[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 14, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H5610-H5614]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BRITISH PETROLEUM AND OTHER ISSUES OF THE DAY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Halvorson). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gohmert) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, it is always an honor and privilege to
speak on the floor of the House of Representatives where so much
history has been made. There are a number of things we need to cover.
I had some interesting things going on in the Natural Resources
Committee today because we are taking up legislation as a result of the
oil spill. Those pesky words keep resurfacing, ``never let a crisis go
to waste,'' and it appears that is what is happening here.
We had 11 people lose their lives in the Deepwater Horizon explosion.
Many thousands may lose their livelihood. We know that it is the worst
environmental accident we have had in the United States.
It has been amazing that so little had been done to try to assist
from the Federal Government. Eventually the Coast Guard came on board,
but three days after this terrible accident, it is nations like the
Netherlands that have extraordinary expertise in building barrier
islands, in actually taking in water and separating out the oil, people
that had all these wonderful inventions and ideas and things that would
help capture the oil, should have all been utilized because so many of
them have merit, and yet the Coast Guard kept turning them away. Kevin
Costner had spent $10 million of his own money to see this thing
developed that would separate oil and water and do so in large numbers,
but didn't get a lot of attention.
So I know there were a lot of pressing things to do. There were golf
courses to be played, there were things that had to be done, parties
that had to be attended. All the while the oil kept coming up and the
environment kept suffering, wildlife kept suffering.
And then when we eventually find out, well, actually there was a
reason. British Petroleum thought they were bulletproof. They thought
they could have more safety violations, hundreds of times more safety
violations than other oil companies drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and
be immune from having the administration come down on it.
It is understandable now, once we got into it. They were supportive
of the administration's crap-and-trade bill. In
[[Page H5611]]
fact, as the Deepwater Horizon rig was sinking, Senator Kerry down the
hall was making negotiations making sure BP was still on board with the
crap-and-trade bill. The White House counted them as being supportive
of the bill. And they, of course, have so many lobbyists. Their best
lobbyists are all from Democratic administrations. They felt like they
were bulletproof.
So then it begins to explain why it took so long to finally get on to
BP and fuss at them, because America had had enough. They had seen the
kind of poor safety record BP had.
{time} 1850
So BP got thrown under the bus, much to their apparent surprise,
after all their support. They've given heavily to the President's
campaign. So I'm sure they were surprised when they ultimately were
thrown under the bus.
But as a result of that terrible tragedy there are some laws that are
being voted out of committee. We had debate on them for several hours
today. And that's as it should be. A bill shouldn't come to the floor
that is so sweeping unless it goes through proper committee channels.
Didn't go through subcommittee, but we had a long hearing on it today.
And it will be voted on in the morning. All the votes were rolled so
that they'll take place in the morning. It's just hard to believe that
out of a crisis like the gulf oil spill, that people would take
advantage of that and want to pork up the bill. Shocking. Shocking.
One of the things that economists have proposed across the country
that would help get us on track is that--financially, that is, on
track--is that is we have got to get out of the mentality of constantly
buying more and more and more and more land. The Federal Government
seems to want to take over the country, or at least those States that
often vote heavily Republican. The colleagues across the aisle want to
buy more and more of the land.
So I had a chart here of what the West looks like, the Western part
of the United States, how much of it we have in red that is owned by
the United States. That is, by the United States Government. So you get
an idea. Here is the Western United States. The red parts are those
that are owned by our Federal Government. And the Federal Government
wants more. We have had information on the amount of money that our
Federal Government has been spending in the past on buying land, and
it's been rather shocking to see the numbers. Here we have the amount
of money that was allocated in 2008 for the Federal Government to spend
on buying more land in the United States for the Federal Government to
take over. It's important to understand that when the Federal
Government takes over land, it means the schools in that vicinity, the
local governments in that vicinity get nothing. Because all of the
land, when the Federal Government takes it, is removed from the tax
rolls. It cannot be taxed. Schools, cities, counties, States cannot tax
the Federal Government once it takes over the land.
So it makes sense that you want to be cautious in having the Federal
Government take over more and more land in this country. In fact,
that's what economists have said. You have got to get out of the
mentality of continuing to buy land. Start selling some. Let's get on
track to get rid of our deficit. Quit buying land. And it turns out
that right now we're $3.7 billion behind in the projects that are
needed to keep up the existing Federal land and Federal parks that we
have right now. Our parks are going to squalor in many places. Places
that people used to love to visit are just being let go because the
money is not there to take care of it. Why? Because we keep spending
money on buying more and more land and locking that land up so it
cannot be used for any purpose.
That's one of the problems we've got down with the border between
Arizona--a U.S. border--and Mexico. Thirty-two miles of that border are
wilderness, national park, which means the Border Patrol are the only
ones that can't take--or U.S. Federal agents are the only ones that
can't take vehicles in there. It's against the law. They commit a crime
if they do that. But it doesn't stop the drug smugglers, the illegal
alien smugglers from taking vehicles across there. And so that's what
happens. They can have mechanical instruments. But even if you need to
bring a helicopter in to lift out somebody that's been shot, like a
Border Patrol Agent, which has happened, the helicopter can't land.
Illegal aliens, drug smugglers, they can drive right by them, but our
Border Patrol cannot go in there because it's a national park
wilderness area. That's why I've got a bill to try to do something
about that, but apparently it's not going to see the light of day.
So here we have in 2008, the last year of the Bush Presidency. But
since all appropriations originate in the House of Representatives, no
matter what the President wants to do, it originates here, and if you
check back in 2004, 2005, 2006, it was a fraction of a hundred million
dollars. Well, in 2008 it was a little over a hundred million dollars.
In 2009, it was still about $150 million or so, according to the chart.
And then in 2010, this year, from last year's appropriation, it shot up
to nearly $300 million. And for next year it's already--what is being
laid out for next year's land acquisitions is nearly $400 million.
So here we are, in the worst budget crunch we have ever had, and what
happens? For the first time since 1974, Congress is not going to have a
budget. Apparently, it was considered too politically difficult for
people to come in and vote for a budget that would expand costs as
apparently the desire is to have done. So here you have a tragedy in
the Gulf of Mexico, still ongoing. Hopefully, the cap is going to hold.
But that remains to be seen. There's still so much damage.
And since we're dealing with a time when those in control do not want
to let a good crisis go to waste without taking advantage of it, in the
legislation that we debated today and that will apparently pass in the
morning around 9:15, we're going to stick in $900 million for land
acquisition. That's in the committee, July, 2010. That's what is
apparently going to happen because the majority will have the votes.
They're going to appropriate in an authorization bill $9 million to buy
more land, as if our parks are not in enough trouble because all of
this money keeps going for more and more land acquisition. We're going
to not cut spending on land acquisition and just even have a moratorium
just for a little while. Let this country catch its breath.
We're looking at a $1.5 trillion deficit for 1 year. My first year
here, I kept hearing people across the aisle talking about how $100
billion, $200 billion was an outrage for a deficit in 1 year. And, you
know what? They were right. There shouldn't have been $100 billion and
$200 billion deficit for 1 year. And that's why people voted them into
the majority in November 2006.
{time} 1900
Yet here we go this year. The same people have no problem with a $1.5
trillion deficit in 1 year because of all the jobs that it apparently,
they think, is creating. Well, it did. For June, 431,000 jobs were
created. Unfortunately, 411,000 of them were temporary census jobs.
So here's our chart. This is what will pass tomorrow because me and
my friends simply do not have enough votes to keep it from passing.
They're going to pork up this bill to deal with the gulf oil crisis by
sticking $900 million of pork in there to buy more land for the Federal
Government to own, to put local governments, local schools, State
governments in a difficult situation because they'll never be able to
generate any tax dollars or revenue from that land once the Federal
Government takes it over.
And so with that in mind, we look back at the chart again, the map,
that shows the western part of the United States with that in red,
representing areas that the Federal Government already owns. But
apparently to those in charge right now, it's not enough. It's not
enough to own nearly all of Nevada. It's not enough to own 70 percent
of Utah. It's not enough to own most of Idaho, Arizona, Wyoming. So
tomorrow, $900 million will be appropriated in this bill about the gulf
oil crisis to buy more Federal land that will hurt more local
governments and more local schools. It's just hard to fathom. It is
hard to believe that this is going to happen tomorrow, but we simply do
not have enough votes in our minority to keep that kind of pork from
being added to a bill emanating from a crisis.
You know, we've already heard from people, families of victims who
were
[[Page H5612]]
killed on Deepwater Horizon, out begging, Please do not have a
moratorium, because they knew their friends would be out of work, other
family members would be out of work. I don't have a problem if you want
to shut down every one of BP's offshore rigs until we can be sure that
they are safe. But when, as we heard in the hearing today, BP had had
800 safety violations to, in some cases, none for other oil companies
in the same period, one for other oil companies in the same period,
they had 800, so what did this administration do? They gave them an
award for safety. That's right. They didn't fine them. They gave them
an award for safety.
But when you understand they were embracing a tax, a gas tax, they
were embracing so many of the bills this administration was pushing
forward that most in the country didn't support, they didn't want to
lose their good friend BP, and that's why it took them so long to throw
them under the bus. Well, that's one area in which we're throwing away
a lot of money. It's pretty amazing, pretty outrageous.
Another area is in our foreign assistance programs. Now, this is my
third term here. In each of my three terms, I have filed a bill. This
is no exception. It's H.R. 4636. I have now filed for a discharge
petition. So hopefully we can get enough folks that will sign on to the
discharge petition to force this bill to the floor for an up-or-down
vote, because we haven't been able to get one. This is a very simple
bill. In essence, it says--well, it's entitled the United Nations
Voting Accountability Act. It is very simple. Any nation that votes
against the United States' position more than half the time on
contested votes in the United Nations will receive no Federal
assistance from our government to theirs. Very simple. And as I have
said before, you don't want to have to pay people to hate you. They'll
do it for free. Why pay them to hate you when they'll do it for free?
So we pulled the report for this year--because each year a report
comes out; it has to come out by March 31 of each year--of all of the
votes, the contested votes from the year before so that we could get
some idea of who is voting with us, how often, who we're paying to hate
us.
For example, in 2008, there was $105 million given to Bangladesh.
They voted against the U.S. position 82.4 percent of the time in 2008
and 80 percent of the time in 2009.
We gave millions to Belarus, a former state in the Soviet Union, and
they voted against us in 2008 84.6 percent of the time, and this past
year voted 75 percent of the time against the U.S. interests and
position.
You've got Bolivia down in South America. We've given them over $100
million. That was in 2008. As I understand, it was a great deal more
than that in 2009. They were our great ally and were only voting
against us 85.2 percent of the time in 2008. And it got a little better
in 2009. Only 70 percent of the time they voted against the country
that provided them over $100 million in aid. We're paying them to hate
us.
Brazil. Of course we've heard recently about the $2 billion that
we're loaning to Brazil to develop their deepwater territories, their
deepwater offshore drilling program. And lo and behold, it turns out
apparently George Soros' biggest personal investment is in a company
that does that drilling, so we provided $2 billion to help our dear
friend George Soros make that much more money from his biggest
investment, personally. And so Brazil, we loaned them millions--I'm
sorry. We loaned them billions, give them millions, and they voted
against us in 2008 70.7 percent of the time and against us last year in
2009 62.5 percent of the time.
You've got Cambodia, where lots of Americans lost their lives
fighting for freedom for the people. We let them out from under all the
murderous regimes that have followed. But with tens of millions of
dollars, they voted against us 84 percent of the time in 2008 and 62.5
percent of the time in 2009. We are still just pouring money into them.
Now, I have been talking to them about this ever since I came on into
Congress in 2005, and it makes me think that maybe we're doing some
good, because of all the hundreds of millions we've given to Colombia,
in 2008, they voted against the U.S. position 80 percent of the time.
Last year, it was 40 percent of the time. So they would not be
adversely affected by this bill because they have found their way clear
to support us.
Most people think with the embargo sanctions against Cuba, that's
taken care of. Not true. In 2008 alone, we gave $45 million in aid to
Cuba when they voted against us in the U.N. 87.8 percent of the time.
And in 2009, they got even higher, up to 90 percent of the time.
Now, the Republic of the Congo in 2008 got $103 million, $104
million, and for some reason, that same year they only voted against us
7 percent of the time. This year, I was under the impression they got
even more money, but they voted against us 71 percent of the time. So
from 7 percent to a 71.5 percent turnaround there.
{time} 1910
You've got Dominican Republic. Give them tens of millions of dollars.
They voted against us 80.5 percent of the time in '08, 60 percent of
the time in '09.
Egypt gets a couple of billion dollars, in essence, but they voted
against us in the U.N. against our position 93.3 percent of the time in
'08, and in '09, 81.8 percent of the time.
Got Ethiopia. We gave $455 million in '08. They voted against us to
show their gratitude 82.9 percent of the time in the U.N. in '08, and
83.3 percent in '09.
Again, you don't have to pay people to hate you. They'll do it for
free.
India, $99 million that we gave away as Federal assistance to India
in 2008. They voted against us 76.3 percent of the time. That number, I
think, may have risen and now so has their opposition to anything we
hold dear. They're now up to 88.9 percent of the time in 2009, voting
against us.
India is benefiting from our high corporate taxes. They're benefiting
from the threat of the crap-and-trade bill passing. They're benefiting
from the health care bill that just got passed because employers, big
manufacturers are saying, we've got to go where the country doesn't
hate us being there so much. We're going to India, we're going to
China, we're going to South America.
So a lot of these countries we're pouring money into that we don't
have, that we're having to borrow from China, all the while they're
opposing us every step of the way.
You've got Indonesia, 189, basically $190 million simply in foreign
aid, not counting the other benefits we've given them. And yet they
opposed us 84.9 percent of the time in the U.N. in '08, and 80 percent
of the time in '09.
Pouring money into these countries that we don't have, that we're
having to borrow, while people are out of work, hurting, searching for
jobs, hoping for the economy to turn around, and something besides
temporary census jobs to become available, and this is what they find
out.
Jordan, in 2008 got $687 million, simply in aid, and they voted
against us 91.7 percent of the time in '08 and 60 percent of the time
in '09.
Now, Mexico, this shows $50 million in foreign aid in '08. But also,
of course, we had, I believe, $500 million that we provided them to
assist them in their defense effort. And as a result, we have the
President of Mexico come in here and chastise us for having immigration
laws that he says promote racism; laws like that passed in Arizona that
simply are begging to have our laws enforced.
Well, Mexico voted against us 75.9 percent of the time in '08. But in
'09 that dropped to 36.4 percent of the time, so apparently we're
buying some love and affection there.
Nicaragua, they've got tens of millions of dollars each year, yet
they voted against us in '08, 84.7 percent of the time, and against our
positions 80 percent of the time in '09.
You've got Nigeria, $486 million they received in 2008, simply in
foreign aid, not counting other types of aid; '08 they voted against us
that same year 82.7 percent of the time in the U.N., and against our
position 63.6 percent of the time in 2009.
Pakistan, that we keep hoping is going to make a turn for the better,
well, in 2008, simply in foreign aid, we gave them $737 million. They
voted against our position 81.1 percent of the time in '08; 87.5
percent of the time in '09.
Got the Philippines. They wanted to be completely shed of the United
[[Page H5613]]
States, didn't want anything to do with us. Well, almost nothing to do
with us. They did want our hundred-plus million dollars that we will
give them, as we did in 2008, while they voted against our position in
the U.N. 81.2 percent of the time in '08; 62.5 percent of the time in
'09.
Philippines have people there, many of whom are very dear to the
United States. But as a separate independent nation, they're free to
make their own decisions, love us or hate us. But we shouldn't have to
pay people to hate us when they're willing to do it for free.
Russia, hard to believe, but we gave them $81 million in foreign aid
in 2008, and they voted against us 82.9 percent of the time in '08. Did
a little better, 66.7 percent of the time they were against our
position in '09.
South Africa, $574 million in '08 we gave, only in foreign aid, not
counting other types of aid. They voted against us, our positions, 84.5
percent of the time in 2008, and against our position 66.7 percent of
the time in 2009.
Sudan, gave them $337 million in 2008, they voted against us to show
their gratitude 91.9 percent of the time in 2008, and a clear 90
percent of the time in 2009.
You've got Uganda. We gave them $350 million, simply in foreign aid,
not counting all the other types of assistance in 2008. They showed
their gratitude by voting against our position 82.3 percent of the time
in '08; 62.5 percent in '09.
Venezuela. I bet most people didn't know we were giving Venezuela
foreign aid, but we did. This majority voted to give them around $10
million in 2008. Regardless who is in the White House, the Congress is
the one that votes appropriations. Venezuela got basically $10 million,
simply in foreign aid, and of course they showed their love and
affection for the United States by voting against us in opposition,
86.1 percent of the time in '08 and 81.8 percent of the time in '09.
You've got Vietnam. Vietnam, we've gotten so friendly with, they got
over $100 million of U.S. taxpayer money. Actually, I'm sure it's
borrowed money from China that our grandchildren will pay the interest
on, and pay the principal as well, unless they have to declare
bankruptcy as a nation because of our gluttony. But Vietnam, we gave
away over $100 million to them, and their gratitude was expressed by
voting against the things we believe in 94.5 percent of the time in
'08, and 75 percent of the time in '09.
{time} 1920
Yemen. Yemen. Now, this was just giveaway money here. It's $16
million, $17 million just as foreign aid to Yemen in 2008. Showed their
appreciation by voting against our position 92.8 percent of the time in
2008, 71.4 percent in 2009.
But Yemen, not only did they get millions and millions of dollars
simply in foreign aid from the United States, New England gave them a
real boon. New England, just found out in the last few weeks, this year
New England gave them a contract to provide liquid natural gas for the
next 20 years to Yemen.
Now, in order for Yemen to get that contract we had to snub our nose
at countries who have been very supportive and have been friends,
including some in the Caribbean. We snubbed our nose at our friends,
and New England gives what will result in incredible amounts of money
to Yemen for liquid natural gas.
At the same time, we were having hearings, been having hearings in
the Natural Resources Committee to try to hamper hydraulic fracking. By
the use of hydraulic fracking, we have been able to secure over 100
years' reserves of natural gas that we could be using, our own natural
gas. Dan Boren across the aisle has a wonderful bill that would
encourage making cars that run on natural gas more widespread, more
easy to get, and trying to move some of our country over to natural gas
vehicles because we have so much of it. Of course if we eliminate
hydraulic fracking, which by the way has never been shown to have
polluted drinking water--we have had hearings on that--there is no need
for the Federal Government to get in and try to oppose hydraulic
fracking. Many States that have it regulate it themselves, and they
have done a good job in controlling that, and will continue for the
future.
As one of the Members of Congress from Louisiana said today, if you
were to eliminate hydraulic fracking, you would do more damage to
Louisiana and its economy and people's livelihoods than this
environmental disaster will do. Yet Yemen got this massive contract to
provide liquefied natural gas to New England.
That means big, huge ships carrying massive amounts of liquefied
natural gas. In other words, a rather large bomb will be floating in
routinely to Boston Harbor. And I found a quote from the Coast Guard
where they indicate, gee, one of their biggest concerns, since Yemen
has proved to be home of so many terrorists that want to destroy our
way of life, one of their biggest jobs is going to try to make sure
there is not one stowaway somewhere on that Yemen tanker that may set
the thing off and wipe out much of Boston in the process. I wonder if
the people of Boston knew that that was going on, that not only were we
giving away so many millions to Yemen--of course, some may remember
that just recently people were allowed to leave Guantanamo Bay, went to
Yemen, and Yemen of course ended up seeing them take off and we don't
know where they are anymore. Heck, they may be back here coming across
our Mexican border, since we haven't secured that.
So, going back to my bill, 4636, I am going to keep bringing it up,
and we will have a discharge petition and give people on both sides of
the aisle an opportunity to sign that and bring that to the floor for a
vote. That will end up cutting off foreign aid to countries that so
strongly oppose the things that we hold dear, the things for which we
have sacrificed, in John Adams' words, toil and blood and treasure to
secure. And yet we just keep giving money to those who are opposing us
in almost every turn.
They are sovereign nations. We shouldn't get into nation building.
They are big folks. They can make their own decisions. But if they want
to oppose us at every turn, they can't expect us to continue to pay
them to oppose us at every turn. Are so it just is hard to believe that
that's something we are still dealing with, but it is.
And I have to mention this. Regarding the gulf oil spill and this
legislative markup, as it's called; it's of course voting a bill out of
committee. It's the emergency response to the gulf oil bill that
includes $900 million a year for the next 30, 40 years simply to buy
more land. Think about the James Bond title ``The World Is Not
Enough.'' Well, owning most of the West doesn't seem to be enough.
My friend Rob Bishop from Utah indicated how about a friendly
amendment to just say the Federal Government will only buy land in
States in which the Federal Government does not already own up to 20
percent of the State? But my friends across the aisle from those States
in the East that love continuing to purchase land in the West, forcing
schools to lay off teachers, shut down schools, inability to provide
tax revenue--they love that because they're not going to have land
bought in their States. The friendly amendment that Mr. Bishop offered,
since the Federal Government already owns 70 percent of his State, was
not accepted. So the intent appears clear: They want to keep buying
more land in the West. They don't want it purchased up in the East for
the most part.
So in addition to that, during the hearings regarding the gulf
crisis, when I was questioning Director Birnbaum, brought out the facts
that we learned that there was only one entity, one group within MMS,
Minerals Management Service, that was allowed to unionize, and that was
the offshore inspectors. The offshore inspectors, the people that stand
between disaster and our beloved homeland. And they are unionized.
So I offered a simple amendment today, because those offshore
inspectors that go out to make sure things are done properly to protect
us from disaster on our homeland, they are like people in the Army. You
know, I never went into warfare. I was commissioned based on an Army
scholarship I had at Texas A&M. I had an Army scholarship there. I owed
the Army 4 years, but I wasn't commissioned until a year after Vietnam.
When I took the scholarship, I anticipated I would end up in Vietnam,
but the war ended.
[[Page H5614]]
And we were taught, though, in training--and I had been a sentry
before, put out on a perimeter to sit guard during the night. And I was
out there to stand guard to make sure nothing happened to my friends
who were getting some sleep at night. I was their protection. So I
wasn't about to fall asleep when as dark as it was out on perimeter
because I had to warn them if someone was coming in. And sure, you
know, it was drills, it was practice if some want to call it that. But
during drills you take it very seriously. But I came to appreciate the
role of someone who is a forward observer, someone who is a sentry,
someone who is out there on the perimeter sitting, standing guard to
make sure that they are protected back in the main group.
Well, that's the way the role of an offshore inspector struck me.
They are out there protecting us. Can you imagine someone on guard duty
out protecting your perimeter calling in and saying, guess what, I am
going on strike?
{time} 1930
I don't like my contract. I'm going on strike. So you're no longer
protected out here. Things could go completely awry. I'm not
inspecting. I'm on strike. That should not be allowed to happen in the
military. It shouldn't be allowed to happen on offshore rigs.
So I had a simple amendment that said offshore inspectors are not
allowed to strike or threaten to strike from doing their jobs. Votes
were rolled. So we will have a recorded vote on that in the morning and
we'll find out how serious people on both sides of the aisle are about
protecting our homeland, or are they going to have to kowtow and cater
to unions as we've seen on so many votes. This, we're talking about our
homeland. We're talking about prevention of environmental disaster.
So, Madam Speaker, I hope that people will let their Members of
Congress know that are on the Natural Resources Committee, Don't vote
for the unions; vote for the homeland. Don't vote to allow our
soldiers, our offshore inspectors out there on our shore, on our
offshore rigs, to go on strike because, wow, what leverage.
It would be like an air traffic controller saying, All of those
planes are in the air, and I don't care if they land or crash. We're
walking away. They're on their own. You can't let them do that.
You have to provide for our country's security. You can't let people
in the position with the leverage over lives and livelihoods to walk
away on strike at the worst possible time. So we'll find out tomorrow
who's voting for our Nation's homeland, our homeland, all we love and
hold dear--the environment, the animals, the plants that can't do
anything about the oil coming ashore. We'll see whether the vote will
be for the unions so that offshore inspectors can continue to have the
threat to strike if they so feel like it or not. That's tomorrow.
One other thing I want to get to, because I know our President said
this year that we're not a Christian nation, and I want to debate that
because I don't know if we are or not anymore. But I know how we got
started, and it's easy to see in the writings, the things that were
said, the proclamations. It's easy to see.
For example, George Washington, May 2, 1778, gave this order to his
troops, May 2, 1778, to the troops at Valley Forge. Here it is, and I'm
quoting from George Washington's order. ``The Commander-in-Chief
directs that Divine service be performed every Sunday at 11 o'clock, in
each Brigade which has a Chaplain. Those Brigades which have none will
attend the places of worship nearest to them. It is expected that
officers of all ranks will, by their attendance, set an example for
their men. While we are zealously performing the duties of good
citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the
higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot,
it should be our highest glory to laud the more distinguished Character
of,'' and this is Washington's words, ``Christian.''
That was his order to the Continental Army, May 2, 1778. Again, I
won't debate whether or not we're a Christian nation now. But it is
important that people in this body know, and people across America
know, that we, at one time were--the Judiciary Committee of the Senate
made that proclamation at one time in one of their votes. They said
point blank, We are a Christian nation. That was in the 1800s.
Abraham Lincoln, July 7, 1864, said this in his proclamation. Abraham
Lincoln said, ``I do hereby further invite and request the heads of the
Executive Departments of this Government, together with all
legislatures, all judges and magistrates, and all other persons
exercising authority in the land, whether civil, military, or naval,
and all soldiers, seamen, and marines in the national service, and all
of the other law-abiding people of the United States, to assemble in
their preferred places of public worship on that day, and there and
then to render to the Almighty and merciful Ruler of the Universe such
homages and such confessions to offer to Him such supplications, as the
Congress of the United States have in their aforesaid resolution so
solemnly, so earnestly, and so reverently recommended.'' That was for
the day July 7, 1864.
September 5 of 1864, Abraham Lincoln addressed a committee, and
according to the historic document of Colored People from Baltimore--
that's according to the historic document. Now, that would be African
Americans, I'm sure, but back in 1864, apparently Lincoln didn't know
better. So acknowledging a gift of a Bible from those wonderful people,
he said, this is Lincoln's words, ``In regard to this Great Book, I
have but to say, I believe the Bible is the best gift God has given to
man. All the good Saviour,'' that's Lincoln's words, ``All the good
Saviour gave to the world was communicated through this Book. But for
this Book we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable
for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in
it.'' In the Bible. How about that. Those are Lincoln's words.
You'll look at his second inaugural address. Interestingly enough, he
said these words. These are carved in the north wall of the Lincoln
Memorial. In the middle of his second inaugural address, he's talking
about both the North and the South. He said, ``Both read the same
Bible, and pray to the same God. The prayers of both could not be
answered. That of neither has been fully answered. The Almighty has His
own purposes.'' Then he quotes the Bible, ``Woe unto the world because
of offenses.''
``Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by
the bondsman 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until
every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn
with the sword, as was said 3,000 years ago, so still it must be said,
`the judgements of the Lord, are true and righteous.' '' Those were
Lincoln's words in the second inaugural address.
So I won't debate whether or not we're a Christian nation. But that's
how we got our start. Despite the efforts of those even in the early
1800s up to the present day who disregard the facts, they disregard so
many of our Founders' own words. Call Benjamin Franklin a deist, even
though at 80 years of age at the Constitutional Convention he's the one
that says, ``I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the
more convincing proofs I see of this truth--God governs in the affairs
of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice,
is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been
assured, Sir, in the sacred writing, that unless the Lord build the
House, they labour in vain that build it.''
{time} 1940
He went on to urge those other members at the Constitutional
Convention--his words, not mine--he said, ``Firmly believe this; and I
also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this
political building no better than the Builders of Babel.'' So much for
him being a deist.
Regardless of where we are now, this Nation started as a Christian
Nation. All of the indications from the official sources, from our
Presidents, indicated as much. So, regardless of where we are now,
that's where we started. We need to get history right if we're going to
have a future.
____________________