[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 168 (Friday, December 17, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H8777-H8782]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         COURAGE OF CONVICTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  As always, it is an honor and a privilege to address this House, 
especially when you know the history of this place.
  I would like to comment about my friend across the aisle who was 
talking about the 9/11 first responders. Those were heroes. They are 
heroes. They are really true testaments to the good in America. So many 
first responders were going up the stairs to rescue people as most 
everyone else was fleeing. They are true heroes.
  What is not as heroic--in fact, it isn't heroic at all--is to bring a 
bill before the floor and say, Here is a bunch of heroes we need to 
help. We're not going to cut spending in any other areas. We know there 
is massive waste, fraud and abuse all over the place. We know there are 
entities that really have not been able to show any real benefit to the 
American economy, to American freedom, to American security; but we are 
not going to cut those, because those are favored in our eyes, too. We 
want you to borrow more money from the Chinese and from whoever is 
willing to keep buying bonds; and apparently, some people aren't 
willing to buy bonds at all or aren't willing to finance our continued 
astronomic debt.
  So, even though Chairman Bernanke had assured us in a private meeting 
that he wasn't doing it, whatever he wants to call it, it sure sounds 
like monetizing the debt when you print money and buy our own debt, 
whether you do it directly or buy it from a third party who has just 
bought our debt.
  Those are the kinds of things we are doing. We are saying, We see 
these heroes who deserve to be cared for and who deserve to have their 
health needs met. We agree on that. There was total agreement on that 
as far as I know.
  What we didn't agree on was saying, So, as to these little children 
being born now, these little babies who are in their cribs all over the 
country, we're going to load them down with tens of thousands of 
dollars of debt before they ever even get their first jobs. We are 
going to load them up with debt because we don't have the financial 
responsibility to carve out money that is being wasted and to say this 
is where we need to send it.
  Had that been done, I know the people on my side of the aisle, who I 
know and talked to about that bill that was so noble in its intent, 
would have voted for it as well. It doesn't even have to be that 
heroic. Just carve out some of the waste, fraud and abuse that this 
government is involved in, and pay for these things.
  That was another problem with the so-called ``tax extender bill'' 
that came before the House this week. There were 36 Republicans who 
voted against it--not terribly heroic even though most of us knew that 
there could be consequences. I hear there are those who want to further 
take away committees. Some of us have been told we won't be 
subcommittee chairmen in the new Congress. It is ironic to see that 
those who have the most affiliation with tea party groups and the most 
conservatism, except for a precious few, are

[[Page H8778]]

pretty much being shut out. So we understand there are the consequences 
of being shut out of any type of leadership power on this side of the 
aisle when we stand firm on our convictions.
  We needed to extend the tax rates. It wasn't going to stimulate the 
economy, but it was going to help prevent a disaster, a recession--a 
double dip recession, a triple dip, whatever you want to call it. 
Extending the current tax rates was the thing to do. It should have 
been done months or years ago. The problem was we didn't have enough 
courage on our side of the aisle to stand firm and say, We ran on being 
financially responsible.
  We ran and won the majority, making it clear we were going to stop 
the deficit spending. We made it clear that, if you give us just one 
more chance in the majority, then we are going to be responsible 
financially. We are not going to rush bills to the floor no matter the 
heroic or noble purpose. We need to protect those children being born 
and those to be born in this country from having to shoulder the debt 
that we irresponsibly would not address.
  That was the concern of the 36 I know who voted against it. We 
weren't keeping our promise.
  Now, I know the tax extension's current rates were absolutely 
critical. I also know that the Members on our side of the aisle who I 
know voted for that bill are just a bunch of wonderful folks who have 
the best interests of this country at heart. They love America. I know 
people on both sides of the aisle love America and want to do what is 
best for America, but we have dramatically different visions of how you 
do that. Frankly, the Democrats won the majority in November of 2006 
because we had been doing some deficit spending.

                              {time}  1810

  And even though there were wars going on, it needed to stop, and 
America said that: Okay, Democrats, you've made clear you're going to 
stop the deficit spending so we'll give you a chance to do that. Four 
years later, the deficit spending had gone on steroids like nothing 
anybody has ever seen anywhere in the world. $3 trillion in deficits in 
2 years? It's just unfathomable.
  So to come in when we've already saddled that much debt, where we're 
borrowing over 50 cents of every dollar this majority across the aisle 
was spending, that's just irresponsible. It's just wrong.
  So I deeply regret that my friends across the aisle that brought 
forth the 9/11 first responders bill did not also carve out the money 
from things that were not worthy and say this money can be better spent 
for heroes in this country, and we're going to responsibly do it 
without adding debt to those who come after us, because in our 
position, our generation, those of us who are serving in Congress now, 
we're only here not because we deserve to be born in this country, or 
those that emigrated to this country deserved to emigrate into here. We 
are here because of the grace of God, the blessings of God and because 
this Nation was blessed for over 200 years as a Nation and 200 or 300 
years before that going back to Columbus, 1492, and his sacrifice and 
his courage and even putting his life on the line when the crew was 
ready to turn back and putting his life on the line in an effort to 
keep the crew on track, to give it a few more days, which they did, and 
as a result, we have so much for which to be grateful and thankful.
  But we've been irresponsible, and there are those of us that knew by 
taking a stand against unpaid-for spending that we ran the risk of 
being further ostracized by our own party, not getting committees, 
being removed from committees, not getting chairmanships. We understand 
that. But this was an important principle. It was important that we try 
to keep our word when we can.
  And I appreciated what my friend from Michigan Thaddeus McCotter had 
said in talking and justifying his vote against this massive deficit 
growth because, as we all know, we won the majority. The Republicans 
won the majority. Come January 5, we will have the majority in this 
House. It will be a Republican Speaker, John Boehner, who will be in 
the Speaker's chair up there. We will control the House of 
Representatives for the first time in 4 years. Still won't control the 
Senate. We'll have additional Senators we didn't have 2 years ago and 4 
years ago, and President Obama will still be President, but we will 
hold the majority in the House of Representatives.
  So what Thaddeus had to say was that forcing us to vote for a bill, 
even though it had this extension of the current tax rate that would 
help avoid a massive recession, is a bit like Custer saying, Come on, 
boys, let's attack before there are more of us. Didn't make a lot of 
sense to some of us. We were going to have more leverage to do what was 
right and best for this country before we had a majority because it 
seems to me that once we had the majority, if we will stand on 
principle then, that we can tell the Senate we're not going to deficit 
spend. You can't dangle things that we know in our hearts at this end 
are good for the country and expect us to buy into your deficit 
spending--we're not going to do it. That that would have been an awful 
lot of leverage.
  And we also know that taxpayers at the lowest tax-paying levels were 
going to see their income tax go up 50 percent. People that pay 10 
percent in income tax were going to have their taxes go up to 15 
percent. That's massive when you're not making very much. And the 
highest wage earners were going to see their taxes go from 35 to about 
39\1/2\ percent. It was an increase but percentage-wise not anything 
like at the lowest wage earner level. So there was going to be 
leverage.
  And I appreciate Mr. McCotter's comment. It's like Custer saying, 
Come on, boys, let's attack now before there are more of us. Well, the 
tax extension bill was passed, and there are those who said, Louis, you 
were the one who came up with the payroll tax holiday, and this bill 
had your bill, your idea in there. It did not. It had a 2 percent 
reduction from 6.2 percent down to 4.2 percent as the Social Security 
tax rate. So it was clever, but that also gives Members of Congress 
over a $2,100 raise because our Social Security tax--and I guess by 
saying that, some people in America are shocked. They don't know that 
we've been paying Social Security tax the whole time I've been in 
Congress for the last 6 years, but like everyone across America, our 
Social Security tax will be dropped by 2 percent down from 6.2 to 4.2.
  But here again, it was not paid for. We're going to do that on the 
backs of our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren. It's wrong, 
and it needed to be paid for. We ran on the fact that we would do that, 
and I know the people I talked to that supported that felt like it was 
what had to be done, but some of us saw it differently, and it may cost 
us politically but it was the right thing to do.
  The Social Security so-called tax or payroll holiday was not paid 
for, and that was never my idea to have an unpaid-for tax holiday. 
Because the fact is, that we had enough money from the porkulus, 
stimulus, whatever you want to call the nine-hundred-and-something 
billion dollar bill that the President passed immediately, got through 
Congress, his demand and Speaker Pelosi's pushing, Majority Leader 
Reid's pushing. They got through that monstrosity of a debt increaser. 
We could have taken that money and had a tax holiday. In my bill, I 
proposed taking the money from TARP, and I know, I've read the data. 
Yes, Wall Street contributes to my Democratic colleagues 4-1 over 
Republicans. I get it. I understand. So obviously they would be for 
helping Wall Street, so many of them. I've got dear friends who were as 
offended as I was at what was happening, and I'm grateful for their 
friendship and for their stance and it did cost some of them.
  But we didn't need to be running up the debt, and that's why my tax 
holiday bill would have allowed people to keep their own money in their 
own paycheck and, instead of allowing the Secretary of the Treasury--
and I agree with Newt Gingrich that probably Hank Paulson was the worst 
Treasury Secretary we've had certainly in my lifetime, and now Timothy 
Geithner, he's enjoying having a slush fund where he can throw out, 
dole out as he sees fit. To Secretary Paulson's credit, he was able to 
bail out his buddies at his firm Goldman Sachs and see that they not 
only avoided bankruptcy but got mega wealthy on the backs of the

[[Page H8779]]

American taxpayers, and also that AIG was kept from having to 
reorganize in bankruptcy so they could stay wealthy as well, and also 
pay like $9 billion, whatever it was they owed, Mr. Paulson's buddies 
at Goldman Sachs.

                              {time}  1820

  But anyway, four-to-one contributions to Democrats over Republicans 
from Wall Street, and it has really reaped them benefits. The only 
thing they've had to endure on Wall Street is having the President, 
having some of the Democrats, by words, accused them of being greedy 
and money-grubbing and all those words. But they've been able to endure 
all the slings and arrows that words have brought from the Democratic 
leadership, including the President, because they knew they were 
getting megawealthy from their friends they helped elect in the 
Democratic Party.
  A tax holiday needed to be paid for. It would have stimulated the 
economy. And I realize there are political calculations, and I will 
readily admit--I may be wrong, but I believe that those who think that 
having the tax rates extended for 2 years so they have to be debated as 
the Presidential election is coming up in November 2012 will help 
Republicans. I didn't see it that way. I still don't see it that way.
  I think Republicans are going to pay a price because that 2 percent 
reduction on Social Security is going to push Social Security more 
quickly toward bankruptcy or default, and it will enable our friends 
across the aisle to say, Uh-huh, it's about to go broke. Now you have 
to raise taxes. Let's do it on those who create jobs. Let's do it on 
the wealthy. Let's do it on those in small business. Let's pop them 
hard, raise their taxes. And because people will not want to see their 
tax rates go up, including their Social Security rate go up, then there 
will probably be more political interest in raising taxes than our 
friends across the aisle were not able to do in the last few months.
  They may be able to do it through the Senate and through the things 
that are sent down here in late 2012 because, as one of our friends 
here on this side of the aisle had said, we've got to be careful, 
because as this tax extender/stimulus bill showed, when we send the 
clear message to the administration in the White House and to our 
friends in the Senate that we stand firmly on our principles, we will 
not yield, we will not give in to deficit spending unless you give us 
something in the bill that we know will be good for America, then we'll 
keep deficit spending, so we get a net wash and maybe net damage. 
That's not a message we needed to be sending, that if you'll give us 
something that we know helps America, like extending the current tax 
rates, we'll forgo our principles on standing firm on stopping deficit 
spending. It's very unfortunate.
  But I would also submit that with regard to the unemployment 
benefits, 13 more months that were added, I understand, the thought was 
that this was out of compassion, to help those who are not working, 
when real compassion would be creating jobs. The best Christmas present 
you could give so many Americans this year would be a job--that would 
have been the thing to do--instead of paying people to continue staying 
at home.
  Now, I know people who have been looking constantly for employment, 
but because of their age, the things that they have been doing for a 
living, they can't find a job. I understand that. But true compassion 
would have been to say, You know what? We went from a matter of months 
of unemployment insurance we would pay to 2 years, 99 weeks of 
unemployment that our Democratic friends had pushed through. And now 
we've added unpaid-for deficit spending, 13 more months of unemployment 
on top of what we've already done. Compassion would have said, We're 
more interested in you getting a good job than paying you to 
continually lose more and more of your self-esteem because you can't 
find a job, continually go into more depression, as so many I know are 
because they can't find a job. We would have been better off saying, 
You know what? In 26 weeks, a year, 99 weeks, another 13 months on top 
of that, you know, you haven't been able to find a job 6 months or a 
year? If you haven't, then this is what we need to do. Instead of 
paying you to sit at home and not work because there are no jobs in 
your area of expertise, we're going to pay you to retrain in areas 
where there are jobs. That would be more compassionate. Re-create some 
self-esteem in people who have lost theirs. That would be more 
compassion.
  Now, we're coming back next week into session, and of course it costs 
money every time we bring this body back into session. People fly back 
in from all over the country, drive back in from some places. Some 
people stay here and don't go home much and lose touch with their 
constituents. But those of us who go home when we're not in session, it 
costs money to come back and forth.
  It shocks people sometimes to see us flying commercially because they 
think just because Speaker Pelosi had her own 757 that we all have 
private planes and fly on those. We don't. And to soon-to-be Speaker 
Boehner's credit, he's giving back that 757 to the Air Force. That's 
going to be a big deal. That's going to be so helpful to those who are 
serving in our military service that have been without that plane for 
the last some years now.
  We're coming back next week. It really wasn't necessary, except that 
there are Members in the majority of the Senate who are not satisfied 
to have a continuing resolution that would extend the current rate of 
spending into next year. What was discussed in here, some of our 
friends across the aisle, they were willing to have a 2-, 3-month--some 
less, some more--but are probably going to have a 2-month continuing 
resolution to continue the current level of spending into, say, next 
February, and that would give Republicans a chance to get in here. We 
wouldn't get much time. It's going to mean a lot of work to figure out 
the proper appropriations to fill in, carry forward after that 
resolution runs out. But that was going to be agreeable, it sounded 
like, to this House.
  However, the Senate says, You know what? We're not satisfied. We want 
to pull out more Christmas presents from the American public, from the 
taxpayers, even though we realize they don't have the money now. We 
don't have it in the Treasury. We'll have to borrow it. We'll have to 
print it. We've got too many more Christmas presents we want to come up 
with to help our buddies with. And so we're not ready to just continue 
this current level of spending. We've got too many Christmas ornaments 
we want to put on that spending resolution. That's why we're coming 
back next week.
  We've got a 5-day resolution to keep spending at the current level, 
and we'll have to come back next week because the Democrats in the 
Senate--and I can really understand. You know, Majority Leader Reid, he 
had a tough-fought race and had tough opposition, lots of people 
helping, narrowest race that he might have expected, but he won. And 
so, by golly, as the old saying has gone for centuries, to the victor 
goes the spoils. So he is wanting some of these spoils to be put on 
these bills and not have a clean spending resolution. I get it. I 
understand that. But it sure would be better for America to stop the 
runaway spending, stop all the pork being added to these bills, stop 
all the special earmarks, whether they are going to Republicans or 
Democratic Senators. It needs to stop. Let's get our spending under 
control.

                              {time}  1830

  So there will be a Christmas present there. My friend, Dr. Gingrey, 
was speaking in the well about Guantanamo Bay. I can't think about 
Christmas without thinking about the Christmas present to the five 
people that have self-admitted that they planned 9/11 and that they 
were, as of December 8 of 2008, had indicated to the judge at 
Guantanamo that they were ready to plead guilty. They would enter no 
more motions. They were ready to get this over with.
  And then Senator Obama was elected President, and they immediately 
sent out the word that they were going to probably be bringing these 
people to New York City, costing no telling how many billions of 
dollars to try to protect the city, no telling how much money would 
have to be spent to prepare facilities. They couldn't be as safe as 
they are in Guantanamo. I have been there. I have been through them. As 
a former judge, those were well-thought-out judicial facilities there,

[[Page H8780]]

well-thought-out facilities for consultation between the defendants and 
their attorneys, well-thought out facilities both from a protection 
aspect and from a judicial aspect.
  But Senator Obama made clear that they were going to give them a 
Christmas gift. They didn't call it that, but obviously that is what it 
was. Certainly those five don't celebrate Christmas, but they sure did 
get a Christmas present because after they announced they were going to 
plead guilty, the administration made clear they were going to give 
them a good show trial in New York City. So they withdrew their 
indication that they were going to plead guilty and move forward.
  So they have had a wonderful Christmas present. It is good to see the 
charity for others, and that is interesting charity that was provided 
by this administration to those who planned and plotted and were able 
to see 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11. It was wonderful to see the 
charity, but the problem is we take an oath to defend this country, 
basically the Constitution, against all enemies foreign and domestic; 
and it is a problem when you don't do that.
  So they got a Christmas present 2 years ago, and they have continued 
to have a Christmas present. The administration, Attorney General 
Holder and the President, have given them another one because they have 
announced we don't know when we are going to get around to trying you 
so you can't get the death penalty for the foreseeable future because, 
heck, here is a gift--life. You didn't give the gift of life to those 
3,000 Americans on 9/11; you took theirs, but we are going to give it 
to you and perhaps there is some feeling by us showing them such wonder 
and gratitude and love and affection that perhaps they will end up 
embracing us.
  But the pleadings that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has filed on behalf of 
himself and the other four planners of 9/11 make pretty clear, as they 
say in their pleading that was filed in March of last year, they praise 
Allah. If we caused you terror, they say praise Allah. And that it is 
not over. They say they will defeat us, and we will be destroyed just 
as surely as those Twin Towers were on 9/11. But the administration has 
given a gift to them that seems to keep on giving.
  We took up the DREAM Act this week. There are people who came over, 
were brought over as children and who had no control of being brought 
into this country. So it is easy to understand the warmth and the 
compassion for people like that. I have met some. They have done well 
in school, some that I have met. The problem is that they were brought 
here illegally. And a bigger problem is that still we have not secured 
our border.
  And as we found in 1986, with all of those promises, okay, we will do 
this, one time in American history, we will give this amnesty to 
everyone who is here illegally and then we will never do it again 
because nobody else is getting amnesty. One small problem: they did not 
secure the borders so now there are millions and millions and millions 
of people here illegally. Now we are talking about amnesty again.
  Some of us had a problem with the bill because it created the ability 
for people to say, you know what, I meet the criteria here. I am under 
16. I have been here more than 5 years and so make me a citizen and 
then I can turn around and declare that I need my parents here so I can 
use chain migration to add those who came illegally.
  So that is a problem. You say, no, under that DREAM Act, the 
Secretary of Homeland Security was going to make the determination of 
whether they fit the criteria. But when I read the bill, I was shocked 
to see that Homeland Security, the Secretary of Homeland Security, had 
complete authority. Nobody else had it, undivided authority to grant or 
not grant the existence to stay here under the DREAM Act and amnesty 
and the ability to ultimately become citizens. It didn't give it to the 
Department of Justice because under the Department of Justice is where 
you find immigration judges. The bill doesn't allow for them. It gives 
complete authority to Homeland Security.
  Now having been a judge, I know if someone were to come before me 
with an affidavit that says I am under 16 and I have been here for more 
than 5 years, and if I were looking at the person who provided the 
affidavit or the sworn testimony, that I might say: But sir, your hair 
is white or gray or you are balder than I am and your skin is more 
wrinkled than mine from many, many years out in the sun. I don't 
believe you are under 16. Perhaps he would be met with words, sometimes 
through an interpreter: Oh, yeah, I have lived a hard life. That is why 
my hair is so white and my skin is so wrinkled. Well, an immigration 
judge would know that unless there is some extraordinary disease, this 
person is not under 16 years old.
  However, when the Secretary of Homeland Security has complete 
unadulterated authority to decide anything she sees fit, and not only 
that, a provision that even if they don't meet any of the requirements, 
she can waive them, that is not a good bill. And especially when they 
add a provision that whether or not you meet a single one of the 
requirements to allow you to have the amnesty in the DREAM Act, the 
mere act of filing the petition will stay enjoined basically any effort 
to remove you from the country.
  Well, we can have some pretty heinous folks around here who should be 
removed; but under the bill, once they file a petition, even though 
they are clearly not under 16, that effort is stayed. They have to 
allow them here pending a decision by the Secretary of Homeland 
Security. It is not a good idea.
  Now, with regard to the Don't Ask, Don't Tell damage we have done 
this week in the House, I understand there are many who mean well. 
There are some who think it would be a great thing to give all of these 
civil rights to people in the military. But anything that is an 
impediment to the good order and discipline of the military is not good 
for the military. The military does not have the civil rights everybody 
else has. That is why under the Constitution Congress is allowed to do 
as it did and create the Uniform Code of Military Justice so when I was 
in the military if I had been arrested for something, I didn't have a 
right to a random selection of jury panel. The same person who signs 
the order ordering you to court martial is the same one who gets to 
pick the jurors who will sit on your case.
  Now people in civic life in America would not stand for that. 
Civilians would not. It would be unconstitutional. But not in the 
military because they don't have the rights that we do.
  I know when I was in the Army at Fort Benning, a young man there in 
the barracks could not control his overt feelings of homosexuality and 
so he misread indications from another person in the barracks and found 
out that he had misread when he crawled into his bunk with him late one 
night and his advances were not met with the kind of affection that he 
had hoped.

                              {time}  1840

  That's not good for the good order and discipline. When we have 
people who cannot control their hormones, no matter whether it's 
heterosexual, homosexual, whatever, they are an impediment to the 
military. And we out-processed people at Fort Benning when I was there 
who couldn't control their overt sexuality, whatever it was.
  There are some people across America that mean well with this but 
don't realize this is being shoved down the military's throat. It would 
have been far more appropriate to have done a survey where the 
respondents--all of those in the military--are asked and submit a 
ballot to give their feelings about what effect it would have and 
whether or not they would reenlist, they would re-up, they would do 
another term, find out so that it could not be adversely affected in 
their OER or their enlistment ratings. And then take that result--
because we have a voluntary military some have lost sight of, they 
don't have to stay in. So when we talk about losing hundreds or 
thousands of people who want to practice homosexuality openly in the 
military, there has been no regard for how many thousands or tens of 
thousands--or who knows how many because a survey wasn't properly 
done--we don't know how many we will lose, but it will be a lot of 
people as they have certainly conveyed that to some of us privately.
  And there were no solutions in this bill for how you deal with living 
conditions. Do you put gay men and heterosexual men together? Do you 
put gay

[[Page H8781]]

men together? There are all kinds of questions that needed to be 
properly studied and have not been. But I understand before this group 
lost the majority across the aisle they had to pander to people who 
were demanding this kind of thing, but it sure wasn't the military 
making that demand.
  And just as I know there are proponents of this bill who thought they 
knew what the majority in their district felt, and then it turned out 
they didn't know what the majority of the people in their district felt 
because they got beat, and just as there were people in leadership 
across the aisle who thought they knew what the majority of America was 
thinking and that tea parties were ``astroturf,'' and then it turned 
out they completely misread America, there is a decent chance they were 
misreading the military on this as well. But we rushed headlong, not 
giving proper concern to the vast majority of those in the military and 
whether or not they would reenlist, whether or not we would do damage 
to the good order and discipline.
  But you can expect, if Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed--it's 
working fine; if you can control your sexuality, whatever it is, then 
you stay, you serve. You love your country, it's not overt, then you 
stay and you serve. Certainly there were homosexuals that were good 
soldiers in the military when I was there, but it was a private matter 
and remained that way, and so it did not affect, unless it became 
overt, the good order and discipline of the military. You can expect 
though, if that becomes law, there will be demands by those in the 
military saying, hey, now that we can be overt in the military, we 
demand to have barracks, we demand to have quarters where we can live 
together as husband and husband and wife and wife, and now you've got 
to redo that.
  And then of course once that is rammed through the military as well--
because they don't have a choice, they can't object to anything the 
Commander in Chief throws their way because that is a court martial-
able offense--they give up their right to free speech, in fact, in the 
military. It's going to have a tremendous effect across America, which 
is what was desired.
  I also know that there are people across America, including at the 
White House, who say this is not a Christian Nation. And I will 
continue not to debate that point because maybe they're right, I don't 
know. But I know the foundation of the country, I know how we got 
started. And so we are coming back, we're told, next Tuesday into 
session perhaps for part of one day. I could not be sure that we would 
actually have Special Orders during that one day we come back to deal 
with the Christmas presents that the Senate Democrats want to convey to 
people, so I wanted to make sure that this was in the Record this year.

  And so, Mr. Speaker, if I might inquire at this time how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 17 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Franklin D. Roosevelt, December 21, 1941, said these words--I won't 
read the whole thing, but he said, ``Sincere and faithful men and women 
are asking themselves this Christmas how can we light our trees, how 
can we give our gifts, how can we meet and worship with love and with 
uplifted spirit and heart in a world at war, a world of fighting and 
suffering and death? How can we pause even for a day, even for 
Christmas day, in our urgent labor of arming a decent humanity against 
the enemies which beset it?'' He goes on and he says, ``I do hereby 
appoint the first day of the year, 1942, as a day of prayer, of asking 
forgiveness of our shortcomings of the past, of consecration to the 
tasks of the present, and asking God's help in spirit, but strong in 
the conviction of the right, steadfast to endure sacrifice, and brave 
to achieve a victory of liberty and peace.''
  He said, ``Our strongest weapon in this war is that conviction of the 
dignity and brotherhood of man which Christmas day signifies. Against 
enemies who preach the principles of hate and practice them, we set our 
faith in human love and in God's care for us and all men everywhere. 
And so I am asking, my associate, my old and good friend, to say a word 
to the people of America, old and young, tonight, Winston Churchill, 
Prime Minister of Great Britain,'' at which time Prime Minister Winston 
Churchill gave a Christmas message for America because they thought 
Christmas was a national treasure. And so it was.
  In 1942, Roosevelt said these words, ``It is significant that 
tomorrow, Christmas day, our plants and factories will be stilled. That 
is not true of the other holidays we have long been accustomed to 
celebrate. On all other holidays work goes on gladly for the winning of 
the war, so Christmas becomes the only holiday in all the year. I like 
to think that this is so because Christmas is a holy day. May all it 
stands for live and grow throughout the years.''
  In 1944, Franklin D. Roosevelt said, ``It's not easy to say `Merry 
Christmas' to you, my fellow Americans, in this time of destructive 
war, nor can I say `Merry Christmas' lightly tonight to our Armed 
Forces at their battle stations all over the world or to our allies who 
fight by their side. Here at home, we celebrate this Christmas day in 
our traditional American way because of its deep, spiritual meaning to 
us, because the teachings of Christ are fundamental in our lives, and 
because we want our youngest generation to grow up knowing the 
significance of this tradition and the story of the coming of the 
immortal prince of peace and goodwill.'' Those are Franklin D. 
Roosevelt's words, 1944.
  He went on and said, ``They know the determination of all right-
thinking people and nations, that Christmases such as those we have 
known in these years of world tragedy shall not come again to beset the 
souls of the children of God. This generation has passed through many 
recent years of deep darkness, watching the spread of the poison of 
Hitlerism and fascism in Europe, the growth of imperialism and 
militarism in Japan, and the final clash of war all the over the world.

                              {time}  1850

  ``Then came the dark days of the fall of France and the ruthless 
bombing of England and the desperate battle of the Atlantic and Pearl 
Harbor and Corregidor and Singapore. Since then, the prayers of good 
men and women and children the world over have been answered.''
  He goes on and says, ``We pray that until that day when peace comes, 
God will protect our gallant men and women in the uniforms of the 
united nations, that he will receive into his infinite grace those who 
make their supreme sacrifice in the cause of righteousness, in the 
cause of love of him and his teachings.''
  Roosevelt went on and said, ``We pray that with victory will come a 
new day of peace on Earth in which all the nations of the Earth will 
join together for all time. That is the spirit of Christmas, the holy 
day. May that spirit live and grow throughout the world in all the 
years to come.''
  Harry Truman, in his message on December 24th of 1946, included these 
words. He said, ``Again our thoughts and aspirations and the hopes of 
future years turn to a little town in the hills of Judea where on a 
winter's night 2,000 years ago the prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled. 
Shepherds keeping watch by night over their flock heard the glad 
tidings of great joy from the angles of the Lord singing `Glory to God 
in the highest, and on Earth peace, good will toward men.' ''
  Truman went on and said, ``The message of Bethlehem best sums up our 
hopes tonight. If we as a nation and the other nations of the world 
will accept it, the star of faith will guide us into the place of peace 
as it did the shepherds on that day of Christ's birth long ago.
  ``I am sorry to say all is not in harmony in the world today. We have 
found that it is easier for men to die together on the field of battle 
than it is for them to live together at home in peace. But those who 
died have died in vain if in some measure at least we shall not 
preserve for the peace that spiritual unity in which we won the war.
  ``The problems facing the United Nations, the world's hope for peace, 
would overwhelm faint hearts. But as we continue to labor for an 
enduring peace through that great organization, we

[[Page H8782]]

must remember that the world was not created in a day. We shall find 
strength and courage at this Christmastime because so brave a beginning 
has been made. So, with faith and courage, we shall work to hasten the 
day when the sword is replaced by the plowshare and nations do not 
learn war anymore.''
  He went on and said, ``He whose birth we celebrate tonight was the 
world's greatest teacher.'' He said, ``Therefore, all things whatsoever 
ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is 
the law and the prophets. Through all the centuries since he spoke, 
history has vindicated his teaching. In this great country of ours has 
been demonstrated the fundamental unity of Christianity and democracy. 
Under our heritage of freedom for everyone on equal terms, we also 
share the responsibilities of government.''
  He went on and said, ``We have this glorious land not because of a 
particular religious faith, not because our ancestors sailed from a 
particular foreign port. We have our unique national heritage because 
of a common aspiration to be free and because of our purpose to achieve 
for ourselves and for our children the good things of life which the 
Christ declared he came to give all mankind. We have made a good start 
toward peace in the world. Ahead of us lies the larger task of making 
the peace secure.
  ``The progress,'' Truman said, ``we have made, gives hope that in the 
coming year we shall reach our goal. May 1947 entitled us to the 
benediction of the master, `blessed are the peacemakers for they shall 
be called the children of God.' Because of what we have achieved for 
peace, because of all the promise our future holds, I say to my fellow 
countrymen, Merry Christmas.'' He didn't say ``happy holidays,'' but 
Truman said ``Merry Christmas.'' ``Merry Christmas, and may God bless 
you all.''
  There are so many wonderful Christmas messages over the generations 
from different presidents. I love Truman's comment in '48 when he said, 
``The God that made the world and all things herein hath made of one 
blood all nations of man for to dwell on the face of the Earth.'' 
Truman said, ``In the spirit of that message from the Acts of the 
Apostles, I wish you all a Merry Christmas.''
  In 1953, Dwight Eisenhower had these words for us. On December 24th, 
1953, he said, ``This evening's ceremony here at the White House is one 
of many thousands in American traditional celebration of the birth 
almost 2,000 years ago of the Prince of Peace. For us this Christmas is 
truly a season of good will and our first peaceful one since 1949. Our 
national and individual blessings are manifold. Our hopes are bright, 
even though the world still stands divided in two antagonistic parts.
  ``More precisely than in any other way, prayer places freedom and 
communism in opposition, one to the other.'' Eisenhower said, ``The 
communist can find no reserve of strength in prayer because his 
doctrine of materialism and stateism denies the dignity of man and 
consequently the existence of the God. But in America,'' Eisenhower 
says, ``George Washington long ago rejected exclusive dependence upon 
mere materialistic values. In the bitter and critical winter at Valley 
Forge, when the cause of liberty was so near defeat, his recourse was 
sincere and earnest prayer. From it he received new hope and new 
strength of purpose, out of which grew the freedom in which we 
celebrate this Christmas season.
  ``As religious faith is the foundation of free government, so is 
prayer an indispensable part of that faith.'' Eisenhower said, ``Would 
it not be fitting for each of us to speak in prayer to the father of 
all men and women on this Earth of whatever nation, of whatever race 
and creed, to ask that he help us and teach us and strengthen us and 
receive our thanks? Should we not pray that he help us; help us to 
remember that the founders of this, our country, came first to these 
shores in search of freedom, freedom of man to walk in dignity, to live 
without fear beyond the yoke of tyranny, ever to progress; help us to 
cherish freedom for each of us and for all nations. Might we not pray 
that he teach us, teach us the security of faith. And may we pray that 
he strengthen us. Should we not pray that he receive our thanks, for 
certainly we are grateful for the opportunity given us to use our 
strength and our faith to meet the problems of this hour. And on this 
Christmas Eve, all hearts in America are filled with special thanks to 
God that the blood of those we love no longer spills on battlefields 
abroad. May he receive the thanks of each of us for this, his greatest 
bounty, and our supplication that peace on Earth may live with us 
always.''
  Now, at that time we were at peace, when Eisenhower spoke those 
words. But, of course, we have men and women losing their lives in 
uniform for our benefit and our freedom and we should, as Eisenhower 
said, remember them in prayer both for their safety and thanks giving.
  President Kennedy had wonderful, wonderful Christmas messages, as did 
other Presidents.

                              {time}  1900

  But let me make sure people understand who don't understand 
Christianity and don't understand that it is possible to love someone 
and not agree with their lifestyle; that it's possible to even lay down 
one's life for people they love even though they disagree completely 
with their lifestyle.
  I serve with colleagues here, as the gentleman from Massachusetts 
pointed out, who serve here and are openly avowed homosexuals. And I 
understand that. I have friends who practice homosexuality--people I 
love, care about. There are people who practice adultery as 
heterosexuals. And in all those cases, as a member of the military, I 
would gladly lay down my life for them and their freedom because, as 
Jesus taught, you don't have to embrace or love somebody's lifestyle to 
love them with all your heart.
  But as we approach this Christmas season, I hope that we will re-
engender a love for those yet to take a breath in this world, who are 
in utero; that we will have a love and affection for those who are 
being overwhelmed with taxes before they even get their first job; and 
we will act responsibly to show that love and to cease the damage we're 
doing to this country. Those are adequate matters of prayer.
  And in this, the last hour of this week before we approach the week 
of Christmas, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________