[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 176 (Thursday, December 12, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H8096-H8100]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
A YEAR IN REVIEW
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wagner). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, tonight, one of the things we did was to
take up the National Defense Authorization Act. It was to extend the
power of the President.
There were some good things in it. I applaud the inclusion of the
conscience exception that would allow members of the military to do as
members of the military have done throughout our history--be able to
have, for example, a Bible on a desk, which are things that now have
begun to result in persecution--and, actually, knocks against the
military--things that our greatest Commander in the history of our
country, George Washington, felt were noble things. Under this
administration's watch, these things have now begun to result in
persecution.
When you go back to the bill, the Authorization for Use of Military
Force, that was passed on September 18, 2001, when the United States
did not even know who had attacked us, it is incredible. I don't fault
the legislature at the time, the Congress--the House and the Senate.
Americans were scared. Churches and synagogues were packed all over
America. I have never seen anything like it in my lifetime the way
people especially flocked to churches and were praying fervently. Then
after there was not another attack within 90 days, it was as if
Americans began to say, Never mind, God. We don't have to worry about
that because we haven't been attacked again.
The NDAA is basically added to the Authorization for Use of Military
Force against September 11 terrorists. That is the name of it.
It says in section 2(a):
The President is authorized to use all necessary and
appropriate force against those nations, organizations or
persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent
any future acts of international terrorism against the United
States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Then it sets out War Powers Resolution requirements consistent with
section 8(a):
(1) Of the War Powers Resolution, Congress declares this
section as intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War
Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. 1544(b).
It goes on and it is more extensive, and as I say, the NDAA actually
modifies and extends things.
When that was passed, we didn't even know who had attacked us. I,
obviously, was not here in Congress at the time, but we were afraid and
concerned. We didn't know what was going to hit next, but it, perhaps,
in retrospect, was a granting of more powers than should have been
granted by the Congress because it is subject to being abused.
Fortunately, I don't consider it to have been abused by President
Bush. Some blame him for Iraq. I wasn't here at the time, but I can't
help but wonder when people supported the numerous successful efforts
by President Bush at the United Nations in building a big coalition of
countries to support our efforts to curtail Iraq's military efforts of
not allowing U.N. inspectors to check on them. I don't blame the
Democrats who voted for the authorization to go into Iraq, and I don't
blame the Republicans, because Saddam Hussein gave every indication to
the people who were in Congress at the time and to the President that
he was up to no good. That was a long time ago.
Now we find that the President is using authorities that were
granted, and this administration is using authority that was granted to
do things like help rebels who we knew at the time in Libya had al
Qaeda infused within them. We just didn't know how extensive, and many
of us pointed that out. Now, this fall, we see that this administration
has sent hundreds of tons of weapons to the Syrian rebels, and we find
out that the Syrian rebels who are fighting a cruel dictator named
Assad are engaging in more brutality, particularly against Christians,
in the original roots where Christianity was born.
These are areas in which Apostle Paul established churches. It is the
only city in the world that still speaks the original Aramaic that
Jesus was believed to have spoken. This is an amazing place. This isn't
just some trivial area in which a few Christians happen to be. This is
right to the very founding of the Christian church. So many people came
to America to have the freedom to worship without persecution. They
fled Europe and fled other places so they could worship without
persecution in a Christian church, and now this administration is using
incredible powers that were bestowed on the President by Congress to
help the wrong people.
I go back to a visit to the Middle East earlier this fall when allies
basically were saying, We do not understand what you are doing. The
Muslim Brotherhood is that which supports radical Islam, and it was the
radical Islamists--the Muslim Brotherhood--that supported the 9/11
attacks. It was the Muslim Brotherhood that basically supported the
training and all of the efforts the Taliban was doing. It is the Muslim
Brotherhood that was engaged in trying to take down Qadhafi, which,
without American help, they may not have done. It was the Muslim
Brotherhood that took control in Egypt and was persecuting Christians
as the Coptic Christian Pope, the Egyptian Pope, verified himself in
meetings with him this fall. Now, in Syria, you are backing the people
who are at war with you? We don't understand.
So it appears that we have gone from being at war, as President Bush
talked about, with anyone who has supported the terrorists--you are
either with us or you are with them--to now, not only not being at war
with those who are at war with us, but to helping them.
{time} 2015
As a Christian, to know that votes we have taken in Congress have
helped enable this administration to provide weapons, weapons of war,
to people who are brutalizing, raping, killing, seeing reports of the
beheadings of Christians in Syria.
Though I greatly appreciate some of the things that were included in
the NDAA, and in the past I have even helped work on bipartisan
agreements, bicameral, with the Senate and the House, worked on an
effort to rein in the President's authority to just indefinitely detain
American citizens--and I think we had a great solution we worked
together to get inserted, so I don't believe the President can do that
any longer with the language now being used--I still can't continue to
support what we are doing. I hope that we will have a bipartisan effort
in the new year to actually end the authorization for use of military
force against September 11 terrorists now that we seem to be helping
those who are associated with the radical Islamist terrorists instead
of being at war with them.
Horizon Industries
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to stand here and
congratulate the National Industries for the Blind, that is the NIB, on
their 75th anniversary and the great work they do for Texas' First
Congressional District.
NIB's mission is to ``enhance opportunities for economic and personal
independence of persons who are blind, primarily through creating,
sustaining, and improving employment.''
Unfortunately, 70 percent of working-age Americans who are blind are
unemployed. However, the NIB is trying to reverse those upsetting
trends by providing more employment opportunities for people who are
blind through their more than 250 locations across the United States.
Horizon Industries, which is a division of the East Texas Lighthouse
for the Blind, is located in Tyler, Texas, and currently employs 70
blind and visually impaired individuals. When I visit Horizon
Industries, East Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, I am overwhelmed with
amazement and appreciation for the dedication, the ability, the desire,
and the outright help that
[[Page H8097]]
these visually impaired American wonders are working with.
Horizon, one of their jobs, they convert paper products into
industrial cleaning cloths for the General Services Administration and
its customers. These incredible employees have also manufactured 35,661
miles of parachute cord for the Department of Defense, much of which
was shipped directly to our troops who are deployed in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Horizon Industries has empowered blind Americans through
employment since 1976.
These marvelous friends, whose visual impairment has heightened their
other senses to an amazing extent, are dedicated, they love this
country, they want to help this country, are a blessing and an asset to
their community, to east Texas, to Texas, and this country. May God
continue to bless these wonderful, lovable, dedicated Americans as they
continue to bless America.
The Affordable Care Act
Mr. GOHMERT. To address the Affordable Care Act, as it was improperly
and inaccurately labeled, is an article from Ben Shapiro in Breitbart
today that said:
On Friday, PolitiFact bowed to the inevitable and named
President Obama's ``If you like your health care plan, you
can keep it'' statement its Lie of the Year. That came after
PolitiFact labeled that statement ``half-true'' in June of
2012 and then defended its ``half-true'' rating in October
2013.
PolitiFact said:
It was a catchy political pitch and a chance to calm nerves
about his dramatic and complicated plan to bring historic
change to America's health insurance system, but the promise
was impossible to keep.
Of course, there's more to the story than that: the promise
was a lie when it was made, given that Obama knew at the time
that insurance plans would be canceled. But PolitiFact, even
in naming the statement the Lie of the Year, soft-pedaled it:
Obama fought back against inaccurate attacks with his own
oversimplifications, which he repeated even as it became
clear his promise was too sweeping.
So even PolitiFact, doing all they could to defend something that
ended up absolutely not being true, they finally had to come around and
actually admit when the whole country basically--most of the country--
could see the truth, even PolitiFact had to finally get around to being
factual.
Here is another story from John Nolte, the Breitbart, 12 December,
today. He said:
During Thursday's White House press briefing, the press
corps erupted in protest over the Obama administration's lack
of transparency and media access. The press corps seemed to
be in complete agreement that the Obama White House has been
less transparent than the Bush White House. Quite a
condemnation for the self-described ``most transparent
administration in history.''
I have also noted in the news today statements from some of our
leaders in our Republican Party here in the House that immigration will
be a top priority for 2014. I would not have a problem with immigration
being a top priority in 2014 if the administration would first enforce
the laws that enter in effect regarding this Nation's security and its
immigration laws.
We had a hearing today in Judiciary and heard testimony about the
administration from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, that
actually they are not complying with the law. The law says if somebody
claims asylum, then they are detained until such time that they have
the matter ultimately adjudicated. We learned that actually about 75
percent of those claiming asylum, which has grown multiple times from
where they were in 2008 when President Bush left, a dramatic, dramatic
increase in numbers of people coming across our southern border and
claiming asylum, and apparently this administration is releasing about
75 percent of them.
And I was quite sad to hear testimony that even though they are
making policy, that these individuals, deputy directors, could not give
us the exact numbers of how many people they were releasing, how many
people reported back for their hearings; and so that was quite a bit
discouraging.
So when you know that there have been so many misstatements by this
administration that turned out to be far less than accurate or true,
then I do not know why Republicans and Democrats would want to take up
immigration. Just the discussion about legal status, amnesty, anything
of the sort, creates a massive magnet drawing people across our borders
illegally, as we have heard testimony repeatedly, statements
repeatedly, from our ICE agents, our Immigration and Customs
Enforcement people. They say it increases dramatically every time we
start talking about legal status and amnesty. We see huge numbers of
people, numbers that we get about the people dying coming across
deserts, not having adequate water and food to get across. Why would we
do something to create a magnet until we have a secure border?
There are a lot of things that need to be reformed. But for those who
continue to say, oh, yeah, but we will have real security in the next
bill, look, there is money that this administration has, there is
manpower this administration has, there is the ability this
administration has to secure our border. What it does not have is the
will.
If it turned out the administration were really and truly serious
about securing our border, they could be confirmed by the border
States. Then you would see me, along with most of the people I know,
willing to sit down and immediately work out an immigration reform
package. But to debate it in committee and on the floor, to talk about
it, to make speeches before the border is secure, I am afraid makes us
complicit in drawing people across deserts that will not make it and
will die in the desert because we started talking about promises,
dangling shiny objects to draw people to us, when we had not put proper
protection in place to make sure that innocent people did not die
trying to get here.
For those who say we need to vastly broaden the number of visas,
there are some areas that I am in favor of increasing visas. There are
a lot of things we can talk about, but it does not serve those who we
will draw across deserts who won't make it, it doesn't serve them any
good purpose until the administration secures the border. So with all
the wonderful talk about triggers and, oh, but we are going to finally
secure the border, well, President Reagan got fooled on that and
regretted it.
I just think it will be a terrible mistake to do anything other than
take up a resolution. I filed one basically saying that until the
administration secures our borders, as confirmed by the border States,
not Homeland Security, which we have trouble getting straight answers
out of, but as confirmed by the border States, who are important,
critical stakeholders in the immigration and secure border issue, when
they confirm the borders are secure, then we immediately move in to
dealing with immigration reform. To do otherwise is a mistake that will
do great damage to people that we draw in, unfortunately, to their
great damage and possible demise; and it will do great damage to this
country.
Let's get the immigration, set it on hold, not take anything up until
the President is committed and does actually secure the border. Then we
get something worked out, and it won't be a difficult issue at all. But
for those that say, oh, I think we can trust Homeland Security or we
can trust groups in Washington or we can trust Homeland Security, sure,
we can trust this administration. They say that once we give them
everything they want in an immigration bill, then they really and truly
will start securing the border to the extent that the law requires.
{time} 2030
I am sure I look stupid to some, but I say that is a massive mistake.
Follow the law. If you won't enforce and follow and execute the law
faithfully now in accordance with the oath that was taken at the
beginning of office, then why should we think things will change after
you have gotten everything you want and there is no more incentive to
follow the law.
Well, we get back to the promises made about the so-called Affordable
Care Act. Here is an article from The Wall Street Journal today that
says ObamaCare raised the cost of your kids' braces. And again, those
of us who have used the term ``ObamaCare,'' we don't mean anything any
more derogatory than the President when he called Massachusetts health
care ``RomneyCare.'' It was just a way to identify Massachusetts health
care. The President didn't mean anything
[[Page H8098]]
derogatory when he says ``RomneyCare.'' People who use ``ObamaCare,''
including the President, don't mean anything derogatory, but it
certainly identifies for people more than the Affordable Care Act does,
as we have seen man-on-the-street interviews on television that people
don't know the Affordable Care Act and ObamaCare are actually the same
thing.
This article points out:
Here is something your orthodontist is not smiling about, a
new tax rule raised the cost of braces this year thanks to a
change from the Affordable Care Act that places an annual
$2,500 contribution cap on flexible spending accounts which
let workers set aside pretax dollars to cover medical
expenses. Some consumers may be spending more on braces,
expensive eyewear, or other medical supplies they would
typically buy with the accounts. Before the new rule, there
was no official cap on how much taxpayers could stash into
the account, although many companies typically set their own
limits of $5,000. For a person in the 25 percent tax bracket,
it cuts the maximum tax break in half to $625 from $1,250.
And then it goes on to explain how these increase the cost of braces
and orthodontic care.
Another issue here, this article from The Wall Street Journal as
well, dated December 11, says, ``Juking the ObamaCare Stats.'' It says:
Most of Washington seems to have bought the White House
claim that the 36 Federal exchanges are finally working, and
glory, glory, hallelujah. But if that is really true, then
what explains the ongoing secrecy and evasion?
We have had so much trouble getting specific, direct answers about
people who have actually purchased insurance through the exchange.
Now, Health and Human Services, HHS, if they don't have these
numbers, if they can't even tell us the number of people that have
actually purchased insurance, then how in heaven's name will they ever
be able to tell people whether or not they are actually covered and how
extensively they are covered and whether or not they are going to take
care of expenses. I mean, the fact that they can't come in here and
give us specific information on who signed up, how many have signed up
for this, that or the other, is a terrible harbinger for just how bad
and disastrous this health care bill is.
As we have continued to have a number of hearings where we get
nothing but obfuscation when specific facts are requested from the
administration, we know that somebody has this information in this
administration and it brought to mind the legal doctrine called
spoliation. Now in our American courts in every State, in Federal
court, we have very strict laws about the admittance of hearsay into
evidence before a jury because our rules are there to protect the
finder of fact, the jury, from hearing evidence which does not have
really enough credibility to it, and hearsay has to be a specific
exception or it is not allowed. It must be direct evidence; otherwise,
it is not allowed, with very tight exceptions.
One exception that most jurisdictions, as we have in Texas, it is
called spoliation. The doctrine is this, in essence. If one party in
court has control of evidence that would be admissible toward proving
or disproving a fact and that party does not, will not, or say they
cannot produce that evidence to prove or disprove a fact, in that case
the judge, as I used to be, could turn to the jury and instruct the
jury that even though this is not direct evidence because of our
justice system and the effort to achieve justice in America better than
any court system in history, we can direct the jury under the doctrine
of spoliation that this party had evidence in their possession that
they have either refused to produce, cannot produce, or will not
produce. Since this party has possession or had possession of that
evidence, then, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you may consider the
fact that they are not producing that evidence as evidence itself that
if produced that evidence would disprove what they are claiming. That
is called, in essence, the doctrine of spoliation.
So that is the evidentiary doctrine that came to my mind as we
continue to have hearings and the Obama administration fails to produce
specific information about sign-ups to ObamaCare. So if we were in a
court of law, it certainly appears that that instruction might be
appropriate. Ladies and gentlemen of America, the administration has
evidence in its possession that it either cannot, will not, or refuses
to produce. Therefore, Americans, ladies and gentlemen of America, you
may consider as evidence the fact that they will not produce that
information as evidence that it does not support what they claim.
Basically, that is what we have here. They are refusing to produce
evidence, information about ObamaCare. So I think the American people
would be justified. I think a jury in my court would be justified in
presuming, a legal presumption, that their failure to produce this
evidence is evidence that their claims are not supported by the
evidence they refuse to produce.
Here is an article from The Weekly Standard, December 11, entitled,
``Sexiest man alive brought in to boost ObamaCare enrollment.'' I don't
really know who Adam Levine is; probably my daughters do. Apparently,
he was designated as such by People magazine. Apparently he has been
enlisted, according to Bloomberg, as having been hired by this
administration to give credibility to ObamaCare.
To me, again, that seems like if you have to hire some sexy guy to
come in and promote and tell people, promote ObamaCare as being so
wonderful and great, it is a pretty clear indication that as people
look into ObamaCare personally that they don't like what they see, and
that is what we are hearing from most constituents. Thankfully, there
are a few people who have benefited from ObamaCare; but the people we
are hearing from, the vast majority, have been hurt, not helped.
Here again, another article from the Washington Examiner, Brian
Hughes from today, actually 5:08 p.m. today. It says, ``HHS extends
more ObamaCare deadlines.'' It goes on to talk about that the Obama
administration announced today that they would take steps to push back
an already delayed deadline, help those struggling to obtain health
coverage on January 1, and extend a Federal insurance program for those
with preexisting conditions.
They keep extending deadlines. If Harry Reid and Senate Democrats had
not been so dead set on shutting down the government on October 1 as
they did, if they had been at least willing to forgo their desire to
shut down the government and hope Republicans got blamed, which they
knew that the mainstream would do because the mainstream media would
not actually look at the facts that the House was compromising
repeatedly and the Senate was saying ``our way or the highway,''
basically, by their actions, making clear they wanted a shutdown. Well,
they got the shutdown, and now, in retrospect, there have got to be
Democrats in the Senate saying, You know what? Since we have to keep
extending these deadlines, the American people are going to figure out
we could have avoided that whole shutdown if Democrats had been even
remotely reasonable in the Senate and said, Okay, let's go ahead and
postpone this for a year because it is not going well.
Well, they wanted a shutdown and they got a shutdown, as the Senate
Democrats wanted, and now there has got to be some buyer's remorse.
They created the shutdown when they should have taken one of our
various compromise offers and at least extended, suspended the
individual mandate the way the President illegally did for businesses.
I want to touch on another thing quickly here. Iran is, as Israel has
said repeatedly, an existential threat to the very existence of Israel.
If they get nuclear weapons, they want to attack Israel first as the
little Satan and they want to attack America next. And we have had
Wendy Sherman, who is the lead negotiator for the Obama administration,
come up and brief Members of Congress. I wasn't there because I had
read about her policy leadership in working out the deal with North
Korea under the Clinton administration which provided them nuclear
power plants, fuel, got them up and going, and also agreed not to
inspect their nuclear facilities, which gave North Korea time to
develop nuclear weapons.
In order to get us to give them nuclear power plants and all they
needed to make nuclear weapons, basically most of what they needed, all
they had to do was promise they wouldn't pursue nuclear weapons. They
have got to be thinking these Americans are the most stupid people in
the world.
[[Page H8099]]
Sure, you want us to tell you we won't pursue nuclear weapons, we
won't pursue them. Now give us what we need to make nuclear weapons and
we will make nuclear weapons.
Here we have some of the same people involved with the Obama
administration who want to do the same type of thing with Iran. The
trouble is this time it really is a threat to the United States. It is
a threat to Israel, and we have betrayed our ally, unfortunately, in
Israel.
But anyway, here are the people in whom the Clinton administration
and numerous people now in the Obama administration have such faith in.
This article today, 5:07 p.m., ``North Korea State Media Says Uncle of
Kim Jong Un Executed.'' Oh, these are great people. These are people
that we shouldn't have trusted, but the Clinton administration did and
Wendy Sherman did back in the 1990s. She continued to persist. Oh, we
can trust these guys, even in her op-ed in 2001.
{time} 2045
You couldn't trust them, and people who knew these people knew you
couldn't trust the leadership. You can trust the North Koreans, but you
can't trust their leadership. You can trust the Iranians, but you can't
trust their leadership.
Here is another article in the National Review online entitled
``Nuclear Gangbangers.''
An observant Iran appreciates three laws of current nuclear
gangbanging:
1. Nuclear weapons earn a reputation.
2. The more loco a nuclear nation sounds, the more likely
it is that civilized states will fear that it is not subject
to nuclear deterrence, and so the more likely that they will
pay bribes for it to behave. Gangbangers always claim they
have nothing to lose; their more responsible intended targets
have everything to lose.
3. As of yet, there are no 100 percent effective nuclear-
defense systems that can guarantee non-nuclear powers
absolute safety from a sudden attack. The nuclear gangbanger,
not the global police, currently has the upper hand.
And this administration is turning a blind eye to the deceit and the
lies and the nuclear development in Iran to our detriment and the
detriment of our dear friend.
Madam Speaker, in the remaining time, since this is the last
Republican Special Order time before we recess in the House for the
Christmas holidays, the new year, I want to say that although it
apparently irritates some liberals to no end and they miss the point of
why it is important to read these historic statements, some people say,
Gee, we are getting lots of calls from irate people saying that the
things that are being read on the House floor by Congressman Gohmert
are an affront and should never be allowed to be a part of the United
States Government. They miss the entire point that the reason that I am
reading them is because these poor people have not had a proper
education. They do not know what a historic basis it is in going back
to George Washington who created an order that you couldn't take God's
name in vain, creating in his resignation a prayer for the Nation,
talking about the divine author of our blessed religion and that
without a humble limitation in these things that we can never hope to
be a happy Nation.
There were the proclamations thanking God, directing people to have
days of prayer. There were all of these things throughout our history.
So, Madam Speaker, I hope Americans appreciate the profound things that
have been done by America's leaders in the past.
This is from Franklin D. Roosevelt, December 24, 1933, in a Christmas
greeting to the Nation. Again, it was okay in the 1930s, just as it was
throughout our history, to thank God. No one ever had a problem with
Democrats or Republicans paying tribute to God in the House Chamber, in
the Senate Chamber, in the White House, anywhere. These are Franklin
Roosevelt's comments. He 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. I give you and send you one and all,
old and young, a merry Christmas and a truly happy new year.
So for now and for always, ``God bless us every one.''
The following year on Christmas Eve, Franklin D. Roosevelt gave us
these words from the White House, a government property. It was
entirely proper. He said:
Let us make the spirit of Christmas of 1934 that of courage
and unity. That is, I believe, an important part of what the
Maker of Christmas would have it mean. In this sense, the
Scriptures admonish us to be strong and of good courage, to
fear not, to dwell together in unity.
That was just some of his comments.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, January 25, 1941, in the prologue of the New
Testament published by the Gideons and distributed to soldiers during
World War II--and I have one that my aunt provided me that she said my
uncle had received. It says:
To the Armed Forces: As Commander in Chief, I take pleasure
in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in
the Armed Forces of the United States. Throughout the
centuries, men of many faiths and diverse origins have found
in the Sacred Book words of wisdom, counsel, and inspiration.
It is a fountain of strength and now, as always, an aid in
attaining the highest aspirations of the human soul. Very
sincerely yours, Franklin D. Roosevelt.
On December 21, 1941, two weeks after America was attacked, a day
which will live in infamy, as President Roosevelt said, Franklin
Roosevelt delivered this message:
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 war 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? How can
we put the world aside, as men and women put the world aside
in peaceful years, to rejoice in the birth of Christ?
President Roosevelt goes on. He says:
Looking into the days to come, I have set aside a day of
prayer, and in that proclamation I have said: ``The year 1941
has brought upon our Nation a war of aggression by powers
dominated by arrogant rulers whose selfish purpose is to
destroy free institutions. They would thereby take from the
freedom-loving peoples of the Earth the hard-won liberties
gained over many centuries. The new year of 1942 calls for
courage . . . Our strength, as the strength of all men
everywhere, is of greater avail as God upholds us.
Therefore, I . . . do hereby appoint the first day of the
year of 1942 as a day of prayer, of asking forgiveness for
our shortcomings of the past, of consecration to the tasks of
the present, of asking God's help in days to come. We need
his guidance that this people may be humble in spirit but
strong in conviction of the right; steadfast to endure
sacrifice, and brave to achieve a victory of liberty and
peace.
Our strongest weapon in this war is that conviction of the
dignity and brotherhood of man which Christmas day signifies.
President Roosevelt goes on:
Against enemies that 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.
On January 6, 1942, President Roosevelt said:
Our enemies are guided by brutal cynicism, by unholy
contempt for the human race. We are inspired by faith which
goes back through all the years to the first chapter of the
Book of Genesis. ``God created man in his own image.'' We on
our side are striving to be true to that Divine heritage. We
are fighting, as our fathers have fought, to uphold the
doctrine that all men are equal in the sight of God. Those on
the other side are striving to destroy this deep belief and
to create a world in their own image, a world of tyranny and
cruelty and serfdom.
That was Franklin Roosevelt, 1942. He knew at the time that there
were the axis powers, the evil powers that included Hitler in Germany,
Mussolini in Italy, radical Islamists in North Africa joining forces
together, and he talked about our heritage. Here he is a year later,
Franklin Roosevelt. These are official statements, Madam Speaker. This
is President Roosevelt's official government message:
To you who serve in uniform I also send a message of cheer
that you are in the thoughts of your families and friends at
home, and that Christmas prayers follow you wherever you may
be. To all Americans I say that loving our neighbor as we
love ourselves is not enough, that we as a Nation and as
individuals will please God best by showing regard for the
laws of God. There is no better way of fostering good will
toward man than by first fostering good will toward God.
Then President Roosevelt quotes John 14:15. President Roosevelt says:
If we love Him, we will keep His commandments. In sending
Christmas greetings to the Armed Forces and merchant sailors
of the United Nations we include therein our pride
[[Page H8100]]
in their bravery on the fighting fronts and all the seas.
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.
That was Franklin D. Roosevelt.
In 1944, December 24, the official government statement by Franklin
Roosevelt as President was:
It is 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 word, or to our allies who
fight by their side. Here, at home, we celebrate 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 good will.
He goes on:
But in perhaps every home in the United States sad and
anxious thoughts will be continually with the millions of our
loved ones who are suffering hardships and misery and who are
risking their very lives to preserve for us and for all
mankind the fruits of his teachings and the foundations of
civilization itself.
{time} 2100
The Christmas spirit lives tonight in the bitter cold of
the front lines in Europe and in the heat of the jungles and
swamps of Burma and the Pacific Islands. Even the roar of our
bombers and fighters in the air and the guns of our ships at
sea will not drown out the message of Christmas which comes
to the heart of our fighting men.
President Roosevelt goes on:
The tide of battle has turned, but slowly, but inexorably
against those who sought to destroy civilization. We pray
that this day may come soon. We pray, until then, God will
protect our gallant American 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 and the cause of love of Him and His teachings.
President Roosevelt finishes by saying:
We pray that with victory will come a new day of peace on
Earth, in which all the nations of Earth will join together
for all time, that in the spirit of Christmas, the Holy Day,
may that spirit live and grow throughout the world in all the
years to come.
And then finally, close with this, Madam Speaker. This is Franklin
Roosevelt, January 20, 1945. This is part of his last inaugural
address. And as I finish with this, may I say, Madam Speaker, that I
know all of us here in the House and the Senate, no matter what our
persuasions, have these same very best wishes as Franklin Roosevelt had
for our American troops, our men and women in uniform today, just as
those wishes were made 68 years ago.
This was 1945. Roosevelt said:
As I stand here today, having taken the solemn oath of
office in the presence of my fellow countrymen, in the
presence of God, I know that it is America's purpose that we
shall not fail. The Almighty God has blessed our land in many
ways. He has given our people stout hearts, strong arms with
which to strike mighty blows for freedom and truth. He has
given to our country a faith which has become the hope of all
people in an anguished world.
President Franklin Roosevelt finishes by saying:
So we pray to Him now for the vision to see our way
clearly, to see the way that leads to a better life for
ourselves and for all our fellow men, to the achievement of
His will, to peace on Earth.
Roosevelt finishes by saying:
In the presence of God, I know that it is America's purpose
that we shall not fail.
Madam Speaker, if we keep that same faith of Franklin Roosevelt, in
his official capacity as President of the United States, he is right.
God will not let us fail.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________