[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 154 (Friday, October 14, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6961-H6966]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    GREEN JOBS AND CRONY CAPITALISM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  There's so much going on today, this week. We've been, for one thing, 
trying to take up trade agreements that should end up creating new jobs 
in America. I know there have been concerns by some--gee, don't we give 
away sovereignty each time we enter a free trade agreement. Well, I 
read these free trade agreements. I wasn't here when NAFTA passed. I'm 
not sure that I would have voted for it because it seems like we did 
give away too much of the autonomous nature of this country. But with 
regard to the Colombia free trade agreement, the free trade agreements 
with South Korea, and Panama, it doesn't appear from my reading that we 
are giving away any autonomy, we are giving away any of our powers to 
govern ourselves.
  In fact, the U.N. is far more of a threat with the concessions, 
particularly this administration is giving to the U.N., as far as us 
controlling our own destiny. Since the U.N. has become so incredibly 
anti-Israel, I think it's time to look seriously about getting out. We 
should not be accessories to the kind of anti-Semitism and the anti-
Israeli feelings, the hostility from those members of the U.N. that 
have so much more control, it appears, than we do, who encourage, 
basically, the wiping out of Israel and of the Jewish population.
  In the meantime, on the homefront, we have people still claiming that 
the President's tried and failed methods of helping the economy should 
be tried yet again. There's the old story about a guy beating his head 
with a hammer, and somebody came up and asked, ``Why do you keep 
hitting yourself in the head with a hammer?''
  He said, ``Because it feels so good when I stop.''
  For heaven's sake, it is time to stop hitting ourselves and hurting 
our own country, hurting our own economy with the crony capitalism that 
has come to bear here in this country. And it does not serve as a 
defense that Paulson started it under George W. Bush. That's not a 
defense. It was wrong for Paulson, and it's wrong now, and especially, 
the longer this country struggles to get back on its economic feet. And 
any time you engage in crony capitalism where those closest to an 
administration reap the biggest benefits, you hurt the economy. So when 
you have a company like General Electric that is so close to this 
administration, the head of GE certainly has the President's ear as the 
trusted adviser, and that adviser has caused thousands and thousands of 
jobs to be sent overseas, then you can anticipate that with him 
advising the President, we're going to have more and more jobs sent 
overseas.
  And then we keep being told yes, the true answer is in green jobs. 
Green jobs are our future. How long is it going to take for us to stop 
hurting this country in the name of green jobs? We have sent thousands 
and thousands of great union jobs overseas in the name of greenery. And 
yet it shouldn't take anybody past an elementary education to realize 
when you send manufacturing jobs from this country to China, South 
America, Latin America, where they pollute so many more times doing the 
same job than what the output was here, that the world would be better 
off with those jobs here. Pure and simple.
  And then, of course, we've been treated to the fiasco which is 
Solyndra. And as a former judge who saw cases where people acted 
against the interests that they were hired and sworn to protect, we 
call that fraud. And so it sure sounds like we're having the beginning

[[Page H6962]]

of a fraud case emerge, potentially against people in our own 
government, because we know that the law said that these loans could be 
given to these so-called green companies, but there could not be 
another lender that had priority over the Federal Government in lending 
that money.
  Well, that means that if someone within this administration, which 
appears to be what's coming out, actually advocated and actually made 
sure it happened that the United States taxpayers, the United States 
Government, that they were hired to protect, subverted the position as 
first lender to Solyndra to the detriment of hundreds of millions of 
dollars, somebody ought to be going to prison. I mean, I had people 
come before my court having committed felonies, pull a gun, rob 
somebody, maybe they didn't get $100, and they went to prison. How 
about somebody that causes the theft of hundreds of millions of 
dollars? Well, we sure have to look at it.
  And just when people thought it couldn't get any worse, then we get 
word this week about a new entity called SunPower, another one of these 
wonderful green companies that were going to set the world ablaze with 
power and light with their clean green energy. This article from 
biggovernment.com by Mike Flynn, says, The Department of Energy bragged 
about giving a $1.2 billion loan guarantee to SunPower, a politically 
connected solar energy company to create ``10-15 permanent jobs,'' 
raising critical questions as to whether California SunPower is the 
next Solyndra in the ongoing Cronygate scandal.

                              {time}  1440

  Unlike Solyndra, which went bankrupt receiving the loan from the 
government, leaving taxpayers on the hook, SunPower's deal is more 
complicated. Many questions are being raised about how the company was 
able to obtain the loan and what they did after they got the money. 
Questions include: How could the Department of Energy give a loan to a 
company that was under a shareholder suit alleging securities fraud and 
misrepresentations?
  This says that the son of Representative George Miller from 
California was paid $178,000 to lobby on behalf of the company 
representing SunPower as a lobbyist. Why did Representative George 
Miller tour the SunPower facility, which is outside his congressional 
district? And what other official action did Representative Miller take 
on behalf of the company that is represented by his lobbyist son? Did 
the company's hefty political contributions to the Obama campaign and 
the DCCC play a role in the deal? Did U.S. taxpayers help pay for the 
company to open a facility in Mexico after the announcement of the 
loan? Was the U.S. Government aware that company executives were in the 
process of selling a portion of the company to a French company, an 
action that was undertaken 2 weeks after the loan was awarded? Did the 
loan allow insiders to cash out, leaving other investors holding onto 
the stock that has dropped by more than 60 percent since the loan was 
awarded?
  In 2009, a year before the DOE awarded the loan, investors in 
SunPower filed a class action lawsuit against the company alleging 
SunPower and certain of the company's executive officers were in 
violation of Federal securities laws. The lawsuit alleged the company 
knew or recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose or indicate the 
following:
  One, that the company made unsubstantiated accounting entries during 
the class period;
  Two, that, as a result, the company's financial results were 
overstated during the class period;
  Three, that the company's financial results were not prepared in 
accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles;
  Four, that the company lacked adequate internal and financial 
controls;
  Five, as a result of the above, the company's financial statements 
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
  Despite the questions about potential violations of Federal 
securities law, the Department of Energy approved the loan guarantee in 
2010, all to create 10 to 15 permanent jobs. That's not only some silly 
estimate, it's what the Department itself thought would result from the 
billion-dollar loan. Our Department of Energy intentionally invested 
over $1 billion in order to create 10 to 15 jobs. At best, that's 
around $80 million from our government to create one job.
  Now, there are a lot of folks in government that have never been in 
business, but I'm betting just about anybody in this body could do a 
better job of creating good-paying jobs if they were given $80 million 
to create each job. I bet if we auctioned that off, we might even get 
as low as $50 million to create one job.
  For those in Washington I've found that don't understand sarcasm, I 
am prone to sarcasm.
  Very tragic. At a time when this country can ill afford to be 
squandering vast amounts of money, that's what we're doing. It's also 
no comfort that in the President's so-called jobs bill there are 
numerous references to wanting to get more money to these green 
companies to help out our country.
  And when you see that the President's so-called jobs bill is not 
about jobs at all--there's only a tiny fraction that goes for 
infrastructure, so forget about all your bridges being fixed. It's not 
about that at all. It's about more government control. In fact, as we 
have seen since this President took office, especially the first 2 
years under the control of Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid, it seemed 
like most everything we took up was all about the GRE. The GRE, the 
Government Running Everything. And you look at the President's so-
called jobs bill and you find in there the American Infrastructure 
Financing Authority.
  So, again, when are we going to stop beating ourselves death with the 
same tried-and-failed policies. So, Fannie and Freddie wasn't bad 
enough. Now we're getting into investing and guaranteeing billions of 
dollars for each financed operation instead of a hundred thousand 
dollars or so for homes. Yes, we've done such a great job with Fannie 
and Freddie nearly bringing us to the brink of ruin financially, 
wouldn't you next suspect that we should get into financing all the 
infrastructure needs of the country as a Federal Government?
  But those who are suspicious and think, gee, maybe this is more about 
the government running everything than it actually is financing 
infrastructure, there would be evidence to support that idea, because 
the board of the American Infrastructure Financing Authority is 
appointed by the President. And since the current President has an 
affinity for people who have never been in business, never made a 
payroll--he actually put people on the auto task force that didn't own 
cars. Most of them never had anything to do with the auto industry. So 
we can anticipate that if he stays true to form, we'll have people on 
the American Infrastructure Financing Authority that will be spending 
billions and billions of dollars, just like they have on Solyndra, on 
SunPower, and who knows how many other companies like that, they'll be 
doing it for infrastructure. Crony capitalism to the max.
  And I have struggled as we've seen these groups like Occupy Wall 
Street. There's a little group down the road here on Pennsylvania. Most 
of them are very young. I'm guessing perhaps many of them still rely on 
their parents for a living, making expenses. I know some of them have 
indicated that. It reminded me of the female comedian on television 
that said, Gee, there's a study out that says our generation may be the 
first generation that doesn't live as well as our parents. She said, 
That makes no sense, it can't be, because we're all still living with 
our parents. So that doesn't make sense.
  Well, apparently it's given some people time on their hands, since 
they're not working, to go create public nuisances in New York City, 
here, and other places. And it really is intriguing to find out they 
don't really have a centralized, firm position on anything. They're 
just out there to protest. But as a history major trying to think 
through history, certainly I can never recall a time in this country's 
history when a President of the United States ever told people to take 
off their bedroom slippers, put on their marching shoes, let's get out 
there and then encourage them. Yes, it's wonderful.

[[Page H6963]]

They're getting out there. They're standing up. These are great rank-
and-file grassroots folks. Encouraging protesters.
  I can't find another time in this country's history--so the President 
can be proud of this--when the President of the United States 
encouraged protesting the country he was leading. Most Presidents would 
never have had the nerve to do that because they knew they were in 
charge. And to encourage people to go out and protest meant you're 
encouraging protesting the country that you're in charge of and you're 
leading. So if things aren't good, it must mean you're doing a rotten 
job of leading. So why in the world would you encourage people to go 
out and protest?
  For those who say the President had a great jobs bill, and Congress 
ought to do something, you find out when you look at the real facts 
that this President and Leader Reid never had any intention of passing 
the President's jobs bill. Never.

                              {time}  1450

  The President never anticipated this Congress would pass his jobs 
bill. He didn't anticipate it. He didn't help it happen. He has still 
not helped it happen. It's why it went for so many days before anybody 
bothered to file that bill.
  And when Harry Reid filed it in the Senate, he knew the rules. He 
knew that under the Constitution, any revenue-raising bill--as the 
President's bill raises taxes--any revenue-raising bill must originate 
in the House. It's part of the Constitution. He knows that because in 
order to get ObamaCare through, when it didn't originate in the House, 
he took a House bill, designed and passed here in the House to give 
veterans a tax credit when they bought their first home, stripped out 
every word and put in ObamaCare. He knew the constitutional 
requirement, and yet he didn't do that.
  I was shocked when I told my staff, after I heard he had filed, I 
said, go find out what House bill he stripped out because he's playing 
that game again like they did on ObamaCare. And yes, I know Republicans 
have done it. It doesn't make it right. It doesn't matter who does it. 
It isn't right. That was never what was intended, but it's the game 
that's been played.
  And Leader Reid, even when he filed his amended President's jobs bill 
that he himself amended, he didn't bother to strip out a House bill and 
go through the facade, the game that has to be played for a bill like 
that that raises revenue to become law. He didn't even bother. He just 
filed it as it was. I told my staff, no, he has to--he knows. He's done 
this before. He has to strip out a House bill, delete every word 
beginning at line one, page 1, deleting every word thereafter, 
substituting, therefore, the whole bill. He has to have done that. If 
he really wants it to pass, then that's what he's got to do. Well, 
since he didn't do that, we know that the President and Leader Reid 
never intended for the President's so-called jobs bill to pass.
  Well, then, for what reason would the President have gone on the road 
after condemning us in here for not passing a bill that didn't exist, 
going on the road and demanding we pass a bill that didn't exist, and 
then when it did exist, not even bother to pick up the phone for days 
and ask somebody to actually file the bill? That's why I filed the 
American Jobs Act. You can go online at the Clerk's office, Mr. 
Speaker, and find out the American Jobs Act. It's mine. And it would 
create hundreds of thousands of jobs if mine were passed.
  And as I've said here on the floor, I'm open to negotiation. I'm not 
married to zero as the corporate tax rate. I think it would be best. I 
think it would create more jobs. And then of course there are those 
left-wingers that enjoy seeing billions of dollars go to companies like 
Solyndra and SunPower, enjoy seeing their friends being enriched and 
engorged with taxpayer dollars and Chinese dollars we'll have to pay 
back with interest. They enjoy that.
  They've also said, well, gee, I must be in the pocket of 
corporations. No, I'm in the pocket of the American people, and I want 
to see jobs. And I have seen the devastation from people from all walks 
of life, from the manual labors to the airline pilots to the engineers 
who have said, This is killing me. I never dreamed of losing my job and 
not being able to find one. And all this administration is doing, it 
puts forward a disingenuous bill. It isn't going to create more jobs.
  And when you see the Public Safety Broadband Corporation, what job 
does that create? The board is going to be appointed mainly by the 
President, and then the board that he appoints will appoint some 
others. That's not a job creator, but it is about the government 
running everything, the GRE. The Public Safety Broadband Corporation 
will be able to protect every American citizen from what they may want 
to look up or see through broadband because we'll then have the 
President's own Public Safety Broadband Corporation that this President 
is pushing in his bill. That's not a jobs bill.
  And he says on the one hand he wants to go after excessive profits of 
major oil, and then you look at page 151 through 154 of his bill and 
you find out this doesn't hurt major oil. The things in there will 
devastate and drive out of business the independent oil and gas 
producers. Those are the people that don't have their own company 
sections that go in and do everything necessary to drill a well. They 
go out and hire people to help with the mud that goes in the well, to 
help with the wireline stuff, the people that will do all the--even 
feeding the people that work there. They hire independent contractors 
all over the place. Many of those people stay in hotels. They eat at 
restaurants. They drive the economy. And yet this President, as we've 
heard from people from the Gulf of Mexico area, this President's 
moratorium did more to cause people to lose jobs than the horrific 
Deepwater Horizon explosion. That was so tragic. It was so needless.
  Why in the world would this administration have allowed British 
Petroleum to continue to operate in the Gulf of Mexico, putting this 
Nation at risk, when we find out after the fact, though, Exxon was 
found to have, I believe it was, one willful, egregious safety 
violation; Sunoco had two violations, willful and egregious. The 
President's friends at British Petroleum had 760 willful, egregious 
safety violations, when others had one and two, and the administration 
looked the other way.
  We've had hearings on that, and I've brought it up to the Director of 
MMS before our Natural Resources Committee: What safeguards did you 
have to make sure that investigators were doing the proper job, the 
inspectors, the offshore rig inspectors? Because, see, to me, if you're 
an offshore rig inspector, you're a bit like the military. You stand 
between us here in the continental U.S. and devastation.
  So I was surprised to find out that they didn't have any problem with 
having unionized offshore rig inspectors. Well, if you're comfortable 
having offshore rig inspectors being unionized, then next you'd be 
comfortable with the military unionizing. Why not? They're standing 
between this Nation and disaster. If the offshore rig inspectors can be 
unionized and negotiate their hours, or whatever is all in their union 
contract, then why wouldn't the military be next? The trouble is there 
are some professions that are so important to national security you 
can't have contracts that limit hours. A soldier can't have an 
agreement that he won't work more than 8 or 12 hours and get time and a 
half. It doesn't work that way. They stand between us and disaster. And 
they, God bless them, they serve as they're required to serve to 
protect this country.
  I was quite concerned about our United States military in the 4 years 
I was in the Army after Vietnam. There were times I would see what some 
of our troops were doing--couldn't read, couldn't write effectively, 
smoking lots of dope--and I would think, if the Russkies ever attack, 
we're in big trouble. But I get around the fine men and women of our 
armed services now, they're the best that's ever existed in the history 
of the world. But we can't allow them to unionize. Well, the Interior 
Department has no problem.
  And the Director of MMS replied, Well, we do have a means of making 
sure that our offshore rig inspectors are doing their job. We send them 
out in pairs, so they watch each other. And if one of the rig 
inspectors didn't properly do their job, we know the other would report 
them. Because there have been stories, rumors, things alleged

[[Page H6964]]

about some rig operators providing benefits of all kinds and services 
of all kinds to rig inspectors to have them look the other way.
  So I was curious, What do you do to safeguard that that doesn't 
happen? And the one answer, the only answer the Director had was, We 
send them out in pairs, and that ensures they're doing their job. She 
apparently was not aware that I knew that the last pair of inspectors 
that were sent out to the Deepwater Horizon rig to inspect it were a 
father and son unionized team. Some have wondered, why in the world 
wouldn't the administration immediately move to force BP to close that 
thing up?

                              {time}  1500

  And we find out later that, actually, leaders of British Petroleum 
were meeting with key leaders of Congress at the Senate, figuring out 
when they would come out and have the great day over which the 
President and the Democratic leaders in the Senate would rejoice in 
which they announced that they're a major oil company and they were 
supporting President's cap-and-trade bill.
  Well, of course, after it was realized just how serious Deepwater 
Horizon was, eventually, the White House and the Senate Democratic 
leaders had to finally accept the fact it wouldn't be very good for PR 
to have BP be the one major oil company that came in and embraced the 
cap-and-trade bill that was attempted to be shoved down America's 
throats, like ObamaCare.
  And then we heard the President say there are more people protecting 
our southern border than ever before. This story, from Yahoo news, 
brand new story--well, it's Wednesday, October 12: Drug smugglers are 
endlessly creative when it comes to inventing ways to move marijuana, 
cocaine, and other contraband from Mexico into the United States.
  In the latest innovation uncovered by law enforcement, smugglers in 
the border town of Nogales, Arizona, were bringing drugs into the 
United States for the cost of a quarter. The parking meters on 
International Street, which hugs the border fence in Nogales, cost 25 
cents. Smugglers in Mexico tunneled under the fence and under the 
metered parking spaces and then carefully cut neat rectangles out of 
the pavement.
  Their confederates on the U.S. side would park false bottom vehicles 
in the spaces above the holes, feed the meters, and then wait while the 
underground smugglers stuffed their cars full of drugs from below. When 
the exchange was finished the smugglers would use jacks to put the 
pavement plugs back into place. The car would drive away, and only 
those observers who were looking closely would notice the seams in the 
street.
  In all, U.S. Border Patrol Agents found 16 tunnels leading to the 18 
metered parking spaces on International Street. The pavement is now 
riddled with neat symmetrical patches.
  It's unbelievable, Nogales Mayor Arturo Garino told Tucson, Arizona, 
ABC affiliate KGUN. Those are the strides these people take to get the 
drugs across the border.
  Past methods of smuggling have included catapults that launched bales 
of drugs across the border fence. The smugglers have tried everything, 
said Garino, and this is one of the most ingenious methods of them all.
  The city, advised by Homeland Security, has agreed to remove the 
parking meters. Nogales stands to lose $8,500 annually in parking 
revenue, plus the cost of citations.
  Well, the President, I know he wouldn't have said it if he didn't 
believe it was true. But it isn't the most people we've ever had on our 
southern border, not at all. In fact, you can find this at Wikipedia, 
regarding General Pershing, and there are other far more detailed 
accounts.
  In January 1914, Pershing was assigned to command the Army 8th 
Brigade, United States, at Fort Bliss, Texas, responsible for security 
along the U.S.-Mexico border. In March, 1916, under the command of 
General Frederick Funston, Pershing led the 8th brigade on a failed 
1916-17 punitive expedition into Mexico in search of the revolutionary 
leader, Pancho Villa. He had met him in 1913 when he invited him to 
Fort Bliss.
  And that's about all it says, but if you do more digging you find 
out, actually, after Pancho Villa and his cutthroats had come into the 
United States proper and killed some Americans, Woodrow Wilson ordered 
American troops, led by Pershing, to go into Mexico to pursue these 
murderers and end their killing spree, and make it clear that there 
would be dire consequences for coming into the United States illegally.
  One report I read said there may have been as many as 100,000 or more 
National Guard troops put on the U.S. southern border. Pershing went 
in, depending on the account you believe, 10,000, 14,000 troops into 
Mexico pursuing Pancho Villa, killed many of his lieutenants. Never got 
Pancho Villa. But it ended, for a long time, anybody coming in 
illegally to the United States to commit a crime on U.S. soil.
  Woodrow Wilson was not really considered a warmonger, as a university 
president. But he understood, when the Nation is under attack, whether 
it's from Pancho Villa or drug smugglers today, we took an oath we must 
follow, and supporting and defending the Constitution means providing 
for the common defense. And if people are bent on the destruction of 
this country, we must take such steps as are necessary to defend 
ourselves.
  Mexico is in deep trouble. We can help Mexico, we can help ourselves, 
simply by defending ourselves and re-establishing the rule of law along 
our southern border. It's critical.
  In the time I have left today--this is the last day of this week, at 
least for about 10 more days when we come back into session, I want to 
take up an issue. My late mother thought I should have been either a 
doctor or a college professor. I do enjoy history. I love teaching. I 
enjoy math.
  So, despite my parents' disappointment, I did go to law school. And 
anyway, as I told my dad, who said, you know, there are just so many 
lawyers that are hurting the country, it really caused me to do some 
soul searching. And I explained, Dad, I've thought about it, prayed 
about it, wrestled with it. The fact is the law is a tool, like a 
hammer. You can use it to build up or you can use it to tear down. It's 
all in whose hands the hammer is hitting.
  The law is a powerful tool, but as so many of our Founders laid out, 
unless we serve and govern a moral nation, this form of government is 
entirely inadequate to protect us.
  And I know our fine President has said we're not a Christian nation, 
and I will not debate that issue. There's plenty of evidence on both 
sides of that issue currently. I don't think we are anymore. But for 
those that continue to persist and say we were never a Christian 
nation, who refuse to note that a third of the signers of the 
Declaration, over a third, weren't just Christians, they were ordained 
Christian ministers.
  People like Peter Muhlenberg--ended up with a statue down the hall. 
He was a minister who Washington made a colonel, unbeknownst to his 
flock and his church. His statue depicts him taking off his ministerial 
robe to reveal a uniform underneath, even with a saber on. He was 
preaching from Ecclesiastes: There's a time for every purpose under 
heaven. When he got to verse 8, that there's a time for war and a time 
for peace, he took off his robe and said, now is the time for war. He 
recruited men from the church to join him. They recruited men from the 
town to support them. And he became a general by the end of the war, 
all of that while a Christian minister.
  But I think it's helpful to go back and look at some of those who 
were intimately familiar with our founding and, of course, I've read so 
often from Washington here on the floor, from John Adams, I thought I 
would read from John Quincy Adams to start off with. John Quincy Adams, 
our youngest diplomat. Washington appointed him to serve briefly as a 
diplomat at 11 years of age. Smart guy.
  At the age of 77, in 1844, John Quincy Adams was not only a U.S. 
Congressman, but he was also the chairman of the American Bible 
Society.

                              {time}  1510

  These are John Quincy Adams' words:
  ``I deem myself fortunate in having the opportunity, at this stage of 
a long life drawing rapidly to its close, to bear at this place, the 
Capital of our national union, in the Hall of Representatives of the 
North American people, in

[[Page H6965]]

the chair of the presiding officer of the assembly representing the 
whole people, the personification of the great and mighty Nation, to 
bear my solemn testimonial of reverence and gratitude to that book of 
books, the Holy Bible. The Bible carries with it the history of the 
creation, the fall and redemption of man, and discloses to him, in the 
infant born at Bethlehem, the legislator and Savior of the world.''
  On the occasion of his 80th birthday, John Quincy Adams' words were 
these:
  ``I enter upon my 80th year with Thanksgiving to God for all the 
blessings and mercies which His Providence has bestowed upon me 
throughout a life extended now to the longest term alotted to the life 
of man, with supplication for the continuance of those blessings and 
mercies to me and mine as long as it shall suit the dispensations of 
His wise Providence, and for resignation to His will when my appointed 
time shall come.'' John Quincy Adams.
  One of the most powerful closing arguments of any case was given by 
John Quincy Adams in the Amistad case just downstairs in the old 
Supreme Court Chamber. And toward the end of his argument he was so 
concerned that he might be losing, and that if he lost the argument, he 
lost the case in which he was representing the Africans who had been 
captured and had chains put on them. They were able to get loose and 
take over the ship and ultimately ended up in the U.S. So the lawsuit 
was over. Were they free people who could go where they wanted? Or were 
they to remain slaves? He ended up in his closing arguments by asking 
about where were all the Justices? He now called every one of the 
Justices that had ever been on the Supreme Court by name and asked 
where they were. Where are they? Where was the Solicitor General that 
argued against me last when I was here? That was back in the early 
1820s. And during the course of the arguments, about 3 days in the 
Amistad case, one of the judges died one night. That kind of throws a 
crimp in your closing argument. But when they resumed the case, he was 
asking, ``Where are the judges?'' Even the judge that started the case 
with him wasn't in there.
  In essence, he concluded by asking, ``Where have they gone? They've 
gone to meet their Judge.'' And the big question about their life, he 
quoted from Scripture when he said, ``Did they hear these words, 'Well 
done, good and faithful servant?''' The message was clear. You are all 
going to die, and when you die, do you want to go meet your Maker after 
having a decision that allows these free Africans to be drug out of 
here in chains and bondage?
  He won the case. The Africans, as they should have been, were free. 
And they should have been. And it is an embarrassment that slavery was 
ever allowed in this country. But if you look at the founding, they 
were led by Christian Founders. If you look at the greatest 
developments in civil rights, Abraham Lincoln felt called by God to run 
for office and bring an end to slavery. John Quincy Adams was a mentor 
to him during the 2 brief years he was in the House of Representatives. 
Adams had a massive stroke during that term, but young Abraham Lincoln, 
despite their difference in ages, was one of the honorary pallbearers. 
Adams thought a lot of Lincoln.
  After Lincoln was President, he said that the most memorable thing 
that occurred during his time in the House of Representatives, just 
down the Hall here, was John Quincy Adams' powerful sermons on the 
evils of slavery. John Quincy Adams, as a Christian, believed he was 
being called. After losing the election for a second term, he believed 
he was being called to come into Congress, as William Wilberforce had 
done. Adams had corresponded with Wilberforce in England and had come 
into Congress as Wilberforce had come into Parliament, to fight to end 
slavery. And each time he was recognized on one of his bills, he 
preached a hellfire and brimstone sermon about, in essence, how can we 
expect God to keep blessing America when we treat our brothers and 
sisters by putting them in chains and bondage? He thought God had 
called him to end slavery.
  He served in the United States House. He was the only person to have 
ever done this: After being President, he lowered himself to run for 
Congress and serve in the House. Of course, he told some folks he was 
more proud of being elected representative after being President than 
he was being elected President. And that seems like such a strange 
thing until you realize what it meant was that after he was President, 
his neighbors still liked him. And that is not often the case.
  We know that some of the greatest debates that occurred in the House 
of Representatives and in the Senate were participated in by Henry 
Clay. He and Daniel Webster had some powerful debates. Henry Clay said 
this in 1829. He said, ``1,800 years have rolled away since the Son of 
God, our Blessed Redeemer, offered Himself on Mount Calvary for the 
salvation of our species, and more than half of mankind still continue 
to deny His divine mission and the truth of His sacred Word. When we 
shall, as soon as we must, be translated from this into another form of 
existence, is the hope presumptuous that we shall behold the common 
Father of the whites and blacks, the great Ruler of the Universe, cast 
His all-seeing eye upon civilized and regenerated Africa, its 
cultivated fields, its coasts studded with numerous cities, adorned 
with towering temples dedicated to the pure religion of His redeeming 
Son?''
  I want to make clear that the reason that we have more religious 
freedom in this country than any other country in the world is because 
we were founded on Christian principles that Jesus taught. Any nation 
that is based on sharia law and follows true sharia law will not have 
freedom of religion. So this is the freest country that any Muslim can 
ever worship in. You don't have to believe exactly as the radicals do 
about the Koran's teaching, because you have that freedom here in this 
country.
  And we just read this week that after we have spent hundreds of 
billions of dollars and lost over 1,700 precious American lives to rid 
Afghanistan of the Taliban and, unfortunately, try to create a central 
government that won't work, we now find this week that there is no 
longer in Afghanistan a Christian church. Not one. We also find out 
this week there is a report that there is only one Jew left in 
Afghanistan. After 10 years of battle, hundreds of billions of dollars 
and precious American lives, we see what we've done come to this. There 
is not one Christian church, war declared upon Christians, Christians 
killed and imprisoned, and a jihad against Christians there in a 
country that we saved.
  We're losing some of our freedoms here because some say we should 
have more law that follows sharia law. The only way sharia law will be 
completely and freely followed and worshiped, not by some radical 
Islamist view of it, but by all Muslims who freely can have different 
interpretations, unless they're in a radical Islamic society, they can 
only have that here, where we were founded on Christian principles. And 
thank God we were.
  I was a history major. I didn't read this until after I was out of 
school. Christopher Columbus wrote this in his own words: ``It was the 
Lord who put into my mind, I could feel His hand upon me, the fact that 
it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies. All who heard of 
my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me. There is no 
question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because He 
comforted me with rays of marvelous illuminations from the Holy 
Scriptures, a strong and clear testimony from the 44 books of the Old 
Testament, from the four Gospels, and from the 23 epistles of the 
blessed Apostles, encouraging me continually to press forward. And 
without ceasing for a moment, they now encourage me to make haste.''

                              {time}  1520

  Columbus said: ``Our Lord Jesus desired to perform a very obvious 
miracle in the voyage to the Indies, to comfort me and the whole people 
of God.''
  That's evidence that God can use somebody to create a miracle, and 
the person being used doesn't even know what he did. Of course, there 
are those who say Columbus is the perfect example that you can be a 
huge success for all of time even if you don't know where you're going, 
don't know where you are when you get there, and don't know how you got 
there so long as you can get the government to pay for it. 
Unfortunately, there are too many in government today who believe 
that's

[[Page H6966]]

the key to all success--to get the government to pay for it.
  Francis Scott Key, he was there on the ship in the Chesapeake Bay on 
September 14, 1814, in part of the War of 1812, which was when the 
British unmercifully bombed that small Fort McHenry. In the morning 
light, he saw our flag. The fourth verse of what is now our national 
anthem is:
  ``Oh! thus be it ever when freemen shall stand between their loved 
home and the war's desolation!
  ``Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven rescued land praise 
the Power that hath made and preserved us a Nation.
  ``Then conquer we must when our cause it is just, and this be our 
motto: 'In God is our trust.'
  ``And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave o'er the land of 
the free and the home of the brave!''
  I want to conclude with one other historic reference from the Supreme 
Court, itself, back when the Supreme Court did not believe that the 
Constitution was a living, breathing document that would be subject to 
the whims of people appointed who brought their own biases to the 
Supreme Court and twisted it and turned it into whatever document 
pleased them.
  I am also thankful to God that we have had some incredible Justices 
on the Supreme Court who believe the document called the 
``Constitution'' was exactly as the Founders intended. It is not a 
living, breathing document that can be molded like silly-putty around 
somebody's fingers and whims.
  In 1892, the Supreme Court said this in the Church of the Holy 
Trinity vs. The United States:
  ``No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any 
legislation, State or national, because this is a religious people.'' 
This is historically true. ``From the discovery of this continent to 
the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. The 
commission to Christopher Columbus recited that it ``is hoped that by 
God's assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will 
be discovered.''
  It goes on to read:
  ``The First Charter of Virginia, granted by King James, I in 1606, 
commenced the grant in these words:
  'In propagating of Christian religion to such people as yet live in 
darkness, language of similar import may be found in the subsequent 
charters of that colony in 1609 and 1611'; and the same is true of the 
various charters granted to the other colonies.
  ``In language more or less empathetic to the establishment of the 
Christian religion, declared to be one of the purposes of the grant, 
the celebrated compact made by the pilgrims on the Mayflower, in 1620, 
recites:
  'Having undertaken for the glory of God and advancement of the 
Christian faith a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern 
parts of Virginia the fundamental orders of Connecticut under which a 
provisional government was instituted in 1638 and 1639 commenced with 
this declaration:
  'And well knowing where a people are gathered together the Word of 
God requires that to maintain the peace and union there should be an 
orderly and decent government established according to God to maintain 
and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of Our Lord Jesus, 
which now profess of the said gospel which is now practiced amongst 
us.'''
  The Supreme Court went on and concluded that these, and many other 
matters that might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations 
to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian Nation.
  It may not be now, but it started that way.
  Mr. Speaker, just as Martin Luther King felt a calling as a Christian 
minister and just as Lincoln did in ending slavery, we owe so much to 
the religion of Christianity that everyone can worship or not as they 
wish.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________