort to make the United States, which

they've called the Great Satan, subservient to sharia law.

In fact, as to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's leader as posted yesterday in The Blaze:

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood chairman, Muhammad Badi, also

known as the group's ``Supreme Guide''--this would be the

Supreme Guide over the newly elected Egyptian leader--said

last week that waging jihad against Israel is an imperative

for every Muslim. Middle East watcher Raymond Ibrahim, who

scours the Arabic press and translates it to English for

Western eyes, posted this revelation on his blog.

Then it sets out this quote:

According to last Thursday's edition of Al Wafd, during his

weekly sermon, ``Muhammad Badi, the Muslim Brotherhood's

Supreme Guide, confirmed the necessity for every Muslim to

strive to save al-Quds--and that's Jerusalem--from the hands

of the rapists--Israelis--and to cleanse Palestine from the

clutches of the occupation, deeming this an individual duty

for all Muslims.''

More specifically, he ``called on all Muslims to wage jihad with their money and their selves to free al-Quds''--or Jerusalem--the same, exact language one finds in al Qaeda's tracts.

The article goes on that earlier this year the Middle East Research Institute translated a sermon of bodies in which he called for ``gradually establishing a global Islamic caliphate leading to `mastership of the world.' ''

``Mastership of the world'' is what's in quotes.

It is interesting, because it hasn't been that long ago. This was posted by my friend Patrick Poole, July 5, 2012. It says, ``Rewind-- 2010: Egypt's prez Morsi called for expulsion of U.S. ambassadors across Middle East.'' Patrick Poole says:

While doing a bit of filing in the office yesterday, I came

across a September 2010 Reuters article of more recent

interest.

You might recall that was the time when Terry Jones, in

Florida, was threatening to burn a Koran on the 9/11

anniversary and had the whole Muslim world in an uproar--

before he had even committed the act (which happened several

months later).

In the mere contemplation of such an action by Terry Jones,

the Muslim Brotherhood was calling on all Muslim countries to

expel all U.S. Ambassadors. And who was making this call?

According to Reuters:

Mohammad Mursi, spokesman for Egypt's influential Muslim

Brotherhood, said the organization was calling for pressure

on all Muslim governments to expel U.S. Ambassadors.

Yes, this is what we want to encourage, this type of leader. We want to tell the world by this President's open arms at the White House--not with the ill treatment previously of Prime Minister Netanyahu--but with open arms, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood who never disclaimed the desire to make us subservient to shari'a law, bringing him to the White House.

As some of us travel around and speak to different people around the world, those who are truly fighting for freedom--and not the freedom the Muslim Brotherhood talks about, where it is freedom only to worship Allah; freedom truly to make choices about who one worships or whether one worships at all. They say when the United States invites someone and shows hospitality to people in the world, the rest of the world gets the message that the conduct of those individuals they are inviting and embracing and having smiling pictures with, that their conduct is a good thing.

When this country's leaders embrace leaders of other countries, it tells the world this is what we think in America is the way to act, the way to be, the thing to do. That it is very deflating. Having talked to Iranian refuges in northern Iraq, they just get devastated when they see an American leader being so chummy with people they know embrace terrorism, that have no problem with terrorist activities to promote Islam spreading around the world.

This President should be far more careful about who he encourages and who he discourages, because the true friends of liberty around the world, who stood up to Syria's leader, they were not embraced by this President. There was no statement from this President of: Let's do for the protesters and the rebels in Syria what I demanded we did in Libya. There was nothing like that.

We've sent Secretary of State Clinton over to the Middle East. There have been statements that we don't like what you're doing, but nothing like what this White House did when they cut the legs out from Mubarak who at least tried to keep the peace with Israel to some extent and what he did in actually providing bombs and air cover to take out Qadhafi in Libya.

We knew at the time the Muslim Brotherhood will probably take over Egypt, that they have called us the great Satan. We knew in Libya that there were even al Qaeda who want to bring about this Nation's end violently, and yet this President embraced those al Qaeda rebels, along with the other rebels in Libya, dropped bombs, and provided air cover.

None of that has been done for Syria. It's a little bit strange because much of the world considers Syria's leader to be a mere puppet of the Iranian terrorist leaders. Certainly Russia, who has shown great hostility to some of the things we deem to be appropriate liberty, they embrace the actions of the Syrian leader.

Where was this President when there were true freedom seekers stepping up and being killed? Was he giving a pretty speech?

Another article that was in The Blaze, July 8, says:

The Jerusalem Post explains:

Washington, long wary of Islamists and a former ally of

ousted President Hosni Mubarak, shifted policy last year to

open formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood, the group

behind Mursi's win.

Mursi's success at the polls mirrors the rising influence

of Islamists in countries across the Middle East and North

Africa in the wake of revolts and protests against autocratic

rulers who have led the region for decades.

But the Obama administration has invited Egypt's new Islamist leader, Mohammed Mursi, to visit the United States in September, according to an

Egyptian official, clearly reflecting Washington's changing view of Islamists and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Here is another article, posted April 26 of this year, from The Blaze. It is entitled, ``Want to Know Just How Close the Muslim Brotherhood is to the Obama Administration?'' It says:

On Wednesday evening, GBTV unveiled a powerful documentary,

``Rumors of War III,'' exposing how radical Islamists,

including the Muslim Brotherhood, are infiltrating American

Government at its highest levels. Above is a video clip from

the program outlining some of the key players involved.

It goes on:

Arif Alikahn, Former Department of Homeland Security

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development: Now a

Distinguished Visiting Professor of DHS and Counterterrorism

at the National Defense University, Alikahn also served as

Deputy Mayor for Public Safety for the City of Los Angeles,

where he reportedly derailed the LAPD's efforts to monitor

the city's Muslim community--particularly its radical mosques

and madrassas where certain 9/11 hijackers were said to have

received support. He is affiliated with MPAC, which has

called the terrorist group Hezbollah a ``liberation

movement.''

It goes on to establish some of the ties of this administration with members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

It was intriguing to me, when I asked our own Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, how many members of the Muslim Brotherhood were on her countering violent terrorism--violent extremism--sorry. She can't use the word ``terrorism.'' She couldn't tell me whether 10 were Muslim Brotherhood or not. She didn't know.

Some of these things for some of us bring back memories of occurrences back from the late seventies when our own President Jimmy Carter, who has to be encouraged by this President's administration-- because many people have said they thought he had the worst Presidency in history and did so much damage to international affairs--when you look at what this administration has done.

I mean, to the extent that an African from West Africa, elderly gentleman, but full of wisdom, wanted to meet me and visit when I was there a couple of years ago.

He said, we were very excited that you elected a black man as your President, but we have seen America appear to grow weaker and weaker in the eyes of most people. He asked that I come back and convey--and I have on more than one occasion--that you must not allow the United States to grow weak. Those of us who are Christian in foreign countries rely on the United States' strength to keep us somewhat safe.

If you let the world think that the United States is weak, or become weak, then many of us have no hope of being safe in this life. This country has to stand strong, and we have seen it grow weaker and weaker in the eyes of the world.

There's an article that's reprinted July 9, today, in Human Events, which was originally by Robert Spencer back February 14 of this year. He said:

Last week the Egyptian government announced that it intends

to put 19 Americans on trial for fomenting antigovernment

protests, a charge they deny. Protests from the Obama

administration have so far been futile, met with sneers of

contempt.

If you're of a certain age, this should sound familiar. On

November 4, 1979, Iranian thugs stormed the U.S. Embassy in

Tehran and took 52 Americans hostage. Jimmy Carter's

government wrung its hands in futility for the next 14

months, until finally the Islamist Republic released the

hostages January 20, 1981, the day Ronald Reagan took office

as President of the United States.

The bitter irony in all that was that Carter had betrayed

the Shah of Iran, a longtime U.S. ally, and thereby paved the

way for the ascent to power of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the

Iranian mullahcracy that has ruled Iran ever since. Rather

than feel gratitude toward Carter, however, Khomeini viewed

his abandonment of the Shah as a sign of weakness and pressed

forward with his jihad against the Great Satan.

Iran has been hostile towards the United States since then,

including gleeful predictions of our Nation's imminent

demise. Just days ago, Iran's Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah

Khamenei, declared to an enthusiastic Tehran crowd, that ``in

light of the realization of the divine promise by almighty

God, the Zionists and the Great Satan (America) will soon be

defeated. Allah's promises will be delivered, and Islam will

be victorious.''

The original Ayatollah Khomeini, not Khamenei, was said by Jimmy Carter to be a man, a fellow man of faith. Well, he has a different kind of faith, and we have soldiers still dying today because the United States of America allowed some Iranian thugs, terrorists, to commit an act of war by attacking an American embassy, taking Americans hostage, and did nothing to defend our territory.

I was at Fort Benning at the time. We were put on alert. Nobody wanted to go to Iran, but everybody expected, surely we will do something to show these Islamist jihadists, these thugs, that you cannot commit an act of war against the United States and not pay a price. Because as the United States Government, we have a duty to provide for the common defense. We have a duty to protect American property.

When American property is attacked, and under everybody's interpretation of international, an embassy is that country's own property, we let it go without anything but weak-kneed responses, and we are paying the price today. But we see this President who thinks a wonderful speech--and he's good at them, he reads them so well and throwing in constant apologies to people who want to destroy us and see us wiped off the map--will somehow engender love and devotion from people who want to destroy us.

It doesn't work that way internationally. We have a duty to protect this Constitution, and we are not doing so in embracing enemies of this country who still have not disclaimed the pledge, the effort to see this country overthrown.

There was a time when Presidents would view people who have made such claims and pledges or been part of terrorist organizations, we would not embrace such individuals, because we know the harm it does to our allies.

One article from a guy named Michael D. Evans says:

Carter viewed Khomeini as a religious holy man in a

grassroots revolution, rather than a founding father of

modern terrorism who introduced the Islamofascist ideology we

are fighting today in the world war on terrorism.

As Henry Kissinger said, ``Carter has managed the

extraordinary feat of having, at one and the same time, the

worst relations with our allies, the worst relations with our

adversaries, and the most serious upheavals in the developing

world since the end of the Second World War.''

That was then, and now we have another President doing the very same thing.

There was an article from The New York Times back in June of 2001:

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel will meet with

President Bush at the White House next week, the second time

the two have held face-to-face discussions since Mr. Sharon's

election.

In contrast, Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, has not

been invited to Washington by the Bush administration, and

officials made clear today that they had no plans to do so in

the near future. So far the administration has kept Mr.

Arafat at arm's length, a stark difference from President

Clinton, who brought the Palestinian leader to the White

House more than any other foreign leader.

Those messages are not missed by allies and enemies alike around the world.

There is another article, this is from The New York Times, posted today:

In his first major speech last month, Mohamed Morsi, the

new Egyptian president, pledged to seek the release of a

notorious Egyptian terrorist from a North Carolina prison.

Not long before that, a member of a designated terrorist

organization, Gamaa al-Islamiyya--who also happens to be a

recently elected member of the Egyptian Parliament--was

welcomed to Washington as part of an official delegation

sponsored by the State Department.

``Obama administration officials made no public comment on Mr. Morsi's promise and struggled to explain why the Egyptian Parliament member, Hani Nour Eldin, got a visa''--since after all he was a member of a designated terrorist organization. But he got not only a visa, he got entrance into our most secure administration dwellings.

The article says that the administration cited privacy rules, ``declining to say whether he had been granted a waiver from the ban on such visitors or whether his affiliation simply escaped notice.''

Pressed by reporters after the visa quickly became a

congressional controversy, a State Department spokeswoman,

Victoria J. Nuland, said Mr. Eldin had been judged to pose no

threat to the United States.

``It's a new day in Egypt,'' she added.

``It's a new day in a lot of countries across the Middle

East and North Africa.''

And I might add, it was a new day in Iran when the Ayatollah Khomeini took over and President Carter welcomed him as a fellow man of faith.

This article from the Times goes on:

For the Obama administration, as it navigates the

tumultuous effects of the Arab spring, it's a complicated day

as well. Long-held assumptions about who is a friend of the

United States and who is not have been upset, leaving

Americans confused.

Well, it's leaving not only Americans confused; it's leaving our allies confused. We have people around the world who have fought with us, they have fought for us, and this administration has turned its back on them. You can go to the country of Afghanistan and some terrible killings have once again occurred. We know that Pakistan, according to the people I've talked to traveling around Afghanistan, Pakistan is basically the biggest source of supplies, reinforcement, or help to the Taliban. And what do we do? We have our Secretary of State apologize to the country who kept our country's biggest enemy, the mastermind behind the killing of more Americans than any other attack in our history on our soil, and they protected him. And they kept him protected. And we are supposed to apologize to Pakistan? Well, this administration did.

And when our soldiers, our military suffered attacks from a certain area there adjoining Pakistan, and apparently in Pakistan, they finally responded to protect themselves, and we have to apologize for people dying who were in the area where attacks were emanating against our own soldiers. We have to apologize to a country who is supplying and funding the Taliban that's killing American soldiers.

Yeah, it's confusing to Americans and it's confusing to our allies. And that's why, when a handful of us were in Afghanistan in April, we were a little surprised that this administration did not want us to meet with our Northern Alliance friends, among them General Dostum. Instead, this administration prefers to address them as war criminals. Yeah, they fight tough. They defeated the Taliban. They fight like the Taliban. And they have no interest in losing because they know it means they lose their lives, they lose their homes, they lose their country. So they fight viciously.

And we were able to take out the Taliban initially with a few hundred soldiers. Less than 500 Americans. We had intelligence. We had special ops. We provided air cover, provided some weapons. And the Taliban was routed. We had a hundred thousand or so military into Afghanistan. We've become occupiers. Occupiers don't do well in that part of the world. Yet this administration continually throws our allies under the bus, thinking if we just embrace our enemies, if we make a great speech, maybe if I read from the teleprompters effectively enough, then they'll see how wonderful I am and America is and they'll come fall and embrace us and just want to provide us nothing but love and affection.

It's an unrealistic view of the world. And yes, I'm a Christian and I believe everyone should be free to worship or not worship as they please. But that is not the case in Egypt right now. It's not the case in Libya right now. It's not the case in Afghanistan right now. It's not the case anywhere in any country where sharia is the law. We want Muslims, we want atheists to be free to worship, not worship. This is America. But any group, whether atheists or any other religion in the world that attempts to force us to comply with their religious laws, should not be tolerated.

Some say you've got a bunch of xenophobes and Islamaphobes. It's interesting that the term Islamaphobe basically was generated by the Organization of Islamic Council, the OIC, that has 50 States--no, wait. They've got 57 States and we've got 50; or we've got 57 and they've got 50. I get confused. Somebody on CNN said, Well, the only reason the President said the U.S. had 57 States is he was tired. So maybe I'm just tired. I can't remember who has 57, who has 50. Some people don't understand sarcasm either.

But the OIC promulgated that term and they've given millions and millions and millions of dollars to universities in America, including some Ivy League schools. They're not Islamaphobes. They have sold their soul for money. Sure, if you will give us millions, you bet you-- hundreds of thousands even--we'll teach a course on Islamaphobia. We'll denigrate other religions. We'll denigrate the Founders. We'll denigrate those who would lay down their lives for this country's freedom, and we'll call them Islamaphobes.

Well, there's no Islamaphobia here. That's why I told the security detail at the American Embassy in Afghanistan's capital, when I was told I was not going to be able to go meet our allies at the Massoud residence, our friend Massoud knows something about sacrifice. His brother possibly could have united Afghanistan, but was assassinated a day or so before 9/11 because the Taliban knew that he might be able to unite the country. And if the United States figured out this is where the attack emanated, training emanated from, then they may come. So they assassinated my friend's brother.

General Dostum, who led that gallant charge uphill against the Taliban in the face of RPGs and bullets flying, offered to take me on horseback to reenact that internationally famous battle uphill against all odds. What courage on our behalf and on behalf of people who want freedom in Afghanistan. I was certainly willing--I have grown up riding horses--until the interpreter told me, You do understand, they don't have leather saddles. They're all wood. That kind of changed my desire to do that.

But General Dostum, Massoud, these great Northern Alliance leaders that fought for us, who lost friends and family fighting with us and for us, have been thrown under the bus. But as I told the head of the security detail there, I was going to meet our friends at the Massoud residence. And after I was told we couldn't go, I let them know that I had talked to my friend Mr. Massoud and that they were sending secured vehicles to pick me up and at least two or three other Members of Congress that would go. And when I was told that would not be secure, we couldn't do that, I made clear that they would have to take me down before I got to the gate of the Embassy compound, because I was going, and that I would do that after our next meeting with our soldiers-- American soldiers. After the meeting, I was told, We've arranged security for you to go to the meeting so you don't have to ride with the Massoud security folks.

We had a good meeting. It was great to see them. They have trouble understanding why this administration has forsaken them, our allies. I don't hear anybody here calling this administration Islamophobes because they have thrown our Muslim friends under the bus. But they are the enemy of our enemy, the Taliban. And this administration, this President, has made clear to this corrupt regime over there that, look, we're going to be out on this day certain; you'll be on your own for the military.

Well, now, they're negotiating some kind of deal where we may provide some help. But Karzai, for all the things he is, he is not totally stupid. He is not a stupid man. And he knows if all our soldiers are gone, and with all the support that Pakistan has given the Taliban, then the Taliban is going to be there. They will be as vicious as they have in the past, and he'd better make some peace with the Taliban. That's why they've been allowed such freedom in the Afghan capital to the point that the Taliban leader would tell and proclaim, yes, we all can see because the U.S., because the Obama administration is begging them to come negotiate and we'll buy them things, we'll release their thugs that have killed Americans, killed innocents, but we'll release them, we'll do whatever. You just come talk to us.

It's obvious to the world that we've lost. This administration is sending dangerous signals to our allies that you cannot trust this country as an ally of this country. You'd better watch your back. So when this administration says, we've got your back, you better be wearing something that will stop a knife because it could be forthcoming. As President Mubarak found, as the Northern Alliance found, as freedom lovers in Iran have found, as freedom desirers at Camp Ashraf have found, and as some of our allies in Israel have found, this administration is the first American administration to vote with Israel's enemies a couple of years ago when we voted with Israel's

enemies to require them to disclose their weaponry.

So it's confusing to people around the world. Should we take a chance on being a friend to America because a year or two later they may embrace our enemies and throw us under the bus?

I do believe in the teachings of Jesus. I do believe in the teachings and have been there where they say it's pretty certain this is where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount and told us who it was who was blessed. So some say, well, shouldn't our government turn the other cheek? Blessed are those who mourn. Shouldn't we be the peacemakers? Yes, we should be the peacemakers. But as a government, we have a different obligation. Ours is to protect our people. We are to protect those who live in America, who have trusted us to be their public servants so that they can live out the beatitudes if they choose, so that they can live out and follow the teachings of whatever religious leader they choose. But they can't do that unless we keep them safe.

I'm reading a book that I started yesterday called ``The Harbinger.'' It indicates God withdrew His hand from our protection on 9/11. There are interesting things in that book. It's time we look at the signs and we understand from world history that you don't turn on your allies and embrace your enemies and expect to save your country. You convince others who might be tempted to be your allies not to be. You teach your enemies that you are weak in the same way individuals on a school playground do not convince a bully that they are strong when they start giving gifts to the bully and try to buy the bully's kindness and respect because what it buys is not respect, it is contempt. And that is the way this country is now viewed around the world.

If you are evil in the world, just as Romans 13 points out, if you do evil, you should be afraid because this government does not have the sword in vain. We owe a duty to freedom-loving people around the world not to become weak but to protect freedom here so others can enjoy freedom other places knowing that the United States of America does not embrace and fall in love with terrorists or terrorist organizations or leaders of terrorist groups. We fight them, and we embrace those who love peace, not terrorism; and we make the world and this country safer in so doing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will include in the Record a letter. This is Act for America. I brought this up before, but because we have rules that don't allow things that include too many pages, we had to revisit the issue because there are so many thousands and thousands of signatures. It can be found at this Web site for Act for America. This is a petition and a letter sent to the Honorable Joseph Lieberman, the Honorable Patrick Leahy, the Honorable Dianne Feinstein, the Honorable Peter King, the Honorable Lamar Smith, and the Honorable Mike Rogers. It's signed online by thousands and thousands of verified signatures, and those can be found from Act for America, Pensacola, Florida.

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

ACT! for America,

Pensacola, FL, July 9, 2012.

Hon. Louie Gohmert,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Gohmert: Attached, please find an ACT! for

America Open Letter to targeted members of the U.S. Congress.

The letter has been signed by over 21,000 Americans--all of

whom are very concerned with ongoing actions by the FBI

related to the language of the agency's counterterrorism

training materials.

ACT! for America shares the concerns of some Members of

Congress, yourself included, that the ongoing purge of

counterterrorism training materials used by the FBI as well

as state and local law enforcement is a danger to our nation.

Further, we see these actions as a continuation of concerted

efforts to manipulate, if not altogether eliminate, a clear

definition of the threat that radical Islam poses to our

nation.

We hope this letter will serve as a useful token of the

concern the American people have for this issue as well. It

also may be found on our website: http://www.act

foramerica.com/index.php/fbi-petition.

Thank you very much for all of your efforts in the United

States Congress. The 240,000 members of ACT! for America

stand with you every step of the way.

With warm regards,

Lisa Piraneo,

Director of Government Relations,

ACT! for America.

Enclosure.

ACT! for America,

Pensacola, FL.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 48 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, July 10, 2012, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

It's always an honor to speak before the House of Representatives, a great storied history here, just as the Supreme Court has a great storied history. There's some moments in time with regard to the United States Supreme Court which show it to have consisted of a bastion of strong-willed, determined, principled, constitutionally minded Justices. There are other times when the Supreme Court has shown itself to consist of some great judges and some who are more interested in politics, more interested in feathering their friends' nests than they are in doing what was right under the Constitution, even though it was easy enough for them to rationalize that, gee, if they did what helped their friends, then obviously that would make it better for the whole country.

I think we get some of that rationalization from this administration. Gee, if they just throw billions or hundreds of billions of dollars at friends, then their friends will do better. And if their friends are doing better, surely the rest of the country would. We have also found that to be true with regard to things like Solyndra and the massive number of other cronies of the administration that have received hundreds of billions of dollars over time and also at a time when this country is sorely hurting from overspending and running up debt.

In fact, today we had a bill regarding transportation and a conference report. I know my friend John Mica from Florida worked exceedingly hard, as had other members of Transportation, trying to reach an agreement with the conference report. It looked like the Senate got the better end of the deal. But I know these people, I know their hearts, and I know they try to do what is right for America when it comes to Chairman Mica and those who are assisting him.

But, nonetheless, we heard our friends across the aisle over and over today talk about how critically important infrastructure is, how we ought to be spending money, and how just $1 billion added to the transportation budget could really make a tremendous difference. I hearken back to a year-and-a-half ago when the President of the United States, Barack Obama, had told people that if you will give me basically a trillion--whether it's $800 billion, $900 billion, apparently it looked more like a trillion dollars by the time it was finished--you just hand me over a trillion bucks and we'll get this economy going. If you don't give it to me, then it will turn out that we may see as high as 8.5 percent unemployment. But if you do give it to me, we'll never see 8.

Of course, he was wrong that we would never see 8 percent unemployment. We've gone for many months--I guess that was 3\1/2\ years ago now--that he was telling us about his big stimulus. How quickly time flies.

As the transportation proponents were pushing their bill today and talking about what the good infrastructure will do, many of us believed that was true back in January of 2009, that it would be good. If we're going to spend money on anything, spend it on the things that we really need to do: bridges, roads, all these things that need construction, need renovation.

So the President sold America largely on his stimulus because we're going to fix all the infrastructure in America. But the last 3\1/2\ years have borne out that the President did not spend $800 billion, $900 billion on infrastructure. He spent maybe 6 percent of the largest giveaway in American history. He surpassed the terrible mistake that TARP was--$700 billion. And we haven't been able to get an exact number, but of the $700 billion, it may be $450 billion-or-so that his administration inherited. So when you get the $800 billion, $900 billion, trillion-dollar stimulus giveaway--porkulus, as some called it--and you combine that with $400 billion, $450 billion, $500 billion that he was able to inherit from the TARP fund, you think maybe a trillion and a trillion-and-a-half dollars he had to give away.

And we hear debate over what difference $1 billion would make. He was talking about a thousand times that for infrastructure. And he spent a tiny fraction on infrastructure, preferring instead to have massive grants and giveaways to programs that were his cronies, his pets, that are now producing no dividends and in fact are increasing further debt.

So we hear those things, how wonderful infrastructure would be, and yet we know when we as a Congress provided this administration with massive amounts of money for infrastructure, they diverted it. They did more damage to the country than they did good. And we look at the people that this President has surrounded himself with. He had a Solicitor General named Elena Kagan. The Solicitor General's job is to assist the White House, assist the administration with potential legislation that may come to litigation, assist them with litigation. As I know from working 30 years ago in the private sector, you can't advise people about existing litigation and do your job without advising them about the way to avoid future litigation problems that you run into.

So we know that the biggest legislative agenda item for this administration was the complete takeover of health care. And as most thinking people would understand, if you could control all health care, you can pretty well control all people. You get to decide who gets what treatments, who can have a new hip, who can have a new knee, who can have radiation therapy, who can have the surgery. And as one secretary in my hometown pointed out, her mother acquired breast cancer in England, and since the English Government's wonderful health care system decided how long you had to wait before you could get to have diagnostic tests done, before you could have therapeutic activity occur, her mother didn't get the diagnostic tests in time to find out she had it for sure, didn't get the surgery in time, didn't get the treatment in time and she said, My mother died of breast cancer because she lived in England and the government was in charge of health care.

She said I have been found to have cancer since I've been here in the U.S., and because the government was not in charge of my health care, I got it diagnosed in time. I got treatment in time.

I didn't have to live by any preconceived requirements of the government. So I'm alive because I was in America. My mother is dead because her health care was in England.

Some think the great panacea is government being charged with health care. We've heard over and over again that this is for the good of the children.

At this point I would be delighted to yield to my friend from Michigan.

United Way Celebrates 125 Years

I thank and greatly appreciate my friend, Mr. Clarke. That is obviously an important announcement. I didn't realize that the United Way had been around 125 years. They do great work, and I appreciate my friend, and I do mean my friend, calling that to our attention.

The Obama administration had an agenda item, getting ObamaCare passed. Elena Kagan was Solicitor General, and she continued to be Solicitor General even up until after the time when the first lawsuits were filed against ObamaCare. Now, she gave testimony before the Senate that satisfied them at the time that she was pure as the driven snow and she would in no way compromise integrity. That was the feeling that was gotten. She got the votes that she needed to be confirmed, and then went on to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But since that time, more questions have arisen. Wait a minute, she was there during this, that, and the other. When ObamaCare was being drafted, when it was being prepared, and even after it passed and it became law, she was the Solicitor General.

And so now that we see all of these things in perspective, we go, wait a minute, could she have been the worst Solicitor General in American history that she would never advise the President, her boss-- never advise him--on the litigation that would surely be coming when his prize legislation got passed, if it got passed? Because a legitimate lawyer, an adviser, a counselor, will tell the client--in this case, the President--Look, if you want to have this pass constitutional muster, here's what you need to do. Let's get this verbiage in one place, let's get this in another.

Could she have foreseen that perhaps a weakness of the brilliant John Roberts would be, if you call something a penalty in a bill and then later call it a tax after it's passed, that maybe the Supreme Court would buy it? I don't even think that Solicitor General Kagan could have foreseen that John Roberts would totally abandon intellectual consistency. No matter how intelligent, I don't think she could have seen that coming. I certainly didn't.

But the law regarding judges, Federal judges, is not just a matter of ethics--gee, you can have an ethics complaint filed against you as you can if you're a practicing attorney or a judge. The law is 28 U.S.C., section 455, and it says:

Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself--that's generic for him and her--in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Well, it is absolutely clear that her impartiality is certainly questionable in her boss's most prized legislation: ObamaCare.

My friend from Alabama, one of the great Senators over at the other end of the hall, Jeff Sessions, had extended eight questions to Attorney General Holder asking for answers, and they were submitted timely under the rules so they were part of the hearing and would require answers from our Attorney General Holder. And three of them in particular were these. These were questions for Attorney General Holder, because as 28 U.S.C., section 455 is the law and Justice Kagan's impartiality has reasonably been questioned, there is potential here for a law violation by Justice Kagan, and we need to know more. Since this is with regard to the law that the Attorney General is supposed to uphold, fair questions. From Jeff Sessions to Attorney General Holder:

Are you aware of any instances during Justice Kagan's

tenure as Solicitor General of the United States in which

information related to the Patient Protection and Affordable

Care Act and/or litigation related thereto was relayed or

provided to her?

Another question from U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions to Attorney General Holder that required an answer:

When did your staff begin ``removing'' Solicitor General

Kagan from meetings in this matter? On what basis did you

take this action? In what other matters was such action

taken?

Clearly, Solicitor General Kagan was on the email list for people who were talking about the laws that were coming up that the administration wanted to get passed, including ObamaCare, so it's a legitimate question to know at what point did she stop getting emails regarding ObamaCare.

It's also important to know what she said in those emails, because the one email they slipped and let us get a glimpse of was when ObamaCare passed. She sent an email something along the lines of: Can you believe they got the votes? Sounds like an excited utterance.

And it's worth noting that under 28 U.S.C., section 455 the law is very clear, this is the law. It's not an ethics, an encouraged rule. This is the law.

``Where he or she has served in government employment''--as Solicitor General Kagan had--``and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy, she shall disqualify herself.''

So, clearly, she is already disqualified because her impartiality is certainly reasonably being questioned. But is there even another law-- not rule, but law--in which her impartiality can be questioned? But it makes it very clear, if she ever, ever expressed an opinion concerning the merits of ObamaCare, she should not have been allowed to sit on this case.

I think history is going to judge this case in a way that Justice Roberts never dreamed. He is so brilliant. There's no question that he was able to rationalize that coming as part of the majority as he did was the thing to do. He has gotten accolades, just as Chief Justice Taney did when he came out with the Dred Scott decision. Justice Taney got accolades from people, you know, wow. Yes, he got criticism, just as Chief Justice Roberts has, but he got some of the same accolades he's got: wow, what a brilliant man. He has removed politics from the Supreme Court when the truth is just the opposite of what occurred.

The politics of the White House prevailed. It was pure politics; it was nothing but politics. And anyone who honestly reads this opinion from an entirely objective standpoint will not be able to say this is a beautiful piece of well-reasoned legal logic because it is not. It is a hodgepodge of poorly written, poorly thought-out, poorly pieced- together opinion; and it's an embarrassment. And one day, history will record that this Court was possessed of four individuals who had political agendas and could not set them aside, and that a Chief Justice, who knew better, decided he would try to make the Court look less than political, and in doing so became very political.

We need answers to these questions.

The third one was:

Did you ever have a conversation with Justice Kagan

regarding her recusal from the matters before the Supreme

Court related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care

Act? If so, please describe the circumstances and substance

of those conversations.

Real easy. Now, we know that this Attorney General has significant recollection problems. He recalled, under penalty of perjury before our Judiciary Committee that he had only learned about Fast and Furious a few weeks, he said, a few weeks before the hearing. Within months, we found documentation showing that that was a lie. It had been months before, at a minimum,

that he had learned. Then, when he had that presented to him, he said a few weeks, months, what's the difference? Highest Justice official in America sees no difference between a few weeks and months.

These questions need to be answered. It's already embarrassing enough that a Justice hid behind the refusal to answer questions, the avoidance of questions, to be able to sit on this case and participate in one of the worst thought-out and thought-through and expressed opinions that I've read from the U.S. Supreme Court.

And it's worth looking at some of them. If you go to the opinion itself, first of all, the Supreme Court has to deal with the issue of whether the Supreme Court can consider the case because the Anti- Injunction Act basically, in essence, says: if Congress passes a tax, then the Supreme Court does not have any jurisdiction to consider the case. No one can file such case in Federal court until the tax is actually levied and the individual filing suit has actually had it levied on them. Then that individual has standing, can file a lawsuit, and the Supreme Court can consider it. But until the Supreme Court could decide and determine whether or not the penalty for not buying health care insurance was a penalty or a tax--even though the language in the act clearly said it was a penalty--well, the Court couldn't go forward. So that was the first thing they had to wrestle with. You see it particularly highlighted from pages 11 through 15.

But it's worth noting--this is page 11--the Court says: before turning to the merits, we need to be sure we have authority to do so. That's Justice Roberts, before turning to the merits, we've got to be sure we have authority. He said the Anti-Injunction Act provides:

No suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or

collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any

person, whether or not such person is the person against whom

such tax was assessed.

Can't bring the lawsuit, the Supreme Court can't consider it if it's a tax, because it won't be 2014 or so before that happens.

So you look at this decision, page 12, our brilliant Chief Justice-- and he really is brilliant, he just compromised it here:

Congress's decision to label this exaction a ``penalty''

rather than a ``tax'' is significant because the Affordable

Care Act describes many other exactions it creates as

``taxes.''

Because there are taxes. There are, clearly. There's the medical device tax that ObamaCare adds. All these other taxes, they call themselves taxes. This doesn't. And Justice Roberts points out, it's a penalty. They call it that.

Justice Roberts says, and this is page 13 of his opinion:

The Anti-Injunction Act and the Affordable Care Act,

however, are creatures of Congress's own creation. How they

relate to each other is up to Congress and the best evidence

of Congress's intent.

Get that: best evidence of Congress's intent is the statutory text. That's why he goes through and says the text calls it a penalty. On page 15, he says:

The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty

for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated

as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-

Injunction Act therefore does not apply to this suit, and we

may proceed to the merits.

It's not a tax; it's a penalty. All right. So, page 15, all this legal reasoning, it's not a tax, it's a penalty, best evidence of what it is is what Congress calls it, Congress calls it a penalty, ergo it's a penalty and we can move on. And now we're entitled to consider the merits.

Now, he also adds--this is over at page 39:

The joint dissenters argue that we cannot uphold section

5000A as a tax because Congress did not frame it as such.

Now, in fact, the four intellectually honest dissenters have pointed out to the Chief Justice--they called it a penalty. You said the best evidence of what it was was what Congress called it. Congress calls it a penalty, they treat it as a penalty, and that's the best evidence. So you can't uphold 5000A as a tax because it was not intended to be one.

If you look, page 39 is where--and the full sentence says: ``An example may illustrate why labels should not control here.'' This is the Chief Justice saying these lines. Labels should not control here. He just said, in page 11 through 15, labels should control. Congress puts the label on what they mean it to be: that should control. Now he's saying labels don't control here.

He goes on to say, and this is at page 44:

The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain

individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health

insurance may reasonably be characterized as a ``tax.''

I called it a penalty so I'd have jurisdiction to write this opinion, but now that I have jurisdiction to write this opinion, now, page 44, I'm calling it a tax. Also on 44 he says:

The statute reads more naturally as a command to buy

insurance than as a tax, and I would uphold it as a command

if the Constitution allowed it.

Well, that is the point I guess, that is really strange in an opinion because that's in a paragraph marked Capital D that starts with:

Justice Ginsberg questions the necessity of rejecting the

government's commerce power.

You never put that in, you're not supposed to. In good writing of judicial opinions, you don't put that in a majority opinion. You don't attack another co-majority signer, and yet he does that a few times in his majority opinion.

But then to add first person, the first person pronoun ``I'' and then follow that with a conditional future tense verb ``would'' uphold it as a command if the Constitution allowed it, why is that there?

That looks like that should have been part of a dissenting opinion, not, for heaven's sake, the majority opinion by one of the smartest lawyers in the country. He sacrificed not only his intellectual consistency, he sacrificed his intellectual ability to write as one of the best writers we ever had. It's really tragic.

But the statute reads more naturally as a command to buy insurance. I would have allowed it. It makes no sense there in that context.

One other quote we have down here, it's found at page 57. He says:

We are confident that Congress would have wanted to

preserve the rest of the Act.

He knows that's not true. He knows that the House version of ObamaCare had the severability clause. And the severability clause, every good lawyer, even every bad lawyer knows, if you want the whole document to be preserved, even if one line is struck out, you better put that Mother Hubbard clause in there so that it's all protected. You lose one line, you don't lose the whole document.

And that was in the House version, but the Senate chose to strike it out. They didn't want it in there to say, if any of these parts get struck down by the Court, it all has to fall. They didn't want that. They wanted the bill without the severability clause because if anything got struck, everything had to go. That's the way they looked at it.

In fact, that debate was even made. If we don't get this part, we don't get that part, then there's no sense even having any of it.

Well, it's pretty tragic, pretty tragic. But there's been so much sacrifice.

I'm very grateful to Justice Kennedy, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito for maintaining their consistency. The dissent is very well-written, very consistent. They not only didn't sacrifice their intellectual integrity, they did not compromise their writing ability.

It's a dangerous time, and now we know, because of this Supreme Court decision, talking to my friend, Allen West this morning, he brought this up. I didn't know he'd brought it up already in an interview. But since we now know that bringing down the cost of government function is a legitimate interest that justifies intrusive legislation, and you can now have a tax on people if they don't participate, then we know everywhere that concealed guns have been made legal, the crime rates have gone down. When the crime rates go down, the costs go down. So we need a bill that will require everybody in America to buy a gun, and if you don't, you'll be taxed.

And this Supreme Court, in their intellectual lack of integrity, will sustain that bill.

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

I sure do appreciate my friend from Georgia. He is an absolute patriot, standing for truth, justice, and what used to be the American way. It is, according to the Supreme Court, not so much anymore. And I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

I've been going through this decision, and having been an attorney-- and I've been a prosecutor and a judge and a chief justice. It was a small, three-judge court, but you learn things--you go to judicial conferences--about how to write opinions and things, never to the level of the United States Supreme Court. But as a certified member of the United States Supreme Court Bar, you follow the holdings of the courts.

So it's been with great interest, after I got my wind back from having found that Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion for the five- person majority, okay, so we start going through the opinion. Let's see how in the world he came to this conclusion.

Well, I'll be very brief in jumping through, even though it's a very long opinion, including the dissents. But the first thing that the Court had to consider is the Anti-Injunction Act that was passed by Congress years ago that makes very clear that the Supreme Court cannot take up any issue regarding a tax unless the tax has actually been levied and someone required to pay the tax, and then someone against whom the tax has been levied--required to pay that tax--files suit, that person then has standing. Well, under ObamaCare, if the mandate is a tax, the penalty is a tax, then the Anti-Injunction Act would kick in and no one would be allowed to have standing before the Federal district court, court of appeals, and certainly not the U.S. Supreme Court.

So the first thing the Supreme Court had to get past was the issue of: Is this penalty a tax? Because if it's a tax, then the Supreme Court must throw this case out, announce that the plaintiffs in these cases have no standing--and will not until around 2014--until such time as the tax is levied.

So the Court goes through, and if anybody prints out the decision, you can look at pages 11 through 15 specifically where they discuss the Anti-Injunction Act. They point out just, in essence, what I have hopefully clarified: If it's a penalty, then the Court can take it up. If the penalty that you must pay for not buying the insurance is a tax, then this case goes out, no Supreme Court decision for at least 2 to 4 years.

So Chief Justice Roberts--brilliant man, there's no question he's a very brilliant intellectual--he indicates this and says:

Congress's decision to label this exaction a penalty rather than a tax is significant because the Affordable Care Act describes many other exactions it creates that are taxes.

And he says this:

Where Congress uses certain language in one part of a statute and different language in another, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally.

So he goes on and he says:

The Anti-Injunction Act and the Affordable Care Act are creatures of Congress' own creation. How they relate to each other is up to Congress, and the best evidence--the Supreme Court's words, Justice Roberts' words--the best evidence of Congress' intent is the statutory language, the statutory text.

So he goes on to conclude that since Congress says in ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act--boy, is that a misnomer, the Affordable Care Act-- since Congress calls it a penalty, then Justice Roberts and the majority say it's not a tax; it is a penalty.

So around page 15 or so, 15, 16, they come around and say--I guess, 15, okay:

Congress made clear that the penalty is what it is--not a tax. Therefore, the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply, so our Court has jurisdiction. As he says, the Anti-Injunction Act, therefore, does not apply to this suit since it's a penalty and not a tax. Therefore, as he says, we may proceed to the merits.

Okay. So he clears it's a penalty; it's not a tax. Because if it's a tax, they can't do anything; they've got to throw it out. Okay. So it's a penalty, not a tax.

So then he goes on, after page 16, he goes on in the majority opinion to discuss this issue of whether or not it violates the Commerce Clause, this penalty. He comes to the proper conclusion that if Congress can mandate a penalty for not buying a product, there's nothing to stop Congress from intruding in every area of individual Americans' lives.

It's mentioned in this opinion that the main purpose--one of the two main purposes is to bring down the cost of health care. The Supreme Court thinks that's a legitimate reason to pass an act, bring down the cost of health care. But Justice Roberts and the majority decide it would violate the Commerce Clause, because if you can force individual Americans to buy a particular product in order to bring down the cost of health care, you can order anything. You and I can be ordered to join a gym and to start exercising X number of hours a week.

We're told that the Federal Government does not monitor debit card and credit card purchases--although, supposedly it could. Well, if it has a duty to bring down health care costs and it has the ability to watch your purchases, and, under ObamaCare, the Federal Government, through their relationship with General Electric--sweetheart deal they did with GE--they're going to hold everybody's medical records. So if they're holding everybody's medical records, then I don't know why they wouldn't go ahead and monitor everybody's cholesterol rate, blood pressure, things like that.

And so it could conceivably get to the point where, gee, you get a letter from the government that says, we notice your cholesterol rate's up to 250 or so and we notice you bought bacon this weekend. What were you thinking? You know, you've got to take that back. You can't keep bacon.

Anyway, there's no limit to what Congress can do to intrude in people's lives. And I'd point out to my friend from Georgia, liberals are constantly

on the protection of bedroom privacy rights. I really thought that once they fully examined the potential effect of ObamaCare, they would be standing down here with you and me and my other friends hear, Louisiana, Georgia, they'd be out here saying, wait a minute. If the government has the right to order us to do or not do acts or buy or not buy products for the sole purpose of bringing down the costs of health care, there are studies that say some certain relational activities create more risk for health care problems than others, so if this is true, the Federal Government would have the right not only to invade the kitchen and the bathroom, but head straight to the bedroom and dictate people's rights.

I didn't want to go there, and I felt like once we found out that Chief Justice Roberts makes clear, this is a penalty, not a tax, it violates the Commerce Clause to force people to buy a product like this, you would think that would be the end of it.

But then Chief Justice Roberts goes on, and it doesn't make sense because then he begins to say, well, it violates the Commerce Clause, but does it violate the Tax-and-Spend Clause?

And then he goes through and makes a case for saying, it's not a penalty, it's a tax. And he's already told us that the best way to tell what it is is to look what Congress called it. And I think, in this case, not only look what Congress called it, look at what the President called it.

I just happen to have a partial excerpt or an excerpt from the transcript of a show the President did with his friend, George Stephanopolous. And Stephanopolous is asking him about it and said, you know, under this mandate, the government's forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?

Well, President Obama goes on and he lays out all this weak gibberish, and eventually gets--Stephanopolous interrupts him and says, okay, that may be, but it's still a tax increase. And the President said, that's not true, George. For us to say that you've got to take responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.

The President also says, nobody considers that a tax increase.

He's not done making clear the will of the Congress and of the President, who pushed this bill to make it his shining bill that he had passed through Congress. Stephanopolous goes on and says, I want to check for myself, but your critics say it's a tax increase. President Obama says, my critics say everything is a tax increase.

Stephanopolous: But you reject that it's a tax increase.

President Obama says, I absolutely reject that notion. Not a tax increase.

So you would think that if Chief Justice Roberts and the majority, the other four, are going to uphold the President's prize bill, he might accept what the President said he's done in this bill. But oh, no.

After finding that it's not a tax, it's a penalty, then Chief Justice Roberts comes over to page 39 and he says, the joint dissenters argue that we cannot uphold section 5000(a) as a tax because Congress did not ``frame it'' as such.

And then he goes on and he says, labels should not control here.

What? He just said before, Congress' own expressed written intent is the best evidence of what their intent is. And yet, now he comes over here, page 39 and says, wait, wait, wait. We have to look at what the intent is, but labels should not control.

So then he goes through and makes this ridiculous argument that it is a tax. And he says over here, page 44, the Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may be reasonably considered as a tax because the Constitution permits such tax. It's not our role to forbid it or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.

But then, one of the big mysteries in this brilliant man's opinion for the majority uses the first person pronoun, I. Now, you know, anybody that's been a judge, normally you go to judicial conferences, you have seminars, you have training in writing style. If it's an individual judge, sole court opinion, then you'll write it one way. If it's a multiple justice opinion you write it another way.

You see first person pronoun I in dissents, even though it's really not the best grammar to use pronouns in dissents. But you don't see them in well-written majority opinions. And Chief Justice Roberts is one of the best linguists we've had on the Court.

And he takes Justice Ginsberg to task a few different places in the majority opinion, and yet, she is one of his voting justices to support the majority. That doesn't make sense.

You don't normally see one justice writing the majority opinion take off and criticize someone who's voting with him. That doesn't make sense. But here at page 44 he says, Justice Ginsberg questions the necessity of rejecting the government's commerce power argument, given that section 5000(a) can be upheld under the taxing power.

He says, Chief Justice Roberts, majority opinion, but the statute reads more naturally as a command to buy insurance than as a tax. So now he's back to what he originally said before he says it is a tax.

And then he says this: And I, Chief Justice Roberts, would uphold it, talking basically of future perfect tense. I would uphold it as a command if the Constitution allowed it. I would uphold it.

He's writing for the majority. There's no reason for him to have the first person pronoun ``I'' there. It doesn't make sense. I don't know. Maybe this part he was writing as a dissent, and all of a sudden found himself in the majority, and amazingly, nobody caught this problem of style in writing the opinion.

It doesn't make sense that a man that smart would have a product this poor, using first person, criticizing another justice in the majority with him, then saying what he would do. Well, he is doing, he's writing the majority opinion. He has no business saying that.

And then he goes through, it says the States also can end Medicaid, expansion exceeds authority under the spending clause. But basically he comes back and upholds it, and then strikes down that you can't force the States to do these things.

But, I remind my friends, the President says it's absolutely not a tax. The only way this bill gets upheld is if the Supreme Court finds it is a tax after they find jurisdiction by saying it's not a tax.

But this is the same President who said, if you like your health insurance, you're going to keep it. He said, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. We found those were lies.

He said, it's going to bring down the cost of health care. In every indication we've seen, insurance has dramatically gone up. And I get tired of hearing people say, because their memories are poor in here across the aisle, well, look at the good things in here. Twenty-six year olds can be on their own parents' insurance. Gee, you can buy insurance across State lines because of us. We've taken care of the unfairness that some insurance used with preexisting conditions as an exclusion.

But I would encourage my friends, I know my colleagues here remember, back when they had the House, they had the Senate majority, they had the White House, Republicans, many of us begged them, let us do some bipartisan bills together because we can agree. It's not a problem to let 26-year olds stay on your parents' insurance. Heck, the insurance companies love that because they are usually healthy. It's not a big cost. So we were going to be able to agree on that.

It was a Republican, heck, John Shadegg is the first one I ever heard saying you've got to sell insurance across State lines. That was a Republican idea, so of course most of us supported that.

As for the preexisting conditions, most of us are aware of circumstances in which insurance companies have been grossly unfair in using that exclusion. We were prepared to reach some agreements and have bipartisan, standalone bills. I know that my friend Dr. Price out here had some concern about health care, his having devoted his life to it before government, trying to fix what government had done to health care. People have been concerned about it. We were willing to agree on these things, but they would not have it.

So to say without ObamaCare we don't have these other things is simply not true, and it forgets current history. We were ready to agree on standalone

bills. They didn't want a bipartisan agreement. They wanted the whole brass ring and to shove it around our heads, around our necks, and eventually down our throats, and that is what has happened. I've been amazed at how many people have picked up laws and started reading them, and I would encourage them to read this opinion. It's a very, very strange opinion. It contradicts itself on so many levels.

ObamaCare takes away religious freedom. I'm Baptist. I see what they're doing to the Catholics, and I don't want to someday say, ``I saw what they did to the Catholics, and I remained silent,'' and eventually there was nobody to object when they did it to me. We all have to stand together, and I'm grateful to stand with my friends.

One other comment. I heard my Democrat friends before we spoke say, without this ObamaCare bill, these clinics will die.

There have been clinics before the ObamaCare bill that helped. We have some in my district, and they're doing wonderful work. They need more help. The best are, really, charitable institutions. The clinics are not going to die.

What came from the President's mouth and was also in his town hall was when a woman in the White House, as part of the town hall, said, Mr. President, at an advanced age, my mother got a pacemaker. If the doctor had not met her, the cardiologist was not going to let her have a pacemaker. After he met her, he said, absolutely, and she has lived years beyond that since she has had a pacemaker. So would you consider someone's quality of life under your panels--we know they don't want to call them ``death panels,'' but whatever you want to call them--will they be able to consider the quality of life that people have before they agree or disagree to let them have a procedure?

The President beat around the bush as he did with Stephanopoulos--and you can find the transcript. It's available on the Net--and ultimately said, You know, maybe we're just better off telling your mother to take a pain pill. You don't get a pacemaker. You don't get these additional years of life. You get a pain pill.

So, when our friends across the aisle tonight say that the clinics will die, I would humbly submit that, based on the President's own words, it's not the clinics that will die under this bill.

I thank you so much for your generous yielding of so much time. It's a bad opinion, and I appreciate having the time to walk through some of it.

Mr. Speaker, it is with enormous pride that I recognize and congratulate the Hudson Lady Hornets on an amazing 2012 softball season in which they captured the Texas State Class 3A Softball Championship. These tenacious Lady Hornets have reached the pinnacle of success in Texas softball with their first state championship.

The Lady Hornets demonstrated just how powerful they were as a team, playing as one well-tuned machine. The final game saw the Hudson Lady Hornets defeat an outstanding Henderson Lady Lions team with an 8-4 win. The championship game showed the strength of each team as they both played scoreless for the first half of the game. They then unloaded the sticks and went at it in the final innings. Henderson represented themselves very well, but Hudson came out triumphant as an outstanding example of a great east Texas Champion.

There is no doubt that player, coach, and supporting person involved with the success of the Lady Hornets was inspired to experience the amazing outcome when they give absolutely all the effort that have to their team and to achieve a mutual goal.

Clearly a team does not get to such a level of excellence without a coaching staff that knows its players, what they can accomplish and just how far they can be pushed. This tribute goes out to all of the athletic staff including Coach Jimmy Eby, and Assistant Coaches Wes Capps and Amanda Malone.

The team members achieving this memorable accomplishment included Freshmen Madison Jeffrey, Adrianna Mosley, Bryli Lee and Marie Mireles; Sophomores Kaylee Parker, Ashley Davis and Madison Selman; Juniors Cassidy Brasuell, Alyssa Dotson, Kayla Caldwell and Kelsee Selman; and Seniors Lauren Gilcrease, Kelsey Moulder, Elizabeth Pierce, Marlee Guidry, and Jade Havard.

No athletic team ever becomes a champion without unwavering support, and that is exactly what the Lady Hornets experienced from the Hudson Independent School District staff and the entire community. That is why congratulations go to all who contributed in any way to the success of the Lady Hornets during the 2012 season. Throughout the season, they were empowered by the scripture as revealed in Philippians 4:13 which reads, ``I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.''

May God continue to bless all of their efforts both in school and as they one day finish high school and use that same drive and determination to make this country even stronger. Congratulations to the State Champion Hudson Lady Hornets, as their legacy is now recorded in the Congressional Record that will endure as long as there is a United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my friend from Texas. We do have some disagreements, but I want to go back to the issue of jobs.

People are hurting. Without jobs, the unemployment has been higher than the President said it would ever get if we would just simply give him about a trillion dollars to give away to his friends, that that would make it all better. Well, it didn't.

What we've seen over and over from this administration is a complete disregard for the rule of law. When you look at all the people who have been drawn into this country illegally, in violation of our immigration laws--even though there is no country in the world that allows the immigration that this country does and the wide open gates that we do. But we do have parameters.

We've been told there may be a billion, billion and a half people who want to come to this country. If they did all at once, they would overwhelm us, and there would be no country for others to come to.

Why do so many want to come here? It's because we've always had regard for the rule of law. When there were those who would ignore the rule of law and put partisan and personal benefit above the law, eventually they had to account. Some have gotten away, but this country has done a better job of being fair across the board than any other country in history. That's why so many want to come here, because we've had more jobs, a better economy, and made more advancements than any country in history.

Yet, on the issue of immigration, this President stands up and announces we're going to ignore the law, just as he did on marriage. There is a proper law that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, enacted by Congress, upheld, and he says we're going to ignore that because we don't like it. There goes the rule of law.

When it comes to ObamaCare, we've passed this law. But you know what? So many of the people that pushed this through and rammed it down the throats of America, they're asking for waivers and they're good friends, so we're going to give them waivers so they can ignore the rule of law.

How about the auto bailout? Ignored. The bankruptcy law? It ignored the Constitution and took away dealerships and gave them to others. This was a place where the rule of law was completely ignored.

Then this President stands up and says: Not only are we going to ignore the rule of law, duly passed law, but as I speak, I will create law. I now speak into effect new work visas and work permits that have never existed. But just as the ancient pharaohs or the leaders of the ancient world, as I speak, so it must be. I'm speaking into effect new work permits. I'm speaking into effect an ignoring of the laws that were duly passed. I'm speaking into effect a chance to give them jobs that Americans are hurting and trying to get.

We also have an Attorney General who was not only asked about Fast and Furious, he was asked about Justice Kagan on the Supreme Court: Are you aware of any instances during Justice Kagan's tenure as Solicitor General of the United States in which information related to patient protection and affordable care and/or litigation related thereto was related or provided? He refused to answer.

When did your staff begin removing Solicitor General Kagan from meetings in this matter? On what basis did you take this action? On what other matters was such action taken?

Look, the rule of law required that when it turned out there were possibly thousands of abuses of the national security letter in a Republican administration, I picked up the phone, called the chief of staff of my President, and said, This is unforgivable. We need a new Attorney General. Where is my friend across the aisle who will step up and say, the rule of law is too important?

We have Justice Kagan, who is ignoring law 28 U.S.C. 455 that says, You must disqualify yourself in any case in which your impartiality might reasonably be questioned. It must be reasonably expected that either she ignored the law, did not do her job as Solicitor General, was totally negligent, or she did her job, and she should not have sat on this case. She should have disqualified.

I beg and plead for my colleagues across the aisle to step up, as I did when the Attorney General was responsible for presiding over an injustice, and call for her resignation. It is contemptuous of Congress.