[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 172 (Tuesday, December 21, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H8918-H8923]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              START TREATY

  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. Well, down the hall we have the Senate as they have been 
taking up the START Treaty to help limit our defense of ourselves with 
a country that is not the country we're most concerned about. We seem 
to keep ignoring the fact that Iran continues to move forward 
developing nuclear weapons, and once they have them, then that is the 
game changer. Of course, we know that even in this hemisphere that 
there's the potential for rockets that could reach the United States. 
It's nothing to fear if we act appropriately and don't stick our head 
in the sand, as the START Treaty apparently attempts to do.
  For example, we've got people in the Senate that do not understand 
that the President has the power to negotiate treaties. The Senate's 
role is in advising and consenting, but they don't have the power to 
amend the treaty. That has to be done between the other country and our 
President. So they can make suggestions, but that language is not 
binding unless the other country agrees to it.
  So all this frivolous stuff, all this discussion, it is meaningless 
unless Russia were to adopt it. And when you look at the preamble to 
this START Treaty, despite what the President says and despite what 
people in the Senate are saying about it not affecting missile defense, 
the preamble says: Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship 
between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms,

[[Page H8919]]

that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic 
nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive arms do 
not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic 
offensive arms of the parties.
  Now, maybe from the legal training and the judicial training it helps 
to read and understand that better, but the Russians make pretty clear 
they intend for this treaty to restrict a defense system. How do people 
down the hall not get that? It seems pretty clear. We have an 
obligation to support and defend this Constitution. We took an oath to 
do that.

                              {time}  2010

  We have never ratified a treaty in a lame duck session. Yet that is 
exactly what is being attempted down the hall right now. People who 
have been voted out of office because the majority in their States did 
not want them representing them anymore are down there cutting a deal 
with the Russians.
  The election should have consequences, and people should have the 
decency to note that the majority of the people in their States have 
spoken, to go home and to not set a precedent of being the first lame 
duck session that people didn't want consenting to treaties providing 
consent to the treaty. It is so inappropriate what is going on down 
there, and then they stand there and tell us, Oh, no. This will have 
nothing to do with our missile defense shield.
  We had a President back in the 1980s who, despite all the jokes, 
despite all the insults hurled at him, insisted that the thing that was 
maddest of all was the concept of mutually assured destruction, that 
insane was the idea of two countries saying, We'll both develop so much 
in the way of nuclear offensive capability that one won't attack the 
other because they will know the other will attack them, and they will 
both be wiped out.
  So along came President Reagan, and he would not leave it alone.
  We are going to defend ourselves. We took an oath to do as much, and 
if Russian, Iranian, Venezuelan, Cuban missiles--any kind of missiles--
pose a threat to the United States, we have an obligation to defend 
ourselves.
  But not according to this President.
  According to this President, we are basically going to unilaterally 
mutually disarm, which is what happened with the Polish missile defense 
site. I understand it has now been revealed that the Russians had 
hopes, according to their early documentation, that eventually in the 
final document they would get the United States to agree to abandon 
their plans to put a missile defense shield in Poland. However, they 
didn't realize that they were negotiating with a new President of the 
United States, who promised hope and change and that the hope and 
change that he was bringing was a change unlike any negotiation in our 
past. We were going to unilaterally lay down our best leverage, not ask 
for anything in return and think we'd somehow be better off.
  Well, that's not the way negotiations work in the world among 
individuals. Especially for those of us who are Christian, you treat 
individuals with respect. You follow the admonitions and the teachings 
of Jesus. Yet, as the national leader, we have a different obligation--
not to go into people's bank accounts, into their homes, to take their 
money against their will, and give it to our favorite charities. We 
were told they were supposed to do it with their own money. We were not 
to abuse the process of this body to go legalize stealing people's 
money to give to our favorite charities. Let the people do that. It is 
one of the things that made us great. The charitable, big-hearted 
people in America have helped make America great.
  But as people who are elected to come to Washington help lead this 
country, we have a different obligation. We are supposed to defend this 
Nation. We are supposed to provide for the common defense so that 
people who live in America can have a Merry Christmas, can have a Happy 
Hanukkah, can have the enjoyment and the freedom of religion. Operating 
under a Judeo-Christian system, as this was formed, all people could 
worship as they chose, and people could be defended as they did so; but 
to do that, you cannot unilaterally lay down the arms of this Nation.
  We--I say ``we'' cumulatively. This President just gave away, early 
on last year, our best card. That's not really looking out for the 
American people. It's looking out for the Iranians; it's looking out 
for the Russians; it's looking out for the North Koreans, the 
Venezuelans, the Cubans, and those who might at some point like to see 
us gone and who have said as much, but it's not looking out for 
America.
  Now, this administration has never been a fan of missile defense just 
as many Democrats were not of the plan President Reagan proposed; but 
because the Russians--the Soviets at that time--couldn't keep up and 
were already spending too much money, the Soviet Union fell. Clearly, 
this treaty links offensive reductions with missile defense.
  So these guys down the hall may think they're doing a wonderful thing 
for America, but they're not. They may think, Gee, the President has 
said this about the treaty, so maybe it's true.
  My friend Andy McCarthy, Andrew C. McCarthy, had a posting today, on 
December 21, with National Review Online, and it bears particularly on 
this point, so I will read from Andy McCarthy's article because it is 
so well written. These are Andrew McCarthy's words.
  ``Patting himself and his fellow Senate Republicans on the back for 
selling out on President Obama's new START Treaty, Bob Corker absurdly 
claims that all is well because, despite treaty terms that patently 
disserve our national security, Senators have held debates, and because 
he and Senator Richard Lugar have drafted a swell `resolution of 
ratification' that purportedly addresses New START's serial flaws. 
Meantime, an unidentified John McCain admirer tells Rich the crafty `ol 
Maverick deserves kudos for pressuring Obama into writing a letter 
talking up missile defense.''

  Mr. McCarthy goes on.
  ``Whoopee! Don't you feel better about the GOP now? This is the most 
craven sort of nonsense.''
  Mr. McCarthy goes on.
  He writes, ``These Senators are trying to rationalize their 
inexcusable approval of a bad treaty they lack the backbone to vote 
down. Holding debates? It's commonplace to mock the U.N. General 
Assembly as a `debating society' because the term connotes how 
inconsequential its exertions are.
  ``As for the vaunted resolution of ratification, I defer to John 
Bolton and John Yoo. Writing in The New York Times last month, they 
explained that the Obama administration hoped to sell its `dangerous' 
bargain by diverting attention from the treaty, itself. Attention would 
instead be focused on the ratification resolution, which they predicted 
would be loaded with `a package of paper promises'--variously called 
`conditions,' `understandings' and `declarations'--that would purport 
to address concerns about missile defense, the condition of our nuclear 
arsenal, treaty limitations on conventional weapons, et cetera. 
Ambassador Bolton and Professor Yoo continued.''
  They said, ``Senators cannot take these warranties seriously--they 
are not a part of the text of the treaty, itself.''

                              {time}  2020

  As Eugene Roskow, a former Under Secretary of State, put it, such 
reservations and understandings ``have the same legal effect as a 
letter from my mother.'' They are mere policy statements that attempt 
to influence future treaty interpretation. They do not have the force 
of law; they do not bind the President or future Congresses. The 
Constitution's supremacy clause makes the treaty's text the ``law of 
the land.' ''
  ``Instead, Bolton and Yoo asserted, `To prevent New START from 
gravely impairing America's nuclear capacity, the Senate must ignore 
the resolution of ratification and demand changes to the treaty 
itself.' This is exactly the duty from which Senate Republicans are 
abdicating. The ratification resolution is nothing. The Presidential 
letter Senator McCain is said to have extracted is less than nothing: 
it lacks even the patina of a legislative act and is about as 
enforceable as a Presidential commitment to close Gitmo or televise the 
government's health care deliberations on C-SPAN.
  ``The administration is wrong on national security policy and 
politically

[[Page H8920]]

weakened by the midterm thrashing. The treaty is awful, which is why 
there are so many things to address in resolutions and letters. If you 
can't get Republican Senators to do the right thing under these 
conditions, then when?
  ``One more related point.'' Mr. McCarthy says, ``Based on my argument 
in yesterday's column that the Senate may not unilaterally rewrite 
treaties or enact amendments that alter treaty terms, a friend suggests 
there is daylight between my position and that of Bolton and Yoo. There 
is none. Yes, Bolton and Yoo recount Senate action that has resulted in 
treaties being altered, but here's what they say:
  `` `When it approved the Jay Treaty in the 1790s, which resolved 
outstanding differences with Britain, the Senate consented only on 
condition that President George Washington delete a specific provision 
on trade. Washington and Britain agreed to the amendment, and the 
treaty entered into force. In 1978, the Senate demanded changes to the 
text of the Panama Canal treaty as the price of its consent.' ''
  McCarthy goes on and says, ``This is no different from what I am 
saying. The Senate in these cases did not claim the power to change 
treaty terms or enact resolutions that pretended to fix deep problems 
without altering treaty terms. To the contrary, Senators told 
Presidents Washington and Carter that there would be no consent unless 
they went back to the countries in question and got the problematic 
terms changed.
  ``The Senate can pass amendments that amplify American understandings 
about a treaty; the Senate cannot unilaterally alter the core 
understandings in an agreement--that latter would render it no longer 
an agreement, and hence not a treaty. Thus, did Messrs. Bolton and Yoo 
conclude: `While the Constitution gives the President the prime role in 
the treaty process, the Senate has the final say. If 34 Senators reject 
a treaty, no President can override them.'
  ``Voting to reject is the Senate's duty when confronted with a treaty 
that disserves the national interests. It is the current Senate's 
dereliction on New START--a fact no resolution or Presidential letter 
can paper over.''
  It does no good to pass resolutions saying we think it means this or 
that when the words clearly enunciate the fact that missile defense is 
tied and part of this. It is affected.
  If the Senate were to come back and say, all right, as they did in 
the 1790s, we will only consent if the President and Great Britain 
change these terms--in this case, if the President and Russia agree to 
change these terms--then we give our consent, have a condition 
precedent. But that's not what's going on here. We're writing letters. 
We are putting resolutions, this is what we think. That doesn't make 
any difference at all. People need to understand the role that they 
play in this government under our Constitution because, otherwise, 
they're doing a great deal of damage.
  Now, it's just staggering. We have no business entering a treaty when 
we're still just leaving Iran hanging out there, trying to get the 
centrifuges going, developing nuclear weapons, cutting deals with other 
countries who also hate us. And we in America, what are we doing? We're 
paying billions of dollars to countries that would like to see us fall.
  We're supporting a U.N. that thinks it's fine to treat women and 
children like property and allows the worst kinds of abuses to go on 
and, not only that, puts countries who have massive civil rights abuses 
in charge of their civil rights, the human rights. It's just incredible 
what's going on.
  So I will continue in the next Congress to push my U.N. voting 
accountability bill. We mean no ill will to countries that hate our 
guts, but we don't have to pay them to hate us. So it just says any 
country that votes against our position in the U.N. more than half the 
time in 1 year will not get a dime of financial assistance of any kind 
from us the next year.

  Those are the kinds of things you do when you're representing a 
country and your oath and your obligation require that you protect that 
country, not lay down your arms, not lay down your defenses and think 
that the wonderful good will of others will see how wonderful you are 
in unilaterally dropping your weapons. You don't do that. There are 
consequences.
  Even going back to ancient Israel--and I realize there are people 
like Helen Thomas who don't realize there was an ancient Israel, but 
there was. And in fact, hundreds of years before there was Mohamed, 
there was an ancient Israel. But if you go to the days of Hezekiah, 
when the Babylonian leaders came over, and of course, we had the 
account in the Old Testament of Isaiah coming to Hezekiah. He knew what 
he had done. He said, What did you do? Oh, these wonderful leaders--
this is, of course, Texas paraphrase--these wonderful leaders from 
Babylon came over. So we showed them all our treasure, and we showed 
them all of our defenses. In essence, Isaiah pointed out, you fool. 
Because you've done this, you will lose your country. You don't show 
your enemies your defenses without a severe cost. In the case of 
Israel, it cost them everything. You don't do that.
  Individually, you can love and care and nurture. As a national part 
of a government, we have an oath and obligation to the people that live 
here to provide for the common defense, and that means you don't give 
away the defenses. You don't lay down your arms. You do what you can to 
protect America. In fact, I pointed out before, but I heard friends say 
today that, you know, people who consider themselves Christian, 
especially this time of year, should be in favor of all kinds of bills 
of Federal money being given to wonderful charitable causes. Well, 
individually, that's correct.
  But as a Nation, we get a good indication from the story of Zachias, 
because after Zachias met Jesus, he was so overwhelmed with guilt for 
how he had abused his taxing authority, that he gave back the money, in 
fact, gave a four to one rebate to those from whom he took too much 
money.

                              {time}  2030

  Now that would be an interesting thing to see. And I had advocated 
for a payroll tax holiday 2 years ago. According to Moody's, it would 
have increased the 1-year GDP more than any other proposal, including 
our official Republican proposal. I'm not for it now. We've squandered 
way too much money. And we're running up debt like nobody would have 
ever dreamed, $3 trillion in 2 years? My word, my first year in 2005, I 
was hearing people across the aisle beating up on us because we had at 
one point $160 billion deficit, and that was outrageous. And my 
Democratic friends were right, we shouldn't have been running $100 
billion, $200 billion deficit. Who would have ever dreamed that 5 short 
years later, they would have run up a $3 trillion deficit in 2 years, 
10 times the deficit they were complaining about just 5 short years 
ago.
  Well, those are some things that are great cause for concern. Did 
Republicans not learn anything from the election? Did people think that 
once the election was behind us, it was business as usual? Do 
Democratic and Republican Senators who are up for election in 2 years 
think that people across America are not watching? They're watching 
more today than they've ever watched in this Nation's history. They're 
paying attention. Who's doing what? And for those who are found to have 
had one big last zesty giveaway program after another, there will be a 
price to pay. And for those who rushed in and cut a deal with the 
Russians that the Russians didn't agree with; therefore, it is not 
binding. The only thing that's binding is what they consent to that the 
President has already agreed with Russia on, that will be the treaty, 
and it limits our missile defense. And it will be no consolation to 
anyone someday that--whoops, incoming--and we agree not to develop our 
missile defense with the Russians. Sorry, these missiles aren't coming 
from Russia, but the Russians got us to agree not to develop missile 
defense; therefore, we have no defense to what these enemies of America 
are sending. That's irresponsible. We should not be doing that. And I 
had hoped to end on a more positive note tonight.
  Madam Speaker, if I could inquire how much time I have left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. You have 34 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the Speaker.
  I would like to finish by going through some of the Christmas 
proclamations by U.S. Presidents. I touched

[[Page H8921]]

on some of these last week but was wanting to read some different 
messages this week because I think they're very helpful to Americans 
who believe, unfortunately, as the President does, that we have never 
been a Christian Nation. I won't debate whether we are or not now 
because we may very well not be now. But fortunately, this country was 
established under Christian notions that allowed people the freedom to 
worship as they choose. Because heaven help us if we had a Constitution 
based on sharia law, then obviously there wouldn't be a Don't Ask, 
Don't Tell because that's a capital offense, to commit a homosexual 
offense under sharia law. So no need for Don't Ask, Don't Tell. No need 
for appeal under sharia law. Apparently it is a capital offense if you 
commit a homosexual act.
  But also under sharia law, there's no room for Christians to worship 
any way they choose. The only way you can have all religions worship as 
they choose is to have a country based on Christian tenets. And that's 
what we started with. And we seem to be trying to get away from that, 
and it seems to be eroding people's freedoms of religion, particularly 
Christians.
  So how ironic that we seem to be coming full circle, 360 degrees, so 
that we can eliminate the freedom to worship publicly in the public 
square, which are the very Christian tenets that allowed us to have and 
become the greatest country on Earth in Earth's history.
  So these are words from Franklin Roosevelt in 1933. This was his 
first year as President. Franklin D. Roosevelt, December 24, Christmas 
Eve 1933, provided us these words. Roosevelt said, ``This year marks a 
greater national understanding of the significance in our modern lives 
of the teaching of Him whose birth we celebrate. To more and more of 
us, the words, `Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,' have taken on 
a meaning that is showing itself and proving itself in our purposes and 
daily lives. May the practice of that high ideal grow in us all in the 
year to come.'' Roosevelt finished by saying, ``I give you and send you 
one and all, old and young, a merry Christmas and a truly happy new 
year. And so for now and for always, God bless us, everyone.''
  Moving to 1947, another one of the Christmas messages I did not 
mention last week. This is Harry Truman, December 24, 1947. And I won't 
read the entire message. But these are Harry Truman's words. He said, 
``There can be little happiness for those who will keep another 
Christmas in poverty and exile, separation from their loved ones. As we 
prepare to celebrate our Christmas this year in a land of plenty, we 
would be heartless indeed if we were indifferent to the plight of less 
fortunate peoples overseas. We must not forget that our revolutionary 
fathers also knew a Christmas of suffering and desolation. Washington 
wrote from Valley Forge 2 days before Christmas in 1777, `We have this 
day no less than 2,873 men in camp unfit for duty because they are 
barefooted and otherwise naked.'''

  Truman goes on, ``We can be thankful that our people have risen 
today, as did our forefathers in Washington's time, to our obligation 
and our opportunity. At this point in the world's history, the words of 
St. Paul have greater significance than ever before. He said, `And now 
abideth faith, hope, charity, these three. But the greatest of these 
three is charity.''' Truman said, ``We believe this. We accept it as a 
basic principle of our lives. The great heart of the American people 
has been moved to compassion by the needs of those in other lands who 
are cold and hungry. We have supplied a part of their needs, and we 
shall do more. In this, we are maintaining the American tradition. In 
extending aid to our less fortunate brothers, we are developing in 
their hearts the return of hope.
  Because of our forts, the people of other lands see the advent of a 
new day in which they can lead lives free from the harrowing fear of 
starvation and want. With a return of hope to these peoples will come 
renewed faith, faith in the dignity of the individual and the 
brotherhood of man. The world grows old, but the spirit of Christmas is 
ever young. Happily for all mankind, the spirit of Christmas survives 
travail and suffering because it fills us with hope of better things to 
come.
  Let us then put our trust in the unerring star which guided the wise 
men to the manger of Bethlehem. Let us hearken again to the angel 
choir, saying, `Glory to God in the highest, and on Earth, peace, 
goodwill toward men.' With hope for the future and with faith in God, I 
wish all my countrymen a very merry Christmas.''

                              {time}  2040

  Christmas Eve, 1949, President Harry Truman gave us these words: the 
first Christmas had its beginning in the coming of a little child. It 
remains a child's day, a day of childhood love and of childhood 
memories. That feeling of love has clung to this day down all the 
centuries from the first Christmas. There is clustered around Christmas 
Day the feeling of warmth, of kindness, of innocence, of love, the love 
of little children, the love for them, the love that was in the heart 
of the little child whose birthday it is.
  Through that child love there came to all mankind the love of a 
divine father and a blessed mother so that the love of the holy family 
could be shared by the whole human family. These are some of the 
thoughts that came to mind as I gave the signal to light our national 
Christmas tree in the south grounds of the White House.
  President Truman goes on and says, sitting here in my own home, so 
like other homes all over America, I've been thinking about some 
families in other once-happy lands. We must not forget that there are 
thousands and thousands of families homeless, hopeless, destitute, and 
torn with the despair on this Christmas Eve. For them, as for the holy 
family, on the first Christmas, there's no room in the inn. We shall 
not solve a moral question by dodging it. We can scarcely hope to have 
a full Christmas if we turn a deaf ear to the suffering of even the 
least of Christ's little ones.
  Since returning home, I've been reading again in our family Bible 
some of the passages which foretold this night. It was that grand old 
seer, Isaiah, who prophesied in the Old Testament the sublime event 
which found fulfillment almost 2,000 years ago.
  Just as Isaiah foresaw the coming of Christ, so another battler for 
the Lord, St. Paul, summed up the law and the prophets in a 
glorification of love which he exalts even above both faith and hope.
  Truman says, we miss the spirit of Christmas if we consider the 
incarnation as an indistinct and doubtful, far-off event unrelated to 
our present problems. We miss the purport of Christ's birth if we do 
not accept it as a living link which joins us together in spirit as 
children of the ever-living and true God. In love alone, the love of 
God and the love of man, will be found the solution of all the ills 
which afflict the world today.
  Slowly, sometimes painfully, but always with increasing purpose, 
emerges the great message of Christianity. Only with wisdom comes joy, 
and with greatness comes love. In the spirit of the Christ child, as 
little children with joy in our hearts and peace in our souls, let us 
as a Nation, dedicate ourselves anew to the love of our fellow men. In 
such a dedication, we shall find the message of the child of Bethlehem 
the real meaning of Christmas. That's Harry Truman.
  And I'll skip forward several years. Let me read this from 1976, from 
Gerald Ford: the message of Christmas has not changed over the course 
of 20 centuries. Peace on Earth, goodwill towards men, that message is 
as inspiring today as it was when it was first proclaimed to the 
shepherds near Bethlehem. It was first proclaimed, as we all know, 
then.
  In 1976 America has been blessed with peace and significant 
restoration of domestic harmony. But true peace is more than an absence 
of battle. It is also the absence of prejudice and the triumph of 
understanding. Brotherhood among all peoples must be the solid 
cornerstone of lasting peace. It has been a sustaining force for our 
Nation, and it remains a guiding light for our future.
  The celebration of the birth of Jesus is observed on every continent. 
The customs and traditions are not always the same, but feelings that 
are generated between friends and family members are equally strong and 
equally warm.
  God bless you.

[[Page H8922]]

  This is from President George H.W. Bush's message December 8, 1992: 
during the Christmas season, millions of people around the world gather 
with family and friends to recall the events that took place in 
Bethlehem almost 2000 years ago. As we celebrate the birth of Jesus 
Christ, whose life offers us a model of dignity, compassion and 
justice, we renew our commitment to peace and understanding throughout 
the world. Through his words and example, Christ made clear the 
redemptive value of giving of one's self for others. And his life 
proved that love and sacrifice can make a profound difference in the 
world.
  Over the years, many Americans have made sacrifices in order to 
promote freedom and human rights. Around the globe the heroic actions 
of our veterans, the lifesaving work of scientists and physicians and 
generosity of countless individuals who voluntarily give of their time, 
talents and energy to help others all have enriched humankind and 
confirmed the importance of our Judeo-Christian heritage in shaping our 
government and values.
  Moving on to 2002, December, George W. Bush's message. He said, 
throughout the Christmas season, we recall that God's love is found in 
humble places, and God's peace is offered to us all. For nearly 80 
years, in times of calm and in times of challenge, Americans have 
gathered for this ceremony.
  The simple story we remember during this season speaks to every 
generation. It is the story of a quiet birth in a little town on the 
margins of an indifferent empire. Yet that single event set the 
direction of history and still changes millions of lives.
  For over two millennia, Christmas has carried the message that God is 
with us; and because He's with us, we can always live in hope.
  Our entire Nation is always thinking, at this time of the year, of 
the men and women in the military, many of whom will spend this 
Christmas at posts far from home. They stand between Americans and 
grave danger. They serve in the cause of peace and freedom. They wear 
the uniform proudly, and we are proud of them.
  That's George W. Bush, December 2002, Presidential Christmas message.
  And I might interject at this point, we know from our Declaration of 
Independence, we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable 
rights, and among them is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of 
happiness. Then why, some would ask, if we're endowed, if these are 
given as an inheritance, why then do people all over the world not have 
life and liberty and the opportunity to pursue happiness like we do in 
this country?
  It is an endowment. The Founders had that right. But as with any 
inheritance that's left to heirs, if the heirs are not willing to 
protect their inheritance, if they're not willing to fight the forces 
of evil, forces of greed, forces of lust and power lust, they will lose 
their inheritance to other evil people who will be glad to take it from 
them.

                              {time}  2050

  Thus it comes to us, the sacred, really sacred obligation that we owe 
this Nation to ensure our common defense so that the inheritance of all 
those alive today will be passed on to future generations. We don't 
have these freedoms because we earned them. We were not born to freedom 
because we deserved it. We were born to freedom, others came to this 
Nation, to freedom, because of the sacrifice of others who went before 
us. And so we enjoy the freedoms and inheritance, the endowment we have 
today.
  We can fritter away this endowment or we can protect it. We can avoid 
unilaterally disarming and protect the American people in this blessed 
country so that future generations can enjoy that same inheritance.
  Another message, Christmas message from George W. Bush was this: 
``During Christmas, we gather with family and friends to celebrate the 
birth of our Savior, Jesus Christ. As God's only Son, Jesus came to 
Earth and gave His life so that we may live. His actions and His words 
remind us that service to others is central to our lives and that 
sacrifice and unconditional love must guide us and inspire us to lead 
lives of compassion, mercy, and justice. The true spirit of Christmas 
reflects a dedication to helping those in need, to giving hope to those 
in despair, and to spreading peace and understanding throughout the 
Earth.
  ``As we share love and enjoy the traditions of this holiday, we are 
also grateful for the men and women of our Armed Forces, who are 
working to defend freedom, secure our homeland, and advance peace and 
safety around the world. This Christmas, may we give thanks for the 
blessings God has granted to our Nation.''
  We took an oath to provide the protection for this Constitution, in 
essence this country, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We did 
not take an oath to legalize theft from people who earn money to give 
to our favorite and many extremely deserving charitable causes. That's 
not what we were supposed to do. We need to defend this Nation so that 
others can be as philanthropic, as charitable as only Americans seem to 
reach the full height of doing.
  In this Christmas season, we want all people of all religions to be 
able to worship as they choose freely so long as they do not threaten 
the freedoms of this country. We have an obligation, we took an oath, 
an oath before God below those words, ``In God We Trust.'' Well, the 
people have trusted us not to shirk our duties to defend this Nation. 
And so that means individually we should be charitable, individually we 
should serve and help others, but as a Congress and as a Nation we 
should provide incentives for people to reach their God-given 
potential.
  We shouldn't be paying people for every child they can possibly have 
out of wedlock so that we encourage nearly 45 years of people having 
babies out of wedlock. No one cares for deadbeat dads. It's despicable 
to have fathered a child and to not help in any way with the upbringing 
and the sustenance of the child that a father helped bring in the 
world. And yet the answer lies not in providing a financial incentive 
to lure young single women into a rut from which they cannot extricate 
themselves. It's immoral to lure young women into ruts with no hope of 
getting out.
  And as a judge, I was prompted to leave the bench when I first 
started about thinking about running for Congress as I saw these young 
women who came before me for welfare fraud or for selling drugs, and 
their stories seemed so hopeless. But they were told if you just have a 
child, forget high school, you can start getting a check. And there are 
young women around the country who are going into this Christmas week 
feeling they have no hope. I saw them in my courtroom. And this 
Congress is to blame, the ones that preceded us are to blame. You meant 
well. Congress meant well. But instead of helping, we hurt future 
generations. Not just one, future generations.
  It's time we undid that. It's time that in a spirit of Christmas we 
don't legalize taking somebody's money that doesn't want us to have it 
and giving to our favorite charity. What we legalize is incentives for 
people to reach their full, God-given potential, regardless of their 
race, creed, color, national origin, gender. We make sure that they 
have that opportunity. That's our obligation.
  And as we go and approach Christmas, I close with the words of 
Benjamin Franklin in 1787. Suffering from gout, 80 years old, the 
Constitutional Convention was falling apart. There seemed no hope. 
Eighty-year-old Franklin, brilliant as ever, witty and clever as ever, 
but who had to have help getting into Independence Hall, was recognized 
by the president of the Constitutional Convention, President George 
Washington.
  And he pointed out we have been going for nearly 5 weeks, we have 
more noes than ayes on virtually every vote. Franklin said, ``How does 
it happen, sir, that we have not thought of once applying to the father 
of lights to illuminate our understanding? In the beginning contests 
with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily 
prayer in this room. Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were 
graciously answered.'' That's not a deist, by the way.
  He went on and eventually said, ``If a sparrow cannot fall to the 
ground without His notice, is it possible that an empire could rise 
without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writing that 
unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.'' 
Franklin went on and said, ``Firmly believe this.'' He said, ``I also 
firmly

[[Page H8923]]

believe without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in our little 
political building no better than the builders of Babel. We will be 
confounded by local partial interests, and we ourselves shall become a 
byword down through the ages.''
  He eventually moved that henceforth we begin each day with prayer in 
Congress. It was seconded by Mr. Sherman, unanimously adopted. And then 
Mr. Randolph added not only that, since this was the end of June, he 
added a provision that everyone in Congress be required to go hear a 
Christian evangelist on July 4th before they return and begin again in 
the constitutional making.
  And one of the diaries reported that after that, and after they heard 
that Christian message, after entering into joint prayer as a Congress, 
led by a local minister, there was a new atmosphere, there was a new 
spirit, and as a result we got the Constitution that is the greatest 
founding document of any nation in the history of the world. Now, that 
is something that we have to thank God for.
  So at this time of blessings, and thanks giving, and this Christmas 
season, Madam Speaker, I yield back.

                          ____________________