[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17643-17648]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          REDUCING THE DEFICIT

  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.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, tonight, since we have heard over and over 
about how destructive the deficits are from the President, I thought we 
would discuss some of the ways we can work on that. There are plenty of 
good solutions.
  We discussed yesterday the fact that this administration pushed 
through a $400 billion land grab bill that would allow them to spend 
$400 billion to just buy land. I like my friend from Utah Rob Bishop's 
proposal that before people from States that don't have much, if any, 
Federal ownership of land keep pushing through bills to buy up land in 
other States, that they should be required to sell land first to the 
Federal Government in those States, so that any State that has less 
than 20 percent ownership by the Federal Government needs to find out 
what it is like when the Federal Government takes over land in a State, 
deprives the local government of any tax base from that land, deprives 
the local area of any economic growth to speak of from that land.
  Yes, there are parks in certain ones that are very active and provide 
money to the area, jobs, things like that. But more often, when the 
Federal Government comes in and grabs land and puts it off limits, it 
just starves the local schools, it starves the local government of any 
assistance.
  Now, originally when the Federal Government started grabbing land and 
taking it away from local areas, yes, they paid something for some of 
it, but there was an agreement; look, we know we are taking away all of 
this revenue from local government, from schools, so tell you what: We 
will provide you with part of the revenue off of the land, whether it 
was from the trees, which are one of our greatest renewable resources, 
or whether it was from natural resources like oil, gas and minerals of 
different kinds.
  But that all changed, and so many local governments and schools have 
been left high and dry, which is often the case. The Federal Government 
makes you promises, and you rely on those promises to your detriment, 
and unlike in the law with any individual who makes promises on which 
you rely to your detriment, raising the legal issue of promissory 
estoppel, you can't use it against the Federal Government. In fact, all 
that you get is a look from some people in Federal Government that, 
well, it is all your fault, because you trusted us. Did you not know 
you can't trust our Federal Government?
  So we don't even know what land has been purchased with that $400 
billion that we were borrowing from China and other places. But if we 
just quit buying, sold what we had, sold our interest in General Motors 
and Chrysler, sold our interest in Wall Street, sold off Fannie Mae, 
Freddie Mac, sold off things that this government shouldn't be doing, 
opened up the Federal Reserve books so everybody could see what was 
going on, clean that up of anything that there is Federal involvement 
in that there shouldn't be in the way of assistance and ownership and 
money just flowing to Wall Street buddies of this administration, we 
could save a lot of money from that, $400 billion just from that one 
bill.
  Then when you look at the $10 billion that we are in arrears on 
maintenance and upkeep for our current buildings on national parklands, 
the reason is we are just squandering it buying more and more land, and 
in many cases we are buying land adjoining parks that really has no 
similarity to the characteristics that made it a park in the first 
place. Sometimes it was just some friend in Congress that some wealthy 
landowner was able to get to push through a bill to make it a part of a 
national park, which forced the Federal Government to buy it.
  We need to have a committee go through and examine exactly what is 
really characteristic of a national park for the reason that it was set 
aside. You have got some that will be enormous, whether it is 
Yellowstone or the Grand Tetons, some beautiful national parks, Grand 
Canyon and others. But for those that are not so big but we just added 
thousands of acres, we need to take a look at disposing ourselves of 
that land for a price and getting out of that business, and then using 
the money to actually help the national park facilities that we have, 
and with the rest of it, bring down the deficit.
  One of the other things that we could do to save money and actually 
would be a far better foreign policy is in a bill I introduced in this 
Congress, the 111th. It is H.R. 4636. I have filed it in the 110th and 
in the 109th Congress, this is the third time, and it doesn't look like 
it is going to get to the floor in this Congress, but I have hopes for 
the next Congress.
  What this bill does, and the summary of the bill at the top, 
officially it says ``To prohibit United States assistance to foreign 
countries that oppose the position of the United States in the United 
Nations.''
  Basically in essence it goes through, it is a very short bill, just 5 
pages, nothing like a 2,800- or 1,300- or 2,000-page bill, 5 pages, but 
in essence any nation that votes against the United States' position in 
contested votes more than half the time will receive no financial 
assistance from the United States the following year. Each year, on or 
about March 31st, we get a report from the U.N. on all the votes and 
how each member nation voted, so it is really easy to calculate after 
March 31st of each year exactly how nations voted.
  Now, some would say, oh, well, that is not caring and loving, and you 
have said before that you are a Christian. How can you treat nations 
like that? And it is very important that people understand the basis 
for a Christian approach to government.
  We don't use our office to shove our beliefs down on others. But just 
so people know where the philosophy comes from, it is helpful to take a 
look. In fact, I was noticing online regarding the book by Jerry 
Boykin, just a real national treasure, a national hero, a lieutenant 
general in the United States Army, part of the original Delta Force. It 
has been my honor and pleasure to meet with him and share a meal with 
him.

                              {time}  1920

  But this is a real hero. And he has a book out, ``Never Surrender.'' 
Publishers Weekly went through and said, Lieutenant General Boykin's 
illustrious military career takes center stage in this personal account 
of religious faith in the proverbial foxhole. He was thrust into 
several harrowing encounters such as the events portrayed in the film 
``Black Hawk

[[Page 17644]]

Down,'' the Iranian hostage crisis, and the current war on terror.
  Boykin delivers frontline perspectives on the military missions in 
which he engaged, and the accounts are charged with excitement. Some 
may find his writing a bit polarizing. He's not subtle regarding his 
dislike for Democratic political figures like Jimmy Carter and John 
Kerry. Others will be inspired by how he faced death on a number of 
occasions and held tightly to his faith as a buoy through tumultuous 
and dark times.
  Toward the end of his career, Boykin began giving public talks, 
inspiring people to faith in God and to ideals of the United States. 
While Boykin is to be commended for his patriotism, bravery, and 
conviction, the book never successfully explains, this says, how his 
military career co-existed with some of the more pacifist tenets of 
Christianity.
  And so sometimes people hear debate on the floor, they hear people 
taking different positions, and a question like this being raised by 
Publishers Weekly is often helpful because we know where people are 
ignorant so that we can help bring them along so that you can 
understand where people are coming from the different faiths that exist 
here in the Members of the House of Representatives.
  But, regarding that, many know scriptures. I've heard friends across 
the aisle accusing people on this side--I've have had Democratic 
friends say, Jesus said you're to be kind one to another; treat your 
neighbor as yourself. The Golden Rule, of course, is often used here. 
Helping widows and orphans. Things like that. We are to turn the other 
cheek. We're to be humble as individuals. But when it comes to the 
government, the government has a far different role. The government's 
role is exactly as the oath we take in this Chamber and will do so on 
January 5, 2011, exactly what it says.
  One of the most important--I think the most important--is providing 
for the common defense. Protect the Constitution against all enemies, 
foreign and domestic. You have to go back to the founding of this 
country. It is easy to look at the back of a dollar bill and understand 
those are the two sides of our great seal on the back of a dollar bill. 
On the one side, the eagle with the ribbon through his mouth, e 
pluribus unum; out of many, one.
  We welcome immigrants. We do. Thank God for the immigrants that have 
come to this country. I asked my mother once--my late mother once--what 
we were on her side of the family, and she said, Son, you're a duke's 
mixture. I said, Well, that sounds good. What does that mean? And she 
said, Well, if we were in the dog world, son, you would be a mutt. So 
apparently I come from many different areas of the world in my 
genealogy. But that's what e pluribus unum was designed to address. We 
welcome people from all over the world. They come here and become one 
people. We welcome people that speak all kinds of languages. But in 
order to do as that phrase says that our Founders thought was so 
important, we need one language.
  You go do research. Or, as I was an exchange student in the Soviet 
Union, you find one of the problems they have was trying to make sure 
all of these people within the Soviet Union spoke the same language. 
They were very aggressive about it. Pretty mean-spirited about it. 
We're not. But we need people to speak the same language. And when I 
see people across the country saying, Let's teach these immigrants in 
their own language, let's teach these children in the language of the 
country they come from, I know they mean well. But what they do is 
condemn those children to manual labor jobs. Like my good friend Gus 
Ramirez back in Tyler, Texas, said, his parents immigrated from Mexico, 
and his dad was exceedingly strict about it. Gus said his mom and dad 
spoke Spanish in their home, but in essence he said, Son, if you're 
going to be anything in this country, you've got to speak good English. 
And that is why I expect you kids to speak English in the home.
  As a result, Gus has been city councilman, county commissioner, a 
successful businessman. But if you really care, you would want these 
young children to reach their God-given potential. Be the president of 
the company, not the ditch digger for the company. Just teach them 
English. And we can be one Nation under God, e pluribus unum; out of 
many, one.
  On the other side, though, you have the pyramid with the triangle 
above it and you see the all-seeing eye of God. The eye represents the 
all-seeing eye of God. And above it the Latin phrase ``annuit 
coeptis,'' meaning he, God, has smiled on our undertaking. They believe 
that. Because as Ben Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, 
during the contest with Great Britain when we were sensible of danger, 
Franklin said, we had daily prayer in this room. Our prayers, sir, were 
heard and they were graciously answered. They knew that. They knew that 
God was smiling on their undertaking.
  But underneath the pyramid are the words ``novus ordo seclorum,'' 
Latin, meaning in essence, ``new order of the ages.'' Now order of 
things. And the reason they had that was they knew there had been a 
parliament in England, of course. They talked about it. They knew that 
there had been a senate in ancient Rome. There had been other places 
where there had been legislating groups. But they also knew in all of 
those there was a king or a Caesar or somebody who could overrule 
whatever was done and even disband the legislative body.
  So what they were designing was a government where the people would 
be the government. The people would rule themselves. That's why this 
was a totally new order of things. This was not a new world order. It 
was a new order of the ages where people would get to govern 
themselves. And for most of this country's history people understood 
they were the government and that you would have the hiring day and you 
should prepare yourself for hiring day so that when you went and voted 
or hired servants to go do your will, that you, the people as the 
government, would hire successful servants who would do the will of the 
government. That was their thought. That's why it was a new order of 
the ages. People were going to govern themselves.
  So in that context, when we know that the government of this country 
was supposed to be we, the people, and that those of us who are elected 
and sent to this august body, we're supposed to be servants. That was 
the point. So if you look to a chapter that addresses the government's 
obligation, it's different from those of individuals--individuals being 
kind. But when you're government here, when you're the servants that 
are supposed to carry out the government job, you have an obligation to 
protect the people that sent you here. You're the servants that are 
supposed to protect the people. If you're in the military, you're the 
extension, you're the instrument of the government to protect the 
people.
  So when you look at Romans 13, and this is in the New American 
translation, you will find it says--Romans 13:1--let every person be 
subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except 
from God, and those that exist have been established by God. 
Parenthetically, here, that means in the United States, in this new 
order of things, the people are that authority.

                              {time}  1930

  It is the people who elect, who hire the servants, and so the 
collective will of the people is the government, as carried out by 
their servants, they send to places like Washington.
  Verse 2 says: Therefore, whoever resists these authorities opposes 
what God has appointed. Those who oppose it will bring judgment upon 
themselves.
  However, here in the United States, this government was created where 
the people are the government, so they are expected to do their jobs--
to hire good people. So, when the people get upset, they're resisting 
the servants in this country. They're not resisting the government. 
They are the government. They're resisting the servants and the 
arrogance and the atmosphere of arrogance that has so resided in this 
city for so long.

[[Page 17645]]

  Verse 3 goes on: that basically rulers are not a cause of fear to 
good conduct but to evil.
  Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good. 
You'll receive approval from it.
  For it, the government, is a servant of God for your good; but if you 
do evil, be afraid, for it, the government, does not bear the sword 
without purpose. It is the servant of God to inflict wrath upon the 
evildoer.
  So, apparently, the folks at Publishers Weekly were not aware of that 
basis that I know our friend and our hero, General Jerry Boykin, was 
aware of. He was the sword. He was part of the sword as the military. 
So, if you do evil, whether it is in Iran or in Panama or wherever our 
military and the Delta Force was sent, Romans 13 says to be afraid 
because they don't bear that sword in vain. If you do evil, they're 
coming after you.
  Why would they do that? Because they are part of the instrument that 
is to protect the people in this country so that the people can go 
about carrying out the beatitudes that Jesus pointed out.
  Some say that Washington surely wasn't a Christian, but in his own 
resignation that he sent out to the 13 State Governors, he ends his 
resignation like this--and I won't read the whole thing, but it says:
  I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you and the State 
over which you preside in His holy protection and to entertain a 
brotherly affection and a love for one another, for their fellow 
citizens of the United States and particularly for their brethren who 
have served in the field and, finally, that He would most graciously be 
pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy and to demean 
ourselves with that charity, humility and peaceful temper of the mind, 
which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed 
religion and without a humble imitation of whose example in these 
things we can never hope to be a happy Nation.
  He signed with the words: ``I have the honor to be, with great 
respect and esteem, your Excellency's most obedient and very humble 
servant, George Washington.''
  Well, he understood. He got it. He was the servant of the government. 
That was part of the new order of things, the New Order of the Ages--
people governing themselves--but the military is the instrument. It is 
the sword. Some people may not be aware, but a sword is not meant as a 
loving touch to people. Normally, it could be used to knight people in 
some places like England of old, but the sword is an instrument of war, 
and it's not wielded by the government in vain. If you come after this 
country, it's supposed to be wielded in response. When we are attacked, 
when an act of war comes against this Nation as attacking a Nation's 
embassy is--taking embassy personnel hostage is an act of war--then 
there should be a sword to execute wrath immediately.
  I was at Fort Benning when that happened in 1979, and our President 
did nothing but, in essence, beg the Iranians to let them go. It seemed 
that it was 2 or 3 days that the spokesman in Iran for the Ayatollah 
was saying, The students have them. The students have them. It seemed 
to me, as a member of the United States Army at the time, that he's 
leaving himself a backdoor.
  President Carter should have said, Okay. You're saying the students 
have them. You get our hostages out within 48 hours or we accept what 
happened as what it is, an act of war, and we are bringing the full 
wrath of the United States military to Tehran. If you harm those 
hostages, then to use the words of Romans 13:4, be afraid because we're 
not going to wield the sword in vain. You will pay a very heavy price.
  Since our President didn't do that--he allowed them to keep the 
hostages for well over a year--it has been a great recruiting tool for 
the terrorists for the last 30 years. Look. Remember 1979? We committed 
an act of war against the United States, and they did nothing. They, 
you know, just sat around and looked helpless.
  There was the disastrous effort in the desert, and from what people I 
know and trusted back at the time had told me and from what I've read 
since and from what I've heard from people involved since, President 
Carter scaled down the escape effort going into Iran from what was 
originally proposed. As a result, they didn't have enough helicopters 
when they got to the staging area.
  As we should have learned from Vietnam and as we should know in 
Afghanistan, unless you're going to have rules of engagement which say 
to our men and women in uniform that we're going to give you everything 
you need and that your life is precious to us, so you protect 
yourselves, and you go win the war, and do everything you can to win, 
and we'll give you everything you need to win--unless we're willing to 
do that, we shouldn't send them. Don't send them. This President hasn't 
shown sufficient commitment to those in Afghanistan, and if we're not 
going to do that, we need to get them out. We need to bring them home.
  Yet there are people who want to destroy us over there who we haven't 
adequately addressed, and it is turning into another Vietnam, it seems. 
That's not our role. If you believe the Biblical perspective, we're to 
execute wrath on those who have done evil, and we haven't finished 
doing that.
  So I have this bill in this Congress, H.R. 4636. I don't know what 
the number will be next year. Just so people know how things stand, 
I'll give you some of the numbers:
  Heck, Pakistan. I think we gave Pakistan $738 million, and they voted 
against us last year 87.5 percent of the time. Shoot, the Philippines. 
They've shown that as a government they don't have a lot of love and 
adoration for this country. They voted against us a majority of the 
time, and we gave them over $116 million. Russia, which just provided 
their best antiaircraft weapon from Lebanon to Iran, heck, we gave them 
nearly $100 million. They may have used some of that $100 million, 
since money is fungible, to build the S-300s to provide to Iran so they 
could shoot down Israeli or American planes. We might simply, if we 
have a courageous President, someday go after the nuclear threat that 
is looming in Iran. South Africa, they voted against us most of the 
time last year, and these figures say we gave them $574 million. Sudan, 
they voted against us 90 percent of the time last year. We gave them 
$337 million.
  Interesting stuff here.
  Let's see. You've got Yemen, Yemen which provided people who 
apparently attacked us in what was an act of war against the USS Cole. 
We didn't respond, really, as if it were an act of war. We didn't wield 
a sword and do what we should have, but we gave Yemen about $17 million 
last year, and they voted against us most of the time, naturally.

                              {time}  1940

  These attempted terrorist attacks of the packages that were sent, 
apparently planned and emanating from Yemen, well, we're giving Yemen 
money to help that country as they attempt to fight everything we 
believe in, most everything we believe in, in the U.N.
  Venezuela, our dear friend Venezuela. We gave them $10 million. There 
may have been some other pockets we used money from, but from this 
pocket we gave them nearly $10 million, and, of course, they vote 
against us the vast majority of the time.
  Uganda votes against us most of the time. We gave them $351 million.
  Let's see, others. Bangladesh, they voted against us 80 percent of 
the time. We gave them $105 million. Bolivia, they voted against us 70 
percent of the time. We gave them $103 million.
  Brazil, heck, we just provided a $2 billion loan for their deepwater 
drilling program. Probably didn't hurt that that was George Soros' 
single largest investment, as far as we know. So the $2 billion that 
the U.S. taxpayers are standing good for on a loan will sure help make 
him rich. That's a great thing, I'm sure, if you're a big Soros fan.
  Cambodia votes against us most of the time, and we gave them $58 
million. Let's see, we've got--well, gosh, we gave Cuba $45 million. 
Wasn't that special? And they vote against us 90 percent or so of the 
time.

[[Page 17646]]

  Republic of the Congo, we gave them $104 million, and they vote 
against us most of the time. Heck, Egypt, we gave them just this pocket 
of money at $1.7 billion. As I understand, it's more than that, and 
they voted against us 81.8 percent of the time. Ethiopia voted against 
us 83.3 percent of the time, and we rewarded their opposition to things 
we hold dear by giving them $455 million.
  India, $100 million, and they vote against us about 89 percent of the 
time. Indonesia, where the President just visited, it seems like he got 
a pretty good reception, but when it came to his positions, they voted 
against him about 80 percent of the time in the U.N., but we did reward 
them with about $190 million.
  Now, people are out of work. They're struggling, they're trying to 
make ends meet as best they can, and yet we're just giving money away 
hand over fist, like we were just the richest folks in the history of 
mankind, that we got money to burn. We're just throwing it away, and as 
I've said previously, and it continues to be true, you don't have to 
pay people to hate you; they will do it for free. It's that simple.
  Why keep paying billions and billions of dollars to countries that 
despise us, that oppose everything we believe in, that oppose our love 
of freedom and liberty, that oppose our belief in equality of men and 
women and different races? Why do we keep giving billions of dollars to 
people that oppose that and are doing everything they can to make life 
an absolute hell for people based on religious beliefs, race, creed, 
color, national origin, gender, treat women like property? I mean, why 
do we keep giving people billions and billions of dollars?
  I know charities across America are hurting right now. They're not 
getting the contributions they do normally in a good economy, because 
when people lose their job, they run out of money. They're barely 
providing for themselves and their family, the people under their roof. 
They're not able to give like they do during the good times. And so 
charities are hurting here in the United States.
  But what we find with this government--and it's not new to this 
administration--this administration is doing it, but it's been going on 
for a long time. It's not new. With all fairness to the Obama 
administration, it's been going on a long time. We are in a world of 
hurt. We're being told by nations around the world that you're spending 
money like an irresponsible person. You've got to stop spending money 
in such a crazy fashion.
  So, normally, if we were acting as a responsible person or a 
responsible entity, we'd say, you know what, we're pretty broke right 
now, so we can't keep giving money to people that hate us and are doing 
everything they can, many of them funneling money to groups who use it 
to hurt us. That might seem strange. But then you look around the 
world. We recently just rearmed Lebanon. Let's see. Lebanon. Oh, yeah, 
that's right, they went to war against Israel. We're helping groups 
that keep attacking our dear friend Israel. Why are we giving them 
money? Do we honestly think we're going to buy their love and 
affection?
  You can't buy love and affection. When you try, what you purchase is 
contempt, because they know that we know they hate us, they know that 
we know they vote against us most of the time. So how could they think 
otherwise, that we're the most stupid, irresponsible people in the 
world to keep paying people to hate us? It makes no sense.
  You know, these nations are sovereign. We respect a nation's 
sovereignty. Make your own calls. Vote as you want to vote. If you're 
in the U.N., vote as you want to vote, but we're not going to pay you 
to oppose us at every turn.
  That's why I keep filing this bill, and that's why I am hopeful that 
eventually we'll get it passed. We mean no ill will to these countries 
who keep opposing us, who want to treat women like property, stone 
women to death, what they call honor killings, and what I would have 
found someone guilty of murder in my court back in Texas, because it 
sure looks and sounds like murder to me under our law, and under our 
law is where we're supposed to be found, not under sharia law, not 
under some other nation's law, but under our law.
  So why do we keep paying countries to mistreat women and children and 
torture their own people and to deprive them of life, liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness? They're sovereign. They can make their own 
choices, but we should not pay them to hate us.
  Now, in follow-up for the rest of this time, I know our President has 
said before we're not a Christian Nation, and I will not debate that 
with the President because he may be right, he may very well be right, 
but what I know is where we came from. As a student and a lover of 
American history, I know enough about our founding and apparently a 
great deal more than our President learned when he was in school in 
Indonesia and other places. He didn't learn the history of this Nation 
as I did. Well, what would you expect?
  Of course, in Indonesia they're not going to teach you American 
history, certainly not the best parts. They may teach you parts that 
make you think less of America, I can see that, and perhaps that's why 
Indonesia votes against us most of the time in the U.N. They just don't 
have our values, and, of course, in their schools they would teach 
their values, which include being against the things that we hold dear.
  But we have history to rely on, and so I'm just going to go through 
some historic writings and speeches just, Mr. Speaker, so people know a 
little bit more about our history and where they came from, because as 
great philosophers have said through the ages, if you don't know where 
you came from, you cannot possibly find the proper direction ahead.

                              {time}  1950

  John Quincy Adams was the first son of a President to have been 
elected President. In September of 1811, in a letter to his son, who 
was a U.S. minister in St. Petersburg, Russia, John Quincy Adams said, 
``So great is my veneration for the Bible, and so strong my belief, 
that when duly read and meditated on, it is of all books in the world, 
that which contributes most to make men good, wise, and happy--that the 
earlier my children begin to read it,'' the Bible, ``the more steadily 
they pursue the practice of reading it throughout their lives, the more 
lively and confident will be my hopes that they will prove useful 
citizens of their country, respectable members of society.'' That was 
John Quincy Adams.
  Another from Abraham Lincoln. This was March 30, 1863. These are 
Abraham Lincoln's own words. We have them in writing from him. This is 
March 30, 1863, his prayer proclamation. Lincoln said in part, ``We 
have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved 
us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we 
have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all 
these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our 
own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-
sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too 
proud to pray to the God that made us. It behooves us then to humble 
ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and 
to pray for clemency and forgiveness,'' Abraham Lincoln.
  Forty-five days before his assassination in his second inaugural--and 
that's inscribed in the marble on the north wall of the Lincoln 
Memorial--he's talking about the North and the South. And I realize the 
President says we're not a Christian nation, but Lincoln was addressing 
what had been founded as a Christian nation and what had been founded 
upon Christian tenets. As a Christian nation, we welcome people of all 
walks of life, of all nations, all races, national origin, gender. We 
welcome them because that is part of the Christian teaching for 
individuals. But he was trying to theologically deal with the issue of 
a horrible, horrible war, like the Civil War, where brothers fought, 
family members fought and died at the hand of another.
  Lincoln's words, March 4, 1865, he said, ``Both read the same 
Bible,'' talking about the North and the South,

[[Page 17647]]

``and pray to the same God. The prayers of both could not be answered. 
That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own 
purposes.'' Then he quotes from scripture and says, ``Woe unto the 
world because of offenses.''
  ``Yet, if God will that the war continue until all the wealth piled 
by all the bondsmen's 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and 
until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another 
drawn with the sword, as was said 3,000 years ago, so still it must be 
said''--another scripture quote--``the Judgments of the Lord are true 
and righteous.''
  I know that our current President reveres President Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt, and so I figured he would certainly be rewarded in knowing 
Franklin D. Roosevelt's own words. So for the sake of this body and 
anybody that might happen to see, I will provide Franklin D. 
Roosevelt's own words. For example, March 4, 1943, in his first 
inaugural address, these were his words, ``First of all, let me assert 
my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. In 
such a spirit on my part and on yours, we face our common difficulties. 
They concern, thank God, only material things. Practices of the 
unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public 
opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men. They know only the 
rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision. And when 
there is no vision, the people perish.'' That, of course, Proverbs 
29:18. ``The money changers have fled from their high seats in the 
temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the 
ancient truths. We face arduous days that lie before us in the warm 
courage of national unity; with the clear consciousness of seeking old 
and precious moral values. In this dedication of a nation, we humbly 
ask the blessing of God. May he protect each and every one of us. May 
He guide me in these days to come.''
  More words of Franklin Roosevelt, December 6, 1933. If I were asked 
to state the great objective which church and state are both demanding 
for the sake of every man and woman and child in this country, I would 
say that great objective is a more abundant life.
  Franklin Roosevelt, December 24, 1933. Roosevelt said, ``This year 
marks a greater national understanding of the significance of our 
modern lives of the teachings 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. And so, for 
now and for always, God Bless Us, Everyone.''
  Continuing, Franklin Roosevelt's own words, this is December 24, 
1934: ``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.''
  Another excerpt from Franklin Roosevelt, 1935. ``We cannot read the 
history of our rise and development as a Nation without reckoning with 
the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the 
Republic. Where we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying 
its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and 
prosperity.''
  Continuing on with Franklin Roosevelt's words. January 20, 1937, he 
said in part of that inaugural address, ``I shall do my utmost to speak 
their purpose and to do their will, seeking Divine Guidance to help 
each and every one to give light to them that sit in darkness and to 
guide our feet in the way of peace.''
  Again, Franklin Roosevelt, January 6, 1941. ``We look forward to a 
world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first in freedom 
of speech and expression. The second is freedom of every person to 
worship God in his own way. This Nation has placed its destiny in the 
hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women; and 
its faith in freedom under the guidance of God.'' Again, Franklin 
Roosevelt, January 20, 1941: ``A Nation, like a person, has something 
deeper, something more permanent, something larger than the sum of all 
its parts.

                              {time}  2000

  ``It is that something which matters most to its future, which calls 
forth the most sacred guarding of its present. It is a thing which we 
find difficult, even impossible, to hit upon a single simple word, and 
yet we all understand what it is, the spirit, the faith of America. It 
is the product of centuries. It was born in the multitudes of those who 
came from many lands, some of high degree, but mostly plain people who 
sought here early and late to find freedom more freely.
  ``The democratic aspiration is no mere recent phase of human history. 
It is human history. It permeated the ancient life of early peoples. It 
blazed anew in the Middle Ages. It was written in the Magna Carta. In 
the Americas its impact has been irresistible. America has been the new 
world in all tongues to all peoples, not because this continent was a 
newfound land, but because all those who came here believed they could 
create upon this continent a new life, a life that should be new in 
freedom. Its vitality was written into our own Mayflower Compact, into 
the Declaration of Independence, into the Constitution of the United 
States, into the Gettysburg Address. If the spirit of America were 
killed, even though the Nation's body and mind constricted in an alien 
world lived on, the America we know would have perished. That spirit, 
that faith speaks to us in our daily lives in ways often unnoticed. We 
do not retreat. We are not content to stand still. As Americans, we go 
forward in the service of our country by the will of God.'' Franklin 
Roosevelt.
  Again, Roosevelt, January 25, 1941:
  ``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''--Sacred Book 
is capitalized--``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.''
  That's inscribed on the inside of the New Testament that my uncle got 
going into World War II that my aunt gave me.
  ``December 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy, the United 
States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by Naval and 
Air Forces of the Empire of Japan. Our people, our territory and our 
interests are in grave danger. With confidence in our Armed Forces, 
with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the 
inevitable triumph, so help us God.''
  And I have one other from Roosevelt. This was Franklin Roosevelt's 
radio broadcast June 6, 1944:
  ``My fellow Americans''--and for those, Mr. Speaker, that may not be 
aware, this is D-day, June 6, 1944--Franklin D. Roosevelt said, ``Last 
night when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that 
moment that troops of the United States and our allies were crossing 
the channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with 
success thus far, and so in this poignant hour I ask you to join with 
me in prayer.
  And then Franklin Roosevelt prayed these words for the Nation over 
national radio. It would have been TV, but radio is what he had. 
Roosevelt said:
  ``Almighty God, our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon 
a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, 
and our civilization and to set free a suffering humanity. Lead them 
straight and true. Give strength to their arms, stoutness to their 
heart, steadfastness in their faith. They will need Thy blessing. Their 
road will be long and hard for the enemy is strong. He may hurl back 
our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall

[[Page 17648]]

return again and again. We know that by Thy grace and by the 
righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.''
  Parenthetically, if I might insert into Roosevelt's prayer here, 
General Jerry Boykin had an outcry in this country from the left when 
he said words to the effect, at a church, we prevailed in Iraq with 
such speed because our God was stronger than their God. Had those same 
people and forces that attacked General Boykin at the time been around 
June 6, 1944, D-day, there's no question they would have had to attack 
Franklin D. Roosevelt for this type of prayer. Nonetheless, it's part 
of our history, so I continue with Roosevelt's words:
  ``For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight 
not for the lust of conquest, they fight to end conquest. They fight to 
liberate. They fight to let justice arise and tolerance and goodwill 
among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their 
return to the haven of home. Some will never return. Embrace these, 
Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants into Thy kingdom.''
  And for us at home, Roosevelt says, ``Fathers, mothers, children, 
wives, sisters and brothers of brave men overseas whose thoughts and 
prayers are ever with them, help us, Almighty God, to rededicate 
ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.
  ``Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of 
special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I 
ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer as we 
rise to each new day. And again, when each day is spent, let words of 
prayer be on our lips invoking Thy help to our efforts.''
  Roosevelt goes on. He says:
  ``Give us strength too, strength in our daily task, to redouble the 
contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our 
Armed Forces. Let our hearts be stout to wait out the long travail, to 
bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage into our sons, 
wheresoever they may be.
  ``And, O Lord,'' Roosevelt continues, ``give us faith. Give us faith 
in Thee, faith in our sons, faith in each other, faith in our united 
crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the 
impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters, of but fleeting 
moment, let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose. With Thy 
blessing,'' Roosevelt finishes, he says, ``we shall prevail over the 
unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed 
and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country and with 
our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace, a 
peace invulnerable to the scheming of unworthy men and a peace that 
will let all of men in freedom reaping the just rewards of their honest 
toil. Thy will be done, Almighty God.''
  That was Franklin D. Roosevelt. What a powerful prayer.
  A couple of things to finish. Ronald Reagan, 1978, his own words in 
his own hand. He was talking about Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus Christ, and 
he says these things about Jesus. Reagan says: ``Either he was what he 
said he was or he was the world's greatest liar. It is impossible for 
me to believe a liar or charlatan could have had the effect on mankind 
that he has had for 2,000 years. We could ask would even the greatest 
of liars carry his lie through the crucifixion when a simple confession 
would have saved him? Did he allow us the choice, you say, that you and 
others have made to believe in his teaching, but reject his statements 
about his own identity?''

                              {time}  2010

  In 1981, in his inaugural he said, in part, Ronald Reagan's words: 
``Your dreams, your hopes, your goals are going to be the dreams, the 
hopes, and the goals of this administration, so help me God. I am told 
that tens of thousands of prayer meetings are being held on this day, 
and for that I am deeply grateful. We are a Nation under God, and I 
believe God intended for us to be free. It would be fitting and good, I 
think, if on each inaugural day in future years it should be declared a 
day of prayer.
  ``The crisis we are facing today does require, however, to believe 
that, together with God's help, we can and will resolve the problems 
which now confront us. And, after all, why shouldn't we believe that? 
We are Americans.''
  Reagan concluded with ``God bless you.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is my conclusion as well.

                          ____________________